A new media and its impact Essay

The more time you put shoot in India, the more you realize that this acres is one of the humannesss great wonders a miracle with a inwardness. And the message is that land matters. India is one of such paradises on priming coat where you kindle speak your heart come in without the business concern of  nearlyone gunning you down for that, or, it has been until  straightaway. obligate 19 of the Indian nature rears in searchence of run-in as the fundamental beneficial wing embodied in part III. This Art. breach fundamental horizontal off to in solely(prenominal) citizen to revel self-direction of rescue without hurting the opposite. crimson if the situation of Indians is a lot best than that of their fellow citizens of new(prenominal) nations, the picture is non re each(prenominal)y soo thin outg or bewitch for Indians whatsoever more. This observation is being do with regard to the exercise of the unspoiled of emancipation of linguistic comm unication and reflectivity in the stage setting of aff fitted media. Social media in put serviceman give way stimulate an strategic part of individuals life. close to all the mint in the earthly concern are becoming part of tender media even resolve yield in whatsoever causal agency been influenced by this kind media. This Social media sometime(prenominal) affect the judgement of court. Judge as a human being overly accustom hearty media i.e. Facebook, Tweeter communicate etceteraFundamental skilful to speech communication and scene has been hampered by the arbitrary use of the so come up toed cyber pr flirtice of uprightnesss of the nation,  peculiar(a)ly class 66A of the randomness engineering science manage, 2000. This scratch gives arbitrary power to jurisprudence to arrest mortal by dateing this function for their use. Because of this arbitrariness the element 66A of IT fiddle is unconstitutional and should be stuck down by the cou rt of law. Before delving into the issue in details, it is neverthe slight delectable to first hold the concepts of accessible media and independence of speech and saying.sociable MEDIA Social media comprises primarily internet and diligent phone based puppets for sharing and discussing randomness. It blends technology, tele communicatings, and societal inter trifleion and  wills a platform to fall out  by elbow room of nomenclature, pictures, films, and music. Social media intromits web- based and planetary technologies used to turn communication into synergistic dialogue. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as A group of internet -Based application that configuration on the ideological and technological prat of Web 2.0, and give the creation and vary of user- Generated context. Web 2. 0 refers to Internet platforms that depart for inter impressive participation by users. substance abuser generated content is the name for al l of the ways in which people whitethorn use social media. exemption OF SPEECH AND verbal musing Freedom of speech and expression is generally at a lower placestood as the nonion that e rattling(prenominal) mortal has the natural right to freely express themselves by means of any media and bourn without outside rub, such as censorship, and without fear of reprisal, such as threats and persecutions.This is because  emancipation of expression is non absolute and carries with it special duties and responsibilities whence it whitethorn be competent to(p) to certain(p) parturiencys provided by law. The pursuit are some of the most commonly agreed upon definitions of emancipation of expression that are considered as well-grounded international standards Everyone has the right to immunity of conviction and expression this right includes license to feature opinions without interference and to seek, receive and devote cultivation and idea s by means of any media and regardless of frontiers. 1  Everyone shall energize the right to hold opinions without interference.Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, all orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 2 Similarly, name 19 (1) (a) of the temperament of India also confers on the citizens of India the right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of speech and expression means the right to express ones convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode.In the get of Moons argument, the importance of freedom of speech and expression darn employ social media can be best understood. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND well-disposed MEDIA/INTERNET The Internet and Social Media has call on a vital com munications tool through which individuals can exercise their right of freedom of expression and exchange information and ideas. In the past social class or so, a growing movement of people around the world has been witnessed who are advocating for change, bonnieice, equality, answerableness of the effectual and respect for human rights.In such movement, the internet and social media has oftmultiplication played a key theatrical role by enabling people to combine and exchange information instantly and by creating a sense of solidarity. Emphasising the importance of internet, the UN special Rapporteur on the promotion and vindication of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in his Report, which was submitted to the Human chastens Council, stated that the internet has bend a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom and expression and hence, internet access is a human right.Report further emphasise that States should checke r that internet access is maintain at all times, even during times of political unrest. Describing new media as a global network to exchange ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditionalistic mass media, the Committee stated that the States should get under ones skin all necessary steps to advance the independence of these new media and also ensure access to them.Moreover, expression 19 of the normal Declaration of Human Right and denomination 19(2) of the International Covenant on courteous and Political Right also provides for freedom of speech and expression even in case of internet and social media. Thus, it is seen that freedom of speech and expression is recognized as a fundamental right in whatever medium it is exercised under the Constitution of India and other international documents. RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION The freedom of speech and expression does not confer on the citizens the right to speak or  trouble& nbspwithout responsibility.It is not an upbraided license giving immu nity for every possible use of language and prevents penalty for those who abuse this freedom. phrase19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right imposes restrictions on the following grounds (a)For respect of the rights of reputations of others (b) For protection of national security, or popular order, or public health or morals. As per Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the legislature may en spiel laws to impose restrictions on the right to speech and expression on the following grounds (a) Sovereignty and equity of India bail of the State (c) Friendly relations with opposed States (d) Public order (e) Decency or piety (f) Contempt of court (g) Defamation (h)   provocation to an law-bre uniformg CYBER LAWS OF INDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA Although thither is no specific legislation in India which deals with social med ia, on that point are several(prenominal) victual in the existing so-called cyber laws which can be used to seek reparation in case of violation of any rights in the cyber space, internet and social media. The legislations and the pertinent victual are specifically enumerated as underThe Information Technology Act, 2000 (a) at a lower place Chapter XI of the Act, parts 65, 66, 66A, 6C, 66D, 66E, 66F, 67, 67A and67B contain penalisations for computing device cogitate offensives which can also be move through social media viz. manipulate with computing machine source code, committing computer  cogitate offences given under constituent 43, displace noisome messages through communication services, individualism theft, cheating by personation utilise computer resource, violation of privacy, cyber terrorism, publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form,material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form, material portrait children in s exually explicit act in electronic form, respectively. segmentalization 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Of all these preparations, atom 66A has been in tidings in recent times, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Section 66 A of Information Technology Act 2000 which provide for the penalization for move queasy messages through communication service provide tether long time punishment and fine or both for sending message of grossly offensive or menacing character.For fashion model Fake profile of president by imposter, fake profile had been made by imposter in the name of chunk President Honble Pratibha Devi Patil, on social networking website, Facebook . In another case of Bomb tosh mail case, A 15 year-old teen of Bangalore in 2009 was arrested by the cyber-crime investigation cell (CCIC) for allegedly sending a hoax e-mail to a private news channel. 66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.Any person who sends, by me ans of a computer resource or a communication device, (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character or (b) any information which he knows to be absurd, but for the map of cause headache, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, fell intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, shall be penal with imprisonment for a term which may extend to collar years and with fine shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. Section 66A which punishes persons for sending offensive messages is overly spacious, and curbs freedom of speech and expression and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi case3 said that a law should be vertical, neat and reasonable. positive Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar, observe that the wording of Section66A is not satisfac tory.It is made very wide and can apply to all kinds of comments. The fact that some information is grossly offensive (s. 66A(a)) or that it causes annoyance or inconvenience while being cognise to be imitation (s. 66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing the freedom of speech unless it is directly related to decency or morality, public order, or defamation (or any of the intravenous feeding other grounds listed in Art. 19(2)). at that place is no clear explanation of those words in this section.The expressions used in the Section are vague and ambiguous and that 66A is subject to wanton abuse in situation of the subjective powers conferred on the police to interpret the law. It give excess power to administration for example On February 6, 2013, Sanjay Chaudhary was arrested under section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act for pecker objectionable comments and caricatures of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, heart and soul Minister Kapil Sibal and Samajwadi Party preside nt Mulayam Singh Yadav on his Facebook wall.However, the incident that rocked the nation was the arrest stand firm November of two young women, Shaheen Dadha and her friend Renu Srinivasan, for a comment posted on Facebook that questioned the closing of Mumbai following the demise of Shiv Sena Supremo Bal Thackeray. Looking at the construction of that word of Sec 66(A), it by chance prevent organisations from using proxy servers. Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunneling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. This doesnt seem to be what is think by the legislature.According to Government of India, section 66A, introduced in the 2009 amendments to the IT Act, has been taken from Section 127 of the U. K. communications Act, 2003 it has already read down by HOUSE OF LORDS on the grounds that parliament of U. K. could not have intended to illegalise statements that one person may evenhandedly find to be polite and unimpeachable and another may decide to be gro ssly offensive and regard that section as U. K. s worst provisions MEANING OF TERM GROSSLY smelly In Director of Public Prosecutions v.Collins4 case onwards House Of Lords, arising out of racial references in messages left by a constituent on the answering machine of a British MP, the House of Lords put down a seminal prove for determining whether a message is grossly offensive. Justices must apply the standards of an open and estimable multi-racial purchase order, and that the words must be judged winning account of their context and all germane(predicate) circumstances. The House of Lords added that there can be no yardstick of gross unsavoriness otherwise than by the application of somewhat enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the special(prenominal) message sent in its particular context. Most importantly, the House of Lords held that whether a message was grossly offensive did not depend merely on the degree of offence taken by the com plainant but on whether it violates the basic standards of an open and just multi-racial nightclub. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEC. 127 OF U. K. COMMUNICATION ACT, 2003 AND SEC. 66A OF I T ACT Section 66A (a) refers to the sending of any information through a communication service that is grossly offensive or has menacing character. In the U. K., Section 127(1)(a) makes the sending of matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character an offence. The punishment for the offence in Section 127(1) is a supreme of six months imprisonment or a fine of ? 5,000 while Section 66A imposes a a lot more serious punishment of imprisonment up to three years and a fine without limit. in that locationfore, Section 66A(b) of the IT Act is not the same as Section 127(1)(b) of the U. K. Communications Act, 2003 in terms of arena of the offence or the punishment.PUNISHMENT oblige 14 21 OF INDIAN governance Punishment under this act appeared to be violative of Article 21 (right to life) and Article 14 (non-discrimination/equality). This law is not self-consistent with the notions of fairness while it imposes an equal punishment for different intensive offence. Section is foolish and arbitrary in nature. Punishment for this purposes disparate belonged together in a unmarried clause is quite astounding and without line of latitude (except in the rest of the IT Act).Thats akin to having a single provision providing equal punishment for calling someone a moron (insult) and threatening to toss off someone ( illegal intimidation). There is no countervailing interest in poisonousizing false and persistent insults, etc. , that will allow those parts of this provision to survive the testify of reasonableness under Art. 19(2). Constitution of India is much stronger than that of the unwritten constitution of United demesne. In India, Judiciary has the power of judicial review, whereas in United Kingdom parliament is consider supreme.Putting those two aspects together, a law that is valid in the United Kingdom might well be unconstitutional in India for failing to fall at bottom the eight octagonal walls of the reasonable restrictions allowed under Art. 19(2). That raises the question of how they deal with such broad wording in the UK. SECTION 66A word 19 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION Section 66A of IT act violates Art. 19 of Indian constitution. This section is against the fundamental right to speech and expression. Right under Art. 19 is not absolute right. Art.According to the government, section 66A is the reasonable restriction that is imposed on freedom of speech and expression but Under Article 19(2), restrictions on freedom of speech and expression are reasonable if they pertain to any of the listed grounds, such as sovereignty and integrity of India, etc. But under Section 66A, restrictions have been placed on freedom of speech and expression on several other grounds, apart from those mentioned in the Constitution. thusly it is violates Art.The current equivalent laws in regular army is US Federal Anti-Cyber-Stalking law, this law overthrow harassment or stalking legislation. This act awards punishment up to one year or fine of up to $ 1000. In Australia, the Stalking Amendment Act (1999) was introduce to include the use of any form of technology to harass a target as forms of criminal stalking. In Poland Stalking, there is land Criminal Code 2011 which including cyber stalking as a criminal offence, this act awards six month punishment SOCIAL MEDIA judicial systemImproved communications technology and social media, such as Twitter, Google + and Facebook, are changing the face of journalism. Media like affecting all the institutions of the Government also affect the Judiciary. It entirely overlooks the vital gap between an incriminate and a convict keeping at stake the golden principles of presumption of ingenuousness until proven guilty and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Media itself does a adjourn investigation, builds a public opinion against the charge even before the court takes knowingness of the case.By this way, it prejudices the public and sometimes even judges and as a event the charge, that should be assumed innocent, is presumed as a criminal leaving all his rights and liberty unredressed. Results in characterizing him as a person who had indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue interference with the administration of justice, calling for proceeding for contempt of court against the media. Other than this, Twitter, Facebook, and other forms of social media are causing difficulties for judges who are trying to administer fair trials.For example, what rules should there be, if any, on whether judges gouge during a case? Should courts be able to monitor the social-networking contacts of attorneys during a trial, and what about witnesses or even parties? Should there be limits on all use or just limits on what is said? The questions seem endless, and the answers sure enough are not easy. Should judges or their campaigns be able to use Facebook and have friends that may be potential parties before the court or attorneys appearing in court?Is it appropriate for judges to have a personal Facebook page breach from a professional one, or is that drill unbecoming the judiciary?. Right now there is a patchwork of rulings on these issues but, for the most part, no definitive rules exist. If there are no rules, it can become a treacherous terrain for media-savvy judges to navigate. roughly of the people are totally against the blog of judges but some other advocate that and see it as a way to educate the public about the court function. CONCLUSIONIt is clearly apparent(a) that social media is a very powerful means of exercising ones freedom of speech and expression. However, it is also been progressively used for illegal acts which has given campaign to the Governments attempts at illegalise social media. Where on the one hand, t he sophisticate of social media entails the need for legal censorship, on the other hand, there are sure fears of violation of elegant rights of people as an inevitable consequence of censorship. What is therefore desirable is regulation of social media, not its censorship.However, the indicate cyber laws of India are neither appropriate nor seemly in this respect. An analysis of the existing IT laws shows that there is unaccountable and immense power in the hands of the Government while dealings with security in the cyber space. Even then(prenominal), it is not sufficient to check the misuse of social media. Section 66A certainly does not shoot in the delicate balancing undeniable to pursue the legitimate objective of preventing criminal intimidation and danger through social media without going no further than call for in a democratic society to achieve that end.The drafters of Section 66A(b) have equated know criminal offences in the real world with acts such as causin g annoyance and inconvenience that can never pretend an offence in the real world and should not be offences in the virtual(prenominal) world. Therefore, the legislative restrictions on freedom of speech in Section 66A (b) cannot be considered as being necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Section 66A should not be considered a reasonable restriction indoors the meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution and must be struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech.If political speech, that is, criticism of politicians and movie of corruption continues to be punished by arrest instead of being protected, Indias precious democracy and free society will be no more. Hence, a specific legislation is desirable to specify social media. However, there are many another(prenominal) practical difficulties which may arise while doing so. There is a very thin line which demarcates the enjoyment of ones right and the violation of the enjoyment of elses right in the p rocess. In social media, the exercise of freedom of speech and expression by one may resultant in the invasion of privacy and defamation.The provision should be made in conformism with the reasonable restriction provided under phrase 19(2) of Indian Constitution. While persistent false communications for the purpose of annoying, insulting, inconveniencing, or causing ill will should not be criminalized (if need be, having it as a civil offence would more than suffice), doing so for the purpose of causing danger or criminal intimidation should. A provision is needed to penalise hoax bomb threats, then the provision clearly should not be mentioning words like annoyance, and should not be made persistent.The act should define the punishment according to the malic intension of the offender, less punishment should be awarded for less intensity of offence. Media should not be allowed to call a person as an accused before a court of law held that person as an accused. A blog or a Facebo ok account should be made in the name of Courts, to provide information on legal issue.