As fast as people connect to the glorious world of the Internet, it's clearly visible how some people are using social media for political use. Social media has become a platform for hate speech. In recent days we have heard a lot about freedom of speech. From comedian Munawar Faruqui to EX –Bharatiya Janata party spokesperson Nupur Sharma, many came into the headlines for hurting religious sentiments and their people supported them by saying "they have freedom of speech".

As we all know that “freedom of speech” comes under article 19(1) of the Indian constitution, and it gives freedom to every Indian citizen to speak and write their opinions. But here's a question: does it allow for hate speech?

To understand this it's important to know what hate speech is.

What is Hate Speech? 

According to the Law Commission of India, hate speech has not been defined in Indian law till now.

However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech. Every word that is not responsible,&nbsp;speech that hurts any sentiments can be considered hate speech, and for that law works on some IPC sections to punish. Here Article 19(2) enters.

Article 19(2) restricts freedom of speech

India is a diverse and democratic country, where many religions, castes, and creeds live. Article 19(2) was introduced so that no one should be hurt, ensuring that no one can misuse their freedom of speech. This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. This clearly shows that Freedom of speech doesn't allow the spread of hate speech.

How section 295(A) plays a Role&nbsp;

A person who intentionally and maliciously attempts to offend the religious sentiments of any class of Indian citizens, or insults their religion or religious beliefs, is punished under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code-1860.

This Section shows how hate speech is not acceptable in the Indian constitution.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

As fast as people connect to the glorious world of the Internet, it's clearly visible how some people are using social media for political use. Social media has become a platform for hate speech.

As fast as people connect to the glorious world of the Internet, it's clearly visible how some people are using social media for political use. Social media has become a platform for hate speech. In recent days we have heard a lot about freedom of speech. From comedian Munawar Faruqui to EX –Bharatiya Janata party spokesperson Nupur Sharma, many came into the headlines for hurting religious sentiments and their people supported them by saying "they have freedom of speech". As we all know that “freedom of speech” comes under article 19(1) of the Indian constitution, and it gives freedom to every Indian citizen to speak and write their opinions. But here's a question: does it allow for hate speech? To understand this it's important to know what hate speech is. What is Hate Speech? According to the Law Commission of India, hate speech has not been defined in Indian law till now. However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech. Every word that is not responsible, speech that hurts any sentiments can be considered hate speech, and for that law works on some IPC sections to punish. Here Article 19(2) enters. Article 19(2) restricts freedom of speech India is a diverse and democratic country, where many religions, castes, and creeds live. Article 19(2) was introduced so that no one should be hurt, ensuring that no one can misuse their freedom of speech. This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. This clearly shows that Freedom of speech doesn't allow the spread of hate speech. How section 295(A) plays a Role A person who intentionally and maliciously attempts to offend the religious sentiments of any class of Indian citizens, or insults their religion or religious beliefs, is punished under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code-1860. This Section shows how hate speech is not acceptable in the Indian constitution. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Does freedom of speech allow hate speech? Here's how section 295(A) affects it

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.&nbsp;

The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP.

Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable.

These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general.&nbsp;

Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws.

A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country.

Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like Shamshan and Kabristan worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long.

It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation.

&nbsp;After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's&nbsp;time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too.

It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics.

The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end. The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP. Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable. These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general. Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws. A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country. Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like Shamshan and Kabristan worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long. It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation. After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too. It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics. The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Hate speech is not free speech

French MPs on Tuesday passed a landmark law to fight online hate speech which will oblige social media networks to remove offending content in 24 hours and create a new button to enable users to flag abuse.

Members of the lower house of parliament voted by 434 in favour to 33 against to adopt the law, which is modelled on German legislation that came into force last year. Sixty-nine MPs abstained.

Sites that fail to comply with the law and remove "obviously hateful" content risk fines of up to 1.25 million euros ($1.4 million).

The upper-house Senate will now examine the legislation and could suggest amendments.

A series of tech giants, including Facebook and YouTube, announced crackdowns on hateful and violent content in recent months, spurring calls for tougher regulation.

Governments accused online platforms of not doing enough to stamp out hate speech in a Paris summit in May after a gunman broadcast his attack on two New Zealand mosques lives on Facebook via a head-mounted camera.&nbsp;

The footage was shared millions of times despite efforts to remove it.

"We must ensure the safety and protection of people online, especially the most vulnerable," said Laetitia Avia, a black MP who drafted the bill.&nbsp;

She told parliament last week she suffers so many racist insults on Twitter that she once thought an abuse-free day was due to a technical problem.

Critics say the law places too much power in the platforms' hands by making them arbiters of online speech.

Social media giant Facebook has questioned whether the 24-hour window to remove hateful content is realistic, saying many posts require careful analysis and tricky legal assessment.

MPs debated long into the night last week to try to agree on what constitutes "obviously hateful" messages or videos.

They agreed to include condoning crimes against humanity. But amendments seeking to integrate specific references to anti-Zionism and hate against the state of Israel were rejected and did not make the final text.

French MPs on Tuesday passed a landmark law to fight online hate speech which will oblige social media networks to remove offending content in 24 hours and create a new button to enable users to flag abuse.

French MPs on Tuesday passed a landmark law to fight online hate speech which will oblige social media networks to remove offending content in 24 hours and create a new button to enable users to flag abuse. Members of the lower house of parliament voted by 434 in favour to 33 against to adopt the law, which is modelled on German legislation that came into force last year. Sixty-nine MPs abstained. Sites that fail to comply with the law and remove "obviously hateful" content risk fines of up to 1.25 million euros ($1.4 million). The upper-house Senate will now examine the legislation and could suggest amendments. A series of tech giants, including Facebook and YouTube, announced crackdowns on hateful and violent content in recent months, spurring calls for tougher regulation. Governments accused online platforms of not doing enough to stamp out hate speech in a Paris summit in May after a gunman broadcast his attack on two New Zealand mosques lives on Facebook via a head-mounted camera. The footage was shared millions of times despite efforts to remove it. "We must ensure the safety and protection of people online, especially the most vulnerable," said Laetitia Avia, a black MP who drafted the bill. She told parliament last week she suffers so many racist insults on Twitter that she once thought an abuse-free day was due to a technical problem. Critics say the law places too much power in the platforms' hands by making them arbiters of online speech. Social media giant Facebook has questioned whether the 24-hour window to remove hateful content is realistic, saying many posts require careful analysis and tricky legal assessment. MPs debated long into the night last week to try to agree on what constitutes "obviously hateful" messages or videos. They agreed to include condoning crimes against humanity. But amendments seeking to integrate specific references to anti-Zionism and hate against the state of Israel were rejected and did not make the final text.

French lower parliament passes online hate speech law

hate-speech-law

Hate Speech Law, News on Hate Speech Law, stories on Hate Speech Law, articles on Hate Speech Law, Hate Speech Law stories at Wion, Hate Speech Law news, Hate Speech Law latest news

hate speech-law

Does freedom of speech allow hate speech? Here's how section 295(A) affects it

Hate speech is not free speech

French lower parliament passes online hate speech law