Priyanga.M
“Hate speech is not free speech.”
The Constitution of India explicitly provides its citizens the Right to Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which facilitates the exchange of diverse opinions in our democratic country. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to restrictions provided under Article 19(2). In the case of Rangarajan etc., v P. Jagjivan Ram, the Supreme court of India stated that to restrict freedom of speech and expression, “the anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched. It should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression of thought which is intrinsically dangerous to the public interest.” As ‘Hate Speech’ can incite offences and violations in the society, it is regarded as one of the restrictions to the said right. (ie) hate speech cannot be recognized within the ambit of freedom of speech and expression. Black's Law Dictionary defines hate speech as a “speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.”
The 267th Report of the Law Commission of India has regarded hate speech as “an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like.” Though there is no specified definition of ‘Hate Speech’ available in any of the statutes in our country, the following provisions provide for its punishment:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 505(1) and (2).
The Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 7, 8, 123(3A) and 125.
The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 - Section 3(g).
The Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995 - Sections 5 and 6.
The Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sections 4, 5B and 7.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 95, 107, 144.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India restrained the broadcast of the remaining episodes of ‘Bindas Bol’ programme telecasted on Sudharshan TV, as it was claimed to contain hate speech and defamation against Jamia Milia Islamia and the Muslim Community. The anchor of the show had anchored a controversial show on the alleged infiltration of the Muslim Community into the Civil Services examinations.
The Human Rights Council’s ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the Right to freedom of opinion and expression’ recognized ‘Hate Speech’ as one of the grounds to impose restrictions on the said right. The courts in some countries have refrained from identifying the criteria of hate speech. However, through an analysis made by the Law Commission of India in its 267th Report, on the decisions of the different State jurisdictions, certain parameters may be summarised: (criteria to recognize Hate speech)
The extremity of the speech - must be offensive and project the extreme form of emotion.
Incitement – speech must provoke someone to act unlawfully.
Status of the author of the speech
Status of victims of the speech
Potentiality of the Speech – The potential impact of the speech has to be viewed.
Context of the Speech
In the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the Supreme Court discussed the differences between the three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the right to freedom of speech and expression. They are(i) discussion (ii) advocacy and (iii) incitement. Furthermore, it was stated that the mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, however unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy becomes incitement, that Article 19(2) gets attracted . This same standard has been followed internationally. The Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres launched the United Nations strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech which, instead of prohibiting hate speech, aims at prohibiting the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.
In our daily life, we would have often heard the saying "Words are mightier than the sword". The meaning of this proverb is that the language or the words used by a person can make an utmost impact on fellow individuals. Apart from guns, riffles, missiles that are used to kill masses of people, words used by hate propagators are much more powerful. Hateful words stand as sources of instigation and stir up people to commit all forms of unimaginable crimes. It is indeed time to understand that hate speech is the precursor to every crime in most cases. Adama Dieng, the United Nations Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide has taken initiatives to combat "atrocity crimes" (which includes - genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) and in one of his interviews has clearly pointed out that every genocide (deliberate killing of a large group of people) in the world right from the Holocaust (1941), Rwanda(1994), to the Tamil genocide by Srilanka, is preceded by Hate speech.
As Newton Lee says, “There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech. Free speech encourages debate whereas hate speech incites violence.” Thus, inciting hate speeches cannot be regarded as freedom of speech.
"Let's spread love through words, not hatred and violence"
Comentários