This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-facebook-arrests/2015/03/24/9ca54e3c-608f-46d7-a32a-57918fdd9c35_story.html?wprss=rss_world

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
India's Supreme Court strikes down law that led to Facebook arrests India's Supreme Court strikes down law that led to Facebook arrests
(about 1 hour later)
NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a provision of a law that made it illegal for anyone to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a provision of a law that made it illegal for anyone to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.
In a decision hailed as a victory for free speech, Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman ruled that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.In a decision hailed as a victory for free speech, Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman ruled that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.
“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”
India passed the Information Technology Act in 2000, but an amendment that went into effect in 2009 gave authorities broad power to arrest citizens who post content deemed “grossly offensive” or false. The offense was punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine. India passed the Information Technology Act in 2000, and an amendment that went into effect in 2009 gave authorities broad power to arrest citizens who post content deemed “grossly offensive” or false. The offense was punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine.
Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said that the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam but that it did not turn out that way.Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said that the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam but that it did not turn out that way.
“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.
In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including that of a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and an artist who drew a set of cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament. In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including that of a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and an artist who drew cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.
The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that said Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend, who merely “liked” the post, also was arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped. The most well known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that said Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend who merely “liked” the post also was arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.
The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.
[When — and where — posting the wrong thing to Facebook can get you arrested][When — and where — posting the wrong thing to Facebook can get you arrested]
“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”
Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that a section of the technology act that allowed the government to block Web sites containing questionable material also was unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that a section of the technology act that allowed the government to block Web sites containing questionable material also was unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.
Free speech is enshrined in the Indian constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often banned or censored out of consideration for the sentiments of religious and minority groups.Free speech is enshrined in the Indian constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often banned or censored out of consideration for the sentiments of religious and minority groups.
Last year, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book on Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And more recently, the government blocked a planned television debut of a documentary on a 2012 gang rape called “India’s Daughter.” Last year, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book on Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And, more recently, the government blocked a planned television debut of a documentary on a 2012 gang rape called “India’s Daughter.”
[India blocks film about 2012 New Delhi rape case][India blocks film about 2012 New Delhi rape case]
The Indian government, whose attorney had argued in court that the legislature was in the best position to understand the needs of the people, also welcomed the decision. The government, whose attorney had argued in court that the legislature was in the best position to understand the needs of the people, also welcomed the decision.
“The government is committed to free speech. India is a democratic country, and free flow of ideas should be respected. We do not seek to curtail any rights,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad, the minister of communications and information technology. He cautioned, however, that social media users and platforms should show some self-restraint.“The government is committed to free speech. India is a democratic country, and free flow of ideas should be respected. We do not seek to curtail any rights,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad, the minister of communications and information technology. He cautioned, however, that social media users and platforms should show some self-restraint.
In recent years, other nations also have sharply increased monitoring and crackdowns on Web posts perceived as insulting.In recent years, other nations also have sharply increased monitoring and crackdowns on Web posts perceived as insulting.
Across the Persian Gulf Arab states, dozens of activists have been arrested for social media posts considered insulting to the countries’ rulers or tarnishing the national image. In January 2014, an American national was allowed to leave the United Arab Emirates after serving more than eight months in prison for posting a YouTube video spoofing the UAE’s youth culture. Across the Persian Gulf Arab states, dozens of activists have been arrested for social media posts considered insulting to the countries’ rulers or damaging to the national image. In January 2014, an American national was allowed to leave the United Arab Emirates after serving more than eight months in prison for posting a YouTube video spoofing the UAE’s youth culture.
India has the third-highest number of Internet users in the world, but only 20 percent of the population has at least occasional access to the Internet, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center.India has the third-highest number of Internet users in the world, but only 20 percent of the population has at least occasional access to the Internet, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center.
Abraham, who praised the court’s decision, said that if Section 66A had not been struck down, it would have had a negative effect on free speech as Internet usage grew, giving people less opportunity to voice dissent and criticism. Abraham, who praised the court’s decision, said that if Section 66A had not been struck down, it would have had a negative effect on free speech as Internet usage grew.
Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report.Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report.