{"id":323,"date":"2023-08-09T13:18:22","date_gmt":"2023-08-09T13:18:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/projects-dev.itforchange.net\/online-violence-gender-and-law-guide\/?page_id=323"},"modified":"2024-10-29T12:29:02","modified_gmt":"2024-10-29T06:59:02","slug":"2-5-gender-trolling","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/projects.itforchange.net\/online-violence-gender-and-law-guide\/module-2-typologies-of-online-gender-based-offenses-in-law\/2-5-gender-trolling\/","title":{"rendered":"2.5 Gender Trolling"},"content":{"rendered":"
Navigate:Online Gender-based Violence Judicial Resource Guide<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\" 2.5 Gender Trolling\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

2.5.1 What is gender trolling?<\/h3>\n
\n\t

A troll is \u201ca person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content\u201d,1<\/a><\/sup>Gurumurthy, A., & Dasarathy, A. (2022). Profitable Provocations. A Study of Abuse and Misogynistic Trolling on Twitter Directed at Indian Women in Public-political Life, <\/i>p.40. IT for Change. https:\/\/itforchange.net\/sites\/default\/files\/2132\/ITfC-Twitter-Report-Profitable-Provocations.pdf<\/a><\/span> and online trolling is \u201cthe practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose\u201d.2<\/a><\/sup>Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls Just Want to Have Fun. Personality and Individual Differences,<\/i> 67, pp. 97-102.<\/span> In many instances, trolling is carried out in an organized, purposeful, and targeted manner. In fact, the mechanics of trolling differ depending on the identity, power, and political position of those who troll and those being trolled.<\/p>\n

Gender-based trolling or gender trolling is a specific category of trolling based on the gender identity of a person and is one of the most virulent forms of violence and abuse that women face online.3<\/a><\/sup>Mantilla, K. (2013). Gendertrolling: Misogyny Adapts to New Media. Feminist studies<\/i>, 39<\/em>(2), pp. 563-570. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/831729\/summary<\/a> <\/span> Gender trolling could take the form of deliberately posting comments or messages, uploading images or videos, and creating memes or hashtags to annoy, harass, provoke, and incite violence against women and girls.<\/p>\n

Gender trolling has some common features that make it a unique and particularly vicious form of online gender-based violence (OGBV). Firstly, gender trolling often involves a \u201cconcerted or coordinated effort on the part of many trolls, often in the dozens or even hundreds, who overwhelm the victim with the sheer quantity of attacks\u201d.4<\/a><\/sup>Mantilla, K. (2013). Gendertrolling: Misogyny Adapts to New Media. Feminist studies<\/i>, 39<\/em>(2), pp. 563-570. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/831729\/summary<\/a> <\/span> IT for Change\u2019s study of misogynistic trolling on Twitter found this to be true, as multiple anonymous accounts simply retweeted one abusive tweet in reply to a tweet by the targeted woman, and\/or copied and pasted the same abusive message multiple times.5<\/a><\/sup>Gurumurthy, A., & Dasarathy, A. (2022). Profitable Provocations. A Study of Abuse and Misogynistic Trolling on Twitter Directed at Indian Women in Public-political Life<\/i>. IT for Change. https:\/\/itforchange.net\/sites\/default\/files\/2132\/ITfC-Twitter-Report-Profitable-Provocations.pdf<\/a><\/span> This kind of coordinated behavior is a strategy to use platform algorithms to amplify messages of hate.<\/p>\n

Secondly, gender trolling is often characterized by the widespread use of pejorative terms against women.6<\/a><\/sup>Mantilla, K., 2013. Gendertrolling: Misogyny Adapts to New Media. Feminist Studies<\/i>, 39<\/em>(2), pp. 563-570. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/831729\/summary<\/a>.<\/span> This was observed in our study too, as we found that trolls regularly use terms such as \u201cprostitute\u201d, \u201cbitch\u201d, \u201cslut\u201d, etc., to demean and attack women.7<\/a><\/sup>Gurumurthy, A., & Dasarathy, A. (2022). Profitable Provocations. A Study of Abuse and Misogynistic Trolling on Twitter Directed at Indian Women in Public-political Life, <\/i>p.12. IT for Change. https:\/\/itforchange.net\/sites\/default\/files\/2132\/ITfC-Twitter-Report-Profitable-Provocations.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Thirdly, gender trolling tends to assume the form of significant and credible threats such as rape threat, death threat, threat of torture, doxxing, etc. But IT for Change\u2019s study revealed that trolling in the nature of tongue-in-cheek jokes and remarks were far more common than those involving a threat.8<\/a><\/sup>Gurumurthy, A., & Dasarathy, A. (2022). Profitable Provocations. A Study of Abuse and Misogynistic Trolling on Twitter Directed at Indian Women in Public-political Life, <\/i>p.19. IT for Change. https:\/\/itforchange.net\/sites\/default\/files\/2132\/ITfC-Twitter-Report-Profitable-Provocations.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Fourthly, the attacks happen in large numbers and over long periods of time, with the victim getting \u201cseveral threats or messages per day or even per hour\u201d.9<\/a><\/sup>Mantilla, K., 2013. Gendertrolling: Misogyny Adapts to New Media. Feminist Studies<\/i>, 39<\/em>(2), pp. 563-570. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/831729\/summary<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, a unique feature of gender trolling is that it nearly always occurs in response to women speaking out about some form of sexism, discussing politics, or challenging the establishment or social institutions. Our study found that while all women in the sample faced some amount of abuse on the internet, \u201cthose who were perceived to be ideologically left-leaning, dissenters, and women from opposition parties received a disproportionate amount of abusive and hateful messages\u201d.10<\/a><\/sup>Gurumurthy, A., & Dasarathy, A. (2022). Profitable Provocations. A Study of Abuse and Misogynistic Trolling on Twitter Directed at Indian Women in Public-political Life<\/i>, p.48. IT for Change. https:\/\/itforchange.net\/sites\/default\/files\/2132\/ITfC-Twitter-Report-Profitable-Provocations.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

It is also pertinent to note that gender trolling takes on intersectional dimensions; the victim\u2019s membership in marginalized communities not only exacerbates the attacks she faces (questioning a Dalit woman\u2019s aukaat <\/i>or social worth, something Dalit men also face), but also shifts the language and ideas deployed by trolls (using casteist slurs such as \u201cchamar<\/i>\u201d, \u201cbhangi<\/i>\u201d, \u201ckameeni<\/i>\u201d, etc., which are derogatory terms used to refer to people from historically-oppressed castes and engaging in double objectification of indigenous women).11<\/a><\/sup>Rajani, N. (2022). \u201cI Bet You Don\u2019t Get What We Get\u201d: An Intersectional Analysis of Technology-Facilitated Violence Experienced by Racialised Women Anti-Violence Online Activists in Canada. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology,<\/i> 19<\/em>(2), pp. 217-247. https:\/\/digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=cjlt<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

A few instances of gender trolling may be noted here:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Three female Muslim students from Kerala were trolled online for their identity and dress when a video of them participating in a flash mob became viral on Facebook and Twitter. The girls were shamed and subjected to derogatory comments and memes, which quickly took on a religious angle.12<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The Quint Team. ( 2017). Hijab-Wearing Kerala Girls Trolled Online for Dancing in Flashmob.<\/i> The Quint. https:\/\/www.thequint.com\/news\/india\/kerala-hijab-wearing-girls-trolled-for-dancing-in-flashmob<\/a>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. When actor Deepika Padukone, responding to the protests against the release of her movie Padmavat,<\/i> said that the nation had \u201cregressed\u201d, she was severely attacked by trolls on Twitter and received numerous threats of violence.13<\/a><\/sup>Roy, G. (2015). Padmavati Star Deepika Padukone Trolled For Saying We've 'Regressed'.<\/i> NDTV. https:\/\/www.ndtv.com\/entertainment\/padmavati-star-deepika-padukone-trolled-for-saying-weve-regressed-1775402<\/a>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These instances reveal the gendered and political nature of the abuse and harm unleashed through gender trolling.<\/p>\n

    Further, it is not only women who are public figures who are subjected to online trolling and vitriol. Women with fewer followers also receive hate from trolls, though these incidents are lesser known because of their lower public visibility.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

    2.5.2 What is a gender-sensitive way to read a case of gender trolling?<\/h3>\n
    \n\t

    In contrast to generic trolling, gender trolling is done not only for the amusement of trolls, but also to systematically target and inspire fear in women, with the ultimate aim of preventing them from occupying public spaces such as the internet.14<\/a><\/sup>Mantilla, K., 2013. Gendertrolling: Misogyny Adapts to New Media. Feminist Studies<\/i>, 39<\/em>(2), pp. 563-570. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/831729\/summary<\/a><\/span> As such, it is an attempt to \u201cmaintain the online milieu as a male-dominated space\u201d.15<\/a><\/sup>Mantilla, K., 2013. Gendertrolling: Misogyny Adapts to New Media. Feminist Studies<\/i>, 39<\/em>(2), pp. 563-570. https:\/\/muse.jhu.edu\/article\/831729\/summary<\/a><\/span> Further, gender trolling is similar to disciplinary rhetoric, as trolls use violent language to deter and discipline women and marginalized genders in online spaces, turning these spaces into contested sites of control, subjugation, and surveillance.16<\/a><\/sup>Cole, K. K. (2015). \u201cIt\u2019s Like She's Eager to be Verbally Abused\u201d: Twitter, Trolls, and(En) Gendering Disciplinary Rhetoric. Feminist Media Studies,<\/i> 15<\/em>(2), pp. 356-358. <\/span><\/p>\n

    A gender-sensitive approach to a case of gender trolling should, therefore, recognize and give due consideration to its impact on women\u2019s online participation, and their right to equality, dignity, freedom of expression, and privacy. Even trolls who do not use explicitly threatening language but couch their remarks in tongue-in-cheek humor can have a debilitating effect on women\u2019s online participation, especially when they make coordinated attacks. These should not be dismissed as minor acts of inconvenience, offense, or annoyance. Further, a gender-sensitive approach to a case of trolling will desist from advising women to stay out of or self-police their conduct on social media in order to avoid being trolled.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

    2.5.3 Which laws are applicable?<\/h3>\n
    \n\t

    India does not have specific laws to deal with gender trolling but depends on existing statutory provisions to provide some form of remedy, albeit inadequate.<\/p>\n

    Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (sexual harassment) can be used to book perpetrators for posting lewd comments, messaging pornographic content to a woman against her will, or asking for sexual favors. Gender trolls that make imputations to harm the reputation of a woman can attract punishment for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. Gender trolling that threatens and intimidates a woman can attract punishment for criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 507 of the IPC.<\/p>\n

    Gender trolling also often takes the form of cyberstalking when repeated attempts are made to contact a woman despite a clear indication of disinterest from her side, and to monitor her online activities. This attracts punishment under Section 354D of the IPC. The transmission of private or non-consensual intimate images of women as part of trolling constitutes voyeurism and can be punished under Section 354C of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 (IT Act). Finally, Section 509 of the IPC can be invoked if acts of gender trolling intrude into the privacy of a woman.<\/p>\n

    While the above-mentioned provisions of law can address cases of trolling, especially those involving threats and certain forms of harassment, many others may not be amenable to strict legal definitions required by criminal law. For instance, trolling in the form of memes, wordplay, and tongue-in-cheek remarks tread the thin line between free speech and offensive speech, and attempts to define it for the purpose of criminalization either risk being vague or going overbroad, which are not in the interest of freedom of speech. It is important to note that these forms of trolling gain their potency and toxicity from their frequency and volume, which is exacerbated by the amplification of sensationalist and viral content by social media algorithms. Instead of relying on criminal law to deal with these forms of trolling, we need regulatory efforts to hold platforms accountable for facilitating online abuse and harassment through their algorithms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

    \n\t
    \n\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSection 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sexual Harassment)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Under the IPC, the offense of sexual harassment is given in Section 354A, and under the BNS, it is an offense under Section 75. The elements of the offense are the same under both laws. A man shall be guilty of sexual harassment if he engages in unwelcome and explicit sexual contact or advances, demands sexual favors, shows pornography against a woman's will, or makes sexually colored remarks.<\/span><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSection 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Defamation)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Under the IPC, the definition of criminal defamation and its punishment are provided in Sections 499 and 500, respectively. However, in the BNS, these sections are consolidated into one provision:\u00a0 Section 356. The elements of the offense have not been changed in the BNS provision. The Section discusses the harm caused by publication, verbalization, or other forms of offensive material that is false, defamatory, and causes harm to the reputation of a person. The main difference between the two laws is that in the BNS, community service has been added as an alternative punishment along with imprisonment and fines.<\/span><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSection 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Criminal Intimidation)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Under the IPC, the crime of criminal intimidation and its punishment are provided under Sections 503 and 506, respectively. Further, criminal intimidation through an anonymous source is punishable under Section 507. These sections are consolidated under the BNS into one provision, Section 351, and are dealt with under different sub-sections. Section 351(1) of the BNS corresponds to Section 503 of the IPC, Section 351 (2) of the BNS corresponds to Section 506 of the IPC and Section 351(3) of the BNS corresponds to Section 507 of the IPC. These Sections discuss the offense of criminal intimidation which occurs when someone threatens another with harm to their person, reputation, or property, intending to cause alarm or compel them to act against their legal rights or duties.<\/span><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSection 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Stalking)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Under the IPC, the definition of stalking is given in Section 354D. However, in the BNS, it is an offense under Section 78. The elements of the offense are the same under both laws. Any man who repeatedly contacts a woman to foster personal interaction despite her clear disinterest, or monitors her use of the internet, email, or other electronic communication, commits the offense of stalking.<\/span><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSection 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Voyeurism)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Under the IPC, the offense of voyeurism is defined under under Section 354C. However, in the BNS, it is an offense under Section 77. The elements of the offense are the same under both laws. Section 77 addresses the crime which involves watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a private act where she expects privacy. This includes acts where the victim's genitals, posterior, or breasts are exposed or covered only by underwear, using a lavatory, or engaging in a sexual act not typically done in public. If the victim consented to capture images but not their dissemination, sharing such images is also considered an offense under this Section.<\/span><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCorresponding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) Provision\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n
    1. Section 75 of the BNS (Sexual Harassment):<\/b> Under the IPC, the offense of sexual harassment is given in Section 354A, and under the BNS, it is an offense under Section 75. The elements of the offense are the same under both laws. A man shall be guilty of sexual harassment if he engages in unwelcome and explicit sexual contact or advances, demands sexual favors, shows pornography against a woman's will, or makes sexually colored remarks.<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Section 356 of the BNS (Defamation): <\/b>Under the IPC, the definition of criminal defamation and its punishment are provided in Sections 499 and 500. However in the BNS, these sections are consolidated into one provision: Section 356. The elements of the offense have not been changed in the BNS provision. The section discusses the harm caused by publication, verbalization, or other forms of offensive material that is false, defamatory in nature, and causes harm to the reputation of a person. The main difference between the two laws is that in the BNS, community service has been added as an alternative punishment along with imprisonment and fines.<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Section 351 of the BNS (Criminal Intimidation):<\/b> Under the IPC, the crime of criminal intimidation and its punishment are provided under Section 503 and 506, respectively. Further, criminal intimidation through an anonymous source is punishable under Section 507. These sections are consolidated under the BNS into one provision, Section 351, and are dealt with under different sub-sections. Section 351(1) of the BNS corresponds to Section 503 of the IPC; Section 351 (2) of the BNS corresponds to Section 506 of the IPC; and Section 351(3) of the BNS corresponds to Section 507 of the IPC. These sections discuss the offense of criminal intimidation which occurs when someone threatens another with harm to their person, reputation, or property, intending to cause alarm or compel them to act against their legal rights or duties.<\/li>\n
    4. Section 78 of the <\/b>Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/span> (Stalking): <\/b>Under the IPC, the definition of stalking is given in Section 354D. However, in the BNS, it is an offense under Section 78. The elements of the offense are the same under both laws. Any man who repeatedly contacts a woman to foster personal interaction despite her clear disinterest, or monitors her use of the internet, email, or other electronic communication, commits the offense of stalking.<\/span><\/li>\n
    5. Section 77 of the BNS (Voyeurism):<\/b> Under the IPC, the definition of voyeurism is given under Section 354C. However, in the BNS, it is an offense under Section 77. The elements of the offense are the same under both laws. Section 77 addresses the crime which involves watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a private act where she expects privacy. This includes acts where the victim's genitals, posterior, or breasts are exposed or covered only by underwear, using a lavatory, or engaging in a sexual act not typically done in public. If the victim consented to the capture of images but not their dissemination, sharing such images is also considered an offense under this section.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>

      2.5.4 How have courts dealt with gender trolling?<\/h3>\n
      \n\t

      2.5.4.1 P. Saravanakumar v. State rep. by its Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai & Another<\/em> (2019)17<\/a><\/sup>P. Saravanakumar v. State rep.by its Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai & Another,<\/i> (2019) Crl.O.P.No.232 of 2013, order dated 5 August 2019, Madras High Court.<\/span><\/h4>\n

      The case involved a well-known singer in South India facing a \u201cchronic stream of extremely vulgar references and innuendoes\u201d18<\/a><\/sup>P. Saravanakumar v. State rep.by its Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai & Another, <\/em>Crl.O.P.No.232 of 2013, order dated 5 August 2019, Madras High Court, at para 3. \u00a0<\/span> against her and her mother, messages that insulted her based on gender, and threats of murder, rape, and acid attacks. In addition to cyberstalking and harassing the singer, the complainant, on Twitter, the accused engaged in coordinated Twitter attacks against her and her mother by starting many Twitter hashtags and also targeted her through various blog posts. While considering the petition of the accused persons to quash the First Information Report (FIR), the court rightly recognized the psychological, emotional, reputational, and livelihood damage that the complainant had to face due to online trolling by the accused. The court took serious consideration of the fact that the harassment continued despite the complainant making clear her sensitivity to such messages. Most importantly, the court held that the acts of the accused violated the right to dignity and the right to equality of the complainant and her mother.<\/p>\n

      2.5.4.2 Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State of Karnataka and Ors<\/em> (2016)19<\/a><\/sup>Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State of Karnataka and Ors<\/i>, MANU\/KA\/1667\/2016.<\/span><\/h4>\n

      The petitioner in the case prayed to quash an FIR registered against him following the complaint of a woman who belonged to the oppressed caste. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his friends harassed and engaged in mass trolling against her on social media. During this time, one of the trolls posted the complainant\u2019s MCI(Medical Council of India) degree certificate and harassed her based on her religion and caste. He called the complainant a \u201clow caste\u201d and abused her by saying that she deserved to be humiliated. Subsequently, an FIR was filed against the petitioner under Section 66A of the IT Act (sending offensive messages through communication service) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC and ST Act). During the course of submission, the counsel of the respondent (complainant) argued that the petitioner should have been charged under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act, instead.<\/p>\n

      (Please note that this case involved an incident that happened before the SC and ST Act was amended in 2016. Hence, the legal provisions invoked here are those of the earlier Act. Under the earlier Act, Section 3(1)(x) punishes the act of intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Section 3(1)(xi) punishes the act of assaulting or using force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonor or outrage her modesty.)<\/i><\/p>\n

      The court allowed the petition to quash the FIR on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. No charges can be brought under Section 66A of the IT Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2015 in Shreya Sing<\/i>hal<\/em> v.<\/i> Union of India<\/i>.20<\/a><\/sup>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India<\/em>, (2015) AIR 2015 SC 1523.<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST Act requires assault or use of force, neither of which were alleged by the complainant.<\/li>\n
      3. The respondent counsel\u2019s submission that Section 3(1)(x) will apply could not be accepted as the date, time, or place of abuse or harassment is not mentioned in the FIR, and \u201cthere is nothing to indicate that the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated in any place within public view\u201d.21<\/a><\/sup>Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State of Karnataka and Ors,<\/em> MANU\/KA\/1667\/2016, at para 22. <\/span><\/li>\n
      4. No case is registered for the offense punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Reasons 1, 2, and 4 offered by the court sufficiently justified the quashing of the FIR. However, for reason 3, its observation on the applicability of Section 3(1)(x), especially its argument that the complainant was not insulted or intimidated \u201cin any place within public view\u201d, displays ignorance or indifference to the dynamics of online communication. As the court itself observed, the complaint had mentioned mass trolling against her on social media by the petitioner and his troll gang, and the publishing of her MCI certificate online, making it visible to a wider audience. It is baffling why the court did not consider these as acts of insult carried out in public view.<\/p>\n

        This case demonstrates that existing laws are ill-equipped to effectively deal with online harassment and navigate the fluidity of private-public spaces. Doing so requires a cognitive leap of imagination in judicial decision-making to reflect the lived realities of people in the digital world, something the court clearly lacked in this case. While the final outcome did not solely hinge on the court\u2019s decision on the applicability of Section 3(1)(x), it points to the injustice that can be meted out if courts are insensitive to the peculiarities and spatial fluidity of online communications.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

        2.5.5 How have other jurisdictions dealt with gender trolling?<\/h3>\n
        \n\t

        As in India, many jurisdictions are attempting to deal with gender trolling using existing legal provisions. In Australia, Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act, 1995, which criminalizes the use of a phone or the internet to threaten, harass, or seriously offend somebody, can be invoked against gender trolling. Under this Section, a message or post could be considered offensive if it is likely to cause serious anger, outrage, humiliation, or disgust.<\/p>\n

        Similarly, in the UK, Section 1 of the Malicious Communication Act, 1988, penalizes sending of indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening messages for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient. Online trolling can also be prosecuted under Section 127 of the Communication Act, 2003, which penalizes the sending of messages that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or of a menacing character over a public electronic communication network, as well as the act of persistently engaging in such conduct. Currently, the UK parliament is considering the Online Safety Bill, which if enacted would penalize the act of sending harmful, false, and threatening communication online, with an eye on the harm caused by such acts, including psychological acts.22<\/a><\/sup>Online Safety Bill, Section 151-154. (United Kingdom).<\/span> Further, the new Crown Prosecution Service guidelines of the UK, which guide prosecutors on how to deal with a case of violence against women committed using social media, may be helpful in understanding how such acts exercise power and control over women.23<\/a><\/sup>CPS. (2022). Social Media and Other Electronic Communications.<\/i> UK Government. https:\/\/www.cps.gov.uk\/legal-guidance\/social-media-guidelines-prosecuting-cases-involving-communications-sent-social-media<\/a><\/span> For instance, the Guidelines ask prosecutors to be cognizant of the fact that in cases of violence against women and girls, social media may be used to exert power and control over the victim or to silence or coerce them.<\/p>\n

        In the province of Nova Scotia of Canada, the Unauthorised Distribution of Intimate Images and Protection against Cyber-Bullying Act, 2017, penalizes electronic communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, or obscene; communications that constitute harassment or make false allegations; and communications that denigrate an individual on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination (which includes gender).24<\/a><\/sup>Unauthorised Distribution of Intimate Images and Protection against Cyber-Bullying Act, 2017, Section 3(c). (Canada). <\/span> The acts described by this provision are broad enough to include harassment by gender trolls.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

        Footnotes<\/h3>\n
        \n\t