Why the cybercrime police action in Chinmayi’s case is ground-breaking

The action by cyber-crime cops in case of playback Chinmayi is indeed ground-breaking, at least in India.

Globally, there are quite a few cases of this nature.

The most famous one was during the London Olympics when a 17 year old tweeted something insensitive to diver Tom Daley. If you see the tweets in question here, they are not abusive and merely sound insensitive, from Tom Daley’s point of view. This is vastly different from pointed abuses in Chinmayi’s case.

And then there are many cases involving Facebook, more than Twitter, reported by assorted media across the world.

While there is enough chatter about this incident, there is a lot of discussion on whether this amounts to killing free speech.

If we had perhaps known what the alleged perpetrators said (six of them cited in the news), we may not be asking this question. I have seen at least 2 or 3 of their conversations with Chinmayi and they are indeed mighty vulgar. What we are not aware of may be a whole lot of direct messages, either on Twitter or on Facebook. In this case, I believe Chinmayi and her mom tried to warn the alleged perpetrators to stop the abuse. If that had not stopped them, I guess it is more about they taking refuge in the fact that there is no precedence of action against tweets, in India. Now… there is.

Now, from a non-legal point of view, let us address the free-speech question. To understand that, let us simply transpose Twitter with tools that existed before Twitter.

How would you react if someone prints posters abusing your mother and pastes them all over the city? You could ignore it completely, but it is all over the city and others are seeing it.

Next, how would you react if someone comes to your house, stands outside your balcony and shouts abuses at your mother and yourself? And, perhaps does it everyday?

Harassment on Twitter is quite similar. Worse, in fact, since it is not constrained by geographical boundaries, like posters and shouting outside the house.

Note – in this case, I’m taking an example. It is up to the cops to prove that the 6 perpetrators indeed harassed and abused Chinmayi and her mother via Twitter and Facebook. The cops have made an arrest based on one side of the story, with proof submitted by them – it is up to the individuals to prove that the allegation against them is false, if it is.

You may very well ask – won’t this ground-breaking precedence be misused? Of course, it will be. There is so much blatant abuse happening on social networking sites in India that this case could just open the Pandora’s box of allegations and cyber-crime police action. Amidst this, there is enough possibility of misuse.

And then there is the danger of hacking – how would cyber-crime division handle cases where social networking accounts have been hacked and hacked profiles posting abuses? Given that such hacks have happened to even known figures on Twitter (for example, Kamal R Khan’s Twitter handle was hacked and the hacker posted a lot from the account before handing it over to Khan!), this is a real possibility. But the police machinery could very well work with the sites themselves (Twitter and Facebook) and check archived tweets and Facebook posts to check if there is a pattern from the information that is not currently available.

From a basic free speech point of view, here’s the problem – free speech cannot be equated with pointed abuse. We are in a country where everything and anything can offend some groups of people in some corner of the country. But abuse is very different from broader offending opinion. In case of abuse, the simple thumb-rule is this: would you shout the same thing outside the concerned person’s house, in full view of say 200 people? Would you be ready to face whatever the consequence, after you have said it? If yes, please go ahead and tweet pointed abuse at anybody. If not, be sane and mull over the sentiment inside your head.

Just because you are sitting in your dark room, in your night dress, and tweeting, it does not make you anonymous and removed from the action. Tweet as much as you want and about any topic under the sun – but ask yourself if you’d say the same thing in front of the person/group, with 100,000+ people watching you. If you say yes, go right ahead and tweet. If not, think again before tweeting any abuse. This is critical particularly when your opinion is about an individual, in specific.

Article written by Karthik S

  • http://twitter.com/_tharkuri Ranjani K

    //it is up to the individuals to prove that the allegation against them is false, if it is.// Hmmm. Isn’t the onus on the complainant to prove the complaint in all situations? Assumed innocent until proven guilty and all that?

    • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

      Of course. I don’t know about the kind of evidence and proof submitted in this case that got such action initiated. How can we assume that this was done without any proof submitted?

      • http://twitter.com/_tharkuri Ranjani K

        No. I am not saying that at all. Chinmayi must have submitted (enough) proof. Even in that case, the onus is on her to prove in court that her complaint is true. The accused only has to prove that the evidence is wrong. – is my understanding. So, just pointing out the possible error in your previous statement. That is all.

        • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

          Oh yes, you’re right there, though my awareness of such legal nuances is very low.

          • http://twitter.com/rexarul Rex Arul

            This was one of the cogently thought-out, well-written article, Karthik. There was so much of histrionics and polemics elsewhere and so I did not evince any interest in knowing about it as I wasn’t privy to the controversy.

            I really liked a balanced, nuanced view with an intellectual rigor. Thank you. Much appreciated :-)

        • http://twitter.com/smbijili Salar

          It was gross over reaction from Chinmayi’s part. She dragged an issue that happened a year ago(TN fisherman), tied it with Mahesh Murthy’s article, termed Rajan as sole responsible person to have instigated stuff and made a messy khichdi out of it. And the police acted swift because she is a ‘celeb’ and nothing else. Why werent culprits who openly gave a rape threat to MeenaK arrested?

          Its upto Chinmayi to prove allegations. Rajan might have been coerced by the police to confess them but truth has to come out. And posting his pic on NDTV is grossly insensitive. He has just been arrested, not convicted. Dont treat him like a rapist

          • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

            Salar: this post is merely to point out that online forums do not allow
            anyone to do what they’d think twice doing in public or in-your-face,
            just because they are sitting alone and seemingly talking to millions.

            It is up to the courts to decide whether the accused are indeed wrong as
            alleged.

            There is only one line where I take a personal stand in
            this post – and that is based purely on what I have observed from some
            of the people who have been accused. The language used by them (some
            here: http://www.use.com/0579a6a74773f1b6118e#photo=1) is something I’ve
            heard being used in a post-drunk party in school and college. That, in
            itself isn’t wrong, because it would have been right between friends.
            Social media is not between friends – it is between friends + the
            entire world. So, the laws of decency and civility would apply as much
            as as they apply to the middle of a busy street. That was my point in
            this post.

            And yes, there is a huge difference between offering
            an opinion (however silly, half-hearted or unconvincing it may seem) in
            civil language vs. abusing. So, the talk of this action killing online
            free speech is all bunkum – people who continue to offer opinions will
            continue to do so… there is also a good enough case for satire to
            exist without any hindrance. The only thing that may stop is abuse –
            plain, venomous and vicious personal abuse. And that’s as good as not
            having someone outside your balcony every morning abusing your extended
            family just because you disagreed with him on issues like TN Fishermen
            and caste based reservations.

        • http://twitter.com/rexarul Rex Arul

          /:The accused only has to prove that the evidence is wrong. – is my understanding. :/

          Ranjani — I am not a lawyer and please treat this as my $0.02. I am afraid, it is not correct. Proving an offense is the prerogative of the State, especially, in a Criminal case. In other words, it is the Prosecution that must prove “beyond reasonable doubt” (because this is a Criminal Case, where it is the State of Tamil Nadu prosecuting the case and not the person preferring the complaint), about the culpability of the offense.

          Also, currently the accused are remanded to custody, I believe, based on “prima facie” evidence. This could be a “cognizable” offense (based on what sections of law have been used here) in which case, the Police can effect an arrest even before obtaining an arrest-warrant. Accuser does not need to establish “(enough) proof” at the stage of preferring a complaint.

          It is only during the trial before a Bench of the Court, “(enough) proof” will have to be submitted for an indictment. If the Prosecution fails to prove its case, then, the accused are deemed innocent.

          So, Karthik Srinivasan’s statements are pretty right on the money. Suffice to note that notwithstanding the arrests effected, the “accused” are just that: accused.

          Only a court of law can pass judgement on whether they are “criminals” accused of the crime, the culpability of which needs to be established in the open-court as per law.

          That is just a gist of how it works.

  • http://twitter.com/muralispeak Murali

    Nice perspective karthik – but knowing this state, and its polity (i know there is seemingly no connect, but there is) it will only open a pandora’s box as u rightly state, and a plethora of complaints which lack in substance, and more driven by other agenda (which may not be the case here). It has also started a disturbing trend now with some so called celebrities brandishing the chinmayi case against those who give an opposite perspective in issues of public importance. Thats the bigger fear! and that fear IMO is real! Thank you

    • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

      Valid concern. But I’d assume the powers above (law, police) would be intelligent enough – at least in cyber-crime cases – to sense the difference between offending opinion vs. personal insults and harassment. For instance, passing opinions about a religion cannot hold in law for such action and no action will be taken for such opinions. But talking rubbish (that too baseless, unfounded and unwarranted) about a person or his family could be ground for action. It would warrant action offline too, if done outside the person’s house and it would warrant action online too, on Twitter or Facebook.

      From that perspective, there is no need to treat Twitter as something new. This may not change anything much, in terms of misuse, in my opinion – what will change for good is that people will heed more Thiruvallulvar’s ‘yagavarayinum naakakka kavakkal sogaapper soliluzhukku pattu’.

      • http://twitter.com/muralispeak Murali

        completely agree with the “yagavaaranium nagakka” part! more importantly must be “twitteril nagareegam kakka, kavakkal kambi ennal neridum”. Yet, will disagree on whether the law and order machinery would be “intelligent enough”! Like it or not, celebrities are at an advantage compared to the common tweeple. Thats the concern! Yes, those culpable must be dealt with, and this case will deliver that stern message!

        • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

          Agree, in principle. I’d assume the natural order of things and outrage on baseless action (if at all things go haywire, from celebs’ side) will get things to a saner level.

  • Pingback: 5 Indian Social Media Articles Worth Reading This Weekend

  • http://twitter.com/chutneyhere freedom of xpression

    why is that i’m not able to find single “sexually abusive” tweet by rajan (accused) mentioning chinmayi ? is his tweets about others enough evidence to keep him in jail for sexual abuse online ? that too just before holidays so that he should suffer maximum pain before getting bail. does n’t that prove any so called celebrity can jail any random common man by showing his tweets to others? WOW RIP democracy RIP freedom of expression

    • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

      I recall seeing only one… not a tweet, but a hashtag that he started. The real life equivalent of a hashtag is precisely what is explained above – print posters abusing someone and posting it all over town. If someone prints a lakh posters with ‘asingapattaaL and mocks them, I’d love to know your reaction to that. It need not be ‘sexual’ to be abusive. Insulting is also abusive, particularly when it is viciously pointed and personal.

      • http://twitter.com/chutneyhere freedom of xpression

        evidence that he started that hash tag?
        creating a hash tag is like a poster .agreed. bu just one or two tweet is different from 100 or 1000 tweets. why shud he be held responsible for all tweets under that hash tag even if he started it ?those are tweets by other people right ?

        also i just don’t go harassing reporters asking them to remove someone name from an article. it can be taken as a reaction against lobbying mahesh murthy.
        #asingapattal does not mean sexual abuse.it means ‘insulted’ but being a celebrity,she can make anything innocent into “sexually abusive ”
        .

        • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

          Who am I to give you ‘evidence’? I recall seeing it, but that’s not evidence – it is just one person’s word. It’s called instigation – a poster with 100,000 copies, if pasted all across town colors the opinion of a person, amongst the people in the town. Often, this is done in the absence of the person in question and the person has no way to argue against that allegation. On twitter, other tweeters taking on the hashtag is very similar.

          On asingapattal – if it was one tweet, I can agree. Here, since it was a hashtag, the intention is to make it a buzz word against a person. That’s great case for defamation since the intention is to rally more people against one person, using personal abuse like asingapattal, sexual or not. So, the more people saying it (tweeting the hashtag) the more damage it does.

          Also, on Twitter, it is not creating one tweet – it is the reach of the tweet. One tweet is not equal to one poster. But one tweet’s reach (try tweetreach.com) is like the number of posters pasted across town.