How often do you speak your mind and conclude with ‘No offence.’ Now whether we use this as a scapegoat or with true intentions, who knows? But according to Article 66A of the Information Technology Act, which basically sentences a person for a three year jail term or possible fine if they were posting ‘offensive’ messages through any electronic device, there is no distinction.
Image: tarck.in
First, the usage of vague terms like ‘annoying’ and ‘grossly offensive’ which have a dynamic connotation shifting from one person to another have the potential to be gravely misused which has been precisely the case when our dedicated police department promptly follows our dear politicians orders to take down people posting ‘critical’ but in their eyes ‘defaming’, ‘harmful’, ‘menacing’, and ‘offensive’ messages on social media or via phones, etc. concerning them. Moreover, who draws the line between offence and gross offence? How legit is that offence? More importantly, who is being offended and who is offending him/her? Second, it violates Article 19(1) A of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The extension and limitation of this currently trending phrase is brought up in almost every debate where censoring, banning, protests etc. are concerned. Should we post anything we feel about anybody without contemplating its aftermath or subsequent effect on the person concerned? If we do constrain ourselves by not using powerful, maybe even rude, language so as to not ‘offend’ the other person, we aren’t really exercising our freedom of speech, are we? Who will decide where our freedom to express ends and the other person’s right to get hurt can be claimed?
The pitfalls are glaring when two girls are arrested for penning their thoughts about their state affairs on social media. Let’s all put our hands together to applaud the efforts of Shreya Singhal who moved the court in 2012 to strike down this particular act. Her efforts bore fruit when the Supreme Court quashed this Article on 24 March 2015 stating the above mentioned reasons.
A plethora of cases have been reported where people are arrested when they post, what is deemed ‘offensive’, about politicians or religious leaders. Now, the government is expressing their keenest desire to uphold this ‘draconian’ (in their terms) law in order to prevent communal tension. The card of religion never fails, eh? Utter this word in matters of law and suddenly the entire country’s hearts are gripped with anxiety and fear and an eminent threat to their ‘religious sentiments’ looms large. It is a surprising feat that we achieved moving past this irrational fear and welcoming this action as a positive one.
Since we are ignorant about the fine distinction between ‘truth’ and ‘offense’, our need to constantly filter our thoughts to please others and not cause too much damage stands in the way of our desire to state what we believe! If we are to talk about the infamous defence lawyers of the rapists of the 16 December gang-rape, it would be a violation of their freedom of speech if we were to ask for their arrest for the sexist remarks. Again, the question of who decides what is wrong and ‘menacing’ which cannot come under the umbrella of freedom of speech?
There are no fixed demarcations. What we must do is redefine the limits of our freedom. But if there are limits, are we really free? How dangerous can unrestrained freedom be? Who has the right to impose restrictions on our freedom? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to these potent questions.
Tags: 66A Article 66A Freedom of speech india
