A special series that focuses sharp attention on online abuse
CRACK THE WHIP Our cyber cells need to work more closely with Interpol, which supports police worldwide, including digital forensic teams and training officers
Rape and death threats are flying across social media
Read first person aCCounts from feisty women who are targeted on a daily basis. They take on their trolls and ask CritiCal questions. In the fourth of a seven-part series, Supreme Court lawyer KARuNA
NuNDy weighs in on legal options: “Freedom of expression doesn’t inClude the right to someone else’s attention or mind spaCe, though trolls often invoke free speeCh when bloCked.”
When the case against online free speech began, the additional solicitor general handed some lurid pictures to the bench: of gods and prophets in obscene positions. The images, designed to offend, were meant to show the court what decent folk must suffer online, and why a toobroad law criminalising the “annoying” and “inconvenient” must remain.
We — counsel for civil liberties organisations and media technology companies — argued for free speech on the internet. The law, which made criminals of those who shared the start ling pictures before us then, is still slowly crushing a professor of Jadavp ur University in a criminal case for sharing a political cartoon based on a children’s story by Satyajit Ray.
The court struck down the law, and in doing so carried forward the deep values of free speech jurisprudence.
What then of the troll s—and others who distribute online offensive pictures of gods, make threats, and systematically target women and minorities? Troll as a word conjures up a lonely raging soul but of course hatred isn’t spread by solitary malevolents. The terrorist group IS has proven nimble in moving between social media platforms, and using encrypted tools like Telegram and TOR.
At home, the BJP’s 5,000-strong IT cell that helped win the UP elections, has among its legitimate campaign work, the tr ending hash tag# K as ab Against Hindu. A member of the UP IT cell told News laundry :“A dangerous online army of lakhs is following us, which is not in our control.”
How then can a media technology company, the legal system and a speaker online limit hate speech without hacking away at free expression?
Media tech companies are obliged contractually to stick to their terms of service,but they struggle with volume of data. And the largest companies have a bit of a nationality problem. Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Microsoft signed up for the European Commission’s code of conduct that includes a commitmentto review most valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech within 24 hours. This prompted focused technologicalinnovation and better staffing for European markets. In the US, new tools on Twitter to deal with harassment were developed after the late American co median Robin William s’ s daughter was brutal ly harassed following his suicide. Death-and-rape threats in India haven’ t had the same results from the headquarters. Last month, Twitter developed an algorithm to weed out abuse. Google is testing an artificial intelligence tool, Perspective, to help editors of media companies maintain “civil and thoughtful” user engagement. Algorithms are essential to manage the volume of speech produced each day, but they make mistakes. To make sure “false positives” aren’ t censored—speech that’s not unlawfully abusive or against terms of service — there’s no way around robust staffing of safety teams. Sunlight’s the best disinfectant here also. Facebook and Twitter have published transparency reports on state censorship. Tech media should consider transparency reports of speech they censor themselves. The Twitter population is larger than that of the United States; Facebook has more people than US and Europe put together. Holding elections on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms for democratic user representation, say on appeal committees, would be welcome. Freedom of expression doesn’t include the right to someone else’s attention or mind space—though trolls often invoke free speech when blocked. In the Indian context, trolling is much worse against, say, women, Muslims and homosexuals. Mental space is precious, and trolls by definition don’t take ideas forward. An abusive or boring and repetitive handle is easier to block than swatting a fly. For threats and certain kinds of abuse there is the criminal law. Most laws criminalising speech are oppressive, though. And wouldn’t get past the standards of the progressive constitutional bench judgments of the Supreme Court or indeed the Shreya Singhal judgment, the online free speech case described above.
A lot of the laws criminalising speech silence legitimate speech, against the doctrines of Overbreadth and chilling effect that should not allow such laws to stand.
Ultimately, it’s empirical data on the impact of hate speech that would demonstrate whether and how they incite violence or discrimination, and, if, therefore, they are tailored to the ends they seek.
A recent example of egregious criminal process initiated against online speech is the FIR registered against Prashant B hush an after he made a comment on Lord Krishna. There was no criminal offence in his tweet, yet an FIR was filed.
Even for a senior lawyer, the process of seeking an FIR to be quashed is the punishment itself. The SC limits on anti-speech laws such as Section 153 A and 295 A need to be included in the police’s versions of the Penal Code to limit their overbreadth.
If the law at the very least prevented the filing of FIRsw here there are apologies and swift take down of content, the jurisprudenceof online hate speech would be more reasonable in its restrictions. By contrast, where there are threats to rape or kill, law enforcement flounders. Bizarre ly, Section 506 on personal threats is bailable in New Delhi, Section 354D on physical and cyber stalking is also a bailable offence. Online media companies don’t disclose user data fast enough, and as soon as the I Pt rail leads to a server outside the country the trail peters out.
While laws and police are national, most cybercrimes are transnational, even if via VPNs.Ourc yb erc ells need to work more closely with the Interpol, who support police forces worldwide, including digital forensics and training officers. Developing jurisprudence on civil
damages for the invasion of privacy, sexual harassment, and defamation — subject to proof of damage — would in many instances be more reasonable than criminal restrictions on speech.
Over years, the norms of Indian conversationsboth online and offline have shifted dramatically against religious minorities, seculars and progressives, while there have been positive shifts in some pockets towards the equality of gender sand sexualities.Those who believe in a universal right to life have been startled out of their complacency by the normalisation of Pehlu Khan’s murder, and by Mohammad Ikhlaq’s murderer being draped in the national flag.
I engage publicly—online, on television and through public lectures — because moving societal norms towards equality, freedom and rule of law is part of the work of creating justice.
As a lawyer I am trolled less than others, but after one discussion on the Ishrat Jahan case, I got hundreds of violent messages, including wishes that my family would die in a terror attack. This was during court holidays. I blocked the incorrigiblesand warned them, made jokes against the silly misogyny and logic ally countered reasonable questions.
Many people came forward in support, some in admiration, because though I am a lawyer, every time a woman deals effectively with trolls there are others watching and feel strengthened to speak out.
In an age when secularism is bigotry, ignorance is power and equality is dominance, clear voices rising above the discordant cacophony can move norms towards freedom. And freedom is why the caged bird sings.