The internet has become a part of everyones lives as compared to the impact it had even a decade ago
Your Amazon reviews have the same impact as your Facebook status update
The amendments to the draft IT Intermediary Guidelines, 2018 initiated a new debate
Editors Note: This article was written before the Personal Data Protection Bill was approved by the Union Cabinet with undisclosed changes to the Draft version of the Bill which this author has based their opinions on. Therefore, some opinions expressed below may no longer be applicable under the revised Bill. You can check all the articles of this series here.
In August 2017 Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre very poignantly noted, while reading out the judgment on the Puttaswamy case that right to privacy of any individual is essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being till he/she last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human beings.
In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguishes with the human being. The right to privacy is a fundamental right that is distinctly connected with human dignity by securing their inner thoughts and expressions from any form of unwanted intrusion.
Today, the internet has become a part of everyones lives as compared to the impact it had even a decade ago. People from all backgrounds, genders and ages have an online presence. Whether it is for business purposes or personal, most conversations and communications amongst people happen online. From buying groceries to speaking to your mother at the other end of the world, everything can be achieved with a good internet connection, a usable device and an online communication platform.
Along with this increase in communication, comes a boost in public expression. The internet has made it possible for people to express their thoughts, opinions and arguments on everything in the world from avocados to the US elections to the world at large. These expressions spark debates, encourage conversations and lead to discussions amongst like-minded people, helping people feel a sense of community and camaraderie.
It is clear with the widespread use of the internet across all communities, societies and sectors that the pervasiveness of the internet is worldwide, making it a vertical form of business and not horizontal anymore. The internet and social media have become a staple part and act as the foundation of human expression in todays times.
Your Amazon reviews have the same impact as your Facebook status update i.e. they both help you communicate your personal opinions to those who you voluntarily want to convey them to. Therefore, freedom of expression is highly dependent on the freedom to express over social media. Therefore, making the internet a safe and free space is essential to uphold this fundamental right that is allowed for each human being.
The platforms mentioned above have been termed as intermediaries, which is a platform for user-generated content. They use the capabilities of the web to act as platforms where information is shared. Intermediaries are themselves not seen as publishers of content but rather serve as the place where user content is shared. The question that arises with the growth of intermediaries is the accountability that they have on the content that is shared on their platforms.
What responsibilities and protections come with hosting Indian user content and how liable are they for the content shared. The amendments to the draft IT Intermediary Guidelines, 2018 initiated a new debate on the curbing or censoring of this content equalling to the violation of the content creators freedom of speech and expression.
The proposed draft rules have gone beyond the scope of the provisions of the parent act and erodes the safe harbour protection available to intermediaries under section 79 of the IT Act. As noted in the landmark judgement of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the intermediary is called upon to exercise its own judgment under Rule 3 sub-rule (4) and then disable information, when intermediaries by their very definition are only persons who offer a neutral platform through which persons may interact with each other over the internet.
Thus, it then solely depends upon the intermediaries subjective sense, to take down content, which has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression. The requirement for intermediaries to subjectively determine the legality of an expression should be replaced with an objective test. The objective test should be such that it does not create an obligation for the intermediary to go into the adjudication of a legal claim or into the investigation of facts and circumstances.
The rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore elements of principles of natural justice and lacks safeguards. Under the rules, the third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed or made aware about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is no redressal mechanism for the aggrieved user or third party uploading or providing the content, to appeal the decision of the Government agency in the courts.
Reasoned state action must recognize that their liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type of service that each provides. The Intermediary Guidelines fail to do so, and are consequently incompatible with Article 14. There needs to be a classification made with respect to the type of intermediaries. A singular watertight formula cannot be applied to all intermediaries. There needs to be a tactical separation between User Generated Content space and Curated Content providers. The guarantee of equal protection of laws requires equality of treatment of persons who are similarly situated, without discrimination inter se. It is a corollary that people differently situated cannot be treated alike.
Once the government recognises different types of intermediaries, a differential regulation needs to be established as well. Intermediaries can be classified into:
Distinct classes of intermediaries should be created and due diligence requirements be assigned as per the functions performed by each of intermediaries.
The guidelines mandate intermediaries to disable access to unlawful content without the requisite procedural safeguards under Rule 3(8). Moreover, the guidelines leave it on intermediaries to remove the content from their platforms proactively, which could amount to censorship. The issue with proactively trying to censor content is that its effects can spill over into censorship and impact the freedom of speech, internet is supposed to enhance and enable.
Additionally, these rules have not been understood context of Section 79 of the IT Act which is an enabling provision. It needs to be clarified that these guidelines do not create new offences but instead provide the intermediaries a safe harbour to avoid taking liability for most offences.
In order to combat this gap in the regulation and the blatant violation of human rights a balanced approach needs to be taken where when intermediary platforms are used for the transmission of allegedly obscene and objectionable contents, the intermediaries/service providers should not be absolved of responsibility. And at the same time when they take down content that does not fit into the category of offensive/obscene/threatening, they should be answerable to the creator of the content and via the due process of law provide evidence and reasoning for their actions.
It is clear that a definite obligation should be cast upon the intermediaries/service providers in view of the irreparable damages caused to the victims through reckless activities that are undertaken in the cyberspace by using the service providers platform and make them accountable for the actions they take based on their assumptions or interpretations. Casting such an obligation seems imperative, seeing as how the aggrieved party has no legal recourse or direct contact with the said platform managers.
[The article is co-authored by Kazim Rizvi and Maanya Vaidyanathan, Policy and Engagement Manager at The Dialogue.]
See the original post here:
Over Regulating Intermediaries: Threat To Free Speech? - Inc42 Media
- ASG introduces three resolutions, votes on advocacy committee - The Daily Northwestern - March 5th, 2020
- Why Toby Young and other robust white men are using free speech to whip universities - The Guardian - March 5th, 2020
- A Slap in the Face: Chinese Readers Share Their Coronavirus Stories - The New York Times - March 5th, 2020
- Opposition to Ted Nugent - Villages-News - March 5th, 2020
- Bitcoin Is the Technology of Dissent That Secures Individual Liberties - Bitcoin Magazine - March 5th, 2020
- NRB Resolves that Religious Liberty & Freedom of Speech Must Prevail - MissionsBox - March 5th, 2020
- The Guardian is not a fan of Toby Young or free speech - The Post Millennial - March 5th, 2020
- No platforming nowhere near as productive as debate or conversation - The Badger Herald - March 5th, 2020
- When The PC Police Come For Our Books - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com - March 5th, 2020
- Following the crowd - Education - WORLD News Group - March 5th, 2020
- How progressives and conservatives have changed the debate over freedom of speech - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) - February 27th, 2020
- What transgenderism and Islam have in common: Destroying free speech - Lifesite - February 27th, 2020
- Hitler would be very proud of the Aalst Carnival in Belgium! - The Times of Israel - February 27th, 2020
- Facebook and Zuckerberg keep getting freedom of expression wrong - The Next Web - January 21st, 2020
- Sheffield Arena urged to cancel event by 'homophobic' Trump ally - The Guardian - January 21st, 2020
- Ninth Circuit Affirms Anti-Libel Injunction, Rejects Overbroad Portion - Reason - January 21st, 2020
- What we still havent learned from Gamergate - Vox.com - January 21st, 2020
- Montclair State Univ. Sued for 'Unconstitutional' Speech Policy and Favoring One Student Group Over Another Based on Their Beliefs - CBN News - January 21st, 2020
- POV: Trump's Executive Order Aimed at Protecting Jews Will Have a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech at Colleges - BU Today - December 21st, 2019
- 92% of Americans think their basic rights are being threatened, new poll shows - USA TODAY - December 21st, 2019
- Trump's Executive Order Targets Federal Funding to Universities in Suppression of Speech on Palestinian Rights - International Middle East Media... - December 21st, 2019
- Washington State's Mike Leach responds to Donald Trump impeachment: 'I'm yet to hear what he did wrong' - Sports and Weather Right Now - December 21st, 2019
- Impeachment won't slow the global rise of the radical right but an alternative vision might - Salon - December 21st, 2019
- Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom to be adopted - News - The University of Sydney - December 15th, 2019
- Is YouTube Cracking Down on Free Speech With New 'Harassment Policy'? - NewsBusters - December 15th, 2019
- Johnson orders universities to protect freedom of speech - Stock Daily Dish - December 15th, 2019
- Freedom of speech must trump safe spaces in universities, minister says - Stock Daily Dish - December 15th, 2019
- Alberta premier says energy war room will be respectful as it takes on critics - CFJC Today Kamloops - December 15th, 2019
- Amnesty International Canada Questions Freedom of Speech and Assembly - Reason - December 13th, 2019
- Why we need to stop believing freedom of speech is a dangerous thing - Marie Claire UK - December 13th, 2019
- Drawing the Line: When Does Freedom of Speech Go Too Far? - SUNY The New Paltz Oracle - December 13th, 2019
- RTI is Inbuilt within Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, says Bombay HC - Moneylife - December 13th, 2019
- Opinion: The clear line between hate speech and free speech - DW (English) - November 26th, 2019
- Appleton school board signs off on policy that some say endangers free speech, others see as a constitutional safeguard - Post-Crescent - November 26th, 2019
- What to Be Thankful For | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute - November 26th, 2019
- Universities Enabling the Hijacking of Free Speech When Jews are Involved - The Times of Israel - November 26th, 2019
- Documentary Takes Aim At Higher Eds Free Speech Violations - Washington Free Beacon - November 26th, 2019
- Should the First Amendment protect language deemed to be hate speech? - The Vector: NJIT's Student Newspaper - November 26th, 2019
- Fight to protect your freedom of speech - The Saint - November 26th, 2019
- Improv joke reaction: What about free speech? - Mount Airy News - November 26th, 2019
- Trump defends Yovanovitch attack: 'I have freedom of speech' | TheHill - The Hill - November 17th, 2019
- 'Critical Infrastructure' Bill Is a Major Threat to Freedom of Speech - Shepherd Express - November 17th, 2019
- Free speech rights a concern in Wisconsin water resolution - Minneapolis Star Tribune - November 17th, 2019
- Freedom of speech and freedom from lies - Opinion - Cape Cod Times - November 17th, 2019
- Trump: 'I Have Freedom of Speech Just as Other People Do' - MRCTV - November 17th, 2019
- Freedom of speech and its consequences - BCLocalNews - November 17th, 2019
- Free speech in Canada: It was bad five years ago. Do you think it's gotten better since? - National Post - November 17th, 2019
- The American Internet Sucks. The Alternative Is China. - BuzzFeed News - November 17th, 2019
- On free speech, a new era and that blocking thing | Editorial - Chico Enterprise-Record - October 27th, 2019
- Sydney University to consider updating Freedom of Speech Charter - News - The University of Sydney - October 27th, 2019
- SABAG: Promoting Anti-Semitism By Perverting The Freedom Of Speech - The Daily Wire - October 24th, 2019
- Analysis: The Long Arm Of China And Free Speech - NPR - October 11th, 2019
- There are differences between free speech, hate speech and academic freedom and they matter - The Conversation AU - October 11th, 2019
- The Coalition: Where protesting free speech is only a right for the Right - Independent Australia - October 11th, 2019
- Free Speech Moment for Facebook! Platform Allows Trump Ad That CNN Banned - NewsBusters - October 11th, 2019
- Is Free Speech an Absolute Right, or Does Context Matter? - New York Times - August 25th, 2017
- UC Berkeley tries to reclaim its free speech legacy - The Mercury News - August 25th, 2017
- Unlikely Allies Join Fight To Protect Free Speech On The Internet - NPR - August 25th, 2017
- 73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For - Rasmussen Reports - August 25th, 2017
- Poll: 85 Percent Say Freedom of Speech More Important Than Not ... - Breitbart News - August 25th, 2017
- When 'free speech' becomes a political weapon - Washington Post - August 22nd, 2017
- Alt-Right 'America First' Rallies Move Online After Boston 'Free Speech' Protest Is Overrun - Newsweek - August 22nd, 2017
- A free-speech rally, minus the free speech - The Boston Globe - August 22nd, 2017
- Freedom of speech is for all - The Register-Guard - August 22nd, 2017
- The Fight Over Free Speech Online - The New Yorker - August 22nd, 2017
- Free Speech: The Left Moves In for the Kill - PJ Media - August 22nd, 2017
- Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech - POLITICO Magazine - August 20th, 2017
- So, just how guaranteed is your freedom of speech online? - New York Post - August 20th, 2017
- Our View: With freedom of speech comes great responsibility - HollandSentinel.com - August 20th, 2017
- Is hate speech protected by American law? Quartz - Quartz - August 20th, 2017
- Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression - EFF - August 18th, 2017
- Free Speech and Assembly in Hong Kong - New York Times - August 16th, 2017
- Free speech comes at a price - Spectrum News - August 16th, 2017
- Strange bedfellows: The ACLU, free speech and Neo-Nazis - ABC News - August 16th, 2017
- Free speech and White Supremacy at Texas A & M (and elsewhere) - Washington Post - August 16th, 2017
- College Responds To Hosting Panel On Free Speech By Canceling It - The Daily Caller - August 16th, 2017
- Q&A: Experts break down Freedom of Speech, what it means - KCRA Sacramento - August 15th, 2017
- Illinois' abortion notification law harms free speech - Chicago Tribune - August 11th, 2017
- Free-speech rights don't apply in the American workplace, as Google demonstrates - Quartz - August 9th, 2017
- SMU Student Groups: Moving The 9/11 Memorial Restricts Freedom of Speech - Texas Monthly - August 9th, 2017