1. Freedom of Speech

Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

India's Supreme Court protects freedom of speech — strikes down 'unconstitutional' IT Act Section 66A

Posted on by

Its a big day for freedom of speech in India. The countrys Supreme Court today scrapped an ambiguous and controversial law which governed the consequences of posting sensitive and offensive content on the web. The ruling challenges the IT Act, including Section 66A, Section 79, and Section 69. With this decision the Supreme Court -- the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal under the Constitution of India -- ruled against the Central government which had defended the section.

The bench which consisted of Justice Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman struck down Section 66A of the IT Act. For a refresh, the Section 66A orders 3 years imprisonment for anyone making offensive statements on the web; Section 79 forces the intermediary to take down the content from the web; and Section 69 allows blocking of online content.

Over the past couple of years, as an increasing number of Indians started connecting to the internet for business, education, health, entertainment, and other purposes, the laws defined in the IT Act started to seem out-of-date, unclear, and -- in some cases -- irrelevant. Today Justice Nariman sheds lights on the "three aspects of freedom of expression: discussion, advocacy and incitement", and notes that only when the discussion and advocacy reach the level of incitement that we apply Article 19 (2). The article in question allows restrictions on freedom of speech whenever applicable.

Today, Nariman also admitted that what could be offensive and annoying to one may not be observed as same by others. "Governments come and governments go, the law persists. And the law must be judged on its own merit. 66A is invalid and it cannot be saved even if the government says it won't abuse the law," he added.

The government, however, still supports Section 69, which gives it the power to block offensive content, whenever applicable. Section 79 and the IT rules are also subject to reasonable restrictions whenever applicable, but an intermediary will be provided with a court order or a government order. This is interesting, but it still leaves a possibility that the law could be misused. We will see how this shapes up in the months to come.

The ruling has given millions of Indians a hope of freedom of speech on the internet. The 66A had users "punished for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.". Furthermore, if the content sent by a user via a communication device was found "grossly offensive" or of "menacing character", or caused "annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill", it was treated with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and a fine.

Because of its ambiguous nature, Section 66A act was often misunderstood and misused. In the past, we have seen several incidences when people were arrested because they clicked on the Like button on Facebook, or shared something offensive. In 2012, two girls were arrested over a Facebook post. Last December, Indian government had ordered a ban on more than 52 websites including Vimeo, Archive.org, and Github because the local government found some content on the websites as offensive.

Image Credit:nenetus /Shutterstock

Read the rest here:

India's Supreme Court protects freedom of speech -- strikes down 'unconstitutional' IT Act Section 66A

Indian Supreme Court decision a victory for freedom of speech online

Posted on by

A man looks at his smartphone in Delhi on Tuesday after a court ruling relating to free speech online. Photo: AP

New Delhi: The Indian Supreme Court has struck down a section of a law that allowed the authorities to jail people for offensive online posts, in a judgment that was regarded as a landmark ruling on free speech in India.

The law stipulated that a person could be jailed for up to three years for any communication online that was, among other things, "grossly offensive", "menacing" or "false", and for the purpose of causing "annoyance","inconvenience" or "injury".

The provisions, which led to highly publicised arrests in recent years, had been roundly criticised by legal experts, who called them vague and argued that they had been used in some cases to stifle dissent.

A man surfs the internet on his smartphone outside a railway station in Mumbai on Tuesday. Photo: AP

Calling the wording so vague that "virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it", the court said "if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total".

Advertisement

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of The Centre for Internet & Society, which is based in Bangalore, called the decision "amazing".

"It is in continuation of a great tradition in India: that of apex courts consistently, over the years, protecting the citizens of India from violations of human rights," he said.

A store assistant demonstrates a smartphone to customers in Delhi. Photo: Bloomberg

Continued here:

Indian Supreme Court decision a victory for freedom of speech online

Freedom of Speech online: SC verdict on Section 66A Today

Posted on by

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce today its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging constitutional validity of certain sections of the cyber law including a provision under which a person can be arrested for allegedly posting "offensive" contents on websites.

A bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman had on February 26 reserved its judgement after Government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be "quashed" merely because of the possibility of its "abuse".

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that the Government did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression at all which is enshrined in the Constitution, but the vast cyber world could not be allowed to remain unregulated.

However, the court had said that terms like 'illegal', 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character' were vague expressions and these words were likely to be misunderstood and abused.

Some of the petitions seek setting aside of section 66A of the Information Technology Act which empowers police to arrest a person for allegedly posting offensive materials on social networking sites.

The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls -- Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan -- were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it.

The apex court had on May 16, 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like IG or DCP.

The direction had come in the wake of numerous complaints of harassment and arrests, sparking public outrage.

It had, however, refused to pass an interim order for a blanket ban on the arrest of such persons across the country.

Continued here:

Freedom of Speech online: SC verdict on Section 66A Today

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on validity of Section 66A of IT Act

Posted on by

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on Tuesday on a batch of petitions challenging constitutional validity of certain sections of the cyber law including a provision under which a person can be arrested for allegedly posting "offensive" contents on websites.

A bench of justices J Chelameswar and RF Nariman had on February 26 reserved its judgement after government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be "quashed" merely because of the possibility of its "abuse".

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that the government did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression at all which is enshrined in the Constitution, but the vast cyber world could not be allowed to remain unregulated.

The Additional Solicitor General had said that the government did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression which is enshrined in the Constitution.

However, the court had said that terms like 'illegal', 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character' were vague expressions and these words were likely to be misunderstood and abused.

Some of the petitions seek setting aside of section 66A of the Information Technology Act which empowers police to arrest a person for allegedly posting offensive materials on social networking sites.

The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls -- Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan -- were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it.

The apex court had on May 16, 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like IG or DCP.

The direction had come in the wake of numerous complaints of harassment and arrests, sparking public outrage.

It had, however, refused to pass an interim order for a blanket ban on the arrest of such persons across the country.

Here is the original post:

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on validity of Section 66A of IT Act

Call of Duty – Advanced Warfare: The Rabbit Run Through Part 3 – Video

Posted on by


Call of Duty - Advanced Warfare: The Rabbit Run Through Part 3
Hey guys hope you like this epic game I know I #39;m racist but hey freedom of speech and all that! Enjoy! Don #39;t forget to subscribe, like and follow us on Facebook and Twitter! https://twitter.com...

By: Rabbit Gamers

Continue reading here:

Call of Duty - Advanced Warfare: The Rabbit Run Through Part 3 - Video

Lee Kuan Yew: a towering figure who crushed those who crossed him

Posted on by

March 23, 2015, 2:15 p.m.

He warned Australians they risked becoming the "white trash of Asia" and crushed his political opponents at home.

He warned Australians they risked becoming the "white trash of Asia" and crushed his political opponents at home. He made laws banning chewing gum and jukeboxes and imposed severe restrictions on freedom of speech.

But Lee Kuan Yew, who has died aged 91, turned an island at the tip of the Malaysian peninsula into a glittering regional financial and technology powerhouse with a $US300 billion a year economy.

Mr Lee was a towering figure on the international stage, a man of integrity who stood apart from other Asian nation-builders because he did not become corrupt.

The Cambridge-educated lawyer - who ditched his Anglicised name Harry Lee for his original Chinese name - had a relentless urge to smash those who crossed him, overseeing a system where his opponents were jailed or driven into bankruptcy through costly libel suits; the media was stifled often through libel suits; and political dissent was crushed.

Chia Thye Poh, a physics lecturer and member of Singapore's parliament in 1966, refused to bow to Mr Lee, a decision that led him to become one of the world's longest serving political prisoners.

Mr Lee had accused Mr Chia of being a member of the Communist Party of Malaya and ordered him to sign a declaration renouncing violence. Mr Chia refused. Twenty-five years later Mr Chia was still incarcerated, by then confined to a small, brick guardhouse on Singapore's Sentosa island where he described Mr Lee's refusal to release him as mental torture.

"To renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed the statement I would not have lived in peace," he said at the time.

The restrictions on Mr Chia, who was never convicted of any crime, were not lifted until 1998.

Read this article:

Lee Kuan Yew: a towering figure who crushed those who crossed him

VIRAL: QC school's salutatorian speech interrupted

Posted on by

MANILA - A video of a batch salutatorian in Quezon City interrupted by school authorities while delivering her graduation speech has been making rounds online.

In the video uploaded on YouTube, Krisel Mallari, batch salutatorian of the Sto. Nio Parochial School, was delivering a speech that was still in the early parts of her speech when the announcer suddenly interrupted her, saying "Thank you very much, Ms. Krisel Mallari."

"Sa bawat taon na lumipas ay puspusan ang pag-aaral na ginawa ko sa eskuwela, naniwala ko sa patas na labanan. Sa pagtatapos ng school year na itoy isang hakbang na lang ang layo ko sa finish line, ngunit sa pagdating ko ritoy naglaho ang pulang tali na sisimbolo sana sa aking tagumpay, naglaho nga ba o sadyang kinuha?" Mallari was saying when the announcer interrupted.

Instead of stopping, Mallari proceeded with her speech, but school authorities kept insisting for her to stop and take a seat.

"Maraming tao ang nagbulag-bulagan sa isang sistemang marumi at kaduda-duda. Ngunit di ko ito tinuluran, ipinaglaban ko ang sa tingin koy tama, nanindigan ako bilang isang Pilipino na palaban at may takot sa Diyos. Chismis, isang piyesta ng chismis ang inabot ko ng pinagmukha nila akong masama," she said as the announcer interrupted anew.

At one point, a teacher is seen in the video seemingly handing Mallari a paper for her to read, instead of what she was delivering.

In an interview with ABS-CBNNews.com, Mallari confirmed that the speech she delivered during the graduation rites was different from the one approved by school authorities.

Mallari said she knew that the teachers would not approve the speech containing what she really wants to saywhich is about an alleged cheating incident in the schoolthat's why she did not have it checked by school authorities.

"May freedom of speech naman po di ba?" Mallari said.

Mallari's sister, Katherine, explained that even before the graduation rites, they had been asking the school to release the computation of Krisel's grades for the sake of transparency.

Read the original:

VIRAL: QC school's salutatorian speech interrupted

Aamir Khan wants ‘FREEDOM of Speech’ | India’s Daughter | AIB Knockout Controversy | CENSORSHIP – Video

Posted on by


Aamir Khan wants #39;FREEDOM of Speech #39; | India #39;s Daughter | AIB Knockout Controversy | CENSORSHIP
Mr. Perfectionist Aamir Khan is NOT in favour of any censorship at all and believes in freedom of speech! Watch as the actor opens his heart out to this sensitive issue. For more Bollywood...

By: BollywoodCIA

View original post here:

Aamir Khan wants 'FREEDOM of Speech' | India's Daughter | AIB Knockout Controversy | CENSORSHIP - Video

Tickets still available for Sunday Herald's freedom of speech debate at Comedy Fest

Posted on by

Je Suis Comedian: What Are You Laughing At? forms part of the Glasgow International Comedy Festival and will be chaired by our head of news Neil Mackay.

He will be joined by comedians Imran Yusuf and Bruce Morton, Scottish journalist Stuart Cosgrove, theatre critic Joyce McMillan, human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar, and the Kirk's Rev Sally Foster-Fulton as they debate the role of comedy and satire in the modern world.

Loading article content

In the wake of the tragedy in Paris, in which 12 people were killed at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, supporters of freedom of speech around the world adopted the slogan "Je suis Charlie" to express their affiliation with the victims of the massacre and their opposition to censorship imposed by violence.

Debate has raged over what these events mean for free speech and whether in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society, religion should or shouldn't properly be the object of humour.

The event will discuss whether comedy can bring people together in the wake of tragedy and whether unrestricted free speech is essential to the functioning of our democracy, as well as the idea that we may be more tolerant to free speech in some contexts more than others.

Tommy Sheppard, Festival Director and owner of The Stand comedy club, said: "Originally we were going to poke fun at the general election, but this just seemed so much more important. The debate on free speech versus causing offence goes right to the heart of what comedy is and what comedians do, and it's fitting that we're going to have this discussion at the Glasgow International Comedy Festival"

Je Suis Comedian: What Are You Laughing At? takes place on Thursday 26 March 2015 at 8pm at the Citizens Theatre. Tickets are available for 8 from the festival website http://www.glasgowcomedyfestival.com and via the box office on 0844 873 7353.

Read the original post:

Tickets still available for Sunday Herald's freedom of speech debate at Comedy Fest

Mardi Gras: SBS wrong to dump ad opposing same sex marriage, say MPs Dean Smith and David Leyonhjelm

Posted on by

By Matthew KnottMarch 9, 2015, 1:25 p.m.

Prominent politicians who support gay marriage have accused public broadcasterSBS of supressing freedom of speech by pulling an anti-same sex marriage advertisement from its telecast of the Sydney Mardi Gras parade.

Liberal senator Dean Smith Photo: Stefan Postles

Liberal senator Dean Smith Photo: Stefan Postles

Liberal senator Dean Smith Photo: Stefan Postles

Prominent politicians who support gay marriage have accused public broadcasterSBS of suppressing freedom of speech by pulling an anti-same sex marriage advertisement from its telecast of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade.

The advertisement by the Australian Marriage Forum claimed that marriage equality forces a child to miss out on a mother or father. It was broadcast on Channels Seven and Nine but was pulled from SBS on Sunday night.

Liberal senator Dean Smith, who is openly gay, said: "I am opposed to the censorship of any of the arguments for or against same-sex marriage.

"Same-sex marriage proponents need to be prepared to meet head-on the arguments of those who disagree with them.

"Obnoxious ads should be aired because they undermine the cause of their sponsors - the obnoxious views will be seen for what they are."

Read the original here:

Mardi Gras: SBS wrong to dump ad opposing same sex marriage, say MPs Dean Smith and David Leyonhjelm

Is the IT Act 66A being used to suppress freedom of speech? – Video

Posted on by


Is the IT Act 66A being used to suppress freedom of speech?
On News Point, a discussion on how the IT Act 66A is being abused to target citizens to suppress their freedom of speech. Recently a schoolboy was sent to jail for allegedly posting #39;objectionable #39;...

By: NDTV India

Read the original here:

Is the IT Act 66A being used to suppress freedom of speech? - Video

Death threats to Aisyah are criminal, says NGOs

Posted on by

According to one NGO, the BFM journalist was entitled to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

PETALING JAYA: Several NGOs have come out to voice their support for Aisyah Tajuddin, the BFM 89.9 journalist who received threats of violence, murder and rape after presentng a video by BFM Kupas on PAS pushing for Hudud law in Kelantan.

The Institute of Journalists (IoJ) Malaysia in a press statement condemned the vicious threats which they felt were not only an attack on the press, but also on the freedom of speech in the country.

According to IoJ, the issue of Hudud was one that should be discussed and debated by all Malaysians.

The group added that the Malaysian media should not be forced into silence due to intimidation over an issue that had a direct or indirect effect on society.

The IoJ said this was all the more pertinent if the intimidating parties had abandoned whatever dubious moral grounds their comments were based on, when they threatened Aisyah with rape and murder under the guise of defending religious principles.

The IoJ asked the authorities to investigate the parties behind the threats made to Aisyah, which they said were tantamount to criminal intimidation.

Sisters in Islam assistant manager for legal advocacy and public education, Afiq M Noor revealed that the threats were un-Islamic and amounted to criminal offence under the Penal Code, The Star Online reported.

The Hudud laws in Kelantan can be criticised by anyone because they are man-made laws and not from God.

It can also be reviewed in the courts, he said, adding that Aisyah was entitled to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

Go here to read the rest:

Death threats to Aisyah are criminal, says NGOs


  1. Freedom of Speech