07 Oct 13 | Digital Freedom, India, News and features, Politics and Society
Illustration: Shutterstock
India’s National Integration Council met in the last week of September 2013 to discuss the threat of communal violence in the country. The council, first set up in the early 1960s, gives senior Indian politicians and public leaders a platform to discuss issues that could divide the country along caste, communal, language and regional fault lines. This September, with the backdrop of violent communal clashes that have seen over 50 killed and 40,000 displaced in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sat with some of the Chief Ministers, to discuss how to resolve these issues.
There were early reports that the meeting was going to discuss the ‘misuse’ of social media, as news reports have indicated that the violent clashes in Uttar Pradesh were spurred on by false videos on YouTube. In India, the regulation of social media has been a subject of great controversy. The government has, in the past, used the IT Act’s Section 66(A) to arrest people for irresponsible posts that they claimed could cause ‘communal tension’. However, as the famous case of the Palghar girls demonstrated, many early arrests under this Section were politically motivated. Similarly, while the government has in the past asked social media companies to take down controversial posts, it has been revealed that most of the requests were again to take down criticism against the government.
However, at the same time, social media and MMS (multimedia messages through texts) have indeed been known to cause real damage. Last year, false rumours spread through MMS resulted in the exodus of northeastern migrants from south India, as the threat of violence seemed imminent. At the time, the government had to ban bulk text messaging, and ultimately restricted messages to 5 a day to curb any more rumours. Meanwhile, with global violence in the aftermath of the YouTube video, The Innocence of Muslims, the government of Jammu and Kashmir decided to suspend the internet for a few days to prevent any incidents.
Only about 164.81 million Indians have access to the internet, and only 143.20 million over mobile phones according to official figures released by the Telecom and Regulatory Authority of India in March 2013. Given this scenario, both the reach in terms of positive and negative impact, is still quite limited in India.
The prime minister, however, chose to focus on social media’s role on fanning communal violence in his address at the National Integration Council. His views on hate speech on social media were echoed by many others, including Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav, Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Meghalaya Chief Minister Mukul Sangma. The majority of chief ministers, then, favour social media regulation. Ideas thrown forward included taking action within the current legal framework, setting up ‘social media laboratories’ to monitor posts under intelligence departments and even mobilizing NGOs and prominent citizens to counter social media rumours.
There are a few important points to keep in mind while looking at this debate: the real need for regulating social media, scapegoating by politicians and finally, preserving freedom of expression and an open internet.
Given India’s experience with hate speech online, and reports about gender targeted abuse, along with abuse based on political, caste, community and regional affiliation, there is a valid point raised for some kind of regulation of social media. However, the real question is the kind of regulation India chooses to favor. In China, a new law can charge people with defamation if a false rumor started by them gets reposted over 500 times. In India, current laws allow citizens to go to court over information that has even caused them “annoyance” under Section 66A of the law. To ensure this is not abused, the government has now mandated that a senior police officer looks at individual cases before allowing charges to be filed to avoid nuisance cases. In the aftermath of the Muzzafarnagar riots of Uttar Pradesh, some citizens are urging the National Human Rights Commission to ask the Department of Telecom to screen and remove inflammatory posts on social media. However, when looking at cases where mass impact can cause damage (such as the exodus of northeasterns from south India), the government relied immediately on technology to solve the problem. The same can be said of the Jammu and Kashmir government, which switched off the internet, at the slightest hint of trouble.
However, both responses need to have legal sanctity. We already know the Indian government monitors its citizens’ communications, and much like many other governments across the world, and the legal basis for these programmes are still dubious. The government may want to come up with a plan for targeted control of certain communication channels should a particularly disastrous video or message surface over social media, and clearly contributes to an inflamed environment and damage on the ground. Social media is already being used to recruit terrorists. Perhaps some communication channels will be used to organize riots, as have been seen before in London. These will become bigger concerns when more than a sliver of India is connected to the internet. The debate will undoubtedly be seen through the prism of security instead of the freedom of expression, as we are currently witnessing the world over.
In a predominantly uneducated country, rumours run rife, and the result is not violence alone. For example, in 2006, polio campaigns in India have failed in Muslim communities, because of rampant rumours that the polio campaigns were a method to sterilize the community. In 2008, despite warnings, rumours that an apparition of the Virgin Mary would appear to devotees after staring into the sun caused dozens to go blind. Earlier in June 2013, three men were lynched to death in the state of Assam because of a rumour that a group of “naked men” were raping women. This does not mean every misguided or even damaging video needs to be censored immediately.
The constitution of India allows for freedom of expression, although with restrictions. However, any plan to take reasonable action in light of clear and present danger, should be drawn up with the help of civil society organizations and lawyers, and cannot be made and implemented unilaterally. The potential for abuse is too great.
Unfortunately, as it seems today – social media has become become the target of scapegoating by politicians. For example, the violence in Uttar Pradesh may or may not have been caused/spurred by a YouTube video. There is no empirical evidence for that. What isclear is that the Muzzafarnagar riots started with two Hindu boys stabbing a Muslim youth because he stalked their sister. Not YouTube. However, it would appear that instead of focusing on other causes of communal tensions in a neighbourhood, which include poverty, development, and unemployment, senior politicians vilified social media.
With elections looming, can one guarantee that any gap in planning, law and order management or inflammatory campaign speeches won’t be blamed on a tweet or Facebook update? Will the outward calling for “regulating social media” will substitute for real change on the ground?
Finally, the most important point remains. Hate speech, law and order, and mass panic are realities India’s states have been living with for years. It would appear that, in dealing with free expression on the internet, India’s politicians seem to err on the side of control. Perhaps the next election is not just about the economy, but equally about the Indian citizens freedom of expression and freedom from control.
This article was originally published on 7 Oct 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
25 Jun 13 | Campaigns, Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia
As the European Commission opens a consultation on its planned freedom of expression guidelines, Index on Censorship is publishing a public note setting out what it sees as the key principles that must underpin such guidelines.
The EU plans to use these guidelines to assess, in its varied relationships with other countries, if freedom of expression is being respected online and off. While the EU has considerable experience in setting standards for freedom of expression offline, it has been less clear until now how it plans to defend free speech online. We hope these guidelines and other initiatives set out in the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy represent effective steps in the right direction.
These guidelines are a crucial opportunity for the EU to encourage free expression. It is vital that different groups from across civil society input and argue for a full clear defence of free speech online and off.
How the European Union can protect freedom of expression (PDF)
The European Union and its member states have always been committed in theory at least to democratic principles and fundamental human rights. The EU aims to promote human rights both internally and externally, using EU influence in its external policies to push for greater human rights compliance, notably in its enlargement processes, and to a varying degree in other areas (such as neighbourhood policy (to some extent), trade policy (little) and aid policy (to some extent). All member states are signatories to the EU, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which protect freedom of expression; the EU’s own Charter of Fundamental Rights is now part of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. However, the range of cases at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg tells us that the EU member states need to look at their own rights performance as well as to push for human rights internationally.
The EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy published in June 2012 calls for the EU to develop new public guidelines on freedom of expression online and off. This paper outlines key global issues and principles on free expression that Index believes the EU should consider as essential when it drafts these guidelines.
(1) Protecting freedom of expression in a digital age[1]
There are a number of key issues the EU must consider to ensure the protection and promotion of digital freedom of expression in its foreign policies.
1.1 Internet governance
Establishing a global body exercising top-down control of the internet would risk increased suppression of speech, severely erode openness and inhibit innovation and creativity. Index believes the European Union should defend a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance to ensure an open and free internet is defended, and we welcome recent calls in the European Parliament for the Union to defend this freedom.
1.2 State censorship
Authoritarian states continue to be active in online censorship, from China’s Great Firewall to Iran’s plans for a “halal internet”. States should not institute network-wide filters or firewalls that create national intranets. The excessive and inappropriate use of takedown requests by governments can also have a negative impact on online debate, on social media, comment threads and beyond. Index believes that, in parallel with free speech offline, any limits made on online speech must be necessary, limited, transparent and proportionate, and takedown requests should always be backed with a court order.
1.3 Corporate censorship
Private companies face the challenge of expanding internationally while obeying national laws and respecting fundamental human rights. Meanwhile, companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google are playing a greater role in delineating the boundaries of ‘acceptable’ speech through their own terms of service. National-level libel and privacy laws often make internet intermediaries, who are not the authors or publishers of content, judge and jury over censoring content. Index believes intermediaries should not be liable for content they have not authored. In addition, national laws must not disproportionately impact upon freedom of expression, and private companies should fully respect their human rights obligations in their operations around the world.
1.4 Criminalising online speech
Increased capability to share content online means that messages some groups might find offensive can spread quickly to large audiences. Online speech deemed “offensive” is increasingly being criminalised, especially on social media platforms. This trend must be reversed. Efforts to restrict speech based on perceived offense must be narrow and limited, as outlined in the UDHR. Public prosecutors should not criminalise content based solely on real or perceived offense.
1.5 Net neutrality
Net neutrality – the principle that all data should be treated equally on networks – is an essential prerequisite for a free and open internet. Net neutrality should be written into statute. The European Parliament’s Draft Report on a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy called on both the Commission and Council to codify the principle of net neutrality in appropriate regulation, “so as to strengthen its credibility in terms of promoting and defending digital freedoms around the world.” Index echoes this call.
1.6 Surveillance and privacy
Mass monitoring, surveillance and the unnecessary storage (with state access) of citizens’ use of digital communications are unacceptable breaches of fundamental human rights. The right to privacy and freedom of expression are closely linked: if individuals’ communications are monitored, that will directly chill their free expression and encourage self-censorship. Governments should not store unnecessary amounts of their citizens’ communications data. Government access to data should be limited in scope with as few bodies able to access the data as strictly necessary; transparent, subject to judicial oversight and legally defined.
A related threat is the role western technology companies are playing in producing and exporting surveillance equipment that allows governments to retain data and spy on citizens. Index welcomes the European Parliament’s recent endorsement of stricter European export controls of such “digital arms”, as proposed by Marietje Schaake, and urges the EU to follow this lead.
1.7 Copyright
Attempts to enforce traditional copyright models in the digital world risk criminalising and censoring individual users. Copyright laws should not be used to block individuals’ access to the internet. There is a need for an open debate that looks at new business models that work for both creators and users.
1.8 Access to free expression online
The latest statistics suggest 63 per cent of Europe’s population is online. As the digital world becomes an increasingly key part of social, economic and political life, access to digital communications is fundamental. The digital divide needs to be further overcome in the EU and around the world. Online censorship should not close down these spaces, and nor should other obstacles to free expression online be allowed to persist, including illiteracy, marginalisation and poverty, or discrimination by gender or by ethnicity.
1.9 Support for human rights defenders and citizen journalists
The technological innovations that have transformed the work of activists have also facilitated attacks on bloggers who push back against established networks of control. Index contends that online and citizen journalists must be given the same protection as mainstream and offline media organisations.
(2) Protecting free expression offline
2.1 Media freedom
In any democracy, citizens must be free to challenge authority. Restrictive legislation, over-regulation and a lack of plurality diminishes the media’s ability to act as a public watchdog holding power to account. Media freedom in recent years has been restricted by anti-terrorism laws, classified government documents, secrecy laws and corporate bullying of the media. Restrictions on laws that govern the press must be transparent, limited and proportionate; anti-terrorism legislation must not reduce the fundamental principle of confidentially of sources, which makes investigative journalism possible; state secrecy laws should contain a public interest defence; and commercial privacy should be limited when corporate malfeasance needs exposing in the public interest.
2.2 Media regulation
Statutory regulation of print media is inappropriate bringing politicians too close to interference in newspapers’ editorial freedom. Independent or self-regulatory regulatory bodies are the appropriate routed alongside high media standards and ethics. Where there is limited media capacity (such as terrestrial television and radio), state licensing can be justified as long as it is not used to silence critical voices. States should encourage media plurality and not limit competition but intervene to prevent media monopolies.
2.3 Libel
Archaic libel laws chill freedom of expression in too many countries around the world. The most significant chill comes from the use of criminal defamation to imprison those who criticise government officials or politicians. The use of criminal defamation laws is unjust and disproportionate, and countries should decriminalise libel in line with the recommendations of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression.
Civil defamation laws can also chill freedom of expression. Civil defamation laws must not give rise to excessive costs or damages and have adequate defences to protect the public interest, truth and fair comment.
2.4 Balancing privacy and freedom of expression
Freedom of expression and privacy are often complementary as human rights. Free speech can be chilled if individuals fear speaking out on controversial issues because they are being watched or listened too. Privacy and anonymity are important in protecting free expression in many circumstances. At the same time, the right to privacy and the right to free expression can sometimes come into conflict: investigative journalism exposing corruption, wrong-doing, abuse of power etc, must have accessible public interest defences that allows in such circumstances some invasion of privacy that would otherwise be deemed inappropriate.
2.5 Hate speech, offence and religious freedom
Hate speech and incitement to violence are increasingly confused with offence and blasphemy. There should be a very high threshold for prosecuting hate speech. Open debate can be an effective response to intolerance.
Blasphemy laws should be repealed, in particular criminal blasphemy laws that have a significant impact on religious minorities. With the expansion of the internet, content that some religious believers find blasphemous is increasingly available. Blasphemous or offensive content is neither an incitement to violence nor a reason to respond with violence. Demands to censor offensive material also present major challenges to online hosts of user-generated content, such as YouTube, Facebook and others. Offensive speech is a subjective concept – one person’s interesting idea is another’s offensive comment – and there is no right not to be offended. Moderated sites can create their own rules as to acceptable content – just as clubs or newspapers or broadcasters do, as editorial choices – but free speech means tolerating views you do not like or find offensive.
2.6 Freedom of information
Freedom of information law is an essential component of the right to freedom of expression. Countries should have freedom of information laws that prevent the over-classification of information, reduce secrecy, have a right to appeal where governments refuse information and are low-cost for citizens to use.
2.7 Freedom of assembly
Increasingly governments have introduced fines to prevent legitimate protest without licenses or permits (that are often refused). It has become a method to reduce visible, public freedom of expression. Freedom of assembly is a human right that should only be restricted in very limited circumstances for instance the protection of other human rights.
[1] A fuller version on protecting online freedom of expression can be found in the note, Standing up to threats to digital freedom
Please let us know what you think are the greatest global challenges to free speech — and let the EU know too — by leaving a comment below.
