"Shocking For A Religion Neutral Country": Supreme Court On Hate Speeches  Oct 21, 2022   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN1P5JogyrM Two days after the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres criticised India over its human rights record and growing hate speeches during a three-day visit, the Supreme Court on Friday made some of its strongest comments yet on the subject.

Take Suo Motu Action Against Hate Speech Crimes Without Waiting For Complaint : Supreme Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 21 Oct 2022   https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/take-suo-motu-action-against-hate-speech-crimes-without-waiting-for-complaint-supreme-court-212282 

the Court directed that these Governments should take suo motu action against any hate speech crime, without waiting for any complaint.


The Supreme Court’s observation on September 2 – that hate speech spread particularly by television channels is poisoning the country’s social fabric – has become something of a marker in national conversations. The court also simultaneously recognised the role of social media in this proliferation of hate.


by Pamela Philipose


read more

How the Supreme Court Has Interpreted Hate Speech Over the Years | The Wire | Justice Madan Lokur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEKoin1hZbA 
736 views Oct 6, 2022 Justice Madan Lokur, who retired from the Supreme Court of India, spoke on the constitutional limits and judicial interpretations of hate speech at an online discussion on 'Defeating Hate, Defending the Constitution' organised by ANHAD and the Satark Nagrik Sangathan on October 2, 2022. In his speech,

Justice Lokur looked at how the Supreme Court has interpreted hate speech and the laws around it over the years, and why it is important to think about this question urgently and find solutions within the constitution.

How do we define public order..Not just law and order . 

Germany tightens online hate speech rules to make platforms send reports straight to the feds June 19, 2020 https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/19/germany-tightens-online-hate-speech-rules-to-make-platforms-send-reports-straight-to-the-feds/   Germany’s existing Network Enforcement Act (aka the NetzDG law) came into force in the country in 2017, putting an obligation on social network platforms to remote hate speech within set deadlines as tight as 24 hours for easy cases — with fines of up to €50M should they fail to comply...Yesterday the parliament passed a reform which extends NetzDG by placing a reporting obligation on platforms which requires them to report certain types of “criminal content” to the Federal Criminal Police Office.

A wider reform of the NetzDG law remains ongoing in parallel, that’s intended to bolster user rights and transparency, including by simplifying user notifications and making it easier for people to object to content removals and have successfully appealed content restored, among other tweaks. Broader transparency reporting requirements are also looming for platforms.

The NetzDG law has always been controversial, with critics warning from the get go that it would lead to restrictions on freedom of expression by incentivizing platforms to remove content rather than risk a fine. (Aka, the risk of ‘overblocking’.) In 2018 Human Rights Watch dubbed it a flawed law — critiquing it for being “vague, overbroad, and turn[ing] private companies into overzealous censors to avoid steep fines, leaving users with no judicial oversight or right to appeal”.

 The Impact of the German NetzdG law https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-projects/the-impact-of-the-german-netzdg-law/ Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, or NetzDG law represents a key test for combatting hate speech on the internet. Under the law, which came into effect on January 1, 2018, online platforms face fines of up to €50 million for systemic failure to delete illegal content. Supporters see the legislation as a necessary and efficient response to the threat of online hatred and extremism. Critics view it as an attempt to privatise a new ‘draconian’ censorship regime, forcing social media platforms to respond to this new painful liability with unnecessary takedowns.

This study shows that the reality is in between these extremes. NetzDG has not provoked mass requests for takedowns. Nor has it forced internet platforms to adopt a ‘take down, ask later’ approach. At the same time, it remains uncertain whether NetzDG has achieved significant results in reaching its stated goal of preventing hate speech.

Comment: Is it similar to our SC atrocities act?