Freedom of Speech vs Inducing Hatred

Rohit Garg & Muskaan
Author:

Abstract

The facts have shown that formulating rules for hate speech is a challenging task. Regulations against hate speech are being questioned because they interfere with a person's right to freedom of expression. In general, the legislation crosses the seemingly fine line between recommended restrictions and severe restrictions. However, despite the strict regulations passed, hate speech continues to increase. The Law Commission of India proposed stricter rules in 2017 to solve this problem. This has led to excessive legislation and excessive criminalization of speech-related behavior. Given the obvious harm caused by hate speech, it is time to go beyond the current system to find best practices that can be used to solve the problem of hate speech outside of the legal system. This research paper discusses the concept of hate speech and its legal and social challenges. It also lists legal and ethical efforts made globally and publicly to limit hate speech and ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to express themselves.

Introduction

The relationship between speech and stimulus is perhaps the most difficult of the corresponding laws. The correspondence between feelings, opinions, commands and activity plans is assisted by words.[1] The transmission of customs and teachings depends on verbal and symbolic messages.[2]People are influenced by these precepts to monitor the opinions conveyed at the time. Since the true structure of democracy is based on the exchange of independent censorship, freedom of speech is essential to its survival. The exchange works in a popular government agent, testing competition cases and obtaining different contributions to political dynamics. Freedom of speech is also necessary, so that the privacy of one's own home can be free. The phrase "everyone has the privilege of evaluation and expression" embodies the suggestive suggestion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that "everyone has the privilege of evaluation and expression".[3]

In any case, at this ideological level, there is no universal intuition about the subject, content, theory, and practice of this right. Most of the people have regulated how to implement popular social rules and asked clever and disturbing questions about sacred freedom. Hate speech in derogatory language is a kind of speech that is visible to the character of nurse assistants, or is a kind of speech formed by people based on their social or ethnic accumulation, such as race, sexual relations, age, nationality, identity, religion, and sexuality. Orientation, critical relationships, disability, speaking ability, social class, occupation, physical appearance (height, weight, pores, skin color, etc.), intellectual limitations, and any other things that can be interpreted as a means of approaching a few people are regarded as a responsibility.[4] The guiding principle of contempt for language is the post-World War II situation.[5] The media’s attention to the clear link between the Intolerance Act and the Holocaust (a treaty) has worked wonders. Internationally simply as a country with the characteristics of a European country.[6] Even ten years after waiting after the war, America[7] excluded the speech of contempt from the apparently secured volume of expression.

What is Freedom of Speech?

In the words of Justice Cardozo- Freedom of thought and expression is a matrix, an indispensable condition for almost all other forms of freedom.[8] The bastion of democratic government is freedom of expression. It promotes public debate on issues and plays an important role in shaping public opinion on social, political and economic issues. The first condition of freedom is the right to speak freely. As the saying goes, freedom of speech is in fact the mother of all other freedoms. The right to freely express one's beliefs and opinions through words, words, publications, images or any other means is called freedom of expression. In today's world, the right to freedom of speech is widely regarded as the foundation of a democratic society and must be protected at all times.

The political right to express one's thoughts and opinions is called freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech includes the right to receive and disseminate information without prior government approval. The terms "freedom of speech" and "free language" are often used interchangeably. "Freedom of speech" refers to any behavior in which a person seeks, obtains, or disseminates information or ideas without censorship. Self-actualization requires freedom of speech and expression.

Dictionary meaning of freedom of speech and expression

The term freedom of speech, press, assembly or religion contained in the First Amendment: The prohibition of government intervention in these freedoms is defined in the Black Law Dictionary as the prohibition of government intervention in these freedoms. Black`s Law Dictionary describes it only from an American perspective.[9]

The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines freedom of speech and expression as -

"Freedom means the right to do or say what you want to do without anyone blocking it."[10]

Freedom of speech, the right to express information, thoughts, and opinions as stipulated in Amendments 1 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution, is not subject to content-based government restrictions.[11]

What is Hate Speech?

In the words of Michel Rosenfeld, "hate speech" is "speech designed to promote hatred based on race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin." As he himself pointed out, the issue of hate speech brings complicated and difficult questions for the right to freedom of speech granted

by the contemporary constitution.[12] In provincial efforts, the definition of the term "hate speech" cannot be related to its roots in the Indian sense (as a legitimate activity)[13]. Hate

speech is defined as rhetoric that only expresses contempt for a specific group (such as a specific race), especially when the speech may incite violence.[14]

In the Pravasi Balai Sangathan v. Union of India & Ors, it is observed that hate speech has received widespread attention. The case considers that incitement to hatred is an act of humiliation of people based on their participation in the community. Any effort to legitimize the community by using derogatory language with its members is a form of outlawing. When most people passively participate in this narrative, the social status and recognition of the group will immediately decrease.

Hate speech affects a small number of people in the community beyond minor pain. This fierce debate can provide an enabling environment in which large numbers of vulnerable people can be catastrophically attacked, and their safety now requires the approval of a majority of 4,444 people. In the most extreme cases, these attacks can lead to racism, alienation, destruction and cruelty.

Another result of this obstructive debate is the effective suppression of minority opinions. Since the first task is to eliminate the personalities of the most marginalized groups, their voices rarely find a suitable place in the special sound combinations that need to be attacked. Present important ideas and stifle your full cooperation with most governments.

The Law Commission’s request in its report to define the components and principles of hate speech stated that hate speech includes any obvious written or verbal text, signature or performance in someone’s speech or seeking the opinions or opinions of people who contribute to fear. Warn or incite violence. [15]Therefore, hate speech is clearly a powerful tool

to sow prejudice in a specific geographic area and a major threat to India’s strict personality diversity concept.

Famous Historical Instances of Inducing Hatred

Case Study of Hitler

Because of his influence on communication, Hitler was chosen as a thoughtful person. Hitler's imagination produced the Nazi flag. The black symbol in the white circle represents

the anti-Semitic base of the Nazi leader and his exaggerated allies. A department of Nazi propagandists is dedicated to organizing demonstrations, choosing badges, stamps, clothing, clothing, banners and background effects to add luster to the display.

When homeless people and mass groups attracted representatives, the formal service and enthusiastic declarations of the pioneers mixed the Nazis into a larger event. Take a look at a typical party event in Nuremberg to see how mass communication is planned. As a savvy publicist pointed out, these methods are deliberately designed to ensure that more and more people are identified, initially as a Nazi cause, and later after they gained power and became known as "real public communities." ". The image of the head of state and the Nazi party became stronger.

The Nazis established a public relations service organization with specific goals. The fantasies of non-Aryans conformed to the Nazi Party intellectuals' belief in the racial rule of the Germans, and this is one of the novels they spread. Clubs and guns, death camps and mystery police are direct tools to eliminate Jews and other minorities at any time without sufficient publicity. Germany became a country that prospered thanks to propaganda and hard work.

The political state was swallowed up by the shadow of the Nazi Party. After the establishment of fascism in 1933-34, Hitler concentrated on putting the Nazis on the backs of the German people for a period of time. The head of the deliberate propaganda department, Paul Joseph Goebbels, has unlimited resources and powers to cause trouble in Germany's neighboring countries. The enactment was once again accompanied by hatred and fear.

The Nazis softened Austria and the Sudetenland for slaughter, combining planned propaganda with danger, hidden rewards, fierce technology, and general cruelty. They enacted laws and other methods to incite class conflict within the French Republic and weakened France. In any case, Germany has grown more courageous at a time of growing discord fueled by underground Nazi activities. Regardless of the legitimacy and authenticity of these pioneers, the Nazi attacks slandered the leaders of the chosen country. This requires caution and the key link between planned advertising and terrorist activities.

Before attacking Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, or France, the Nazis placed dissidents in embassies, divisions, and travel authorities, formed a Nazi gathering group within a country, and established spy bureaucracies to cover the entire country.

Case Study of Mao

Deng Tuo, one of China's most outspoken Communists, stopped all of this on the night of May 17, 1966. He took an overdose of sleeping pills to show his contempt for the accusations against him during the Cultural Revolution. Deng Tuo is a devoted follower of Marxism-Leninism and communism. Deng joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1930. Deng Tuo was a pioneer of the Chinese Communist Party and served in the Jinchaji border area under Nie Rongzhen and Peng Zhen.[16]

In 1944, Deng revised the main content of The Selected Works of Mao Zedong. In his speech, Deng said: "Attentive Comrade Mao Zedong addressed the Chinese working class and its political parties".[17]Deng Xiaoping has shown belief in Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong's vision throughout his career. He has been teaching students since 1961 that under the framework of communism, the interests of the state, collective and individual are unified.

However, in 1956, the relationship between Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping began to deteriorate.[18] The Great Leap Forward was also condemned by Deng Tuo. This added to

Mao's dissatisfaction with Deng. Deng soon became the target of Maoist assassinations. During the Cultural Revolution of 1966, newspapers such as "Beijing Daily" and "People's Daily" began to publish Deng Tuo's "endorsements".[19]

Deng was purged that year, and his views were labeled "anti-Communist" and "hostile party." Deng Tuo is a Marxist-Leninist, a follower of the Communist Party, an ally of the system, and a Marxist-Leninist.

Case Study of ISIS and Assad

Al Qaeda’s history began in 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The Muslim world was in awe of the Soviet hostility, which prompted an increase of 20,000 volunteers to help unknown soldiers. Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad from Jordan planned his own meeting in 1999. His organization was renamed Al-Qaida in Iraq and became the country's most powerful Sunni guerrilla organization. According to Zaid al-Ali, author of the book "Fighting for the Future of Iraq", ISIS was able to rise from the ashes of AQI, partly because of the disastrous internal government crisis in Iraq.

Countries believe that the awakening of the defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq is the awakening of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the awakening of Assad in Syria, which seems to pose a threat to the system supported by the United States. Zaid Al-Ali: Part of the reason for the rise of ISIS was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the destruction of the Iraqi country, which caused chaos in most of the country and allowed militants to enter and select competitors. Together with the warriors. According to Al-Ali, the Zarqawi meeting became convinced that the Shiites had begun to win the common partisan war in Iraq and that the United States was seeking to impose its will on the Sunni tribes. Hough wrote that, unknowingly, Iraq’s own leadership provided them with the initial conditions needed to restore their strength.

Baghdadi dispatched the well-known designated person Abu Mohamed Juraani to Syria in August 2011, where he established an AQI branch.

ISIS is becoming the most expensive fear-based oppressor organization in the world, with funding mainly from various compulsory programs in its controlled territory. In July 2012, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi issued an announcement to his supporters. According to Hoff, they raided other prisons across Iraq in the following year, releasing approximately 1,000 prisoners. He writes that unusual gifts played a key role in transforming the reunion from the misfortune association in 2012 to the beast it is now. In 2010, the US government transferred control of its prisons to the Iraqi government.

In June 2014, Islamic State militants wiped out 30,000 Iraqi government forces in Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. Eventually he completely controlled most of the area and established a royal capital in the northern city of Raqqa. Since then, ISIS has undoubtedly attracted more enlisted members than Al-Qaida in Iraq. ISIS bases in Libya, the Sinai desert in Egypt, and Nigeria have gained a following in unknown

psychological oppression groups. In another book, CNN's Nic Robertson wrote that ISIS also took on more difficult tasks than it could bear. Our knowledge of ISIS shows that these two main competitors and Baghdadi himself accept this, he believes.

Nina dos Santos: The rise of ISIS and al-Zawahiri’s fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq is an unparalleled global jihad battle. The Islamic State’s offensive in Kurdistan ceased. Under pressure from the Kurds, refocused Iraqi troops, local Shiite troops supported by Iran, and an American plane, the Islamic State began to retreat.

The Alliance’s air strikes limited its ability to quickly maneuver in its area. ISIS thrives on the narrative of victory. ISIS followers or veterans in Europe could have openly accepted the Paris attack rather than orchestrating it at ISIS headquarters in Raqqa. According to J.P. McCants, ISIS can rely on him under any circumstances, but now he cannot implement his development system in Syria and Iraq without changing his opponent's calculations and thus ending his expansion.

LEGAL APPROACHES TO HATE SPEECH IN INDIA

1. Constitution and Hate Speech

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that every Indian resident has the privilege of speaking freely and expressing his or her opinions. Article 19 continues to use the expression “based on legitimate concerns” until the justification for the restriction is announced to authorize the expected activities of the public authority.[20]

The adjudicator must consider the idea of the privileges they claim to have been violated, the basic motivation behind the restrictions, the degree and severity of the evil intended to help in this way, the difference in burden, [and] the prevailing circumstances at the time.[21]Sensitivity judgments must be applied to each individual resolution disclosed, because the Supreme Court believes that no theoretical standard can be applied to all cases.[22] For getting the benefit under Article 19, it can only be "for legitimate reasons" to impose restrictions for certain predetermined reasons. The Supreme Court clarified that although the law may not be able to directly handle “public requests,” it is likely to be interpreted as “taking into account the legitimate concerns of“ public requests. ”Here, the Supreme Court ruled that the law It is based on the legal concerns of public requests. The restrictions imposed must have a reasonable connection with the project to be carried out. After the "request for disclosure" was expanded to Article 19, the Supreme Court examined the form of the "request for disclosure" in Ramji Lal Modi in 1957. The court stated: "[In Article 19] The expression" in view of legitimate concerns of "expands the scope of security, because the law may not be designed to maintain directly public order, but may have been established "in light of reasonable concerns about public requests."'[23] In the Virendra case, the court adopted an environmentally-based methodology when determining the legality of the law. The court held that the state has a responsibility to save legitimacy.[24]

2. Indian Penal Code and Hate Speech

Violation of section 153A is a high priority offense. Ignoring the fact that the judicial system has established a more important position than the latter, its purpose is undoubtedly to encourage corruption. Currently, the law does not cover the classification of gender, personality or sexual orientation, as well as the classification of religion, race or identity. The Legal Committee recommended that the legal gap be filled. It is also worth remembering that facts cannot be used as external security. Courts have recognized the value of arguments that describe well-documented facts, but refuse to guarantee truthful accounts that often arouse malice and contempt across platforms. Sections 153A and 295a of the CIP also cover the insertion of belligerence, confrontation, revenge and contempt in the two parties and systems. Section 153B looks at certain categories of people, not only because of their moral inscriptions, but also because of their responsibilities due to the inscriptions. Section 153-B condemns those who send statements and statements and those who direct laughter. In some cases, the goal is considered an important determinant, but in other cases it is not.

There are often physical problems in the place of love or in the object of devotion, although the possibility of offense is an integral part of offense. On the other hand, this kind of injury must not be physical. The law enforcement officer interpreted the word "degenerate" in Article 295 very carefully. Article 295 protects the sacred things of people’s communities and places of love. Section 295 deals with images and messages from a discussion viewpoint rather than criticism. In cases such as Bharat Bhushan[25] and Zac Poonen[26] are evaluated to see whether they lead to evidence of pollution. The cases in which a demonstration of degradation does not violate Article 295 should be distinguished from Malleshappa.

Section 295A sets forth high-level goals for unconstitutional discussions. This is consistent with the strong desire to maintain a high degree of confidence in social change research. For example, section 295A requires more damage than section 298. The defendant must anticipate the severe verdicts "deliberate and negligent" from the residential class.

In addition, when the other components of Section 295A are described, reality is not considered a defense. As a result, the true expression implemented for fuel or meeting predetermined expectations will be compromised. The Supreme Court confirmed Article 295A's defense based on freedom of speech and religious possibilities.

Although the court used a very high expected range to determine that Section 295A is constitutional, the expectation can still be understood psychologically, especially when recording complaints. It can also be said that Section 295A is unbalanced because public agencies have the ability to use waivers and other previous control mechanisms. In this case, there is no need to block public requests, and the probability of being arrested and prosecuted is extremely high.[27]

The Productive Agreement that conforms to Section 298 shows that the province shows that the defendant shows that the defendant intentionally abuses the exact sensation of dissatisfaction. It is insufficient to know that hard emotions can be affected. This standard is not strictly instead of Section 295A, requires "response" and "harmful" objectives. The discussion mentioned also clarifies the effects of sections 295a and 298. The points prior to an extreme case of hate hate hate speeches. The provisions of Section 298 apply only to "anyone". Article 507 is trying to avoid the auditorium of distributors for resellers so that illegal acts may be hidden. As a result, the content of section 505 has a broader range and execution. It has two scenarios: hatred, and other statements, and hatred will increase rapidly as a result of other affirmations. In all cases, predefined discussions indicate that the negative behavior of the responsible legal person is partially understood. In addition, when we impose reasonable limitations in the "public application", legal execution examined protection.

3. Hate Speech in Election Laws

The commenter suggested modifying RoPA. One of them should consider their leader before nominating a competitor.[28] In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Supreme Court ruled that no one should be held responsible for the depraved demonstrations before becoming a candidate.[29]This even applies to behavior that is considered "unacceptable risk" in some way.[30] The worrying thing is that newcomers will usually make weird or destructive efforts before registering their transfer documents, and then take a well-thought-out stance. This allows them to avoid the risk of being excluded while still causing common fires.

Anil Nauriya argued that the article records the previous year should be reviewed and that

combustible degradation activities should be punished during this period, such as those supported by Articles 123(3) and 123(3A).[31]

4. Media Laws Governing Hate Speech

4.1 The Cinematograph Act, 1952

The Cinematograph Act of 1952, the concepts expressed in it, and laws that generally authorize state governments to prohibit film screenings under certain circumstances control the management of film screenings. Various considerations are included in the film restriction specification, including artistic and relational expression, complete films, and sensitive character testing. In addition, the threat of violence alone cannot be used to force the publication of a controversial film. The legal system is now upholding these principles. In ongoing cases, such as Rashtravadi Shiv Sena vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali Films Pvt. Limited.[32] The movie "Ramleela" has been censored to see if it harms the strict thoughts and emotions of certain personal social events. If the film offends strict concepts, the Delhi High Court announced that it can make decisions based on the standards of a sensitive and determined mind.[33]Similarly, decisions such as Kirankumar Devmani v. State of Gujarat[34]held that when determining if a film is 'frightful,' the speech should be viewed 'as a whole,' not in isolation. India has seen an increase in the regulation of films in recent years.[35] The Shyam Benegal Council was established in 2016 to "set up a comprehensive film affirmation framework."[36] The Board recommended, inter alia, a change from "quality restriction." However, the recommendations made by the council did not bring about substantial improvement. In trying to regulate films, CBFC seems to be beyond the scope of the Cinematograph Act.[37] Two examples of recent influences are "lipstick under my burqa" and "aggressive natives." CBFC

initially refused to release the film on the grounds of pornographic content, saying it was "directed at women".[38] In the story with Amartya Sen, the producer came into contact with editorial terms such as "cow", "Gujarat", "Hindu" and "Hinduism".[39]The 2017 movie Padmaavati was analyzed into a real portrait that required the presence of a group.[40] As a result of including the film in the debate, only a few state governments have announced boycotts of the film since the CBFC.[41] Also, a movie prevention request was sent in another jurisdiction.[42] The High Court warned government officials about the "preliminary judgment and statement on this matter" regarding the legality of the film and whether it should be in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Lila Bahansali (Manohar Lal Sharma). The Supreme Court discussed the "freedom of creation" to be granted to manufacturers and the restrictions imposed on freedom of speech in this case.[43]

4.2 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955

The Cable Television Network Regulation) Act is often invoked to regulate acts of incitement to hatred. The material guidelines are complex and involve various institutions (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, BCCC, etc.) that may have an impact on freedom of speech. The observer also asserted that, in some cases, these control agencies have implemented extreme control orders that adversely affect freedom of speech in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines.[44]

4.3 Press Council of India Act, 1978

The organization of the rally, the right to sentence and the available methods of protest housing. Section 5 of the PCI Act describes the procedure for creating a board of directors. The board of directors must be made up of a president and 28 members. These people include journalists, newspaper agents, and others who work in the print media. According to article 14 of the PCI Law, PCI has the right to "be blamed" based on accusations of moral convictions and good taste in newspaper articles or collaborating opinion columns of stations, as well as other small details, and perhaps other things. Section 14 also stipulates that relevant "newspapers, news organizations, publishers or authors" must be given the opportunity to express their views, and the Chamber of Commerce has the right to withhold the petition and hold the responsible party accountable when appropriate. necessary. In addition, the Press Council Rules of 1979 (Investigation Methods) describe the powers and responsibilities of the investigation committee. Due to its structure, objectives and power, PCI's ability to govern matters as a semi-legal institution and the fulfillment of its powers are discussed extensively in Section 8 of its self-directed report.

5. Online Hate Speech

Although Section 66A is no longer effective, the government has been looking for other ways to punish offensive speech online. Material barriers online are often used to prevent the spread of hate speech online. The interactivity of the issuance of obstructive instructions is unclear and the reasoning of the instructions is not subject to public inspection. Due to a lack of transparency, there are few ways for the public to hold leaders accountable for abuse of power to censor materials online.[45] The increasing use of network shutdowns in response to threats to the rule of law is disturbing and unbalanced. In any case, if the blocking of 22 online media platforms in Kashmir in April 2017 is a sign of the future, then the state government is more likely to use Article 69A to block entire platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp, instead. to suspend web services.[46]

6. Other Laws Governing Hate Speech

6.1 The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The Atrocities Act uses attractive approaches for unique hate speeches to limit hate speeches. After that, the purpose of the speaker and speech is defined, and the highest priority is significant sanitation and an incorrect operation. In addition, it is an element of the hate of the judge of article 3444 of the fainting method, the value of the depth. For example, the Male Rea section contributed to the legal exclusion of the station names in the SC / ST community. It is also important to keep in mind that the indicator carries the load of certification in the demonstration of elements of section 3.

6.2 Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

Under PCR, one must insinuate or attempt to offend with the unapproachable intention of teaching or practicing. Furthermore, the plaintiff must prove that the allegations were manifested in this way through the "advantage of the evidence". The PCR vocabulary covers a wide range of speeches, supporting and defending the oppression of programmed caste members. In fact, it should only be condemned when someone outside of a predetermined caste makes such comments, which should be used as a protective measure on the surface.[47]However, when legal institutions are caught in the power grid, jurisprudence can be seen as a reflection of the trap of using the law to protect vulnerable communities. In the PCR, the accusation that is beyond the plaintiff's control carries the burden of verification. These cases show that the law enforcement agency has investigated the criminal intent of Section 7 and decided how to correct the presumption of intent in Section 12. While it has been difficult to trace the case from the Supreme Court or Superior Court , shows that the law enforcement agency has determined that such crimes have been committed. This is inconsistent with the broad language of the Indian resolution and remote procedures.[48]

6.3 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of 1986 is related to the derogatory debate. The law prohibits the description of women in books, advertisements, works, and materials, including "defamation," "degrading," or corruption. On the other hand, the term "female rotation representatives" refers to images that "may reduce, destroy or damage public moral quality or morals."[49] The resolution does not involve unsatisfactory representatives who cause suffering or increase opportunities for wildlife. Although the bill does not explicitly respond to hate speech, it has been discussed including a shield in the bill to prevent brutality against women. The Board of Directors made recommendations for the next bill in the report of the Standing Committee of Parliament on the Bill of Amendment (Prohibition) of Indecent Representation of Women of 2012. In this way, they agree with the claims of these organizations. For example, the Ahmedabad Women's Action Group recommends banning the "widespread use of women's bodies." They claim that this generalization is "one of the important variables that are rapidly related to evil against women."[50]

6.4 The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988

To prevent religious institutions from being used for political or other purposes, the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Abuse) Act was passed in 1988.[51] The law prohibits religious institutions from creating discord, hatred, disrespect or resentment among different groups. This law appears when strict institutions are used to promote hate speech. After Operation Blue Star, the facilities of the Golden Temple were used to store ammunition. The operation was operated by the Indian Armed Forces for the Golden Temple in Amritsar.[52]

6.5 The National Security Act, 1980

The National Security Act (NSA) of 1980 gave the government the power to impose pretrial detention on people if they have reasonable concerns about "public order."[53] This section looks at the relevant part of the NSA because it relates to contempt speech. It establishes the rules that the legal system can use to create incidents of hate speech that pose a threat to public safety in order to reach the threshold of action based on resolution. The law enforcement agency has established principles for determining whether such an address or display poses a threat to public safety, and whether there are reasons for pretrial detention in such situations. The legal administration makes decisions based on the "transitory activities" of public authorities, the rights of detained citizens, and the "mental purpose" of the retention committee. The National Security Agency (NSA) has been used to arrest protesters[54] and to protect civilians from 'cow slaughter.'[55] These interceptions have been sanctioned for exceeding the authority of the National Security Agency.[56]Furthermore, there is no plan to compensate those who have been wrongfully imprisoned.

6.6 The HIV/AIDS Act, 2017

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus of 2017 and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Act of 2017 were drafted to direct government assistance benefits for individuals with HIV/AIDS.[57] Prior to the HIV/AIDS Act, these benefits were only available by chief order. Where this is actually or explicitly stated, or any announcement, disclosure, promotion or communication reasonably construed as disseminating any data, notice, or public purpose, or, in any case, guaranteed or disclosing feelings of hatred against any person who assembled

him or herself. publicity or convey.[58]“Guarantors include people who are HIV positive or who have lived with or had been living with HIV positive people. The statement of purpose and reason is that “women and drug addicts during sexual intercourse with male sex workers of women and drug addicts focus on HIV/AIDS” " he decided. The United Nations joint HIV/AIDS program essentially said that the group of Indians who are commonly affected by HIV/AIDS are sex workers “gay having sex with men” and “transsexual”. Etc. The single insurance that "Sex Walker" is valid for is the "Immoral Traffic Act" of 1956, which condemns merchants, but does not provide quarantine medical insurance.[59] Sex workers in India routinely rely on cultural disgrace, racism, and abuse.

7. Self-Regulation and Other Non-State Intervention

7.1 Print Media

PCI is a legal entity that regulates media functions, adheres to publishing principles, and encourages government regulations.[60] If the administrator does not dial in, or if the claim is not resolved after consulting with the remediation officer, the applicant may file an issue with PCI. Complaints against PCI must convey “the name and address of the editor or author of the document, which has been adjusted to moan,” along with a section of the manuscript's shocking material. The report had 1,249 PCI dissents. 199 controversies were “to sever press opportunity” Organized by the press "against government experts", 1,050 cases "against journalists who violated the morals of publishing".[61]Additionally, by the end of March 2015, PCI reconciled 66 questions related to 1050 editorial standards violations.

7.2 Broadcast Media

The News Broadcasting Association oversees TV news and non-broadcasting over the Indian Broadcasting Framework. Telecaster's rules and principles are enacted by the collaborative Indian Broadcasting Foundation of India's Private News TV Slots.[62]The BSP Standards and Practices Department can report any objections to the BCCC, or material inspectors can report them directly to the BCCC.[63] It consists of 13 political parties led by the BCCC Supreme Court or former judges of the Supreme Court, and includes government agencies such as the National Women's Committee of TV Casters, Journalists, and Social Workers and the National Designated Casting Committee.[64] BCCC is also responsible for promoting and ensuring consistency with the IBF content codes. If the television channel objects to the BCCC application, an appropriate event of the Ministry of Information and Radio Communication can be called within 24 hours. In October 2015, BCCC responded that the TV show's lead was portrayed as "woken up" to a "low-level" hero, and encouraged TV to present the future warehouse as "extraordinarily vulnerable."

7.3 Radio Broadcasting

In India, wireless communication is private as well as government funding. All India Radio (AIR), state-owned and administered by the Prasaru Baruti Act of 1990, has 420 stations in 23 dialects, reaching about 99% of the Indian population. In October 2012, various privately owned FM radio stations broadcast unacceptably unacceptable, secular, offensive content and comply with GOPA Article 11.2 Promotional and Program Codes and GOPA. The warning also forbids "attacks on strict networks" and "the immutable nature of barbarians or something that violates the law," said GOPA, a grave violation of the law.[65] Confining hate speech on television and radio broadcasts Self-management systems are inherently overwhelmingly self-management. The only exception is the national radio station All India Radio.

7.4 Advertising in the Media

The ASCI Code of Self-Regulation of Advertising One of its main tenets is to ensure that advertising does not violate generally accepted principles of public decency. ASCI uses the National Advertising Monitoring Service to monitor for breaches.[66]ASCI's trained representatives tracked the advertising market research agency in print and electronic media.

Contrary to Chapter 2 of the ASCI Code, it outsources women and it has the potential to lead to serious and widespread crime,” he said. The case is ongoing and ASCI has been notified.[67] The ASCI Code does not contain advertising of any political or non-commercial type.

7.5 Social Media platforms

7.5.1 Facebook

For the first time, Facebook contains the frequency of hatred of the 4-month community normal compliance report. The prevalence of Facebook's disgusting speech was 0.11% or 10-11 in terms of the point of view of the perspective of hate views exceeding the fourth quarter of the second quarter of 2020. In 3 months, approximately the 95% of "actively identified and violent and graphic" pieces "as" actively identified ", 221 million conferences were measured. They reported ¥ 124 million naked meat and sexual objects, and reported 35 million threats (up to 95 million previous quarters) (2.2 million 2 quarters)). Of these, 95% was actively identified (1/4 of approximately 85 percent from about 85 percent). 1 million in the second trimester). About intimidation and harassment, we have actively investigated the content of 2.6 million platforms (for 23 million in the second quarter), and 13 million suicidal persons and self-harm. Send these representative samples to hate regional languages and reviewers.[68]

7.5.2 YouTube

Google states that you are using 2 or 3 terms of hate, as it is used as a publication phrase to publish YouTube. This movement has discovered a marking report that discovered a promoter. It is as strong as possible. While YouTube advertising has not been made in this content, we admit that the condition is hostile and disdain. Our group worked on issues and avoided our licensing arrangements to be abused. This is how we are still warned.

Identification and harmful terms, and what they can not discover are those we are completely familiar. YouTube says it has some strands of insurance to prevent hostile and destructive promotional activities and eliminate the hate's speech and hatred process and eliminate processes. Approximately 867 million promotions were hampered or eliminated by the

organization a year ago to intercept the framework of that recognition and the Prime Minister, more than 300 million terrible advertising. Google says that suspicious confusion can not escape from the beginning if he says he does not ask him how he supports his needs. YouTube has a long and mixed hate voice to the base.[69]

7.5.3 Twitter

The Common Twitter Policy rejects the Mysterious Foundation. "After long-term external pressure," basic "changes are called" color of change "and are equable social bands formed by the partisarians who press the technical group. Safe classes, impossible and specialized in the reduction of the disease, but a year ago, religious and class dependent people were banned by the organized speech organization. Client profiles that make up a lot of insults, nominal, prejudice or bypass are adjusted by new technologies, which indicates the possibility of permanent information collection through harassment or risk. This agreement specifically specifies that the amount of reports acquired for a particular chemical is not eradicated, but specifies that you can Change drug requirements in the audit cycle.[70]

7.5.4 WhatsApp

WhatsApp did not explicitly address the issue of hate speech communication on its stage. However, the terms and conditions of use allow customers to access and use web-based media platforms only for reasonable purposes, even for the most appropriate and appropriate purposes.[71] In addition, according to the terms of service, "illegal, illegal, degrading, threatening, annoying, hateful, racially or ethnically hostile, or directly cause or in any case inappropriate, illegal or fierce violations" The content is prohibited. The terms of use are also prohibited.[72] The terms of use state that customer accounts or access to records may be approximated, disqualified, or terminated for any reason, including "letter or soul" that

violates the terms.[73] It clearly states that "misleading, dangerous or potentially reasonably acceptable settings" of WhatsApp can trigger adaptation, cessation or termination.[74]

8. International law and Hate Speech

Give me the autonomy to recognise, to ultimate, and to conclude irreverently over all privileges," says the internal voice- John Milton

Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights defends the right to freedom of speech and expression. This correction reveals the safety of the public and the world.

Shashank Joshi said that freedom of speech is essential to respect for human nature and the foundation of any just society. This is a liberating right that allows people to compete on all other rights.[75]

However, it has some instances where it realizes that freedom of speech is not a prerequisite for incompetence. Hate speech is one of the most well-known restrictions on freedom of speech in the world. This phrase aims to destroy or unite people based on race, gender, age, identity, race, religion, sexual leadership, sexual personality, disability, speaking ability, belief

system, social class, occupation, and appearance.[76] In 1965, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)[77] as the primary global method for addressing contempt. CERD is the most comprehensive in handling contempt speech. According to article 4 (a) of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the various parts of hate speech are classified according to the following promises: dissemination of ideas based on racial prevalence; dissemination of ideas based on racial hatred. The three territorial sanctions on fundamental freedoms have been granted to the African Charter of Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights; however, only Article 13 (5) of the African Charter of Human Rights provides for restrictions

on disrespect. The critical point of targeting, encouragement and prohibition is the key component of hate speech, as follows:

Article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 13 (5) of the ACHR require the establishment of hatred, but Article 3 (a)) The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination does not. Because component support is considered a requirement for expectations, it is only suitable for expressions intended to provoke disgust. When considering hate cases, the European Court of Human Rights in Jersild v. Denmark[78]maintained that purpose is essential.

Reminder; Article 7 of the UDHR, Article 20 (1) of the ICCPR and Article 13 (5) of the ACHR are not applicable before entry into force. In any case, there is a lot of discussion about what an action is, because there is no complete global consensus on the specific definition.

Generally, the court will examine the reasons and the setting for the speech to determine whether it is hate speech. In deciding whether to proceed quickly, most courts will review these two decisive factors.

This term is related to whether the hate debate leads or leads to violent behavior. This scenario is critical when assessing whether disparaging cruel content has been disseminated to provoke hatred or cruelty. The results are suppressed; different principles require the removal of expressions that have limited impact on certain results. Article 13 (5) of the ACHR prohibits the invitation to barbaric or similar illegal acts. Article 4 (a) of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cover all areas, from isolation to shame. In the Nahimana case, the International Tribunal for Rwanda described hatred as the widespread use of nationality and a disadvantage.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights held a keynote seminar on speech of contempt from one side of the earth to the other in 2011. They designed

the Rabat Action Plan, which is a comprehensive game plan. It has been suggested that a higher range should be used for restrictions on expression opportunities, incitement to hatred, and the use of features of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

For expressions that are criminally prohibited, a six-part restriction test has been proposed:

Setting: Context is critical to assess whether a particular innuendo may cause division, revulsion, or cruelty to the target group, and may have a direct impact. Considering Plans and possible causality. The act of speech must be placed in the social and political context that existed when speech was created and disseminated.

Speaker: The position or status of the speaker in the public view should be considered, that is, the position of the individual or organization relative to the speaker.

Plan: Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights needs expectations. Plan: Recklessness and exoticism are not enough to solve Article 20, it needs to be "backed up" and "started", rather than just being scattered or taking simple routes. In this way, there is a trilateral relationship between the article and the subject and the crowd.

Substance or structure: The substance and the conceptual aspect of the speech is one of the first priorities of the judicial opinion. The content analysis may be based on whether the speech is provocative and direct, it must consider the structure, style and nature of the arguments conveyed during the debate, or it must still be determined between the disputes presented.

Speech Grade: When determining speech grade, the scope, publicity, scale, and audience size of the speech should be considered. Other considerations are whether the conversation is public and how it is disseminated, for example, a single exercise or the form of communication. By definition, pointing is a rather complicated misbehavior. This discussion should not implement the actions required by inaction to summarize the embezzlement of public funds. You may be injured. In other words, the court must confirm that discourse has the upper hand in terms of incitement to actual actions and objective encounters. The strategy emphasizes the fight against hate crimes by countries and other global organizations.[79]

The number of materials has increased significantly, which can arouse hatred worldwide. Xenophobia, racism, communitarianism and chauvinism are well-known terms. A satirical tweet can be retweeted many times, and the whole world can witness it. Harsha Rangaraj wrote: "It is inevitable that we must resolve the issue of hate addresses and hate materials as soon as possible." Promoting cross-cultural communication and respect for different societies, identities, and religions are essential.

Some Instances of Inducing Hatred in India

"Economic Times" reported that, as the news records in 2019 show, India's international ranking dropped by two places, ranking 140th out of 180 countries. The investigation found that the allies of the policy party BJP have expanded their attacks on Indian writers, especially before the general race. The list also exposes cruel acts against Indian writers, including police brutality, Maoist attacks, and revenge for evil rallies. In 2018, 6 Indian writers were killed for their work. According to the report, these killings revealed weaknesses in the current work of Indian columnists, especially non-English essayists working in the primitive, public domain. Essayists/journalists have spared no effort in communicating or disseminating issues that disturb the Hindus, who are exposed to the abhorrent crusades through web-based media. The report also mentioned that "It is difficult for Indian columnists to work with really weak systems, such as Kashmir." Internet providers are usually closed, and unknown correspondents will also stop on such systems.[80]

Das Gupta in the Huffington Post wrote that Fundamental Freedom activists accused "RepublicTV" of being sued for "hate speech" because Arnab Goswami's news channel repeatedly referred to these activists during the Bhima Koregaon conflict It is the "Naxalite" and the "Maoist". When the militants were attacked and arrested in their homes, Arnab Goswami (Arnab Goswami) directed the Republic TV and announced that he had filmed "IndiaVsMaoists" and "UrbanNaxals" at the bottom of the news program. On Twitter, the republic’s television shared fragments of discussions known as “Maoist nationalists”. The viewers of Republic TV have yet to learn how he made political plans. All things considered, what Arnab and Republic TV are doing is more terrifying than criticism. By misleading the

public, Republic TV is empowering individuals on specific networks, which in itself is a threat to public safety.[81]

Chetty and Alathur in the online social media hate speech survey said that with the progress of network innovation and informal communication that have made extensive contributions to mankind, hate speech and psychological oppression have also been developed to one side.

They characterize hate speech as a hostile substance and convey it through personalized thoughts that are designed to concentrate on specific places or gatherings, race, religion, or sexual orientation, to create barbarism or pressure. Hate speech is a form of psychological oppression that causes cruelty and risk. Scholars argue that most previous articles independently reviewed hate speech and psychological warfare, but due to the time difference, the two must be kept together because they are interconnected and unshakable.[82]

As per Down to earth report: WhatsApp is a weapon to retain hatred. Recently, online media platforms or venues, especially WhatsApp, have become a way of sharing rumors, real content, and lies. Fake news shared on remote informal communication apps brings brutality, prejudice and deliveries.[83]

ARGHYA SENGUPTA in The Print spoke about the Sudarshan News case: the Supreme Court restricted Sudarshan News from broadcasting future scenes of its "Bindas Bol" program, which requires intermittent time to establish contact with Muslims in the Organization of the Knights of the India. According to the Law, the Ministry is blocked to prevent the transmission or retransmission of any program that alters the program code. If a program can increase hatred or aggression between networks, accredited officials also have the right to stop the program. The program rules are extensive, and programs that contain attacks on religions or organizations or visual or contempt for serious social events or promote collective attitudes are prohibited in the relevant sections..[84]

Ananthakrishnan G in the “Indian Express” reported: In order to save news opportunities, the center’s statement stated that the spread of Covid-19 among members of the Tablighi Jamaat show in Nizamuddin Makaz, and the attacks on prosperous workers in certain segments, etc. Is a problem. The real world and news reports are affected by real factors...cannot be changed. The seat also includes judges A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, who clearly

stated their mistakes in the registration of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The affidavit stated that the petition made a complaint against a certain part of the media, but did not name it, and some news reports did not make these reports. It only relied on "certain rude news reports" to counter the entire media, and was implementing basic disharmony and harmony. Contempt for Muslims. , Therefore should be convicted/choked.[85]

Suggestions

  1. To the Government of India

○ Amend the criminal law of India to comply with the proposed timeline for the protection of the right to read aloud and relationships, as described in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and be composed of the Human Rights Committee United Nations and United Nations components (such as the United Nations Committee for the Evaluation and Promotion of Tone Rights)

○  Develop countermeasures to overcome the speech through identified or non-corrective measures that are consistent with the responses of public authorities to specific situations. This may include government sponsored training, increased resilience, openly addressing offensives or fostering misunderstandings, and strengthening security to ensure the Affected population.

  1. To The Judiciary

● Train judges and officials in accordance with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which stipulates the expression and reasoning behind the restriction of expression, as well as India’s commitment to the freedom of common use within the scope of world law.

●  If the 124A area of ​​the punitive code is invalid or changed, the investigator must be clearly educated so that the Supreme Court can make an appropriate decision. The rebellion law only applies to speech that is inclined or intended to be public.

●  The premise of prosecution cannot be simply analyzed by public authorities or public methods. Comments or expressions deemed offensive to India or its public image cannot be used as a prerequisite for objections. If the law on illegal activities (prevention) changes, investigators should be clearly informed that the legality of the prosecution under the law will include or clarify that hostile positions against the government or opinions that reflect the target are inappropriate for the groups. "prohibited".

●  Restrictions on public demand should only be aimed at talking about or encouraging rebellious activities.

Conclusion

Hate speech is the first step to stigmatize and harm a group of people. If the formation of a free state and the rule of the majority are guaranteed for the right to freedom of speech and expression, this would violate the conditions for the formation of a free state. When it comes to hate speech legislation that may lead to collective interest, India’s key reality is not the improper application of the law, but the government’s firm determination to make it happen.

Specific measures must be taken to prevent the spread of hate speech. The main task of the country should be to create a shared, diverse and multicultural atmosphere that promotes peace and harmony, while allowing the free exchange of ideas to promote growth and improvement.

[1] See, David Kretzmer,Freedom of Speech and Racism (1987) 8 Cardozo L Rev 445, 462.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Article 19 UDHR

[4] Dictionary.com: Hate speech.

[5] See, Friedrich How Much Freedom for Racist Speech? Transnational Aspects of a Conflict of Human Rightsâ (1998) 27 Hofstra L Rev 335, 336.

[6] See, Friedrich Kabler, supra, n. 5, 340-47 for a discussion of the extensive German regulation against hate speech.

[7] See, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 96 L Ed 919 : 343 US 250 (1952)

[8] Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, (1937)

[9] Bryan A. Garner(Ed), Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed., West Group

[10] Sally Wehmeier (Ed),Oxford Advanced learner’s Dictionary, p 618 Oxford University Press, 7th ed 2005

[11] Britannica dictionary

[12] Michel Rosenfeld, Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis

(2002-2003) 24 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1523, 1523.

[13] Asad Ali Ahmed, Specters of Macaulay: Blasphemy, the Indian Penal Code, and Pakistan’s

Postcolonial Predicament in Raminder Kaur and William Mazzarella (eds), CENSORSHIP IN

SOUTH ASIA: CULTURAL REGULATION FROM SEDITION TO SEDUCTION, Indiana University

Press, 2009, 173.

[14] Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edition

[15] Report on Hate Speech, Law Commission of India

[16] Cheek, Timothy. Propaganda and Culture in Mao’s China: Deng Tuo and the Intelligentsia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. pg 283

[17] Hamrin, Carol Lee, and Timothy Cheek, eds. China’s Establishment Intellectuals. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1986. pg 96

[18] Hamrin, Carol Lee, and Timothy Cheek, eds. China’s Establishment Intellectuals. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1986. pg 96,103

[19] Cheek, Timothy. Propaganda and Culture in Mao’s China: Deng Tuo and the Intelligentsia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. pp. 282-283

[20] Shreya Singhal case

[21] Ibid

[22] Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 836.

[23] Virendra case para 9.

[24] Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.

[25] Bharat Bhushan Sharma (n. 61).

[26] Zac Poonen (n. 69).

[27] The ‘Tendency’ test has been discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this Report.

[28] Nauriya

[29] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299

[30] Harjit Singh Mann v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1980 SC 701.

[31] Nauriya

[32] Rashtravadi Shiv Sena v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali Films Pvt. Ltd, WP (C) 6384/2013.

[33] Sanjay Leela Bhansali

[34] Kirankumar Rameshbhai Devmani v. State of Gujarat, 2014(5) GLR 3845.

[35] Pankaj Butalia, ‘Film censorship continues and spreads in India’ The Indian Express (India, 8 June 2016)<http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/censor-board-shyam-benegal-headed-committee-udta-punjab-2840005/

[36] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, ‘Shyam Benegal Committee submits its report on Cinematograph Act/Rules to Shri Jaitley’ (India, 26 April 2016) <http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=142288>

[37] Butalia

[38] PTI, ‘Lipstick Under my Burkha: CBFC refuses to certify Prakash Jha film’ The Indian Express (India, 23 February 2017) <http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/lipstick-under-myburkha-cbfc-refuses-to-certify-prakash-ha-s-film/story-bHkjpxbfZ7EzFK6Ye5nV4J.html>

[39] Santanu Chowdhury, ‘Don’t use “cow”, “Gujarat” in Amartya Sen documentary: Censor Board’ The Indian Express <http:// indianexpress.com/article/india/dont-use-cow-gujarat-in-amartya-sen-documentary-censor-board-4748211/>

[40] After Rajputs, Muslims want ban on Padmavati for showing them in “negative light” ’ Hindustan Times (India, 2 January 2018) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/now-padmavati-hurts-muslim-sentiments/story-t4nSqsLwkxMgBRiMjNFogL.html>

[41] Smriti Kak Ramachandran and Hiral Dave, ‘Padmavati: Gujarat bans Deepika Padukone film, second state after MP’ Hindustan Times (India, 22 November 2017)

[42] ‘Padmavati row: Bihar, UP, Gujarat and other states where Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film faces hurdles’ Hindustan Times(India, 29 November 2017) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/padmavati-row-bihar-up-gujarat-and-other-stateswhere-sanjay-leela-bhansali-s-film-faces-hurdles/story-N6qcNFQwX4HmHSdJXs5fKP.html>

[43] Manohar Lal Sharma para 9.

[44] Bhairav Acharya, ‘India’s Long History of Television Censorship’ The Wire (India, 12 November 2016) <https://thewire.in/79531/india-long-history-of-television-censorship/>

[45] Arun and Singh case p. 25

[46] Economic Times

[47] State of Karnataka v. Shanthappa, 1997 CriLJ 2802, para 8.

[48] Seema Chishti, ‘Biggest Caste Survey: One in four Indians admit to practicing untouchability’ The Indian Express (New Delhi, 29 November 2014) <http://indianexpress.com/article/india/

india-others/one-in-four-indians-admit-to-practising-untouchability-bigest-caste-survey/

[49] The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986, section 2(c).

[50] Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on

Human Resource Development, The Indecent Representation

of Women (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2012 (Rajya Sabha,

Report No. 258, 2012) para 3.17.

[51] The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1988.

[52] C. Christine Fair and Sumit Ganguly (ed.), Treading on Hallowed Ground: Counter insurgency operations in sacred spaces (Oxford University Press, 2008).

[53] The National Security Act 1980, section 3

[54] Farmers Rights Activist Akhil Gogoi arrested under National Security Act’ The Wire (New Delhi, 26 September 2016) <https://thewire.in/181523/assam-farmers-rights-activist-akhil-gogoi-arrested-under-national-security-act/

[55] Uttar Pradesh Police books three men under National Security Act for cow slaughter in Muzaffarnagar’ FirstPost (Muzaffarnagar, 16 August 2017) <http://www.firstpost.com/india/uttar-pradesh-police-books-three-men-under-national-securityact-for-cow-slaughter-in-muzaffarnagr-3936735.html

[56] Ravi Nair, ‘National Security Act: Obscuring the Flaws in India’s Criminal Justice System’ The Wire (India, 5 March 2018) https://thewire.in/caste/national-security-act-obscuring-flaws-indias-criminal-justice-system

[57] Cabinet Approves Amendment to HIV/AIDS Bill’ The Economic Times (New Delhi, 5 October 2016) <http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nationcabinet-approves-amendment-to-hiv/aids-bill/articleshow/54693650.cms

[58] The HIV/AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act 2017, section 4

[59] Rasheeda Manjoo, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women its causes and consequences’ A/HRC/26/38/Add. 1 (Human Rights Council 26th session, 11 December 2014), para 20.

[60] Press Council’s Powers, Practices and Procedures

[61] Press Council of India p. 128

[62] Indian Broadcasting Foundation

[63] Indian Broadcasting Foundation

[64] Indian Broadcasting Foundation

[65] Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Advisory regarding broadcast of content of FM Radio Channels

[66] National Advertising Monitoring Service (NAMS)’, (The Advertising Standards Council of India) <http://www.ascionline.org/index.php/nams.html

[67] Priyanka Mittal Case

[68] https://m.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech0

[69] https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_in/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/standing-up-to-hate/

[70] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

[71] WhatsApp Legal Info - Key Updates’ (WhatsApp) <https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/#key-updates

[72] Whatsapp

[73] Whatsapp

[74] Whatsapp

[75] http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages, Navaneethan Pillai’s lecture on Hate Speech at the London School of economics

[76] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression

[77] General Assembly Resolution 2106A(XX), 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969

[78] ECHR 20 Oct 1994

[79] Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, Conclusions and recommendations emanating from the four regional expert workshops organized by OHCHR, in 2011, and adopted by experts in Rabat, Morocco on 5 October 2012.

[80] India drops down on the World Press Freedom Index . (2019, April 18).

[81] Gupta, P. (2018, 9 1). Bhima Koregaon Raids: Activists Want Arnab Goswami's 'Republic' To Be

Sued For 'Hate Speech'. https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/08/31/bhima-koregaon-raids-why-activists-want-

arnab-goswami's-republic-to-be-sued-for-hate-speech_a_23512295/

[82] Chetty, N., & Alathur, S. (2018). Hate speech review in the context of online social networks.

ScienceDirect .

[83] Chopra, R. (2019, April 24). In India, WhatsApp is a weapon of antisocial hatred. Retrieved

from DownToEarth: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/general-elections-2019/in-

india-whatsapp-is-a-weapon-of-antisocial-hatred-64140

[84] Arghya SenguptaARGHYA SENGUPTA 21 September, 2020 Supreme Court giving Sudarshan News case a constitutional colour is curious https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/opinion/supreme-court-sudarshan-news-upsc-jihad-case-constitution-hate-speech/507028/%3famp

[85] Ananthakrishnan G October 9, 2020 Tablighi matter: Freedom of speech most abused