Tackling Social Media’s Hate Speech Problem in India: An Analysis

I. Introduction

Words have tremendous power, and when we discuss hate speech or "love speech," we must remember that words are deeds that have a direct impact on the world, not just on the listener, but on how life is perceived. As a result, the words we speak or write can have a significant impact on the individuals who hear them.

Given the true power of words, using words to express hatred is a very deadly weapon for which we are all responsible. As a result, hate speech must be seen as aggressive conduct aimed at disparaging a person or a group based on a trait arbitrarily chosen by the speaker. The Internet has had a positive impact on society in numerous ways. For example, it enables us to communicate more readily and efficiently on a variety of vital topics, ranging from sickness treatment to disaster aid. However, the Internet has increased the potential for injury. The ability to connect with a large audience has revolutionised the way we interact with politics, public affairs, and one another. On social media, hateful remarks and incitements to violence are disseminated and magnified in ways that were before impossible. In India, fake news and hate propaganda are mostly about a person's caste, gender, or religion, which are all sensitive subjects for most of us. Furthermore, the regulations addressing these concerns are insufficient and are dispersed throughout numerous statutes and rules under the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, and the Criminal Procedure Code. The present legislation must be harmonised and unified. Furthermore, the proposed intermediary guidelines regulations must be amended to address new types of hate material that have proliferated on the Internet. Although most major social media firms, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, have policies in place governing whether and what types of hate speech are allowed on their platforms, these policies are frequently handled inconsistently and can be difficult to understand by users. Before considering potential solutions to the problem of hate speech on the Internet, it is critical to first create a road map of the rules and regulations that already exist and apply to the content under consideration.

II. Hate and hate speech

Hatred (or dislike) is a strong emotional hatred aimed against a specific thing or group of objects. Inanimate things, animals, oneself or other individuals, entire groups of people, humans in general, existence, or the entire globe can all be targets of such hatred. Hate includes "Extremely negative feelings and beliefs held about a group of individuals or a specific representative of that group because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Hate speech is described as biased, hostile, and harmful discourse directed at an individual or a group of individuals because of some of their actual or perceived innate traits. It conveys discriminatory, intimidating, disapproving, confrontational, and/or prejudiced attitudes toward gender, race, religion, ethnicity, colour, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation.² Hate speech aims to harm, dehumanise, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimise the targeted groups, as well as incite insensitivity and cruelty against them. The content of speech, the (written or oral) tone of speech; an assessment of the nature of that speech; the (individual and collective) targets of that speech; and the potential consequences or implications of the speech act are all mentioned in hate speech category.

PHYSICAL HARM

PHYSICAL HARM

MENTAL HARM

MENTAL HARM

III. Social media

The term "social media" will be defined as "a collection of online communication channels dedicated to community-based input, interaction, content sharing, and collaboration." Among the various types of social media are websites and applications dedicated to forums, microblogging, social networking, social bookmarking, social curating, and wikis. Examples of social media companies include Facebook Twitter.

IV. Freedom of expression vs Hate speech

However, the lack of a definition of what constitutes hateful content often leaves a lot of grey areas for detection, and automated moderation algorithms are unable to detect hate-generating content due to a lack of a definition of what constitutes hateworthy content and what does not. Drawing a distinction between legal freedom of speech and hate speech is necessary for regulating damaging communication in online settings. Most countries' constitutions, as well as the major international human rights treaties, provide freedom of expression. Of course, we all know that, despite this extensive protection, many countries fail to give sufficient speech protection. One of the risks of banning hate speech on the Internet is that it will serve as a justification for repressive regimes to further restrict citizens' rights. Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.

V. Why hate speech should be regulated?

Despite the fact that there is no law in India that defines what constitutes hate speech, Article 19(1) of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to free speech and expression. These liberties, however, are subject to Article 19(2) "reasonable limits" Speech that violates, abuses, or infringes on "India's sovereignty and integrity, the State's security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence" is subject to censure under these restrictions.³In a study published in 2017, the Law Commission, while assessing the extent of hate speech laws in India, recommended that, in addition to the current ones, new provisions be added to the penal code that specifically punishes incitement to violence. Several parts of the Indian Penal Code deal explicitly with punitive action in the context of these reasonable restrictions. Section IPC 153(A), for example, makes it illegal to "promote hatred based on religion, race, place of birth, or language." Speech that is intended to offend religious emotion is punishable under Section 298. Section 124A makes sedition illegal, while Section 505 makes utterances about "public mischief" illegal. In India, there are other regulations that serve as exceptions to the right to freedom of expression. The Representation of the People Act 1951, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1988, and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 are just a few examples.

Despite the fact that many countries have laws prohibiting hate speech, their definitions differ greatly. "The research of hate speech in different nations reveals that, despite the lack of a general definition, it has been recognised as an exception to free expression by international institutions and municipal courts," according to the Law Commission Report.

Hate speech includes "speech that has no meaning other than to show hatred for a group, such as a specific race, especially under circumstances where the communication is likely to provoke violence and under that race, nationality, religion, and class are the most prominent targets of hate speech.

With its great diversity of language, caste, ethnicity, religion, culture, and beliefs, India presents a unique case for hate speech regulation. ⁴Speech refers to the use of words, whether spoken or written, as well as the use of signs or any other visual representation. We classify such speech as 'hate speech' if it vilifies religious, ethnic, cultural, or racial groups and is capable of spreading 'hatred' among a diverse population.

When it comes to the criminalisation of speech, there arises a question as to what types of speech should ideally be criminalised, whether only a specific sort of hate speech should be forbidden, and whether all hate speech should be made punished by criminal law or should be dealt with under civil law. Most importantly, Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 505(1) and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code declare that any word, spoken or written, or employing signs or any kind of visual representation that 'promotes disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will' or 'offends' or 'insults' on the basis of religion, ethnicity, culture, language, region, caste, community, race, or any other is a punishable offence.

In India, efforts to curb hate speech on Facebook is very important. Over the previous five years, several instances have gone to court involving people whose Facebook posts were blocked or removed for being insulting to lawmakers and Parliament, encouraging violence, or hurting religious emotions. These users were charged or arrested under Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, which attempts to punish "offensive, misleading, or threatening information" transmitted through computers and communication devices.

VI. Information dissemination using social media

Online speech and content can now be shared anonymously and without regard for the consequences, thanks to the digital age. ⁵While the act of publishing on the Internet is immediate, speech regulation measures are frequently complicated and slow. Furthermore, before a piece of traditional media is published, it is subjected to editorial review by someone other than the author. This has often served as an effective deterrent to hate speech in the past, but it is clear that this process does not operate on self-published social media sites. Regulating hate speech on the Internet presents a significant policy challenge. Policymakers must guarantee that any regulation of social media platforms does not restrict people's ability to express themselves freely. Because of the problem's complexity, it's important to keep a careful eye on new legislative proposals around the world to see if a good balance has been found between the protection of free expression and the ban of hate speech. In order for this monitoring to occur, social media businesses must be honest about the information they are eliminating and make their data available for review by researchers and the general public. In India, the current method for dealing with hate speech during elections is muddled and redundant because the standard practice calls for a legal notice to be sent to politicians who preach hatred, followed by a police report. This entire procedure necessitates significant periods of time. The hateful postings have remained online for a long time, inciting more hostility among the public. As a result, the proposed legislation requires stringent regulation of the time range within which web portals must analyse and remove information. Depending on the intensity of the nature of the content, a distinct punitive and criminal liability should be imposed on the party that publishes such vile content online. Compliance with this regulation would also need the creation of a dedicated Regulatory/Monitoring Team that is solely responsible for analysing the content that is flagged online.

VII. Why is there more hate speech in India?

The spread of hate speech and the dissolution of ideas of religious hatred or incitement of criminal activity within Indian minds are not new concepts. Until recently, the promotion of such venomous content and instilling fear in young minds about specific individuals, groups, or communities was limited to the known channels of physical gatherings of people. Rallies, roadshows, and television all promoted such dissemination; however, these channels could be easily monitored because the time and location of such events are almost always known. However, with the majority of the population now having access to the Internet and the increased number of hours that an Indian spends on the Internet on average, hate speech and fake news have found a new home that has no regulatory mechanism or guidelines to monitor online hate speech. The actual problem under the current scenario is not the lack of the necessary laws to deal with hate speeches in India but their effective implementation. Even if the Law Commission of India's proposed Amendment is rejected, the parties aggrieved by expression intended to incite violence or discrimination between communities are free to approach the courts of law under the existing statutory provisions; it is the responsibility of the courts, legislators, and law enforcers, i.e. the government's judicial, legislative, and executive branches, to guarantee that the hate speech statute is not rendered a dead letter due to ineffective execution. In the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court of India stated that "the idea of discrimination lies at the heart of hate speech." Its impact is measured not solely by its abusive value but also by how successfully and systematically it marginalises a people. The banning of content on social media platforms may appear to be an option to stop the spread of hate speech and violence, but social media, as one of the most convenient ways to reach out to the masses, has numerous other benefits in addition to the drawbacks that it serves. Reporting such harmful online content to Facebook, Twitter, and Tiktok is still not taken seriously and reported content is not removed immediately. A series of videos catching a political leader from Hyderabad singling out a specific group as "cow killers" went popular on Facebook recently. Despite the fact that the videos were repeatedly submitted to Facebook for removal, they remained viewable on that Facebook page for months. The lack of accountability on the part of these social media companies in removing glaringly visible offensive information despite being reported is fueling enmity among India's many communities. The lack of a protective legal framework around platforms like Whatsapp, which is one of the most dangerous nesting grounds for hate speech, makes the situation in India even worse. The imposition of a certain amount of punitive culpability on these social media companies through a strict legal state enforcement system is urgently required.

For example, France's recent landmark laws enforcing online hatred laws demonstrate how the government responded quickly to a live-streamed attack on two New Zealand mosques on Facebook, which sparked animosity among the French public. The French government realised that blaming online platforms for inaction would be ineffective unless a strict regulation governing their responsibilities to regulate anything uploaded online was enacted. As a result, the government acted quickly to protect the country's most vulnerable citizens. This rule requires social media platforms to remove offensive content within 24 hours of being reported and to take action if the content is still being shared online, and a fine of 1.20 million euros will be imposed. This shows the strict legal enforcement system.

VIII. Suggestion

States have the authority to pass legislation criminalising specific acts which come under hate speech. The statutes may also categorise the offences based on their severity, and India needs a regulation similar to the one established by the French government, which allows users to report content that they believe would lead to communal crimes. Furthermore, the rule should have a broader, but not regressive, definition of what constitutes hostile and offensive speech. It should be emphasised that certain feelings and expressions cause more harm in society than others due to the conditions in which they are expressed. As a result, the proposed legislation's definition of hate speech should take into account the circumstances in which it is delivered.

• Hold platforms responsible for hate speech.
• Monitoring and research are important.
• Taking complaints and investigating them.
• Working with Internet Service Providers and the Law.
• Education, training, and public awareness.
• Implementing the common criteria for identifying hate speech.
• Increasing intercultural communication and promoting values of tolerance, non-discrimination, and human rights respect.
• The government should build a separate internet gateway for logging hate speech charges against specific websites.

IX. Conclusion

The current situation has deteriorated, prompting calls for new legislation to regulate and control material on social media platforms. In order to combat hate speech, we need a larger platform where anything can be addressed freely. Any technique of social media content regulation or moderation will, of course, run the risk of infringing on users' right to free speech and privacy, and it also suggests that the Indian approach be changed by adopting a co-regulatory model. Government support in the form of a penal and ethics code can also minimise online harms, and existing laws, as well as the punishments, should be updated accordingly.

*****