{"id":62796,"date":"2015-03-24T05:53:00","date_gmt":"2015-03-24T09:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/freedom-of-speech-online-supreme-court-verdict-on-section-66a-today\/"},"modified":"2015-03-24T05:53:00","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T09:53:00","slug":"freedom-of-speech-online-supreme-court-verdict-on-section-66a-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/freedom-of-speech\/freedom-of-speech-online-supreme-court-verdict-on-section-66a-today\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of Speech Online: Supreme Court Verdict on Section 66A Today"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court is  expected to deliver a verdict today on the validity of Section 66  A of Information and Technology Act 2000. The Section gives the  police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content  online and provides for a three-year jail term.  <\/p>\n<p>    It was challenged by law student Shreya Singal and others,    including Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin and non-government    organisations. The petitioners contended that the Section    interferes with free speech and appealed that it be quashed.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Centre has defended the provision, saying the possibility    of its potential abuse cannot be a ground for declaring it    unconstitutional.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Centre has also argued that comments in the social media on    political debate, protests, expressing a contrary view, a    dialogue or a discourse cannot be punished under the    provision.        The lawyers of the petitioners had argued that the definition    of provision Section 66 A - material that is grossly menacing,    offensive and cause annoyance to public -- is vague and it may    lead to abuse of the provision. They also argued that even    genuine comments criticising a person, and caricatures, are    treated as offence, and people are harassed.  <\/p>\n<p>    The petition was filed in the aftermath of the arrest of two    teenagers in Mumbai's Palghar, who had objected to a statewide    strike called by Shiv Sena following the death of party    patriarch Bal Thackeray. They were let off after the arrests    provoked nationwide outrage and shifted the focus on the IT    laws.  <\/p>\n<p>    It was also alleged that the local police were misusing the    laws at the behest of politicians.   <\/p>\n<p>    After a few more similar arrests, the Union home ministry    issued a directive to all state governments that arrests under    Section 66 A can only be made with the approval of senior    police officers.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>View original post here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/ndtv.com.feedsportal.com\/c\/33805\/f\/606695\/s\/44b4d77f\/sc\/7\/l\/0L0Sndtv0N0Cindia0Enews0Cfreedom0Eof0Eexpression0Eand0Ethe0Einternet0Ecrucial0Esupreme0Ecourt0Everdict0Etomorrow0E7490A0A4\/story01.htm\/RK=0\/RS=jtDDuG4KBGG1_ahP28QbVVQ0gUI-\" title=\"Freedom of Speech Online: Supreme Court Verdict on Section 66A Today\">Freedom of Speech Online: Supreme Court Verdict on Section 66A Today<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> New Delhi: The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a verdict today on the validity of Section 66 A of Information and Technology Act 2000. The Section gives the police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content online and provides for a three-year jail term. It was challenged by law student Shreya Singal and others, including Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin and non-government organisations <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/freedom-of-speech\/freedom-of-speech-online-supreme-court-verdict-on-section-66a-today\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[162383],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-freedom-of-speech"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62796"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}