Harsh Ghildiyal: Defamation is not a crime

This is the third of a series of posts written by members of Index on Censorship’s youth advisory board.

Members of the board were asked to write a blog discussing one free speech issue in their country. The resulting posts exhibit a range of challenges to freedom of expression globally, from UK crackdowns on speakers in universities, to Indian criminal defamation law, to the South African Film Board’s newly published guidelines.


Harsh Ghildiyal is a member of the Index youth advisory board. Learn more

Harsh Ghildiyal is a member of the Index youth advisory board. Learn more

Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalise defamation, have been challenged before the Supreme Court of India. In addition, sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provide the procedure for prosecution, have been challenged.

Over the years, through several cases, the Supreme Court has made it clear that restrictions in place on speech must be reasonable, and only to the extent that they are necessary. Defamation is expressly listed as one of these reasonable restrictions but criminal defamation is not in the least bit reasonable. If the restriction goes beyond the intended purpose, it must be struck down.

Criminal defamation cases have been filed against the media, politicians and individuals for their statements. While adequate remedies for defamation exist under civil law, the provision criminalising defamation provides for imprisonment of up to two years, a fine or both. The punishment is disproportionate to an act which doesn’t go against society but against individuals.

More often than not used for dampening legitimate criticism rather than actually serving its purpose, criminal defamation is clearly not a reasonable restriction and can act as an impediment to free speech.

Harsh Ghildiyal, India

Related:
Jade Jackman: An act against knowledge and thought
Tom Carter: No-platforming Nigel
Matthew Brown: Spying on NGOs a step too far
About the Index on Censorship youth advisory board
Facebook discussion: no-platforming of speakers at universities

Tom Carter: No-platforming Nigel

This is the second of a series of posts written by members of Index on Censorship’s youth advisory board.

Members of the board were asked to write a blog discussing one free speech issue in their country. The resulting posts exhibit a range of challenges to freedom of expression globally, from UK crackdowns on speakers in universities, to Indian criminal defamation law, to the South African Film Board’s newly published guidelines.


Tom Carter is a member of the Index youth advisory board. Learn more

Tom Carter is a member of the Index youth advisory board. Learn more

Universities are meant to be institutions that embody the spirit of free expression. They are places where new ideas are formulated and environments where students are exposed to a range of viewpoints. However, whilst freedom of expression in universities is under threat from government intervention, another threat to freedom of expression on UK campuses is originating from the students themselves.

In October 2014, UKIP’s Nigel Farage was invited by the University of Cambridge’s politics department to give an address on an undisclosed topic. This prompted two independent Facebook campaigns, one of which was from the Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Campaign imploring Cambridge to rescind the invitation, which it eventually was.

This is indicative of an increasing hostility among UK students towards the expression of ideas deemed unacceptable. Whether or not you agree or disagree with UKIP’s policies, they are the UK’s third largest party by vote share and very much constitute part of the political mainstream.

The fact that students are now willing to influence the speaker choices of universities is a worrying trend. Only by hearing views different to your own can your ideas be refined and fine-tuned and hearing policies expressed in public discussion is the only way to scrutinise them effectively.

Tom Carter, UK

Related:
Matthew Brown: Spying on NGOs a step too far
About the Index on Censorship youth advisory board
Facebook discussion: no-platforming of speakers at universities

Matthew Brown: Spying on NGOs a step too far

The new cohort of the Index on Censorship youth advisory board was launched last month. The board is already participating in discussions on Facebook.

Members of the board were asked to write a blog discussing one free speech issue in their country. The resulting posts exhibit a range of challenges to freedom of expression globally, from UK crackdowns on speakers in universities, to Indian criminal defamation law, to the South African Film Board’s newly published guidelines.

In the first of a series of posts, youth board member Matthew Brown explores mass surveillance in the UK.


Matthew Brown is a member of the Index youth advisory board. Learn more.

Matthew Brown is a member of the Index youth advisory board. Learn more.

I don’t often begin writing by quoting Herman Goering but on one account he was worryingly accurate. Goering stated that: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Increasing levels of surveillance are often justified as essential in protecting us from imminent attack but the recent revelation that GCHQ spied illegally on Amnesty International, an organisation relying upon the secrecy of their communications with human rights defenders, demonstrates the extent to which state surveillance methods are now out of control.

It is easy to scorn states known for their dictatorial regimes but our society has only progressed to its current position through holding the state to account. If we fail to continue to do so, then the slide towards a world in which freedom of expression is restricted at any given moment the government decides appropriate is inevitable. The interception of the correspondence of NGOs raises the worrying question of how these organisations can continue their crucial work if their confidential correspondence is likely to end up out of their hands.

Matthew Brown, UK

Related:
Tom Carter: No-platforming Nigel
About the Index on Censorship youth advisory board
Facebook discussion: no-platforming of speakers at universities

To 1 Aug: Road Block – Reflections on Bahrain (Partner Event)

Road-Block_bilad-Alqadeem_30.12.14_protest-calling-for-the-release-of-Shaikh-Ali-Salman-sayed-baqer-1200x760

Bilad Alqadeem, 30.12.14 – protest calling for the release of Shaikh Ali Salman ©Sayed Baqer

The Road Bloc Collective are a group of artists and activists who explore how power inscribes itself in urban space through architecture and images.

As parts of Bahrain transform into territories of dissent, where roundabouts become ‘squares’ and spaces for political speech and action, graffiti is visible like never before and road blocks and marches are part of everyday life – the scenography and spectacle of revolution.

Featuring photography, sound works and installation, Road Block enacts the ongoing battle for space and claims for ‘the right to the city’, that provoke and challenge us to reconsider the relationship that we have to space and power.

 

When: 9 July  – 1 August, daily 10am to 11pm.
Where: Rich Mix, 35-47 Bethnal Green Rd, London, E1 6LA (Map/directions)
Tickets: Free

 

Presented in partnership with the Road Bloc Collective as part of Shubbak Festival 

Screen shot 2015-07-29 at 22.49.02