Reefa Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 The Supreme Court of India today struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act -- a controversial law that allowed law enforcement officials to arrest people for posting "offensive" comments on social networks and other internet sites. After hearing a clutch of petitions by defenders of free speech, the Supreme Court described the 2009 amendment to India's Information Technology Act known as section 66A as vague and ambiguous and beyond ambit of the constitutional right to freedom of speech. "Section 66A is unconstitutional and we have no hesitation in striking it down," said Justice R F Nariman, reading out the judgement. "The public's right to know is directly affected by section 66A." SECTION 66A OF THE IT ACT The Information Technology Act 2000 was amended in the year 2008 and this amended act contains the 66A section. Under this section, "Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, —any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine." SECTION 66A MISUNDERSTOOD But, the legality of section 66A has been in Question from years. The Supreme Court earlier had said that terms like 'illegal', 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character' were vague expressions and were likely to be dangerously twisted and misused. Section 66A act stops people to share and express their different or controversial opinion freely that may not necessarily be dangerous or a subject of 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character'. Like for example, Theory of Evolution may be a ‘false information’ for those religious people who believes that God created the whole world, but it may be useful information for those who study Science. CASES IN WHICH SECTION 66A IS MISUSED BY POLITICIANS In 2012, two young women – Shaheen Dhanda and Rinu Shrinivasan – were arrested in Palghar in Thane district, Mumbai under the Section 66A act for posting comments against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death. The charges on two young ladies were later quashed by a Mumbai court, but this first case filled under Section 66A followed a number of arrests across the country for uploading political cartoons or posting comments on social network, which sparked outrage and fierce debate about online censorship in India. Some other controversial arrests under Section 66A of the IT act are as follows:Recently, a class XII student was arrested for posting about Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan on his Facebook timeline.Businessman Ravi Srinivasan was booked by police for allegedly tweeting that the son of then union minister P Chidambaram, Karti Chidambaram, was 'corrupt'.Last year, Devu Chodankar was arrested in Goa for writing on Goa+, a popular Facebook forum with over 47,000 members, that if elected to power, Modi would unleash a 'holocaust'.Ambikesh Mahapatra, a Jadavpur University professor, was arrested in Kolkata for forwarding a cartoon about Mamata Banerjee.The government argued that the section 66A of the IT act was needed to protect the government data from hackers, to which the court was not at all impressed as this situation was already dealt with viruses and hacking for which Section 65 of the IT Act was relevant.http://thehackernews.com/2015/03/IT-act-section-66A.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 This is gonna find a social media much more emboldened, at least in as far as India is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted March 24, 2015 Administrator Share Posted March 24, 2015 I personally think a law is required. I am hinting at the riots case. In summary, couple of years ago, people had spread wrong and false pics of riots to spread violence and hatred even further. Later those pics were found to be belonging to a different riot in a different place and if I am correct, in a different country all together. Now these pics were purposely spread to provoke people of a particular religion, which caused more riots. In fact, I believe this law was implemented particularly after this riots case.The problem with this law starts when it is misused for and by the politicians, whenever and however they want. Which is not acceptable.Again, a law is required. Probably one where it is not misused by anyone, where common public is not troubled by it, where the law is there to protect the country and not the politicians and most importantly, a law that is written specific to it's aims and requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamslider Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 We could use those Supreme Court justice on the US Supreme Court. The ones we have normally sell out the public for Corporations and for DHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humble3d Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,"It seems that it is our human nature to destroy ourselves"As related by John and attributed to The Terminator 2 :wtf: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windowsvistas Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 it was in the making just delayed a bit. I hope politicians will unearth another stupid clause who says they are not working :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Folks all across the internet highway are celebrating the repealing of this draconian act which was being misused by the Indian politico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anuseems Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 India's Supreme Court on Tuesday repealed a controversial law after civil rights groups and a law student filed petitions arguing that it violated people's rights to freedom of speech and expression.NDTV quoted Justice RF Nariman, one of the two presiding judges, as saying "Section 66A is unconstitutional and we have no hesitation in striking it down".Section 66A of the Information Act, 2000, had previously seen people arrested for comments left on Facebook, Twitter and other websites.Unlike the case of Paul Chambers who was, quite rightly, arrested for a 'joke' tweet about blowing up Robin Hood airport in Nottingham, England, many of those detained in India were allegedly guilty of posting what we, in the West, would consider to be 'non-criminal' comments.https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/03/25/india-strikes-down-controversial-section-66a-social-media-policing-law/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rok Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Nevermind, section 67A still competent enough to take on 66A. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.