воскресенье, 3 марта 2019 г.
A new media and its impact Essay
The to a greater extent time you spend in India, the more you realize that this country is wholeness of the worlds greatest wonders a miracle with a message. And the message is that commonwealth depicted objects. India is wholeness of much(prenominal) paradises on earth where you prat speak your eye out without the fear ofsomebody gunning you shine for that, or, it has been untilnow. denomination 19 of the Indian Constitution suffers immunity of talking to as the vestigial effective collective in part III. This Art. give fundamental proper(ip) to every citizen to make merry emancipation of lecture without hurting the early(a).Even if the situation of Indians is a give out better than that of their fellow citizens of different nations, the picture is non re both in entirelyy assuasive or mesmerizing for Indians whatever more. This observation is cosmos made with bust over to the exercise of the a respectable of freedom of address and formulation in th e scope of accessible media. Social media in present world subscribe to frame an important part of individuals life. Al close to every(prenominal) the plenty in the world be becoming part of brotherly media crimson judges have in addition been influenced by this affectionate media. This Social media old affect the judgement of hook. Judge as a human being withal consumption hearty media i.e. Facebook, Tweeter blog etc.Fundamental right to idiom and acquition has been hampered by the discretional apply of the so called cyber fair plays of the nation, oddly divide 66A of the instruction engineering Act, 2000. This branch gives arbitrary business leader to constabulary to arrest person by interpreting this parting for their use. Because of this arbitrariness the section 66A of IT operation is un governing bodyal and should be stuck down by the court of uprightness. ahead delving into the issue in details, it is but desirable to first understand the concept s of well-disposed media and freedom of speech and normal.SOCIAL MEDIA Social media comprises primarily internet and nimble phone based tools for sharing and discussing data. It blends technology, tele communication theory, and cordial interaction and appends a programme to communicate by scripts, pictures, films, andmusic. Social media includes web- based and mobile technologies used to turn communication into interactive dialogue. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein de handsome social media as A aggroup of internet -Based application that build on the ideological and technological backside of Web 2.0, and allow the creation and exchange of user- Generated context. Web 2. 0 refers to lucre platforms that allow for interactive participation by users. User generated content is the ca-ca for all of the ways in which people whitethorn use social media. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION Freedom of speech and convention is in the main understood as the nonion that every per son has the natural right to freely express themselves through every media and frontier without outside perturbation, such as censorship, and without fear of reprisal, such as threats andpersecutions.Thisisbecausefreedomof nerve is not absolute and carries with it special duties and responsibilities and then it may be subject to definite bulwarks provided by law. The following are some of the most commonly agree upon definitions of freedom of style that areconsidered as valid international standards Everyone has the right to freedom of assessment and expression this right includes freedom to hold opinions without racket and to curbk, receive and impart information and ideas through both media and implyless of frontiers. 1 Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, eitheroral ly, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 2 Similarly, let on 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India also confers on the citizens of India the right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of speech and expression means the right to express ones convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing,picturesoranyothermode.In the light of Moons argument, the magnificence of freedom of speech and expression trance using social media can be better understood. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND SOCIAL MEDIA/INTERNET The meshwork and Social Media has go away a vital communications tool through which individuals can exercise their right of freedom of expression and exchange information and ideas. In the past year or so, a growing causal agent of people around the world has been witnessed who are advocating for change, justice, equality, accountability of the mighty and keep for human rights.In such movement, the internet and social media has often vie a key role by enabling people to bring together and exchangeinformationinstantlyandby creating a sense of solidarity. Emphasising the importance of internet, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and fortress of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in his Report, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council, stated that the internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom and expression and hence, internet access is a human right.Report come on stressed that States should ensure that internet access is maintained at all times, even during times of political unrest. Describing new media as a orbicular network to exchange ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media, the Committee stated that the States should take all necessary locomote to foster the in calculateence of these new media and also ensure access to them.Moreover, Article 19 of th e Universal Declaration of Human Right and Article 19(2) of the planetary Covenant on well-mannered and Political Right also provides for freedom of speech and expression even in case of internet and socialmedia. Thus, it is seen that freedom of speech and expression is recognized as a fundamental right in whatever medium it is exercised under the Constitution of India and otherinternational documents. RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION The freedom of speech and expression does not confer on the citizens the right to speak orpublishwithoutresponsibility.Itisnotanupbraidedlicensegivingimmu nityforevery possible useof language andprevents punishmentfor thosewho abusethis freedom. Article19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right chit-chats restrictions on the following drive (a)For respect of the rights of reputations of others (b) For protection of national security, or public order, or public health or morals. As per Article 19(2) of the Cons titution of India, the legislature may enact laws to impose restrictions on the right to speech and expression on the following grounds (a) Sovereignty and integrity of IndiaSecurity of the State (c) Friendly relations with unknown States (d) Public order (e) Decency or morality (f) Contempt of court (g) aspersion (h) Incitement to an criminal offense CYBER LAWS OF INDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA Although there is no specific statute in India which deals with social media, there are several provisions in the existing so-called cyber laws which can be used to seek restitution in case of violation of any rights in the cyber space, internet and social media. The legislations and the germane(predicate) provisions are specifically enumerated as underThe Information Technology Act, 2000 (a) Under Chapter XI of the Act, surgical incisions 65, 66, 66A, 6C, 66D, 66E, 66F, 67, 67A and67B contain punishments for computer related law-breakings which can also be committed through social media viz . fiddle with computer source code, committing computerrelated offences given under dent 43, send repellent messages through communication services, identity theft, cheating by personation using computerresource, violation of concealment, cyber terrorism, publishing or transmit obscene material in electronic form,material containing sexually denotative act in electronic form, material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form, respectively. subsection 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Of all these provisions, Section 66A has been in password in recent times, albeit for all the awry(p) reasons. Section 66 A of Information Technology Act 2000 which provide for the punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service provide triad old age punishment and fine or both for sending message of thoroughgoing(a)ly offensive or menacing component part.For example invent profile of president by imposter, fake profile had been made b y imposter in the name of formal President Honble Pratibha Devi Patil, on social networking website, Facebook . In another case of Bomb Hoax mail case, A 15 year-old teenage of Bangalore in 2009 was arrested by the cyber-crime investigation cell (CCIC) for allegedly sending a hoax e-mail to a private news channel. 66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. each person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character or (b) any information which he knows to be misguided, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill ordain, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a bourne which may extend to three years and with fineshall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may e xtend to three years and with fine. Section 66A which punishes persons for sending offensive messages is overly broad, and curbs freedom of speech and expression and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi case3 said that a law should be just, fair and comely. Formal Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar, storied that the verbiage of Section66A is not satisfactory.It is made very wide and can entertain to all kinds of comments. The fact that some information is grossly offensive (s. 66A(a)) or that it causes annoyance or inconvenience while being known to be false (s. 66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing the freedom of speech unless it is directly related to decency or morality, public order, or defamation (or any of the four other grounds listed in Art. 19(2)). There is no pass by explanation of those lecture in this section.The expressions used in the Section are vague and ambiguous and that 66A is subject to wanton abuse in great deal of the subjective powers conferred on the police to interpret the law. It give excess power to administration for example On February 6, 2013, Sanjay Chaudhary was arrested under section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act for posting objectionable comments and caricatures of Prime see Manmohan Singh, Union Minister Kapil Sibal and Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav on his Facebook wall.However, the incident that rocked the nation was the arrest sound November of two young women, Shaheen Dadha and her friend Renu Srinivasan, for a comment posted on Facebook that questioned the shutdown of Mumbai following the demise of Shiv Sena Supremo Bal Thackeray. Looking at the construction of that word of Sec 66(A), it unintentionally prevent organisations from using proxy servers. Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunneling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. This doesnt seem to be what is think by the legislature.According to Government of India, section 66A, introduced in the 2009 amendments to the IT Act, has been taken from Section 127 of the U. K. Communications Act, 2003 it has already read down by HOUSE OF LORDS on the grounds that Parliament of U. K. could not have intended to criminalise statements that one person may reasonably find to be polite and acceptable and another may decide to be grossly offensive and regard that section as U. K. s worst provisions MEANING OF termination GROSSLY OFFENSIVE In Director of Public Prosecutions v.Collins4 case to begin with sign of the zodiac Of Lords, arising out of racist references in messages left by a constituent on the answering machine of a British MP, the House of Lords laid down a seminal test for determining whether a message is grossly offensive. Justices must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society, and that the words must be judged taking account of their context and all relevant circumstances. The House of Lords a dded that there can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particularmessage sent in its particular context. just about importantly, the House of Lords held that whether a message was grossly offensive did not depend merely on the degree of offence taken by the plaintiff but on whether it violates the basic standards of an open and just multi-racial society. DIFFERENCE amid SEC. 127 OF U. K. COMMUNICATION ACT, 2003 AND SEC. 66A OF I T ACT Section 66A (a) refers to the sending of any information through a communication service that is grossly offensive or has menacing character. In the U. K., Section 127(1)(a) makes the sending of matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character an offence. The punishment for the offence in Section 127(1) is a maximum of sixsome months imprisonment or a fine of ? 5,000 while Section 66A imposes a much m ore serious punishment of imprisonment up to three years and a fine without limit. Therefore, Section 66A(b) of the IT Act is not the very(prenominal) as Section 127(1)(b) of the U. K. Communications Act, 2003 in terms of scope of the offence or the punishment.PUNISHMENT ARTICLE 14 21 OF INDIAN makeup Punishment under this act appeared to be violative of Article 21 (right to life) and Article 14 (non-discrimination/equality). This law is not consistent with the notions of fairness while it imposes an equal punishment for different intensive offence. Section is unreasonable and arbitrary in nature. Punishment for this purposes disparate belonged together in a wiz clause is quite astounding and without parallel (except in the rest of the IT Act).Thats akin to having a single provision providing equal punishment for duty someone a moron (insult) and threatening to kill someone (criminal intimidation). There is no countervailing interest in criminalizing false and persistent insul ts, etc. , that will allow those parts of this provision to belong the test of reasonableness under Art. 19(2). Constitution of India is much stronger than that of the unwritten constitution of linked Kingdom. In India, Judiciary has the power of judicial review, whereas in United Kingdom parliament is consider supreme.Putting those two aspects together, a law that is valid in the United Kingdom might well be unconstitutional in India for failing to fall within the eight octangular walls of the reasonable restrictions allowed under Art. 19(2). That raises the question of how they deal with such broad wording in the UK. SECTION 66A ARTICLE 19 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION Section 66A of IT act violates Art. 19 of Indian constitution. This section is against the fundamental right to speech and expression. Right under Art. 19 is not absolute right. Art.According to the government, section 66A is the reasonable restriction that is imposed on freedom of speech and expression but Under Articl e 19(2), restrictions on freedom of speech and expression are reasonable if they pertain to any of the listed grounds, such as reign and integrity of India, etc. But under Section 66A, restrictions have been place on freedom of speech and expression on several other grounds, apart from those mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore it is violates Art.The current equivalent laws in the States is US Federal Anti-Cyber-Stalking law, this law prohibit harassment or walk legislation. This act awards punishment up to one year or fine of up to $ 1000. In Australia, the Stalking Amendment Act (1999) was introduce to include the use of any form of technology to harass a target as forms of criminal still hunt. In Poland Stalking, there is Polish Criminal Code 2011 which including cyber stalking as a criminal offence, this act awards six month punishment SOCIAL MEDIA JUDICIARYImproved communications technology and social media, such as Twitter, Google + and Facebook, are changing the face of journalism. Media like affecting all the institutions of the Government also affect the Judiciary. It completely overlooks the vital gap betwixt an criminate and a convict keeping at stake the fortunate principles of presumption of innocence until proven guilty and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Media itself does a separate investigation, builds a public opinion against the accused even onwards the court takes cognizance of the case.By this way, it prejudices the public and sometimes even judges and as a result the accused, that should be presume innocent, is presumed as a criminal leaving all his rights and liberty unredressed. Results in characterizing him as a person who had indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue interference with the administration of justice, calling for proceedings for contempt of court against the media. other(a) than this, Twitter, Facebook, and other forms of social media are causing difficulties for judges who are stressful to administer fair trials.For example, what rules should there be, if any, on whether judges tweet during a case? Should courts be able to monitor the social-networking contacts of attorneys during a trial, and what about witnesses or even parties? Should there be limits on all use or just limits on what is said? The questions seem endless, and the answers certainly are not easy. Should judges or their campaigns be able to use Facebook and have friends that may be potential parties before the court or attorneys appearing in court?Is it appropriate for judges to have a personal Facebook page separate from a professional one, or is that activity unbecoming the judicatory?. Right now there is a patchwork of rulings on these issues but, for the most part, no definitive rules exist. If there are no rules, it can become a treacherous terrain for media-savvy judges to navigate. Some of the people are entirely against the blog of judges but some other advocate that and see it as a way to educate the public about the court function. CONCLUSIONIt is clearly evident that social media is a very powerful means of exercising ones freedom of speech and expression. However, it is also been increasingly used for illegal acts which has given force to the Governments attempts at censoring social media. Where on the one hand, the slander of social media entails the need for legal censorship, on the other hand, there are legitimatize fears of violation of civil rights of people as an inevitable consequence of censorship. What is therefore desirable is regulation of social media, not its censorship.However, the present cyber laws of India are uncomplete appropriate nor adequate in this respect. An analysis of the existing IT laws shows that there is incomprehensible and immense power in the hands of the Government while transaction with security in the cyber space. Even then, it is not sufficient to check the misuse of social media. Section 66A certainly does not engage in the flabby ba lancing inevitable to pursue the legitimate objective of preventing criminal intimidation and danger through social media without going no further than required in a democratic society to achieve that end.The drafters of Section 66A(b) have equated known criminal offences in the real world with acts such as causing annoyance and inconvenience that can never constitute an offence in the real world and should not be offences in the practical(prenominal) world. Therefore, the legislative restrictions on freedom of speech in Section 66A (b) cannot be considered as being necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Section 66A should not be considered a reasonable restriction within the mean of Article 19 of the Constitution and must be struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech.If political speech, that is, disapproval of politicians and exposure of corruption continues to be punished by arrest preferably of being protected, Indias precious democracy and fr ee society will be no more. Hence, a specific legislation is desirable to govern social media. However, there are many practical difficulties which may tog out while doing so. There is a very thin line which demarcates the delectation of ones right and the violation of the enjoyment of elses right in the process. In social media, the exercise of freedom of speech and expression by one may result in the invasion of privacy and defamation.The provision should be made in accordance with the reasonable restriction provided under article 19(2) of Indian Constitution. While persistent false communications for the purpose of annoying, insulting, inconveniencing, or causing ill will should not be criminalized (if need be, having it as a civil offence would more than suffice), doing so for the purpose of causing danger or criminal intimidation should. A provision is needed to penalise hoax bomb threats, then the provision clearly should not be mentioning words like annoyance, and should n ot be made persistent.The act should define the punishment consort to the malic intension of the offender, less punishment should be awarded for less intensity of offence. Media should not be allowed to call a person as an accused before a court of law held that person as an accused. A blog or a Facebook account should be made in the name of Courts, to provide information on legal issue.