Hate Speech

AIR 2023 Del 2309 (June 23, 2023)

The High Court of Delhi, India, ruled that Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook, is liable for hate speech posted on its platform. The court found that Meta failed to take reasonable steps to remove or block hate speech, and that the company's algorithms amplified and spread hate speech.

In 2020, a number of Indian activists filed a lawsuit against Meta, alleging that the company was liable for hate speech and violence that had been incited on its platform. The activists argued that Meta's algorithms amplified and spread hate speech, and that the company had failed to take reasonable steps to remove or block such content. Meta argued that it was not liable for the actions of its users, and that it had taken steps to remove hate speech from its platform.

The High Court of Delhi found that Meta was liable for hate speech posted on its platform. The court found that Meta's algorithms amplified and spread hate speech, and that the company's failure to take reasonable steps to remove or block such content made it liable for the harm caused. The court stated that Meta "has a duty of care to its users to take reasonable steps to protect them from harm, including harm from hate speech." The court also found that Meta's algorithms "have a significant impact on the spread of hate speech" and that the company "has a responsibility to design and implement algorithms that do not amplify hate speech."

The High Court of Delhi ordered Meta to take a number of steps to prevent the spread of hate speech on its platform. Developing and implementing algorithms that are designed to detect and remove hate speech, providing clear and easy-to-use reporting mechanisms for users to report hate speech, taking prompt action to remove or block hate speech that is reported, providing training to Meta's employees on how to identify and deal with hate speech

The High Court of Delhi's ruling is a landmark decision that has had a significant impact on the fight against hate speech in India. The decision is a reminder that social media companies have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect their users from harm, including harm from hate speech. The High Court of Delhi's ruling in Kaur v. Facebook was widely reported on by the media and quickly went viral on social media. The decision has been welcomed by activists and free speech advocates, but has also been criticized by some who argue that it could have a chilling effect on free speech.

Four Swedish citizens were prosecuted for going to a secondary school and distributing leaflets containing statements against homosexuality. The applicants were charged with “agitation against a national or ethnic group.” The applicants were sentenced to fines and imprisonment by the District Court. They appealed that decision before the Swedish Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision, noting that punishment was a violation of the right to freedom of expression. The prosecutor appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the District Court but changed the charges to only fines and suspended sentences.