Is safe harbour important for social media?
The story so far: In written submissions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communication and Information Technology, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said that it is reconsidering the concept of safe harbour for social media platforms, to combat the issue of 'fake news' online.
What is safe harbour?
Safe harbour is a legal concept that protects individual websites that allow third party users to share content from legal liability for any unlawful posts. The concept was put in place in the early years of the internet as a key safeguard to encourage innovation online and prevent website owners from being unfairly hounded for content they had no hand in publishing. The concept of a middleman being responsible for third party content is known as intermediary liability, and safe harbour protects sites, by default, from any criminal action for content hosted by them. In the U.S., safe harbour is enshrined in Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, inserted into the decades-old law in 1996. In India, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, grants intermediaries similar protections.
The protections are not without conditions. In India, if an intermediary receives 'actual knowledge' of illegal content on their website, they lose liability protections under Section 79 if they don't work to take the content down within a certain time period. The Supreme Court has read down 'actual knowledge' to mean a court order or government notification.
Without safe harbour protections, online intermediaries could face tremendous consequences for illegal content. For instance, in 2004, the then head of the website eBay in India was arrested because of a user listing of a disk containing child sex abuse material for sale.
How are intermediary liability protections regulated in India?
While safe harbour does have the conditions described above, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 has put in place additional conditions for platforms to retain protection from intermediary liability. Social media firms need to have a nodal officer, a grievance officer resident in India, and need to periodically submit reports of complaints they receive on content, and action taken against them for this. Different parts of the IT Rules have been challenged in courts in the last few years.
For example, in 2023, the Union government notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, which contained provisions that would strip safe harbour from sites for content that has been notified as 'fake news' by the Press Information Bureau's fact check unit. That amendment was immediately challenged in the Bombay High Court, among others by the comedian Kunal Kamra. Petitioners accused the government of exceeding its authority by designating a fact check unit that could be an arbiter of truth, and putting pressure on social media companies to take content down without following the longer process of sending a notice to users whose content is being removed. The Bombay High Court sided with Mr. Kamra, and the case is being appealed by the government.
Why is the government considering amending the safe harbour clause?
The government has accused foreign social media platforms of flouting Indian laws and acting too slowly on takedown notices. On multiple occasions before Elon Musk acquired Twitter, now known as X, the platform had public confrontations with the Union government regarding orders to hide users' content. X under Mr. Musk has continued to fight the government's right to issue blocking and takedown orders without notice to users at the Karnataka High Court. The Union government has pitched amending safe harbour as a way to get platforms to be more proactive in governing their sites, not just for what they deem to be misinformation, but for AI-generated deepfakes, cyberfrauds and so on. In the U.S., both former President Joe Biden and current President Donald Trump have taken aim at Section 230 for different reasons — Mr. Biden's White House sought to weaken safe harbour protections as a way to make platforms more liable for extremist content, and Mr. Trump for the alleged silencing of conservative voices.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has indicated that it would draft a Digital India Act (DIA) that would incorporate these changes, but the outlines of how safe harbour would change under this proposed law have not yet been revealed. Moreover, no DIA draft law has been released yet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Stalin: Fear of litigation prompts Ravi to give assent to bills; still 14 bills pending
Chennai: Chief minister M K Stalin on Tuesday said governor R N Ravi could have given assent to the two bills that reserved seats in local bodies for people with disabilities (PwD) for fear of litigation. The governor's office is still sitting on 14 bills, including the Kalaignar University Bill, which proposes establishing a university named after former chief minister M Karunanidhi, sources told TOI. Asked for his response to the governor giving assent to bills passed by the assembly in its last sitting, Stalin told reporters here, "That was expected. Not a big issue. It was passed by the legislature and sent. Maybe he gave assent because he was afraid that we would go to court. Nothing else." The Supreme Court had on April 8, set a timeline for governors and the President to decide on bills. Sources told TOI that governor Ravi had since then given assent to eight bills, including four appropriation bills. Among the bills awaiting assent are the Tamil Nadu Fiscal Responsibility (Amendment) Bill and the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Bill. These were passed by the legislature in Feb and Dec 2024, respectively. Other pending bills include one to protect economically weaker sections, especially farmers and women self-help groups, from coercive recovery of loans by microfinance institutions. A bill to amend the Goondas Act to punish dumping of biomedical waste in Tamil Nadu from neighbouring states is also pending. When asked about the pending bills in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on timelines, DMK MP P Wilson stated: "Anyone who has faith in the judicial system and believes in the Constitution and the rule of law must respect the Supreme Court's verdict, as it is final. If the governor chooses to defy the court's order, the law should take its own course. However, I want to know whether the Prime Minister is encouraging such defiance of the court's order. Can the President of India remain silent to such a contemptuous act? The governor should have been sacked when the Supreme Court indicted him for malafide actions."
United News of India
29 minutes ago
- United News of India
After 18 years, SC closes petitions on Human Rights Violations by Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) Bringing closure to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court has disposed of all pending petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others concerning alleged human rights violations committed by Salwa Judum activists and security forces in Chhattisgarh. These matters had remained before the apex court for nearly 18 years. The case traces back to the Chhattisgarh government's controversial deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist/Naxalite insurgency. The SPOs, often associated with groups like the 'Koya Commandos' and Salwa Judum, were accused of committing serious rights violations in the course of anti-insurgency operations. In a landmark 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs, noting grave concerns over state-sponsored vigilantism. Despite that judgment, two writ petitions and one contempt petition remained pending until recently. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, holding that the writ petitions were closed on the ground that the reliefs sought had already been addressed through the 2011 judgment. The contempt petition, which challenged the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, was found to be outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, as it effectively sought new writs in the guise of contempt, the court ruled. The bench clarified that the enactment of a law cannot be considered contempt of court merely because it follows a judicial order. 'The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise,' the Court held. Emphasising the separation of powers, the bench reiterated that any law passed by Parliament or a State legislature must be challenged solely on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not as contempt of court. The Court underlined, 'A legislature has the power to enact or amend a law, even to remove the basis of a judicial judgment, as long as it operates within the constitutional framework.' It also noted that Courts do not have the authority to treat the exercise of legislative power as contempt, simply for enacting or amending laws. Importantly, the bench observed that restoring peace and ensuring rehabilitation in Chhattisgarh remains the constitutional responsibility of both the State and the Union, citing Article 315 of the Constitution. 'It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' the Court said. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Dissmissed Beed cop Ranjit Kasale booked again for an objectionable post, this time against Fadnavis
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Dismissed sub-inspector Ranjit Kasale, who is already embroiled in several criminal cases, has been slapped with additional charges from the Beed cybercrime branch for allegedly posting derogatory and defamatory content against Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on social media platforms. The latest FIR, registered on Monday, stems from a complaint lodged by BJP IT cell's state co-convenor Sambhaji Surve. The complaint alleges that Kasale published content deemed defamatory to Fadnavis and of an objectionable nature, resulting in police intervention. Police have applied sections 197 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) alongside section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These new allegations are expected to intensify the legal challenges for the former policeman, who is currently under police detention for a different case. A Mumbai crime branch team recently caught Kasale in Delhi and transported him to Mumbai for questioning. Following his court appearance before a magistrate, he received two days of police custody. This detention concluded on Monday, June 2, after which he appeared before the Fort court. Earlier, Kasale faced arrest for allegedly attempting to create communal discord and making offensive remarks against elected representatives. The current case adds to a growing list of complaints against him. Before these events, police had registered two separate FIRs against Kasale at Beed's Shivajinagar police station and the district's cyber police station, following complaints from social activist Mohan Aghav. Additionally, Kasale faces charges in Mumbai for similar violations involving provocative social media content directed at political figures and communities. According to police sources, Kasale's online activities demonstrate consistent behaviour aimed at causing discord and damaging the reputations of public officials. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Dismissed sub-inspector Ranjit Kasale, who is already embroiled in several criminal cases, has been slapped with additional charges from the Beed cybercrime branch for allegedly posting derogatory and defamatory content against Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on social media platforms. The latest FIR, registered on Monday, stems from a complaint lodged by BJP IT cell's state co-convenor Sambhaji Surve. The complaint alleges that Kasale published content deemed defamatory to Fadnavis and of an objectionable nature, resulting in police intervention. Police have applied sections 197 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) alongside section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These new allegations are expected to intensify the legal challenges for the former policeman, who is currently under police detention for a different case. A Mumbai crime branch team recently caught Kasale in Delhi and transported him to Mumbai for questioning. Following his court appearance before a magistrate, he received two days of police custody. This detention concluded on Monday, June 2, after which he appeared before the Fort court. Earlier, Kasale faced arrest for allegedly attempting to create communal discord and making offensive remarks against elected representatives. The current case adds to a growing list of complaints against him. Before these events, police had registered two separate FIRs against Kasale at Beed's Shivajinagar police station and the district's cyber police station, following complaints from social activist Mohan Aghav. Additionally, Kasale faces charges in Mumbai for similar violations involving provocative social media content directed at political figures and communities. According to police sources, Kasale's online activities demonstrate consistent behaviour aimed at causing discord and damaging the reputations of public officials.
