Criminal Law Responses To Hate Speech During Elections
Criminal Law Responses to Hate Speech During Elections
Hate speech during elections can take the form of inflammatory remarks, incitement to violence, defamation, or communal attacks targeting a political group, religion, ethnicity, or candidate. Many countries, including Nepal and India (for comparative jurisprudence), have provisions under criminal law to regulate this.
1. Legal Framework
Nepal
Muluki Criminal Code (2017) – Sections 149–153: Promoting enmity or hatred between groups, inciting violence, defamation, and public disorder.
Election Commission Act & Electoral Code of Conduct – Restricts inflammatory speech by candidates and political parties.
Public Offense Provisions – Sections on criminal intimidation, disorderly conduct, and incitement can apply.
Key Points
Hate speech is criminal when it incites violence, public disorder, or discrimination.
Mere criticism or opinion is usually protected; the law targets speech with intent to provoke or intimidate.
Detailed Case Studies
Case 1: Incitement Against a Religious Community During Local Elections
Facts:
During local elections, a political candidate delivered speeches vilifying a particular religious minority, urging voters not to support candidates from that community. The speeches were recorded and widely circulated.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 149 – acts causing enmity between groups.
Section 153 – incitement to violence or disruption of public peace.
Court Reasoning:
The court noted that the speech was not a political opinion but an attempt to incite hostility.
Evidence included video recordings, witness testimony, and social media dissemination.
The intent to create enmity was established through repeated statements.
Significance:
Clarified that hate speech targeting religious groups during elections attracts criminal liability.
Courts distinguished between political criticism and speech intended to provoke group hatred.
Case 2: Hate Speech Targeting an Ethnic Community
Facts:
During a provincial election campaign, a candidate posted messages online ridiculing an ethnic minority and claiming they were “anti-national,” calling voters to reject them.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 149 – promotion of enmity among ethnic groups.
ETA (Electronic Transactions Act) Section 47 – electronic publication of prohibited or inflammatory content.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized that online dissemination amplified the risk of unrest.
The repeated nature and public reach of the statements indicated intention to create hostility.
Significance:
Reinforced that online hate speech carries the same criminal liability as public speeches.
Set a precedent for prosecuting digital hate campaigns during elections.
Case 3: Threats Against Political Opponents
Facts:
A candidate in national elections threatened rival party supporters via social media posts, warning them of violence if they campaigned in certain areas.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 11 – criminal intimidation.
Section 218 – public intimidation and causing fear.
Election Code of Conduct – prohibits threats during campaigns.
Court Reasoning:
Threats intended to suppress the political activity of opponents were treated as criminal intimidation.
The court noted that intent and fear caused were key elements in establishing liability.
Significance:
Established that threats targeting political activity can attract criminal prosecution.
Encourages enforcement of electoral code provisions alongside criminal law.
Case 4: Communal Violence Following Inflammatory Speech
Facts:
During a municipal election campaign, inflammatory speeches against a particular community preceded violent clashes in a district. Several citizens were injured.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 149 – promotion of enmity and hatred.
Section 150 – public violence.
Criminal negligence provisions – for failure to prevent foreseeable harm.
Court Reasoning:
The court linked speech directly to the outbreak of violence, holding the speaker liable for incitement.
Evidence included videos of the speech, eyewitness accounts, and police reports of the riots.
Significance:
Demonstrates that hate speech can attract criminal liability when it causes actual violence.
Sets precedent for linking speech to tangible harm.
Case 5: Defamatory Speech Against a Candidate
Facts:
A rival candidate circulated false and defamatory statements claiming the opponent was involved in criminal activities and corruption, intending to damage electoral prospects.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 207–208 – defamation.
Electoral Code of Conduct – prohibits false statements against candidates.
Court Reasoning:
Court differentiated between criticism and false allegations.
Liability was imposed because the statements were knowingly false and intended to influence voters unfairly.
Significance:
Reinforces that electoral competition does not justify spreading false or defamatory information.
Clarifies interaction between defamation law and electoral conduct.
Case 6: Use of Social Media to Incite Regional Hostility
Facts:
A group of political activists created posts warning one region not to vote for another candidate, using derogatory terms and implying threats of exclusion from local benefits.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 149 – inciting enmity between groups.
ETA Section 47 – online publication of inflammatory content.
Court Reasoning:
Court held that digital amplification increased potential for violence and public disorder.
Criminal liability was imposed on the original posters and key coordinators.
Significance:
Shows courts recognize the enhanced effect of social media in spreading hate speech.
Encourages proactive monitoring and accountability during election periods.
Key Observations
Hate speech during elections is criminally actionable when it:
Incites violence, enmity, or fear.
Defames or threatens candidates or voters.
Targets communities based on religion, ethnicity, or region.
Digital platforms are included under the criminal framework.
Evidence (video, social media posts, eyewitness accounts) is critical.
Courts balance freedom of speech with public order, distinguishing criticism from hate speech.
Enforcement often involves collaboration between the Election Commission and criminal authorities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments