- One of the most common features of proliferating social media platforms is that they are increasingly being embraced by indulgent patrons wishing to post opinions on every matter under the sun, knowing fully well that hundreds of millions will have access to it. Not only millions of patrons, but also the ever-vigilant government machinery is extremely keen to look out for any perceived anti-national, anti-establishment, or anti-political leadership in general, as well hell bent to initiate moves to suppress the same. Yes, freedom of expression and free speech are relevant issues that will crop up, especially in a democratic country. The less said, the better about the non-democratic form of governments where people are deprived of voicing simple matters.
PC: ABP Live – ABP News
- The zealous law enforcement agencies, goaded by the political class and the masters in India, too, are exercising illegal and unconstitutional authority to suppress diverse voices that are resonating on social media platforms, reaching a wider audience. Even democratic countries like India and the US are unleashing unnecessary harassment on social media activists for no rhyme or reason. Look at some of the instances of late at home. Ravi Srinivasan had only 16 followers on X when he posted against a senior politician’s son 13 years ago. That the police took note and felt compelled to arrest him over other pressing matters was surprising at the time, but no more. Police and lower courts have made examples of countless Ravis since then.
PC: Live Law
- A 19-year-old student in Maharashtra learnt this hard way after posting words sympathetic to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. Although she realized her mistake, deleted the post, and apologized, her college rusticated her, and Maharashtra Police arrested her on May 9 for endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, promoting enmity, and outraging religious feelings. No less. While striking down the dreaded Sec 66A of the IT Act, which was used to harass Ravi, students Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan, Kolkata Prof Ambikesh Mahapatra, and many others, as unconstitutional in March 2015, the SC had made a distinction between discussion, advocacy, and incitement. Reading this itself will make one feel suffocated and harassed.
PC: law insider india
- Note that discussion and advocacy, howsoever unpopular, were at the heart of the freedom of expression, a fundamental right, the SC had explained. And last week, Bombay HC did so again, in different words. What does the state want? Does the state want students to stop expressing themselves and be converted into criminals? It asked. To the college, HC said ‘Someone expresses something, you want to ruin the life of a student? How can you rusticate like this? How grave was the girl’s offence? In HC’s own words: At most, her act of sharing the post can be termed an indiscretion by a young student. For this, she spent 18 days in jail and missed two exams. In conclusion, curbing free speech can’t be good for democracies, in the West or the East. Period.
