The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, functioning in addition to the Act, arguments the capacity of the Indian Government to proscribe ‘hate speech’. It is worth noting that disparate existing ‘hate speech’ provisions, they explicitly prohibit the ‘hosting, display, uploading, modification, publication, transmission, updating, or sharing’ of any information which, as per clause 3(2)(b) of the Rules, is ‘blasphemous’; such judicious reference to ‘blasphemy’ is unprecedented.
In addition, clause 3(2)(b) of the Rules proscribes the dissemination of material which is ‘racially [or] racially objectionable’, or ‘otherwise unlawful in any manner whatsoever’, while clause 3(2)(i) prohibits material which ‘threatens the
…show more content…
Hate speech is against the mandate of a fundamental right which is freedom of expression. Freedom of expression has five broad special purposes to serve:
It helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment.
It assists in discovering of truth.
It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making.
It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish reasonable balance between stability and social change.
All members of the society would be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely to others.
Hate speech hinders these purposes. Not all contemporary instances of hate speech are alike. Any evaluation of whether, how, or how much, hate speech ought to be prohibited. It must therefore account for certain key variables, namely , who and what are involved and where, when and under what circumstances these cases arise. They also make a difference in terms of whether or not it should be prohibited. As it, anywhere may make a difference depending on the country, society or culture involved, which may justify flatly prohibiting all Nazi propaganda in Germany but not in the United States may also matter within the same country or society. Thus, hate speech in an intracommunal setting may in some cases be less dangerous than if uttered in an intercommoned setting. Without minimizing the dangers of hate speech, it seems plausible
…show more content…
Our society has always encouraged the progression of knowledge with societal peace. Ethical stances on such material should not be formed by the mere existence of its controversy, but rather through individual study and personal conclusion as a person himself is a true judge. Ensuring prompt and effective investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and ensuring that bias motives are taken into consideration and throughout criminal proceedings. It is advisable in this type of situation that a person should use his own intellect and take his own decision whatever he finds right. Individual decisions are important because a society is made only by a group of these individual. If they are right then there is no chance of chaos in society due to these hate speeches and ultimate aim of the state which is to have peace in the society is fulfilled at the end