Anonymity Breeds Defamation

By Sanjay Pinto

Remember those unmanned public telephone booths that needed coins? These instruments  often ended up being misused – either by anti social elements for bomb hoax threats or by hostellers to make unlimited calls  by suspending a one rupee coin with a string and reusing it several times! Why? Because there was no one watching.  

 Anonymity breeds recklessness, a false sense of  bravado and in the absence of  a mechanism to filter content, it fuels internet hooliganism. There are enough mischief mongers online to constitute an Abusers Anonymous movement, akin to Alcoholics Anonymous!  Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for free speech and against attempts to gag dissent. I do understand why censorship is often frowned upon. And how self regulation has emerged as the new catchphrase. Yes, it’s almost impossible to screen every tweet or  status update. But when you can easily  sign up on social networking sites  without revealing your real identity and  get cracking by posing as someone else or posting ridiculously incorrect or misleading information about yourself or rude and even defamatory comments about others, how can you possibly expect a semblance of personal accountability ?

Hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, users tend to adopt a devil may care stance. The tenor of tweets put out by a section of users would make even the most liberal crusaders for free speech think twice about demanding the decriminalisation of defamation. There is intolerance for ‘the other view’,  vulgarity, vituperation and pettifogging in 140 characters. There is mob psychology at play. And there is uncontrolled, apparently unmonitored rudeness on what is meant to be a wonderful platform to “find out what’s happening about people and organisations you care about.” When  Kapil Sibal  tried to demand censorship of some sort, the move was opposed by many in the virtual world because it probably came across as a defence of politicians scared to have their dirty linen washed online.

What recourse does a user who has been defamed have? Facebook has a few options to report abusive comments or tags. Twitter too has a few complaint clauses couched in legalese under its terms of service. But if you have to sue someone, you need to first establish their real identity and source an address for communication of a legal notice or court summons. How do you do that with the social media?!  Twitter claims it is not obliged to divulge internet protocol addresses that originate from non law enforcement agencies outside the US. Even if you complain to the Cyber Crime Cell, you need a mutual legal assistance treaty or a letter rogatory or a sub-peona from a Court in California to get a user’s identification data! Why can’t specific abusive terms be blocked or at least monitored on the social media platforms ? Why can’t they consider insisting on some proof of identity like a mobile number to which a code can be sent as a step to register an account?  

Don’t we all get friend requests from strangers on facebook who have their kindergarten photo or a film star’s grab or some weird sign or a dog or monkey as their profile picture?  Click on the Info button and get a snub – “The user does not share this info with everyone.” Most recipients of such friend requests from strangers look for mutual friends and confirm ‘friendship’ if there is enough common ground. But that’s hardly a precaution as many accept friends to boost their tally! Of course, there are privacy settings but how many use them effectively? It takes a few good Samaritan users to post tips for others to see. The trick is to check if their wall posts are decent enough and if their albums contain genuine pictures that don’t look like they have been sourced from the net. 

 

Fake  profiles, especially for public figures, have become such a nuisance that genuine users are inconvenienced. For instance, the twitter ID ‘Rajdeep Sardesai’ is taken! The original Rajdeep has had to create one in true Olympic list style with ‘Sardesai Rajdeep’! Here, the nature of the tweets - scoops or programming information are usually enough to distinguish a real celebrity from an impostor. 

I know of several people who are active on both; but use facebook to share personal details and views and twitter for their pearls of wisdom on  the goings on in the country. Today, newsmakers don’t need to send a press release or hold a media conference. They can get their message across (without the bother of ‘inconvenient’ questions!) And in a few seconds. In most newsrooms, twitter is slowly overtaking  even news wires as a source of information. When this medium is going to occupy such an important role in our lives, users must be entitled to higher standards of reliability and safety. For starters, let the social media moguls work to ensure that better safeguards against misuse are hemmed in. And let users start reading the terms of service before clicking on the ‘I Agree.’ button.  

NO POST AT SITE ORDERS!

By Sanjay Pinto

Stories that make for dinner table conversations usually find their way to walls, or timelines for those who, as a post lamented, have been “tricked” into the new format. A tale of two events that  played out on the social media; one tragic and the other emotional, in some measure, betrayed our obsession with ‘glamorous issues’. Rahul Dravid putting his willow up in the loft most definitely deserved all the adulatory ‘we will miss you Mr.Dependable’ comments, the likes and the threads. While I don’t for a nano second, grudge the ‘About the Wall On the Wall’ references in cricket crazy India, the  murder of a young IPS officer by the mining mafia in Madhya Pradesh did not seem to provoke enough outrage to find the kind of expression on facebook that it should have. An aberration or a convenient ‘mine’ our business stance? There were the odd tweets ‘When will we get fed up? When will we give ourselves a deadline?’ but this was way below the minimum support posts. Or do we need an Anna Hazare fast again to clear seemingly clogged sensors? Is activity on  the social media sometimes directly proportional to mainstream big brother coverage? Not quite. At least, not in this case which was front page news and a top story on television bulletins, with ample scope for the ‘post at site’ syndrome. 

That it could well be the other way around is no longer an exaggeration. These sites are where the pulse of the common man is felt. This is what often gives arise to a surfeit of story ideas; hard news and offbeat. Facebook and twitter are like manna from heaven to most journalists – not just because of the source of information and many a tip off . It is a magic  platform to  post story links, even video links, as bonus readership or viewership! Not just for  working journalists but for NGOs too. ‘Dow Shall Check Facts’ – a  hard hitting rebuttal by an environmentalist to an article on the Bhopal Gas Tragedy has got considerable traction.  The responses to a facebook link would usually far exceed comments on the original piece. That is because the medium lends itself to more convenient interaction. 

Don’t ignore the angst fast forwarded!  Our dear old Finance Minister has a sea of prescriptions for the economy. And oodles of free advice, perhaps even prophylactic doses from the common man desperate for real  relief from inflation, rather than mere placebo steps. Brace yourself for stinging limericks on the budget! On this subject, a whacky comment against the picture of an actor, well known for item numbers, outside Parliament caught my attention: "Now Ministers don't have to watch stuff on their phones!"  

A picture of the Indian Kabadi team standing on the road with their trophy, allegedly without Govt provided conveyance to reach their homes has been widely commented on. What the mainstream media may have missed or not made a big deal about, mercifully got some attention on this space. 

And finally, “I’m leaving facebook. The ride here has been a blast. I’ve made tons of friends. I’ve enjoyed the wit and humour on the site. But I’ve decided to spend time with the family. So see you after lunch.” The sort of shared post that sets apart an addict from a user. A survey had once revealed that an average youngster spends upto 6 hours on facebook; many ‘chatting the night away’; some logging in before brushing their teeth every morning. The urge to put out personal information at way too frequent intervals, quite like a radio jingle ‘I am eating a burger. I think I added too much mustard. I burped’  is beyond my ken. I heard of a  facebook status message on a rollicking time a person was having at a beach, that  was used by an insurance company to turn down a medical related claim by its  customer who pretended to have sustained a fracture ! Let minute by minute updates remain the preserve of news channels! Don’t we have enough of that anyway?

JUMPING THE GUN?

By Sanjay Pinto

It’s a predictable end to a cop-robber chase in India. In movies and in real life. The criminal is either on the prowl or tries to escape from custody (usually on the way to court) or there is a clash and the police fire in ‘self defence’. The gangster is killed (usually with bullet wounds on the head and chest). A few (usually two) cops are injured (usually on the left hand and waist) . The Police Commissioner visits his wounded soldiers (usually Inspectors or Sub Inspectors) in a Govt hospital, the photographers click pictures of them receiving refreshments (usually apples, sweet limes and Marie biscuits) There is a media briefing after every encounter with the top cop claiming that the police party opened fire in self defence. Journalists all try to punch holes in the police theory (usually speaking at the same time and in English and the vernacular language) with questions like ‘Couldn’t you have caught them alive?’, ‘Why are there bullet wounds only in the head?’ . The Commissioner would often face enough provocation to put his boot in his mouth. The media reports are scathing. Human rights activists scream ‘murder’ from rooftops (usually when hardened criminals are involved). The case is handed over to the Crime Branch. Public interest litigation is kickstarted in the High Court demanding a CBI probe. There are impleading petitions filed as well. There is a Commission Of Enquiry (you can sometimes guess the name of the head, depending on the political regime!)  There are TV debates with anchors trying to out shout  activist guests. Newspapers carry editorials, the common man puts up angry posts on the social media and there are columns by ‘experts’!

Hello and welcome to the same old story!  Police encounters are routine in every State. Data from National Human Rights Commission Reports point to the registration of 1224 fake encounter complaints from 1993 to 2009. Is an ‘encounter’ always an euphemism for staged murder, a short cut to closing a case? Or are activists over react sitting on  arm chairs in  their ivory towers?

The Madras High Court is hearing a  public interest petition seeking a CBI probe into the recent gunning down of five gangsters in Chennai who were on the run after robbing two banks at gun point. A slew of petitions have been filed to counter the original plea. Interestingly, there has been overwhelming public support for the police action. In his counter affidavit, the Chennai Police Commissioner insists that the nomenclature of an ‘encounter’ in its strict sense does not tie in with the Chennai shoot out which he claims was firing in self defence during an attempt to arrest criminals identified  by victims after a laborious gleaning of close circuit television footage. This is perhaps the first time that the police has stuck to its guns in a legal battle.

Over to the debate. For starters, the police has no business to punish anyone. Their job is to arrest law breakers and bring them to trial. Neither is it the role of activists to sit in judgment over what is a genuine case of self defence induced killing or staged murder of a suspect. The problem primarily arises when both sides exceed their brief. That the men in khakhi are known for their brutality or at least widely perceived to be so,  loads the debate against them making what may well be an honest account of what transpired, seem like a cover up.

The Indian Penal Code does not mention the word ‘encounter’. It only deals with culpable homicide and murder from Sections 299 to 304. A ‘criminal’, whatever the police files may contain, is only an accused individual, whose guilt has to be proved in court beyond the shadow of doubt. Nothing in the law gives the police a licence to kill. There are instances of mistaken identity – of innocent persons gunned down in fake encounters. Planting weapons is not all that difficult.  A disturbing fact, many fear,  is that in our criminal justice system it is perhaps easier to kill than to prosecute. The temptation to dish out street justice is dangerous. There are also apprehensions that encounters are staged in order to get medals and bravery awards. And in some cases, the ‘glory’  is cornered by a top cop for an act of a subordinate officer. The Supreme Court’s notice to this possible practice was drawn by petitions filed by activists with the suggestion of a blanket ban on decorating an officer for an encounter killing. The trick of registering an attempt to murder case against the slain persons and then closing it later citing their death has also been frowned upon. 

Last year, the Apex Court hearing a plea from Sushila Devi , the wife of an alleged don Dara Singh, who was shot dead by a Rajasthan Special crack team,  even went to the extent of  asking why  a fake encounter shouldn’t be treated  as a ‘rarest of rare’ case of murder entailing the noose for the guilty men in khakhi. The logic:  "If crimes are committed by ordinary people, ordinary punishment should be given but if the offence is committed by policemen, much harsher punishment should be given to them because they do an act totally contrary to their duties.”. Strong observations but can police officers be treated as a separate class of citizens? And would that run counter to constitutional principles? Or do we merely need to have a different yardstick for fake encounters of innocent persons with no criminal antecedents like some cases in Gujarat and the killing of  the ‘Most Wanted’ brigade where the police version of self defence cannot be brushed aside?

The  law is not lopsided. There are four exceptions to murder that could come in handy for the police. Culpable homicide is not murder in the event of grave and sudden provocation, a sudden fight, while exercising the right of private defence in good faith and in the course of the lawful exercise of power by a public servant for the advancement of public justice. In quite the same manner, obstruction of a police officer in the performance of his duty is also an offence. And when it comes to self defence, the doctrine of proportionate force is crucial. If the opposite party has a small blade or knife, shooting him is unwarranted. And there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to disarm. Technology today gives the law enforcers tools like tear gas and rubber bullets to disarm and immobilise criminals. Or how about the police party using button cameras to possibly record the actual incident as it happens? Why they are not usually used remains a mystery. Talking of shooting to kill, it’s important to have a basic idea of how firearms work. During arms training, a basic instruction, I gather from sources, is to take what is called ‘half a breath’ before pulling the trigger as even the slightest movement of the arm while breathing can determine whether the bullet hits the head or the thigh! 

It’s not always the police who can be accused of jumping the gun. Civil society is also often guilty of adopting double standards. Imagine a scenario when the cops locate the hideout of a dreaded criminal and in full public glare, the gangster opens fire and escapes. Or worse, takes a member of the public hostage. Even worse, kills the hostage. How would society react? There are bound to be sarcastic comments like ‘are these real men in khakhi?’ ‘Were they carrying toy pistols?’ ‘How can we feel safe if we have cowards paid to protect us?’ But when the police use bullets, they end up in the firing line of activists! Damned if they shoot, damned if they don’t? Why are police officers provided with service revolvers? Surely not as ornamental show pieces.  After the encounter killing of a van driver in Coimbatore accused of  raping and murdering two school children, I remember a parent saying on my news show ‘The Big Question’ on NDTV Hindu :  “today is my Diwali”. Is that a reflection of the delay in our criminal justice system? Or the disenchantment over what some consider ‘lenient’ bail provisions? And on the  silence of the Indian Penal Code on ‘encounters’  a court scene in a Tom Cruise classic ‘A Few Good Men’ comes to mind. The prosecutor asks a witness as to whether a military manual mentions the ‘Code Red’ (an order to deal with a delinquent trainee leading to his death), the defence attorney snatches the book and retorts :” Does it mention where the mess hall is?  It doesn’t right So you mean in your entire stint you never had a meal?!”

I also often wonder why activists conveniently forget about victims of crime and take up cudgels for perpetrators? Do victims not have human rights? Does a bank manager who has a gun pointed at his temple by dacoits not have human rights? Does a sole breadwinner of a family locked up by gun totting robbers who loot a bank not have human rights? Does a middle class father who loses all his savings in a bank meant for his daughter’s wedding not have human rights? Does a man in uniform who walks past a door in a hideout of criminals not hurling ice cream cones but firing bullets from  illegal country made weapons not have human rights? Human rights are for all.

The National Human Rights Commission’s guideline that every encounter must be investigated as a potential case of murder can be an adequate safeguard only if State police departments fall in line and intimate the Commission of every custodial death. And ‘custody’ is to be interpreted in a wider sense to include ‘control over.’  But the police is entitled to the benefit of doubt. There must be patience for the outcome of an honest enquiry. Sweeping generalisations are a national pastime. General distrust of the police is another reality. And whether a CBI probe is the only ‘independent’  and ‘neutral’ route may well hinge on political configuration! The debate can only end if these issues are addressed. Till that happens, it’s fair for the experts to say ‘Judgment Reserved.’

STATUS 'CORE'

By Sanjay Pinto

To deify or to demonise. With a keyboard or pad to hammer and a wall to spout, these are the extreme options exercised by average cricket fans. Like a weathercock; they heap encomiums when Dhoni & Co win and vent spleen when they don’t. In the good old days, there was just the Letters To The Editor columns with limited space to comment on issues. Today the social media has made users Editors in Chief of their thoughts with absolute freedom to place in the public domain, just about anything that provokes them. Facebook and twitter are a great leveler. Here everyone is an expert.  And nothing engages the nation, quite like cricket. What started as sarcastic posts like “If you want to watch India win, switch to hockey!” gradually degenerated into angry outbursts  such as “ Endowment Lectures by the Men In Blue. Dhoni on 'Fast Outfield, Slow Fielders.' Tendulkar  on 'The Mirage Called The Hundredth Hundred.' Sehwag on 'Senior-Junior, kya fayda?' Gambhir on ' Keeping Mum Helps and How'and  R. Ashwin on 'Best Practices and How to Get Away from Them On the Field.”

In a matter of five hours, the lampooning gave way to tongue in cheek posts  “For a change Kohli can show his bat proudly instead of his middle finger to the crowd” . And suddenly national pride is back! ”And the Oscar for The best surprising act goes to Virat Kohli.” Or better still, “India did a Rajinikanth against Sri Lanka.” Mercifully, on cricket you can turn to tweets by the likes of  Harsha Bhogle who reject the herd mentality that “dhoni is letting it drift? But where are the bowlers to exert pressure?”  As a wall post screams: “People who criticised Team India during the rough patch have no right to cherish their victory! 

 Now we cannot point fingers at the authors.When a game becomes a religion, the glorious uncertainties are forgotten and miracles are expected everytime. In the whole commentary, there were small regrets. “Just when Hockey was getting some limelight comes this win.”

What I find most heartening about facebook are campaigns for causes; even a means to help people in distress. Remember the  ‘Search For Thamana’ initiative in Chennai? A school girl put up the missing child’s picture and enlisted volunteers to hunt for her. How exactly she disappeared still remains a mystery. With government websites still quite outdated and many bureaucrats active on the site, this space is gradually turning into an effective grievance corner. Officials get direct messages, chat windows pop up and some are even tagged on Status updates. 

I know of IAS aspirants who browse through status updates as closely as they read newspapers, just to get different perceptions of contentious issues. One of them who has chosen public administration as an optional subject, recently told me that she finds wall posts quite like mini editorials! 

And if you’re preparing a  speech, you don’t really need to reach for the Toastmasters Almanac! Walls are replete with witty one liners and smart alec  comments. Sample this: “Men are like Bluetooth – connected to you when you are around but search for other devices when you are away. Women are like Wi Fi – see all available signals but connect to the strongest one!”