Supreme Court Calls On Parliament To Make Laws To Regulate Social Media

The Logical Indian

August 10th, 2015 / 12:35 PM

Image Courtesy : medianama

If you thought that scrapping of section 66A would give you absolute freedom on the internet, think again! Five months after scrapping the controversial section 66A of the IT Act, the Supreme Court on Thursday stressed the necessity for a clear and unambiguous law to curb the online circulation of malicious and defamatory messages.

The court statement came when senior advocate L Nageswara Rao said that a message about him being involved in a rape case was circulated on WhatsApp as a part of a malicious campaign. The bench agreed that people should not be given free hand to run such malicious campaigns on social media and the Parliament should enact a new law to curb such acts.

Why was Section 66A scrapped?

Section 66A of the IT Act had a very vague and obscure statement that made its reach so broad that it covered virtually any opinion on any subject. This meant that almost anyone disagreeing with your opinions that you publish on social media could misuse the provision and prosecute you. Indeed, several cases of individuals getting harassed and sued for simply expressing their views on social media were recorded while the law was in place.

Several debates and campaigns concerning section 66A raged on for years, and finally in March, 2015 the Supreme Court observed that the law contradicted the concept of freedom of speech and quashed it.

Is a new law necessary?

As the apex court observed, it is indeed necessary to curb messages on social media that deliberately promote false defamatory charges and hate speech with an aim to polarize and incite mob violence. At the same time, the new law, if enacted, should allow individuals to express their views freely online, and guarantee the protection of netizens against threats and harassments.

The internet has always been an unbiased medium that encourages free speech, and we do not want a new law that can be manipulated and misused to suppress opinions. We hope our lawmakers will come up with a law which, unlike section 66A, clearly defines the line between free speech and hate speech.


Contributors

Edited by :

Share your thoughts..

Related Stories

MeToo Campaign India

#MeToo In India: Journalists Calls Out Predatory Behaviour In Media; Name & Shame Alleged Sexual Harassers

Stalked

Journalist Reports Harassment On Social Media After UP Police Ignore Distress Calls; Accused Arrested

Government Plans To Make Two Amendments In FRDI Bill, To Be Tabled At The Parliament Soon

Germany’s Tryst With Facebook: Can It Regulate The Social Media Giant’s Content?

Supreme Court Website

New Website Of Supreme Court Launched, Will Make Information More Accessible To Citizens

Brother Cannot Claim Property Inherited By Sister

Brother Cannot Claim The Property Inherited By His Sister From Her In-Laws: Supreme Court

Latest on The Logical Indian

News

The New Academic Session Will Have 10% Quota In All Higher Education Institutions: Govt

News

Two Women Who Entered Sabarimala Temple Move To SC To Seek Protection; Court To Hear Plea Tomorrow

News

Meghalaya Illegal Mining: After 35 Days, 1 Of The 15 Trapped Miners Found Dead

News

#Strike4Hike: Police Detains Around 700 Protesting Research Scholars Demanding Pay Hike

My Social Responsibility

Compassion At Work: This Kolkata Team Is Independently Working To Give Stray Dogs A Healthy Life

Environment

Cities Lying In Coastal Areas Under Threat As Antarctica Melts Six Times Faster Than ’80s Says Report

x

Stories that deserve attention, delivered to your inbox!

Handpicked, newsworthy stories which deserve the attention of a rational generation.