Though the Supreme Court judgment is apparently influenced by the impact of the provisions of Article 19(1)(a), I feel it lacks the perspectives required to address the issue of defamation at multiple levels (Editorial and “The judgment that silenced Section 66A,” both March 26). It is true that certain State governments, especially in the recent past, have been intolerant of critical views and have used their powers to silence dissent. Against such a backdrop, the judgment is welcome. But there are instances where public space on social media has been used to defame and intimidate people, especially women. One wonders whether the judgment should have made a distinction between ‘critical views’ expressed on political lines and defamation attempted on individuals given our cultural sensitivities regarding the dignity of women.
S.A.Thameemul Ansari,
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The move is welcome, but it is too risky to live with a cyberspace that is lawless and where social media is free. The development shows that provisions under the existing law are more than effective in dealing with violations and that there is also a need for a comprehensive new law on the freedom of expression with a long-term vision.
T.K. Abdul Razack,
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court has struck down the section as “it invades right to free speech ... every expression used in it is nebulous”. Almost everyone seems to heartily welcome this seemingly refreshing move. However, there are quite a few sceptics who consider this as “dangerous”. It was precisely Section 66A of the IT Act which allowed many to live with honour in the cyber world and in a society ruled by social networks such as Facebook. Now that this Section is off, there is nothing to prevent possible defaming, false accusations and ‘character assassination’ by cyber-savvy miscreants. Parliament should enact legislation to replace Section 66A lest the cyber world and social networking turn murkier and dirtier.
C.V. Venugopalan,
Palakkad