Free Speech

'What Law have I violated" - Meet the Cartoonist who got a Twitter notice after Govt. complained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFWZLJaWWII Manjul has critiqued nine Prime Ministers through his cartoons- spanning the years between Rajiv Gandhi and Narendra Modi.. This past week he got a notice from Twitter saying they had been informed by "law enforcement " that his cartoon ( which he shared online ) was in violation of the law. Twitter has not taken any action against him yet or removed his content but said it was merely informing him of the development. He tweeted : “This cartoonist is a sinner, an atheist, and doesn’t consider Modiji as a god.”

Editors Guild condemns UP FIRs against journalists  https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/withdraw-fir-against-journalists-for-sharing-ghaziabad-man-video-editors-guild/ar-AAL9l4D EG: it is quite evident that the police has been discriminatory in targeting those media organizations and journalists- when thousands had tweeted the video that have been critical of the government and its policies...” It mentioned that it is the “duty of journalists to report on the basis of sources and in case facts become contested later on, to report the emerging versions and facets”.

FIR Against Twitter And Journalists | Faye D’Souza https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTV43Ye5Bc 

Is the job of the journalist to only report the police version of the story and not the version of the victim?

An FIR has been filed in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghaziabad district against several journalists, social media platform Twitter and Congress leaders for "provoking communal sentiments" after an elderly Muslim man was allegedly assaulted on June 5.

The FIR has been filed against journalists Rana Ayyub, Saba Naqvi and Mohammed Zubair along with online news platform ‘The Wire’ and Congress leaders Salman Nizami, Shama Mohamed and Maskoor Usmani. They have been accused of tweeting without "verifying facts" and "giving a communal colour" to the incident.

We discuss the above with the following guests:

1. Radhika Ramaseshan, Senior Journalist  https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=573 https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=803  divergent reports  https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=1031
2. Yashovardhan Azad, Former IPS Officer https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=1037  https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=1275

https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=1790 troll army police serve the govt.  No. highly But polie reforms lacking eg UAPA cases.. https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=2058

3. Pratik Sinha, Co-Founder, Alt News https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=246 No inacccuracy,  but it was safe.. https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=397  discrimination https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=573

https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=1275 language.. timeline incident june 5th,, june 14th, zuber tweet,, https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=1514

ref: Uttar Pradesh: A man thrashed for not chanting Jai Shri Ram in Ghaziabad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfhA432VUw0 Jun 14, 2021  In the last few years, such incidents have come to the fore from many states of the country where a person who does not chant Jai Shri Ram is beaten up. A similar incident has come to light where a Muslim man was thrashed on June 05 in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Some people asked this person to chant Jai Shri Ram, and this Muslim man was beaten up for not raising the slogan. In fact, the accused also called him a Pakistani spy after kidnaping this person. this elderly man was brutally assaulted by locals in Loni area of Ghaziabad.

Siddhiqi Kapan.. mpther passed away.. https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=2069  https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=2196

 https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=2208 Threat of media advisor..  https://youtu.be/kuTV43Ye5Bc?t=2337

Twitter vs Modi Govt | Ravi Shankar Prasad Twitter Ban | Dhruv Rathee Jun 26, 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQbBrwS0vg

Will Facebook, Twitter, Instagram be banned in India? | OTT Rules 2021 | Explained by Dhruv Rathee  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Fv3vQZvNw&t=0s

New govt rules for OTT content, platforms such as Google, Twitter, digital media: meaning & concerns Mar 1, 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU2Rr4j9We0

Speaking at a poll rally in Kochi, on 24th,  ahead of the April 6 state elections. Home MInister said.. “Those involved in the Jhansi nuns’ harassment incident will be brought before the law. I want to assure the people of Kerala that the culprits behind this incident will be brought to justice at the earliest,” https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shah-promises-action-as-row-over-nuns-harassment-in-up-intensifies-101616612718284.html

Home Minister Amit Shah Friday (26th March in Gauhati)  said if the BJP comes to power, laws will be implemented in Assam against “love jihad” and “land jihad”,  " Shah assured that “refugees would be granted citizenship, while infiltrators will be thrown out” — https://indianexpress.com/elections/amit-shah-love-land-jihad-elections-7246974/ 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RG5rNtoS7E

Open Letter from A J Philip.." I saw the video of your party MP, Shri KJ Alphons, meekly submitting a memorandum to you to demand action when you visited his constituency to campaign for him. Has the situation come to such a pass that a BJP MP has to ask the Union Home Minister to take action against the miscreants involved in the attack on the nuns?"

https://www.indiancurrents.org/article-open-letter-to-amit-shah-nuns-matter-no-small-matter-a-j-philip-348.php

Alas, what we saw in Jhansi are the policemen dancing to the whimsical tunes of your young party workers. They are a bigger threat to the rule of law than the bigots who claim to be the defenders of the Hindu faith...,,Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and your party have empowered them to harass anyone of their choice like the innocent nuns by enacting notorious laws like the anti-conversion law and the anti-love jihad law.  ..

Soon after Yogi became Chief Minister, a group of Christian clergy led by a Saffron-wearing Christian scholar and former IAF officer called on him at his official residence. They had a cold reception there. To break the ice, one of them said that peace was the need of the hour.

Immediately, the CM retorted: “You should teach Christians and Muslims about peace and co-existence. We Hindus believe in Vasudaiva Kudumbakam (the world is one family). You can do whatever but if you convert even one person, I will break your legs”. Crudeness could not have been bolder. It is the same mindset that you have created which is responsible for what happened at Jhansi.

Patricia Mukhim's  Facebook post -- “This continued attack on non-tribals in Meghalaya, whose ancestors have lived here for decades, some having come here since the British period is reprehensible to say the least,” Mukhim had written. “The fact that such attackers and trouble mongers since 1979 have never been arrested and if arrested never penalised according to law, suggests that Meghalaya has been a failed state for a long time now.” https://scroll.in/article/978765/patricia-mukhim-interview-one-cannot-be-too-guarded-when-one-is-in-the-pursuit-of-truth

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/free-speech-citizens-criminal-cases-supreme-court-171739 reports some observations of the Supreme court.. 

"The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153 A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed. The gist of the offence under Section 153 A IPC is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which it was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must, be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.

"The first test was for the Courts to apply the hate speech prohibition objectively and in so doing, ask whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred. The second test was to restrict interpretation of the legislative term "hatred" to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification". This would filter out and protect speech which might be repugnant and offensive, but does not incite the level of abhorrence, de-legitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or injury. The third test was for Courts to focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely, whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. Mere repugnancy of the ideas expressed is insufficient to constitute the crime attracting penalty."

The bench observed that only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquility, the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity.