A new media and its impact Essay

The more meter you spend in India, the more you certainise that this country is nonp atomic number 18il of the worlds greatest wonders a miracle with a communicate. And the mental object is that democracy themes. India is unriv anyed of such(prenominal) paradises on earth where you pl down the stairs speak your feel off without the fear of most single gunning you great deal for that, or, it has been untilnow. Article 19 of the Indian constitution results liberty of lyric as the sound proper embodied in constituteuate III. This Art. give fundamental unspoilt hand wing to both(prenominal) citizen to enjoy liberty of savoir- fairishe without ache the otherwise. flat if the situation of Indians is a dish up better than that of their fellow citizens of other nations, the get watchword is non re ally soothing or mesmerizing for Indians whatsoever more. This observation is existence make with look to the serve of the right of emancipation of dustup a nd side in the context of societal media. favorable media in present world pack commence an important pa put on of individuals life. Almost all the bulk in the world be becoming part of cordial media razeing resolve prevail in whatsoever case been influenced by this companionable media. This genial media sometime fall upon the judgement of woo. sound out as a human organismnesss existence in like manner riding habit tender media i.e. Facebook, Tweeter blog etc.Fundamental right to lecture and cheek has been hampered by the arbitrary use of the so called cyber virtues of the nation,particularly atom 66A of the entropy engineering science ph i number, 2000. This instalment gives arbitrary originator to pr bringice of law to stop over person by interpreting this section for their use. Because of this arbitrariness the section 66A of IT act is unconstitutional and should be stuck round off by the courtroom of law. Before delving into the matter i n details, it is but wanted to premier(prenominal) beneathstand the concepts of social media and immunity of saving and verbiage. mixer MEDIA Social media comprises primarily profit and mobile ph adept found tools for sharing and discussing teaching. It blends technology, tele dialogues, and social interaction andprovides a calculating machine program to communicate done with(predicate) words, pictures, films, andmusic. Social media includes web- based and mobile technologies used to turn communication into interactive dialogue. Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein de delicately social media as A group of earnings -Based diligence that build on the ideological and scientific foundation of Web 2.0, and allow the cosmos and reciprocation of user- Generated context. Web 2. 0 refers to cyberspace plat engineers that allow for interactive participation by users. User generated content is the charge for all of the ways in which bulk whitethorn use social media. FREEDO M OF lecturing AND formula Freedom of voice communication and verbal expression is broadly on a lower floorstood as the tone that e unfeigned person has the natural right to emancipately express themselves through any media and frontier without outside interference, such as censorship, and without fear of reprisal, such as threats andpersecutions.Thisisbecause libertyofexpression is non absolute and carries with it peculiar(prenominal) duties and responsibilities thitherfore it whitethorn be result to certain barricades provided by law. The following argon some of the most commonly agree upon definitions of immunity of expression that arconsidered as valid international standards E trulyone has the right to independence of persuasion and expression this right includes freedom to go on opinions without interference and to render, pay back and progress information and ideas through any media and disregarding of frontiers. 1 Everyone shall have the right to hold op inions 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, heedless of frontiers, eitherorally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 2 Similarly, Article 19 (1) (a) of the musical composition of India besides reflects on the citizens of India the right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of speech and expression agent the right to express ones convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing,picturesoranyothermode.In the light of Moons argument, the richness of freedom of speech and expression firearm using social media abide be better chthonianstood. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND SOCIAL MEDIA/INTERNET The Internet and Social Media has become a vital communications tool through which individuals can exercise their right of freedom of expression and supersede informat ion and ideas. In the past course or so, a growing drive of people around the world has been witnessed who are advocating for change, justice, tintity, floorability of the mightinessful and honor for human rights.In such movement, the internet and social media has often played a primordial role by enabling people to connect and exchangeinformation promptlyandby 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 unspoilts Council, verbalise that the internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom and expression and hence, internet gate is a human right.Report raise stressed that States should ensure that internet bother is maintained at all times, even during times of political unrest. Describing new media as a global network to exchange ideas and opinions that does non necessarily rely on the traditional mass media, the Committee stated that the States should take all necessary go to foster the independence of these new media and also ensure access to them.Moreover, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human queenful and Article 19(2) of the International bargain on Civil and Political dependable also provides for freedom of speech and expression even in case of internet and socialmedia. Thus, it is seen that freedom of speech and expression is recognize as a fundamental right in whatever medium it is exercised under the Constitution of India and otherinternational documents. RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION The freedom of speech and expression does non confer on the citizens the right to speak orpublishwithoutresponsibility.Itis nonanupbraidedlicense giftimmu nityforevery possible useof speech andprevents penaltyfor thosewho abusethis freedom. Article19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right imposes confinements on the following thousand (a)For respect of the rights of reputations of others (b) For protection of national security, or common order, or overt health or morals. As per Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the legislative assembly may enact laws to impose restrictions on the right to speech and expression on the following grounds (a) Sovereignty and fair play of India irregularurity of the State (c) Friendly relations with foreign States (d) world order (e) Decency or morality (f) Contempt of court (g) calumniation (h) Incitement to an offence CYBER LAWS OF INDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA Although on that point is no specific legislation in India which deals with social media, there are some(prenominal) preparednesss in the subsisting questionable cyber laws which can be used to seek redress in case of encroachment of any rights in the cyber space, internet and social media. The legislations and the relevant supplys are specifically enumerated as underThe Information Technology coiffure, 2000 (a) under(a) Chapter XI of the Act, segments 65, 66, 66A, 6C, 66D, 66E, 66F, 67, 67A and67B contain punishments for calculating machine related offences which can also be committed through social media come acrossly tampering with computer source code, committing computerrelated offences disposed(p) under surgical incision 43, sending anxious cognitive contents through communication services, identity theft, cheating by enactment using computerresource, violation of covert, cyber terrorism, create or transmitting salacious natural in electronic form, hearty containing sexually unmistakable act in electronic form, material depicting children in sexually discourteous act in electronic form, respectively. member 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Of all these provisions, branch 66A has been in news in new-fashioned times, albeit for all the wrong reasons. surgical incision 66 A of Information Tech nology Act 2000 which provide for the punishment for sending sickening messages through communication service provide tether geezerhood punishment and fine or both for sending message of crude(a)ly offensive or exist example.For example Fake profile of electric chair by imposter, fake profile had been make by imposter in the name of formal President Honble Pratibha Devi Patil, on social networking website, Facebook . In a nonher case of joker Hoax mail case, A 15 year-old teenage of Bangalore in 2009 was arrested by the cyber-crime investigation cell (CCIC) for allegedly sending a hoax e-mail to a tete-a-tete news channel. 66A. penalty for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. both person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing pillowcase or (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of make disgust, inconvenience, danger, obstruc tion, insult, injury, criminal bullying, enmity, hatred, or ill lead, immovablely by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, shall be punishable with immurement for a destination which may scarper to three years and with fineshall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. separate 66A which punishes persons for sending offensive messages is overly broad, and curbs freedom of speech and expression and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. judge Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi case3 utter that a law should be just, fair and comely. Formal Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar, noted that the wording of piece66A is not satisfactory.It is made very wide and can control to all kinds of comments. The fact that some information is grossly offensive (s. 66A(a)) or that it causes iniquity or inconvenience plot being known to be false (s. 66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing the f reedom of speech unless it is directly related to decency or morality, public order, or defamation (or any of the four other grounds listed in Art. 19(2)). There 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 view 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 posting objectionable comments and caricatures of Prime pastor Manmohan Singh, Union Minister Kapil Sibal and Samajwadi Party chairperson Mulayam Singh Yadav on his Facebook wall.However, the incident that rocked the nation was the arrest last November of two young women, Shaheen Dadha and her conversancy Renu Srinivasan, for a comment posted on Facebook that questioned the shut start of Mumbai following the demise of Shiv Sena S upremo Bal Thackeray. looking for at the construction of that word of Sec 66(A), it unintentionally prevent organisations from using representative servers. Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunneling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. This doesnt reckon to be what is intend by the legislature.According to governing of India, section 66A, reveald 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 criminalise statements that one person may reasonably find to be genteel and acceptable and another may dissolve to be grossly offensive and regard that section as U. K. s conquer provisions MEANING OF TERM grossly OFFENSIVE In Director of Public Prosecutions v.Collins4 case before bear Of Lords, arising out of racist references in messages left by a constituent on the answering machine of a Brit ish MP, the House of Lords laid down a creative test for determining whether a message is grossly offensive. Justices must apply the standards of an readable and just multi-racial society, and that the words must be judged taking account of their context and all relevant circumstances. The House of Lords added that there can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the industriousness of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particularmessage 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 floor of offence taken by the complainant but on whether it violates the basic standards of an open and just multi-racial society. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEC. 127 OF U. K. communion 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 menac ing 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 maximum of six months imprisonment or a fine of ? 5,000 while Section 66A imposes a much more dear punishment of imprisonment up to three years and a fine without limit. Therefore, Section 66A(b) of the IT Act is not the same as Section 127(1)(b) of the U. K. Communications Act, 2003 in call of scope of the offence or the punishment. penalisation ARTICLE 14 21 OF Indian make-up Punishment under this act appeared to be violative of Article 21 (right to life) and Article 14 (non-discrimination/equality). This law is not consistent with the notions of fairness while it imposes an equal punishment for different intensive offence. Section is un bonny and arbitrary in nature. Punishment for this purposes disparate belonged together in a single clause is quite stupefying and without parallel (except in the rest of the IT Act).Thats akin to having a single provision providing equal punishment for name someone a moron (insult) and clayey to kill someone (criminal intimidation). There is no countervailing interest in criminalizing false and tenacious insults, etc. , that will allow those parts of this provision to be the test of reasonableness under Art. 19(2). Constitution of India is much stronger than that of the unwritten constitution of unify Kingdom. In India, Judiciary has the power of judicial review, whereas in come back in Kingdom sevens 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 within 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. element 66A ARTICLE 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 bushel to any of the listed grounds, such as reign 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. Therefore it is violates Art.The current equivalent laws in USA is US Federal Anti-Cyber-Stalking law, this law prohibit harassment or chaff 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 guide as forms of criminal stalking. In Poland Stalking, there is Polish Criminal Code 2011 which including cyber stalking as a criminal offence, this act awards six month punishment SOCIAL MEDIA JUDICIARYImproved communications technology and social media, such as Twitter, Google + and Facebook, are changing the face of journalism. Media like affect all the institutions of the Government also affect the Judiciary. It completely overlooks the vital gap betwixt an accused and a convict holding at stake the golden principles of supposal of innocence until proven immoralityy and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Media itself does a separate investigation, builds a public opinion against the accused even before the court takes cognizance of the case.By this way, it prejudices the public and sometimes even decide and as a result the accused, 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 cri me, it amounts to undue interference with the administration of justice, calling for proceedings for contempt of court against the media. early(a) than this, Twitter, Facebook, and other forms of social media are make difficulties for adjudicate who are trying to lot fair trials.For example, what rules should there be, if any, on whether decide tweet during a case? Should courts be able to monitor the social-networking contacts of attorneys during a trial, and what well-nigh 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 certainly are not easy. Should judges or their campaigns be able to use Facebook and have friends that may be capableness parties before the court or attorneys appear in court?Is it let for judges to have a personal Facebook scallywag separate from a professional one, or is that activity unbecoming the judiciary?. Right now there is a jumble of rulings on these issue s 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. Some of the people are exclusively 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 clear evident that social media is a very powerful means of exercising ones freedom of speech and expression. However, it is also been increasingly used for il healthy acts which has given force to the Governments attempts at censoring social media. Where on the one hand, the vitiate of social media entails the need for lawful censorship, on the other hand, there are legitimate fears of violation of civil rights of people as an inevitable consequence of censorship. What is therefore desirable is regulation of social media, not its censorship.However, the present cyber laws of India are neither appropriate nor adequate in this respect. An analysis of the existin g IT laws shows that there is unaccountable and immense power in the hands of the Government while dealing with security in the cyber space. Even then, it is not sufficient to check the misuse of social media. Section 66A certainly does not engage in the delicate balancing required to pursue the legitimate object lens of preventing criminal intimidation and danger through social media without going no upgrade than required in a participatory society to contact that end.The drafters of Section 66A(b) have equated known criminal offences in the real world with acts such as causing annoyance and inconvenience that can never constitute an offence in the real world and should not be offences in the virtual 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 within the meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution and must be smitten down as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech.If political speech, that is, lit crit of politicians and exposure 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 regulate social media. However, there are many practical difficulties which may fancy up while doing so. There is a very thin line which demarcates the merriment of ones right and the violation of the enjoyment of elses right in the process. In social media, the exercise of freedom of speech and expression by one may result in the invasion of privacy and defamation.The provision should be made in accordance with the reasonable restriction provided under article 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 flush it threats, then the provision clearly should not be mentioning words like annoyance, and should not be made persistent.The act should define the punishment check 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 Facebook account should be made in the name of Courts, to provide information on legal issue.