freedom of expression online

DIGITAL COMMUNICATION

Apoorva BilloreITMI

2014-2016

Information Technology Act 2000

The Information Technology Act 2000 has been substantially

amended through the Information Technology Act 2008 which

was passed by the two houses of the Indian Parliament on

December 23, and 24, 2008. It got the Presidential assent on

February 5, 2009 and came into force on October 27, 2009.

The amended Act has provided additional focus on information

security.

WHAT SECTION 66-A SAYS:"Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a

communication device -

any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character

any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of

causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,

criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making

use of such computer resource or a communication device,

any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of

causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the

addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

years and with fine."

WHAT SECTION 66-A SAYSSection 66A provides punishment for sending offensive

messages through communication services.

These messages may be any information created, transmitted or received on a computer system, resource or device including attachments

in the form of...

• Text

• Images

• Audio

• Video

• Any other electronic record which may be transmitted with the message

Section 127(1)(b) UK

The punishment for the offence in Section 127(1)(b) is a

maximum of six months’ or a fine of £5,000

Section 66A imposes a much more serious punishment of

imprisonment up to three years and a fine without limit.

Section 66A(b) of the IT Act is not the same as Section

127(1)(b) of the U.K. Communications Act, 2003 in terms of

scope of the offence or the punishment.

Ironically, the Indian government defends Section 66A by

saying it has been copied from Section 127 of the U.K. Act,

while in the U.K.

Constitutionality of Section 66-A November 2012 PIL, Shreya Singhal submitted to the Supreme

Court that Section 66A curbs freedom of speech and expression and

violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petition

further contends that the expressions used in the Section are “vague”

and “ambiguous” and that 66A is subject to “wanton abuse” in view

of the subjective powers conferred on the police to interpret the law.

In November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife

social activist Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the Lucknow bench

of the Allahabad High Court claiming that the Section 66A violated

the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Article 19(1)(a) of

the Constitution of India. They said that the section was vague and

frequently misused.

ONLINE TRENDS

CASE STUDYS 66-A

1.

November 2012 Shaheen Dhada was arrested for

criticising the shutdown of Mumbai after the death

on Saturday of controversial politician Bal

Thackeray.

Her friend, Renu Srinivasan, who had "liked" the

comment was also arrested. The two were later freed

on bail.

ORIGINAL POST

FACEBOOK LATTER TO CHIEF

MINISTER

February 6, 2013, Sanjay Chaudhary was arrested under

section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act for

posting ‘objectionable comments and caricatures’ of Prime

Minister Manmohan Singh, Union Minister Kapil Sibal and

Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav on his

Facebook wall.

2.

3.

18 march 2015 A Class XI student from Bareilly

was arrested by Rampur police for sharing an

“objectionable” post on Facebook against senior

Samajwadi party leader and state Urban

Development Minister Azam Khan.he had been

remanded in judicial custody for 14 days.

June 2014 An FIR has been lodged against All-India

Majlis Ittehadul Muslimin (AIMIM) leader and MP

Asaduddin Owaisi by Delhi police on the directions

by a city court for his alleged “hate speech” . The

FIR includes charges under Section 153 A (promoting

enmity between groups), 504 (intentional insult with

intent to provoke breach of peace) and 120B

(criminal conspiracy ) as well as sections 66A, 66F

and 67 of the IT Act that relate to “objectionable”

speech and cyber terrorism

4.

September 2010 Aseem Trivedi — a political cartoonist

based in Kanpur . —Trivedi has been booked under IPC

Section 124 A for sedition, Section 66 A of IT Act and under

National Emblem Act, 1971. Here are some of the

controversial cartoons posted by Trivedi, followed by a

nation-wide protest.

5.

On 30 October 2012, a Puducherry businessman Ravi

Srinivasan was arrested under Section 66A. He had sent

tweet accusing Karti Chidambaram, son of Finance

Minister P Chidambaram, of corruption.

6.

In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central

government to respond to a petition filed by the internet

and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) which claimed

that the IT Act gave the government power to arbitrarily

remove user-generated content.

On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India, gave the

verdict that Section 66A is unconsitutional in the Shreya

Singhal v. It however rejected the plea to strike down

Sections 69A and 79. The Court said that the offences

defined under the law were “open-ended, undefined and

vague” and that "public's right to know" is directly

affected by it

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

“Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer

resource or communication device.”

Punishment:-Imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years or with fine which may extend to

rupees one lakh or with both.

Section 66B

BUT IT 66 STILL EXISTS

“For identity theft fraudulently or dishonestly making use of the

electronic signature, password or any other unique identification

feature of any other person.”

Punishment:-Imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may

extend to rupees one lakh.

Section 66C

Section 66D

“Punishment for cheating by percolation by

using computer resource.”

Punishment:-With imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to three

years and shall also be liable to fine which may

extend to one lakh .

“For violation of privacy i.e., intentionally

or knowingly capturing, publishing or

transmitting the image of a private area of any

person without his or her consent, violating the

privacy of that person.”

Punishment:-Imprisonment which may

extend to three years or with fine not exceeding

two lakh rupees, or with both.

Section 66E

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, “does not

silence anyone”. You can always exercise your right to

speak, your freedom of speech and expression without

offending people.

“NEVER BE SILENT JUST BECAUSE SOME ONE

ELSE WANTS YOU TO BE”

Conclusion

Thank you