FIRs Against Hate Speech

On April 28, the Supreme Court issued a directive requiring States to suo motu file police reports (FIRs) on incidences of hate speech and take action against offenders without first awaiting a complaint.
Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna’s bench declared that all hate speech authors, regardless of their faith, would be subject to the court’s order.
The court emphasised the need to safeguard the country’s secular nature.

About
- Hate Speech is described as an incitement to hatred directed primarily towards a specific group of people based on their;
  - Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or other characteristics.
- Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, sign, or visible depiction within a person’s hearing or sight to provoke fear, alarm, or instigate violence.
- The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports a significant increase in cases of spreading hate speech and generating hostility in society.
Reasons to Curb Hate Speech
- It undermines social equality by upholding historical marginalisation, oppression, and discrimination.
- It is used to provoke violence and injure its victims physically and psychologically.
- It is employed to incite people or society to carry out terrorist attacks, genocides, ethnic cleansing, etc.
- It is a tool for spreading false rumours about specific individuals to spread panic.
  - For example, the Northeast exodus.

Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC
- Punishes acts that cause enmity and hatred between two groups.
Section 295A of the IPC
- Deals with punishing activities intentionally or maliciously offend a group’s religious feelings.
Sections 505(1) and 505(2)
- Publishing and distributing content that may incite ill will or hatred between different groups is a crime.

This is significant because democracy only works if people can voice their ideas about the government and, if necessary, condemn it.
People’s voices must be heard, and their problems must be addressed.
In a true democracy, the people’s opinions must be heard in the political arena and the social, cultural, and economic spheres.
Democracy is jeopardised in the absence of the liberties above.
- The government will grow far too powerful and begin to serve a select few’s interests rather than the broader public.
Heavy restrictions on freedom of expression and the free press will generate a fear factor in which people will passively accept tyranny.
- People would feel suffocated in such a situation and would prefer to suffer than share their ideas.
The freedom of the press is also a significant aspect of the freedom of expression.
- The significance of this right in the Indian context can be recognised because the Preamble guarantees all people the liberty of thought, speech, belief, faith, and worship.
Liberal democracies, particularly in the West, have a broad conception of free speech and expression.
- There are numerous avenues for people to express their dissatisfaction freely.
However, most countries have some form of censorship, with most cases involving defamation, hate speech, etc.
Censorship is often used to avert law and order problems in a country.

Defining hate speech
- No globally acknowledged definition exists, and norms and expectations range between countries and cultures.
- This establishes clear rules for what constitutes hate speech and what does not challenge it.
Addressing hate speech in non-English languages
- Hate speech is not confined to English-speaking countries.
- Therefore, identifying and removing hate speech in other languages can be difficult.
- Furthermore, those attempting to moderate content may need to familiarise themselves with cultural and linguistic nuances.
Lack of resources and legal framework
- Many countries lack the resources and legal framework to combat hate speech effectively.
- This can make it difficult to police laws and regulations and give individuals who indulge in hate speech a sense of impunity.

Education is the most effective strategy to reduce hostility.
Our educational system is essential in creating and understanding compassion for others.
Fighting hate speech cannot be done in isolation.
It should be debated on a larger stage, such as the United Nations.
Every responsible country, regional body, and other international and regional actors should address this threat.
Cases of hate speech can be addressed through Alternative Dispute Resolution.
It offers a change from lengthy judicial procedures to resolving disputes between parties through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and/or conciliation.

Pic Courtesy: The Hindu

Content Source: The Hindu