Tag Archives: democracy

Social Media Manipulation To Undermine Democracy

September 29, 2021 Team Attorneylex Leave a comment

This Article is written by B.Oviya and R.Jaisurya, students of The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University ( Schoool Of Excellence In Law )

ABSTRACT:

People are real assets of India as they play an important role in shaping democracy. Our goal was made achievable only by people interacting and joining hands together to reach success. But today, we have reached a stage where people can stay connected only through artificial intelligence. Fast growing technology and everlasting developments have made, “Privacy dead; social media the culprit holding guns”. In the process of increasing our social network, we started to undermine our democracy. Thus, rather than aiming to restore old ways, we can resort to initiating new methods like how to effectively use all social media as “We don’t have a choice on whether we can exclude social media, the question is how well we USE it”. It is eminent that we get all the information with a small device within seconds, but when analyzed in depth, there arises a more serious question: is all this information authentic? We people truly know what veracious is because it’s time to “WAKE UP” and prove that “we are not puppets of someone else’s game, nevertheless it’s our own game”. Therefore, by understanding what is media and its role, we try to scan whether it’s a manipulation or a source of information. With a few new changes brought, it is with confidence that we can reach the end line of this game. This challenge is never new, as great pillars of democracies have also looked upon these problems to reach victory today. Thus, by continuing strongly in this path, we can expect a mission accomplished soon as “the very meaning of start is to reach the end”.

INTRODUCTION:

One hundred years ago, there was no medium to know what’s happening around the world as no materialized inventions were adopted. People learnt culture or acquired knowledge only through oral interactions with people, unlike now, where we depend fully on material culture to guide us for each and every aspect of our daily lives. With ever-lasting growth in technology, media plays a very important role in our society. With the passage of time, this has led to assigning an adversarial role to social media rather than serving as a platform to provide news and information serving our needs. Media endeavors to shape a whole lot of public opinion leading to media manipulation.

Media manipulation refers to certain techniques, including creating images, videos, arguments in favor of their own interests. This basically involves suppressing information or other point of views, grouping them to one side, making people stop listening to certain arguments or use them as a source of distraction. Democracy is a form of government in which all people play a very vital role as they elect their own representatives. As people’s opinions can be expressed to all only through channels, we can find that social media plays an important role in undermining democracy.

SOCIAL MEDIA:

To start off with, in this present generation the young minds tend to capture the images faster than learning the words from a book, a perfect key in the developing process of social media platforms. Along with the start of the printing press in the 15th century, European revolution, the concept of information providing and information consumption started. In the 15th century, the rate of transformation of information was growing faster and faster by increasing the information production channel. Later from the 20th century, the phases of social media platforms began to develop at a lighting speed. Before, it was only used to consume information, but now every person is using the social media platforms to chit-chat, for entertainment and many other usages. In the 21st centurymany tech businesses also moved into social media platforms providing different usages for example, LINKEDIN, INSTAGRAM etc. This led to digital colonization.

As said in a most popular quote, “EVERYTHING HAS ITS OWN ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, WHAT MATTERS IS THE WAY WE PERCEIVE IT”. Thus, the media plays a significant role in both socialization processes, creating a strong impact on people’s decisions and also paving way to hinder from being their own self.

SOCIAL MEDIA’S TITLE ROLE:

In a democratic country, when people turn to the marketplace for ideas, suggestions or views, we often end up landing with misinformation, misrepresentation, etc., leading to badly affecting people’s trust and unique features of our democracy. Today, the title role of people is being played by social media either to raise their voices or hear other’s opinion. On this view, the question of “ACCOUNTABILITY” in the world politically or generally, still remains unanswered, as the opinion of a person lies with the social media company itself? In today’s scenario, the social media company uses the clause, “the message said by him belongs to him thus, he is accountable for his own acts” as a veil to escape from the social responsibility and liability. This makes these platforms run scot-free. But it is wise to make sure that every message emerged from the user through any platform as a ‘MEDIUM’ should also carry the accountability and liability as only it makes the information reach the consumers. Therefore, they are equally liable in spreading misinformation and hate speeches creating chaos any commotions. Thus, the role of expressing people should be considered as social media’s title role.

MEDIA: A SOURCE OF INFORMATION OR MANIPULATION:

The “DIGITAL COLONISATION”, has led to expansion in usage, eating away people’s private sphere of social life. But at the same time, this aids the Citizen led Governance, as one can connect millions within a minute for any cause with just a few clicks. The main problem in this splendid advantage is, people do not investigate the information or matters they get to know. They tend to accept any view or humiliate any point within just a matter of seconds. This is what is said in other words as manipulation, as it’s not our self-ideas, rather the ones arrived with influence.

Information turns into manipulation when there are no restriction lines drawn on people expressing their thoughts to others. This is because there is an increase in hate speeches, a major negativity for a progressing world leading to fake news, cyber trolling and many others. Even though the quick spreading of information has resulted in a cost-cutting process and a faster process through these medias, at the same time, it also created a manipulative society. It now ended up with the situation where, the ones who know how to manipulate can live in the society, while the rest are being manipulated to execute the ideas of manipulators.

ROLE IN UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY:

“The digital colonization acts as a greatest threat to democracy”. One best example for this is, in some states, political parties have their own PR (Public Relation) teams as an acting force behind them, to blend their ideas into citizens, mainly based on the huge amount of transactions. This proves that the present state of democracy is in the hands of few money- based PR teams, which ultimately leads to losing the effectiveness of democracy in the minds of citizens. The big threat is, still we don’t know how to regulate media as it becomes difficult to provide a social line on the production of various information.

For example in India, a set of rules known as the “Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code” were formed for social media and other outlets, in view of involving government in censor of social contents, the government asked the ‘Twitter’ to remove more than 80 accounts which criticized the two controversial bills, “The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and Farm Acts, 2020”, raising to a nation-wide protest against the ruling government. At last, after many warnings, it stood by the decision as if they were violating the rules of the nation, it would later become a precedent to other platforms. We can also find that before these new IT rules, WhatsApp was also a key channel in producing fake forward messages to a large community, but now after abiding to the new rules, the users can forward a message only at a time to a person, reducing the rate of transmission and acknowledgement of misinformation.

Another example is during the Trump’s government in United States, where there was many hate and extreme speeches through a popular social platform ‘FACEBOOK’. It was later analyzed that ‘Facebook’ intentionally allowed their users to spread wrong messages thinking they don’t carry the accountability for those messages. This was proved when Facebook blocked Donald Trump’s Facebook account after his term of governance as president. Thus, we find that many run businesses without the basic social responsibility affecting the stability of government.

SUGGESTION:

The best step to keep a check on social media is by defining the restriction line. This can be done by introducing new rules and stricter laws on citizens. The government can form a new ministry for social media handling or in the form of data protections, creating a big change as the said department will handle all works related to social media in a more organized way. Government instead of imposing a forceful regulation, can also promote self-regulating methods, aiding without any pre-emptive measures, giving certain positions in ad-hoc committees as these accreditations will certainly create a positive effect leading to healthier competitions. One of the main problems is, we don’t know who the sender is, as the anonymous person uses that as an advantage to escape from the hands of law. Therefore, we should keep a hold of who is sending what. One way is by connecting any important document with our social media accounts restricting all people to have only one account. Second, restricting the messages people can send in a day, age from which people can have accounts, maximum time they can login, etc., Third, a new online destination where people can reach to provide any information which undermine democracy. Fourth, conducting many programmes, interactive sessions for people to change their views and ideas about their roles, social media or democracy.

When all the above said suggestions will create a lot of change, it will happen only when we people start the change. Growth can be analyzed with smaller steps like we should stop relying and believing on social media information and start investigating any matter before we tend to accept it as continuous interpretation of media has ended people’s ability to make their own opinions. Generally, as the media covers a vast portion of information, people either end up believing nothing or accepting what is convincing to them. We should look out for echo-chambers, unwanted notifications, and ads. Thus, we can play our small, efficient role by starting to delete our accounts.

CONCLUSION:

It’s high time to change the fact, “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind” because being in a well-developing country, there is no reason to simply believe that technology can strengthen democracy. Democracy is something built by “US” people and grows only in the way we handle our complications. Democracy development lies in how well we utilize opportunities and with what intentions, as in social media, we just need to “think twice before we act”. With continuous efforts, we can change the whole picture the MEDIA has created as it’s just a matter of time,

“We play by our rules long enough and it becomes our game.”

We should also remember that, “time isn’t the main thing, but the only thing”. Therefore, working together from day one will ultimately help us reach the finish line. Social media isn’t something we can totally exclude from society, rather a tool which needs to be used with care and caution. We should either take the risk or lose the chance as though this is a never-ending hitch, we can boost it up to maximum level as “the very meaning of start is to reach the end”.

For more such Articles; Join Team Attorneylex’s WhatsApp group to get notified immediately. Also check us out on Instagram and Twitter

Articles

Sedition: The Self-Inflicted Wound

August 10, 2021 Team Attorneylex Leave a comment

This Case Summary is written by Ritunjay Singh & Shruti Parashar, students of Dr Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University

“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”― Albert Einstein

When people censor the government, then democracy is in the right hands, but if they are punished for the same, the nation is heading towards doom because in a democracy the sovereignty lies with the people and not the government. To say that there must be no criticism of the government or that we are to stand by it, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile but morally despicable.

Sedition increasingly has become a law which is being used to curb every kind of dissent. Many nations have abrogated this colonial law and have called those nations out which curb free speech and expression in its name. For example, Britain itself abolished sedition as a criminal offence in 2009 as it was considered to be a relic of an era where freedom of expression was not considered a right as it is now. According to Claire Ward (The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice), “The existence of these obsolete offences in this country has been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom” We are noticing a similar trend in the way this law is being misused. Opposition leaders, Intellectuals, activists, Journalists, authors, students have all been forced to face charges. Before moving any further, we need to look at its history a bit. We also need to understand the circumstances in which this law was brought in and whether or not it’s time to scrap this law.

Sedition law finds its origin during the British rule in India. Many believe that the only motive behind bringing such a law was to curb the voices which opposed the crown in power during the Indian freedom movement. This law belongs to the time when the divine right of the King and the principles of a feudal society were not questioned. And it is not much surprising that during those times a lot of criticisms were curbed, and legit voices were crumbled down. From the great freedom fighters Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Maulana Azad to Mahatma Gandhi, all have been tried under this law. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as we have today, was absent from the original draft of Macaulay’s IPC in 1860, and was only introduced in the year 1870, piloted by James Stephen. This law was based on UK’s Treason Felony Act 1848 and was added to mainly prevent the Wahabi uprising. After much discussion in the Constituent Assembly the word “sedition” did disappear from the constitution when it was adopted on 26 November 1949, but section 124A stayed in the IPC.

According to the IPC 1860, Section 124A Sedition is defined as: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added.” Also, sedition is a non-bailable offence which makes it even harsher and the punishment varies from three years imprisonment to imprisonment for life. The irony lies in the fact that the British bought Sedition as a non-cognizable offence while independent India made it a cognizable offence in 1973.

Let us understand through a series of reasons as to why sedition needs to be done away with as a law or at least its ambiguity and vagueness demands a serious reconsideration. First and foremost, the restrictions for the right to freedom of speech and expression have already been laid down under article 19(2) of the Indian constitution. In stark difference to the sedition law which strives to primarily curb voices that goes against the government, article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of the security of the State. The latter makes sense as the security of state refers to serious and aggravated forms of public disorder, example rebellion, waging war against the state whereas the former by its very nature questions thoughts and expression that opposes the government in power.

At the extreme, even tendencies to peacefully overthrow an incapable government is not a crime because it is a fundamental right of every citizen in the country to overthrow a kind of government which is incapable, corrupt and which acts against the common interest of people without violence, by persuading the people, by exposing its faults in the administration, its method of working etc.

Also, the claim that Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist, terrorist activities and Maoist insurgencies fails miserably on two grounds. First being a reminder of the other existent laws those have been specifically drafted to deal with such anti-national, terrorist activities and Maoist insurgency. Laws like NSA, PDA, UAPA and AFSPA have been given enough power to protect the integrity of our state. These are some of the harshest laws that exist in any democracy in the world and yet the proponents argue that we need a parallel law like sedition to deal with the same kind of cases. Maybe the reason lies under the fact that any government feels more autonomous when it holds the power to protect itself against any criticism.

The second reason daunts even more. Had it been so that this law would have been any useful in controlling the terrorist or the anti-national activities, there would have been at least some merit in holding it. But the past record of the government itself displays the reality. Realities like sedition cases rising by 160%, between 2016 and 2019, while the conviction rate for such offences dropping from 33.3% to 3.3% for the same period.It’s not one or two cases that question the merit of sedition, but a series of frivolous cases rising every now and then. In 2019, An FIR under many charges including sedition was filed against the 49 celebrities who had written an open letter to the Prime Minister against the increasing cases of mob lynching in the country. The allegations were that those letters “tarnished the image of the country and undermined the impressive performance of the prime minister” besides “supporting secessionist tendencies”. In the same year in Jharkhand’s Khunti district, some 10,000 Aadivasis who were part of the pathalghadi movement were charged under Sedition. The protest movement was started by tribals as a resistance movement to assert their rights, including the right to sovereign territory guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Last year, a Karnataka School’s play on CAA and NRC led to a sedition charge against the authorities and the parent of a student who just went to attend the play. Among many charges was one that said, “The dialogues used in the play were an insult to the PM”. This is just a blatant abuse of power.

One of the most recent judgements on sedition by the Supreme Court is the case of Padmashri recipient journalist Vinod Dua. An F.I.R was filed against the journalist in Himachal Pradesh by a BJP leader. In this case, the BJP leader seemed to disagree with the accused’s views posted on his YouTube channel where he can be seen criticizing the honourable Prime Minister. When the matter was referred to the SC, Dua told the Supreme Court that criticism of the government was not in itself seditious unless it instigated violence. He added “Moreover, if I criticise the PM, that does not come under criticism of the government.” The Supreme Court quashed the F.I.R saying, “Every journalist will be entitled to the protection under Kedar Nath Singh [sedition] judgement.”

Many sedition cases registered since Independence have failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. The Punjab-Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v the State, struck down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines sedition, holding it to be unconstitutional as it was contrary to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a). Eight years later, in Ram Nandan case, the Allahabad HC held that Section 124A imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech which was not in the interest of the public and declared it ultra vires.

In the landmark Kedar Nath case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law. Justice Sinha however, explained, “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of the actions of the government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to the government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of the government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people…”

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia case is one of the most important free speech judgements in the Supreme Court’s history. It marked a decisive break with a jurisprudence that the court had developed in the 1950s.By actively requiring the state to demonstrate the proximity between speech and violence or disorder, the court ensured that the word “reasonable” in Article 19(2) was not rendered entirely meaningless. The Court also said that the fear of violence should not be far-fetched or hypothetical.

Unless and until a criticism has some inherent tendencies to bring hatred towards the state (as has also been laid down by the SC)every citizen is entitled to the rights of Freedom of speech and expression. A criticism in a democracy might range from opposing some policies of a government to questioning its credibility to hold on to power.The different cases presented above and the gazillion others ranging between them do not have any insidious tendency underlying. Henceforth, it would be an utter mockery of a democracy to silent those voices in the name of sedition. The issue remains unaddressed that can any government under any circumstance charge individuals under sedition just because it believes that those words can lead to violence.

The haunting concern is, where do we draw that boundary between euphonious statements and those which are antagonistic prima facie but true criticisms and then those which might lead to some small resistance and protests but were not spoken or written with the slightest such intent and finally those which are inherently insidious to give rise to hatred and violence in society. Most governments holding such a miraculous power would charge all the cases but one under sedition. The reason lies underneath the kind of dictatorial set up that we are morphing into. We seem to be receding speedily on the scale of tolerance every other day.

Hence to hold the pillars of democracy and strive to live to the aspirations of the kind of nation that we have always wanted to be, we need to act towards this law to end the vagueness and arbitrariness that it entails. Superficial guarantees of fundamental rights and lawful discouragement of legit speech and expression cannot co-exist in the biggest democracy of the world.