The orders issued by the Ministry of Communication and IT to block more than 300 items on the Internet, including Twitter handles, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, blogposts, pages of certain websites, and in some cases entire websites, tell a revealing story of a government that has simply not applied its mind to the issue of how to deal with hate speech, both cyber and traditional. There can be no argument against taking down material that can incite violence, and some of the targeted content rightly needed to be blocked. But this should have been done transparently, with judicial oversight. In the present case, it is not clear what laws have been invoked to block the items specified in the four orders issued from August 18 to 21. Certainly, the orders themselves do not make reference to any law. As pointed out by the Centre for Internet and Society (http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism), if the government had acted under the Information Technology Act, the host servers of the affected sites should have been notified and given 48 hours to respond under the IT Rules of 2009; and if it used the emergency provision in the Rules, which are themselves opaque, the orders should have come up before an ‘examination of request’ committee within 48 hours. Another serious problem is that the orders do not mention the duration of the blocks.
Especially disturbing is the decision to block the Twitter handles of right-wing agitators and one pro-Hindutva journalist. Bad taste, warped logic and chauvinist comment do not, by themselves, add up to hate speech or criminal incitement. If an individual is really spreading hate through speech, print or the Internet, let the government proceed against him or her under the Indian Penal Code — where the courts will have the final word — rather than indulging in censorship that is pre-emptive and arbitrary. And mindless too: among the sites blocked is an anti-hate page on a Pakistani website which was one of the first to expose how fake photographs had been used to whip up Islamist passion on the Rakhine clashes in Myanmar. A London School of Economics-Guardian study of the 2011 London riots documents how Twitter was used extensively in a positive way, to organise community clean-up operations after the riots. On the other hand, their analysis of 2.5 million tweets showed, the response to messages inciting riots was ‘overwhelmingly negative’. The lesson from this is that it is possible to counter hate on social media through the same platform. This is really what the government should be doing, instead of the Sisyphean task of trying to block noxious content that will always find other ways of bubbling to the surface.
Keywords: hate speech, censorship, Information Technology Act, rumour mongering, Internet, Twitter misuse
Another proof of inefficiency of the Government. They don't know the minimum requirement of its Constitutional mandate. Governing is an Art to be managed by a team of Statesmen, not - bookish so called intellectuals, bureaucrats and mere politicians. What we lack is a leaders of the status of Statesmen in the helm of affairs. The direct cause is the change from Democracy to Autocracy of the ruling dispensation.
This is in response to the comment by Veer:
It is the job of responsible media outlets to question and challenge potential overreach by the government. From that perspective, the editorial takes a sensible and balanced stance. The issue is not right to information but the freedom of expression enshrined in our constitution. When a government acts to curtail or deny that freedom (even when legitimately as in the case of hate speech), it owes the citizens of this country an explanation and needs to follow the law. Preemptive and arbitrary actions cannot be the response of a mature democratic government.
If the list of banned sites is perused, one finds the names of many sites which are
critical of govt. policies on handling Asam situation also the mis-governance in other
aspects. This does not necessarily mean hate campaign inciting communal passions.
It appears govt. is averse to its critism and under the garb of Asam problem wants to
muzzle free speach. This step is ominous and heralds reflection of more such steps
govt. is likely to take before it faces general elections. Further many frank critics of
govt. policies are likely to be discouraged or threatened by possible future actions
whch can be detrimental to freedom guaranted in democracy. As you have rightly
said, the mischief mongers have many other avenues for their nefarious activities.
Govt. will do well to withdraw these steps as soon as possible.
India has a Rule of Law and no one can be punished without rules violation & each one has right to hearing.
But with information revolution, globe is becoming so faster that our current system of justice delivery is becoming outdated. It is too slow and vague.
Firstly, clear guidelines & policies for dealing with such emergencies must be laid down from government end. Also, such curbing should be for limited period of time. Most importantly, judicial inquiry and government justification for action must be publicly made available so as to not to curb Fundamental Rights.
What social media is doing is - right of assembly, right to association, right of free speech are getting "virtualised" where current law & order system simply cannot bring in archaic curfew or similar measures in case of riots or break downs. Hence, its a major question which needs research, debate & institutional procedural evolutions.
i guess the article alludes to the right to information. My dear
editor if something is scaremongering the people of the nation, it
should be handled then and there. The question of informing them under
which legal liability they have been blocked comes later. It is a
question of life and death. And if such a step could save life of a
single person, its worth it. There was a law in India that stated that
in case of road accidents there has to be an FIR, i guess no single
person wished to follow it, and rightly so as it was again the
question of life and death.
Please Email the Editor