Hate Speech

GS 1> Society   >   Communalism   >   Vulnerable & Backward sections

REFERENCE NEWS:

• Recently, the Supreme Court said that though it wants hate speeches and incitement to violence to stop, it cannot pre-empt people’s right to free speech and assembly by restraining them from holding meetings or processions without first granting them an audience.

MORE ON NEWS:

• The Supreme Court underscored this while addressing a case involving potential hate speech at public rallies organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Maharashtra and BJP MLA T. Raja Singh in Chhattisgarh. 
• The Court refused to order pre-emptive action against these events, emphasising the importance of not infringing on free speech and assembly rights without substantial evidence or legal procedure.
• However, the Court directed the district magistrates and police in the areas where the rallies were scheduled to take necessary precautions to prevent hate speech or incitement to violence. This includes measures like installing CCTV cameras to help identify any individuals who might engage in hate speech or incitement to violence.

WHAT IS ‘HATE SPEECH’?

• There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’. In general, hate speech is speech that targets people based on their identity, and calls for violence or discrimination against people because of their identity.
• Black’s Law Dictionary has defined it as “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 Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) described hate speech as “an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group” and one that “seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.”

CHALLENGES IN ADDRESSING HATE SPEECHES:

• Absence of clear definition:
  • Hate speech is neither defined in the Indian legal framework nor can it be easily reduced to a standard definition due to the myriad forms it can take.
• Conflict with freedom of speech:
  • Laying down a definite standard for identifying hate speech might lead to curtailment of free speech. This is what prevents the judiciary from defining hate speech in India and elsewhere.
• Lack of proper legislations:
  • Despite the Law Commission proposal to add specific offences to the IPC, hate speech legislations continue to be subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
• “Dog-whistle tactics”:
  • Hate speeches are often indirect and use words with a degree of ambiguity, as a ‘dog whistle’: while it may escape the attention of an external observer, both the speaker and the listener know what – and who – is being referred to. This makes it difficult to identify and punish hate speeches.
• Inconsistent verdicts:
  • Despite judicial guidance from the Amish Devgan case, uncertainty around interpretation of hate speech has resulted in the adoption of varying standards in different cases across the country.
• Political patronage:
  • Political speeches often rely on a divisive tone and fake news in order to exploit social-ideological prejudices and vote banks for electoral gains.
• “Structural bias” in investigation:
  • Condemnation of and action against hate speech remains selective in India. Increasingly, speakers from marginalized communities, as well as dissenters, do not seem to get the same benefit of the doubt on evaluations of potential for disorder in their speeches.
• Rise of digital space:
  • Online hate speech, particularly against Muslims and women, has been on the rise in India. The digital hatred and majoritarian radicalization were evident during the onset of the pandemic. However, much of the existing penal provisions on hate speech belong to the pre-Internet era, which makes tackling the issue difficult.

HARM FROM HATE SPEECH:

• Instigates violence:
  • Hate speech lays the groundwork for broad attacks on the vulnerable that can range from discrimination to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.
  • Eg: During the anti-Citizenship Act agitation, several leaders allegedly made hate speeches that eventually led to communal riots in north-east Delhi in 2020.
• Perpetuates discrimination:
  • The harm in hate speech is not simply restricted to direct and proximate calls to violence. Hate speech creates a climate that strengthens existing prejudices and entrenches already existing socio-economic discrimination.
• Creates democratic deficit:
  • Hate speech causes a ‘democratic deficit’ vis-à-vis the targeted community, by seeking to push it out of the polity. This further strengthens majoritarianism and alienates minorities in the country.
• Undermines constitutional rights:
  • Article 21 is a protective umbrella under which citizens live without fear of being deprived of their right. Also, article 19 provides for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. However, recurring instances of hate speech undermines these rights.
• Forced eviction:
  • In the name of dealing with the communal disturbances instigated by hate speeches, officials have resorted to demolishing the houses of those allegedly involved in the incidents, without following any process of law.
• Reinforce patriarchal norms:
  • India’s strong patriarchal framework excessively glorifies a vegetarian diet and upholds stereotyped notions of gender, moral policing of sexuality and its expression, and xenophobia. Hate content proliferating in online space serves to amplify these social evils.
• Impact on foreign policy:
  • India’s rising illiberal tendencies have been flagged by policymakers across the world, denting its global image.
  • Eg: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) expressed its concern over the rise of Islamophobia on social media in India.

WAY FORWARD:

• Implement committee recommendations:
  • The Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws was constituted in May 2021 to suggest reforms to the IPC. It is likely to propose a separate Section on “offences relating to speech and expression.” These recommendations, along with the others, should be implemented.
• Specific legislation for online content:
  • Much of the existing penal provisions deal with hate speech belong to the pre-Internet era. The need of the hour is specialised legislation that will govern hate speech propagated via the Internet and, especially, social media.
• Adopt global best practices:
  • To curb online hate, reference can be drawn to the Australian federal law called the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019. It imposes liability upon internet service providers on abhorrent violent material accessible through the service provided by them.
• Universal condemnation:
  • Condemnation of hate speech must be universal, and not selective. All calls for violence must be unequivocally condemned with equal strength and determination.
• Non legal measures:
  • Long lasting success can be attained only if there is social consensus against hate speeches.      Hence, there is a need to convince and educate the public on responsible exercise of freedom of speech and expression.

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Discuss the causes of hate speech in India and its effects. Also, provide recommendations on how to address this issue effectively. (15 marks, 250 words)