Communalism
Germany tightens online hate speech rules to make platforms send reports straight to the feds June 19, 2020 https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/19/germany-tightens-online-hate-speech-rules-to-make-platforms-send-reports-straight-to-the-feds/ Germany’s existing Network Enforcement Act (aka the NetzDG law) came into force in the country in 2017, putting an obligation on social network platforms to remote hate speech within set deadlines as tight as 24 hours for easy cases — with fines of up to €50M should they fail to comply...Yesterday the parliament passed a reform which extends NetzDG by placing a reporting obligation on platforms which requires them to report certain types of “criminal content” to the Federal Criminal Police Office.
A wider reform of the NetzDG law remains ongoing in parallel, that’s intended to bolster user rights and transparency, including by simplifying user notifications and making it easier for people to object to content removals and have successfully appealed content restored, among other tweaks. Broader transparency reporting requirements are also looming for platforms.
The NetzDG law has always been controversial, with critics warning from the get go that it would lead to restrictions on freedom of expression by incentivizing platforms to remove content rather than risk a fine. (Aka, the risk of ‘overblocking’.) In 2018 Human Rights Watch dubbed it a flawed law — critiquing it for being “vague, overbroad, and turn[ing] private companies into overzealous censors to avoid steep fines, leaving users with no judicial oversight or right to appeal”.
The Impact of the German NetzdG law https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-projects/the-impact-of-the-german-netzdg-law/ Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, or NetzDG law represents a key test for combatting hate speech on the internet. Under the law, which came into effect on January 1, 2018, online platforms face fines of up to €50 million for systemic failure to delete illegal content. Supporters see the legislation as a necessary and efficient response to the threat of online hatred and extremism. Critics view it as an attempt to privatise a new ‘draconian’ censorship regime, forcing social media platforms to respond to this new painful liability with unnecessary takedowns.
This study shows that the reality is in between these extremes. NetzDG has not provoked mass requests for takedowns. Nor has it forced internet platforms to adopt a ‘take down, ask later’ approach. At the same time, it remains uncertain whether NetzDG has achieved significant results in reaching its stated goal of preventing hate speech.
Comment: Is it similar to our SC atrocities act?
Hate Speech On TV: Are Court Guidelines The Only Solution? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRoSh0_Ogoc
Sep 23, 2022 Supreme Court pulled up TV news channels for propagating hate just to gain TRP. The court said that it is the anchor's duty to intervene at the right time. NDTV's motto has always been 'no hate for profit'. On Big Fight, India's longest-running debate Show, we discuss with journalists, politicians and lawyers about whether court guidelines are the only solution to stop the nuisance happening on TV channels.
"Hate peddling is state-sponsored": Journalist Ashutosh | The Big Fight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI7SzNy2krE Sep 23, 2022 Journalist Ashutosh on Supreme Court's remarks about hate speech on TV says that the hate is state-sponsored and the anchors are mere puppets. He says that the anchors who dared to speak against it (the state) were shown exit doors.
Govt a ‘mute witness’ to hate speech problem, says SC, suggests Vishaka-like code for TV debates https://theprint.in/judiciary/govt-a-mute-witness-to-hate-speech-problem-says-sc-suggests-vishaka-like-code-for-tv-debates/1137477/ BHADRA SINHA
21 September, 2022
The Supreme Court Wednesday criticised the manner in which television channels conduct debates, observing that a methodology should be laid down for such discussions to ensure that they do not fuel hate speech. “If the anchor is going to take a lion’s share of the time of the debate, if the question of the anchor is so longish and time given to the person responding is short and even in that short period, all the time he is run down, made some kind of a rogue, is not fair. You have to be fair to everyone. It all has to be done fairly,” said Justice Joseph, emphasising that a system should be put in place so that there is “real freedom of the press” as well as that of the “listener” so that the latter does not go astray.
When counsel for the National Broadcasting Association (NBA) informed the bench that it had a system to penalise violators, the judges remarked: “But the problem still persists. You may have given 4,000 orders, but what is the effect of such orders?”
A bench of justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy also chastised the Centre for not being “proactive” in addressing the rising phenomenon of hate speech and instead treating it as a “trivial matter”.
The bench also indicated that, in the absence of a specific law, it might lay down guidelines — as was done in the Vishaka judgment that had devised a mechanism to deal with incidents of sexual harassment at the workplace — to define the contours of hate speech. The guidelines, it said, would put in place an institutional mechanism to tackle complaints of hate speech.
for the Judges comment on TV see https://www.emeets.lnwr.in/2968-sc-comments-on-tv-hate-speech
Systematic incitement plan in Maharashtra https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/systematic-incitement-plan-maharashtra/article66894385.ece by Abhinay Deshpand May 26, 2023
Recurring communal incidents over the last six months, with three places reporting clashes within 48 hours across different regions in Maharashtra, portend a disturbing pattern of using religion to fuel political interests. Because they are localised, there is no mass outrage about governance, but they’re potent enough to spread divisions across the State, finds Abhinay Deshpande
No specific law against hate speech: Election Commission
Krishnadas Rajagopal SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/hate-speech-took-action-under-provisions-of-ipc-rp-act-due-to-lack-of-specific-law-ec-tells-sc/article65889106.ece
The ECI said the Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, (https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report267.pdf ) had not made any recommendations with regard to a specific query (from the Supreme Court) on whether the ECI ought to be conferred with the power to derecognise a political party, disqualifying its members for committing the "offence of hate speech".
Neither did the Law Commission make any recommendations to the Parliament to strengthen the Election Commission to curb the "menace of hate speeches, irrespective of whenever made".
The ECI said the Law Commission had rest content by suggesting amendments in the criminal law to "penalise the offence of incitement to hatred and causing fear, alarm or provocation of violence in certain cases".
The poll body said hate speeches were "often interconnected with appeals to religion, caste, community, etc, during election campaigning.
It referred to several apex court judgments, among them the Abhiram Singh case, which had held that "any appeal to vote or refrain from voting for a candidate on the grounds of religion, caste, race, community or language by a candidate or his agent to the electors would amount to corrupt practice under the 1951 Act".
This judgment had been brought to the notice of political parties in January 2017. The parties were told by the ECI to desist from making hate statements. Hate speech and communal statements by candidates or their agents could be raised in election petitions.
Though the Model Code of Conduct had no "legal sanctity", the ECI said it had introduced guidelines in the Code asking parties to desist from making communal statements.
Hindu report in 2017: The Law Commission recommends two new provisions in IPC
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017 suggested by the Commission proposes to add Section 153C (prohibiting incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) in the IPC and make the necessary changes in the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Commission defines hate speech as an “incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like”. Thus, “hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
What did the Law Commission say about Hate Speech in its 2017 report?
BY BHARATH KANCHARLA ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 https://factly.in/review-what-did-the-law-commission-say-about-hate-speech-in-its-2017-report/ In many countries including India, the challenge with identification & codification of Hate Speech is to balance it with right to the Freedom of Expression that is guaranteed to its citizens. It is also important to ensure that the freedom is not put to indiscriminate use, especially by those who are powerful and thereby compromising and infringing on the rights of the disadvantaged communities.
https://scroll.in/article/832978/does-india-need-stronger-hate-speech-laws-the-law-commission-seems-to-thinks-so
Proposed amendments
The first would deal with an incitement to hatred. It says:
“Who ever, on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe –
(a) uses gravely threatening words either spoken or written, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause, fear or alarm; or
(b) advocates hatred by words either spoken or written, signs, visible representations, that causes incitement to violence
shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of up to Rs 5,000.”
The second proposed amendment would curb speech that causes fear, alarm or is a provocation to violence. It says:
“Whoever in public intentionally on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe uses words, or displays any writing, sign, or other visible representation which is gravely threatening, or derogatory:
(i) within the hearing or sight of a person, causing fear or alarm, or;
(ii) with the intent to provoke the use of unlawful violence,
will be punished with imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 5,000.”