Re: A two-judge panel struck down legislation b arring “offensive messages” online

All of us have, on one occasion or another, even if we don't actually participate (lurkers!), been offended or accused of offending. Simply holding an opinion is sufficient, and in its absence, refraining from holding an opinion. 


The line is so blurred that the architects of this rule ran into an insurmountable problem, trying to define that shadow between personal and criminal offence, to the point where a judicial court could easily and  consistently define the bounds of public behavior. Instead, it opened the floodgates for random enforcement, and lowered the barriers to stifling public intercourse, a serious matter, especially when unsuspected topics were suddenly treated as anathema. 


The quoted article focuses on offensive behaviour, subtly implying that such offenders will be let off scot-free in the future. However, there is no examination of whether this is so, in fact. Lack of breach of a particular law does not imply that case law and other supporting laws aren't available, although spare in practice for reasons that may be best known to the mandated enforcers, but would be relevant to this discussion. 


In fact, it isn't even necessary to look solely at the record that led to creation of the Act, for which this rule was considered necessary. Before promulgation of the IT Act, there were difficulties, nobody will deny. So rather, look at how the rest of the Act supplements other law in the area of offensive (mostly personal, and in this case of a very public and lasting nature) behaviour. 


Vickram




Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:"Kiritkumar Lathia" <[email protected]>
Date:Wed, 25 Mar, 2015 at 9:15 am
Subject:Re: [india-gii]	A two-judge panel struck down legislation barring “offensive messages” online

Good news for free speech which is one of the main pillar of democracy. Pity that only SC is still functioning for citizens; executive / legislative arm and law enforcement works not for the citizens but self interests (hence unchecked corruption).

On Mar 24, 2015 6:02 PM, "Ratnendra Pandey" <[email protected]> wrote:


Forwarding from another mailing list :

Sincerely,
Ratnendra Pandey



A two-judge panel struck down legislation barring “offensive messages” online


NEW DELHI--India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down legislation barring “offensive messages” online, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free expression.

A two-judge panel voided a part of India’s Information Technology Act that made it a crime to share information through computers or other communications devices that could cause “annoyance, inconvenience” and “enmity, hatred or ill will.”

Announcing the ruling in a crowded courtroom in the Indian capital, Justice Rohinton Nariman said the law’s provisions were too vague and didn’t provide “clearly defined lines” for law-enforcement officials. “What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another,” he said.

Read more at:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-supreme-court-overturns-law-barring-hate-speech-online-1427174675

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii