Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

Act section 66a is very new in the books of constitution.  Section 66a is also called as IT act which is totally for all the users of internet as a medium of message. It was passed to bring a hold on the unnecessary misuse of Right to freedom speech i.e 19 (a). This act deals with all the immoral practices done through the mode of internet.

As we all know IT in hands with internet is booming industry day by day and its has a vast reach of communication power to all over the world. According to this act if an individual is commenting or posting or doing any immoral activities through the mode of internet then he or she will be punished. And on the other hand 66b deals with the punishment for dishonesty, receiving stolen computers or communication device. The article from 66a to 69d deals with the all the electronic related laws.

Many it had happen that fake news are spread viral on net like the news on Jacky chans accidental death, and the fake news on the death of Kadar khan is the one who and there were so many other spam messages which have created a havoc in the minds of people.  Some or the other way forced to make a special act for the electronic gadgets.

The implementation o this act gave right to national security of net service throughout and special cell is also organized to catch hold the guilty person. This act have made a strict note regarding using the social media too. All the acts explain about every element of the laws and punishments. The facebook case of two girls who commented on late Balasaheb Thakre was arrested by the police under section 66a.

As internet is vast and there are so many people using it for different purpose no one can predict any thing about next event happening online so risk factor also increases regarding the unethical practices.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

Section 66A (heading) Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc

Section 66A(a) Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device.

What does the Protection of Freedoms bill mean for free speech?

I have copy Pasted this blog because it is reliable to MEDIA LAWS.

What does the Protection of Freedoms bill mean for free speech?
The UK government’s Protection of Freedoms Bill is highly relevant for anyone interested in Article 10 rights. While the bill gives the impression of positive steps for the protection of civil liberties, critics are quick to warn of its limitations and the government’s piecemeal approach. The bill, now in between first and second reading stage in the House of Commons, looks at:

freedom of information – extending the freedom of information regime to cover companies wholly owned by two or more public authorities
right to data – creating an obligation on departments and other public authorities to proactively release datasets in a reusable format
SA Mathieson, news editor of Guardian Government Computing, is optimistic that this will give a “bit more freedom” to government data.

Photographers will be especially interested in the part on counter-terrorism:

This Part introduces safeguards against the misuse of counter-terrorist legislation by permanently reducing the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 14 days and replacing the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a power that is exercisable in significantly more restricted circumstances.
In the bill’s consultation stage [PDF], civil liberty groups and the National Union of Journalists raised concerns about stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act and that “police on the ground were not sufficiently aware of restrictions on how the law should be applied”. Cian Murphy writes on the Guardian Legal network:

Section 44 was a wholly illiberal provision which allowed police officers to stop and search individuals in designated areas without having to show reasonable suspicion. The subsequent sections elaborated on that power. The government has been committed to repealing the section since last summer – but only after the European court of human rights held that it was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

But don’t celebrate too soon. As Murphy reports:

Nonetheless, police powers abhor a vacuum, and as signalled in December, the section 44 power is replaced with new stop and search powers provided for by sections 59 to 62. The proposed new powers, at first glance, may be an improvement on section 44. But they have already been criticised and will require more considered scrutiny over the coming months – especially in light of possible amendments as the bill moves through Parliament.

Legal questions about Twitter ‘censorship’ and country-specific content control

I have copy Pasted this blog because it is reliable to MEDIA LAWS.

Media reports of Twitter’s newly announced country-specific content policy have focused on the implication for authoritarian regimes low down the press freedom table.  But its application in the UK raises interesting questions too: which authorities will Twitter respond to and to what types of complaint?

Twitter has not disclosed the finer details of its policy, as it does not want “to comment on hypothetical situations“. That was the line from Twitter’s media office as well its head of glob
al public policy, Colin Crowell who appeared in front of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions on Monday.

It should be noted that Twitter already removes contentious content from its platform; the new development is that they have developed the tools to do it on a country-by-country basis – ie. what is censored in China is not censored to a reader in Britain (and vice versa).

Privacy injunctions are an obvious scenario to consider in the context of English law. When the Joint Committee raised the issue with Crowell on Monday he said he didn’t “pretend to know exactly how an injunction process would work“.  According to Twitter’s media office and Crowell, Twitter has not yet had to deal with the “super injunction” situation yet.

Twitter’s policy is general, although copyright infringement C&D notices dominate the Chilling Effects site, which Twitter is using to post removals. Crowell told the committee that the Twitter would deal with requests from an “authorised entity“. Similarly, Twitter’s media office told me that it “will evaluate each request to remove content that comes from an authorized entity and determine whether or not that content needs to be withheld, reactively, from the site“.

I asked Twitter’s media office what such an “authorized entity” might be – a national court, a government, or the complainant directly? Would specific legal action need to be taken?

“We can’t give more detail on what constitutes an authorized entity because it will be different depending on the situation, the law, the country, etc,” I was told. “There are just too many variables with this stuff to make across the board generalized statements.

If content is withheld in a specific country, users in that country will see a grey “tweet withheld” box and Twitter will also report that removal to Chilling Effects.

The Chilling Effects page will be a useful tool for legal researchers like myself, but presumably in the case of a privacy injunction the specific “withheld” information will not be disclosed to a British audience, as it would rather defeat the object of the removal.

My questions for Twitter:

You have mentioned the Chilling Effect Clearing House project, which deals mainly with copyright C&D Notices. Will you also log defamation, data protection and privacy complaints there?
Some media reports have concentrated on ‘government’ requests to remove content but your blog post seemed more ambiguous – does it cover other types of legal complaints too?
If you receive an English court order (eg. in defamation case, or reporting restriction) would you block content globally, or only to an English & Welsh audience? Either way, could you explain that position, in relation to the general policy?
At what stage will tweets be removed from certain audiences: in response to informal complaints from users? Or would it have to be a legal complaint (letters before action and/or claim form?)
How big is your legal team dealing with complaints and how do you manage the process of deciding whether to remove content to certain audiences?