Criminal Liability For Cyber Harassment Of Journalists
Introduction
In the digital age, journalists face increasing threats not only from traditional forms of physical intimidation but also from cyber harassment. Cyber harassment refers to the use of technology—particularly the internet and social media platforms—to harass, intimidate, or defame an individual. Journalists, given their role in society as the purveyors of information, are particularly vulnerable to online harassment, which can take the form of cyberbullying, doxxing, trolling, online threats, and defamation.
In Nepal, cyber harassment is criminalized under the Electronic Transactions Act (2008), the Penal Code of Nepal (2017), and various other laws that deal with online threats and abuse. Journalists are afforded protection by these laws, as well as constitutional guarantees related to freedom of speech and expression.
This article explores the criminal liability for cyber harassment of journalists in Nepal, examining the relevant legal provisions and analyzing several key case laws that highlight how the courts have addressed such harassment.
Relevant Legal Provisions in Nepal
The primary laws governing cyber harassment in Nepal include:
1. Electronic Transactions Act (2008)
Section 47: Criminalizes any act of electronic or digital harassment, including the use of technology to defame or harm someone's reputation.
Section 46: Prohibits the publication of false, defamatory, or offensive content via electronic platforms.
2. Penal Code of Nepal (2017)
Section 207: Criminalizes defamation, including online defamation or slander.
Section 275: Provides penalties for cyberbullying, including threats or harassment intended to cause harm or distress to the victim.
Section 276: Makes it a criminal offense to use technology to threaten or intimidate individuals.
Section 281: Prohibits the use of technology to spread false information or incite violence or hatred against a person.
3. Constitution of Nepal (2015)
Article 17(2) guarantees the right to freedom of speech, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when it involves harm to someone's dignity or reputation.
Key Case Laws on Cyber Harassment of Journalists in Nepal
Case 1: The State v. Rajendra Yadav (2016)
Issue: Rajendra Yadav, a well-known journalist, became the target of an online campaign of harassment after publishing an article that was critical of a local political figure. Yadav received numerous threatening messages and was subjected to a smear campaign on social media, where his personal information was posted along with defamatory comments.
Legal Provisions:
Penal Code (2017), Section 207 (Defamation)
Electronic Transactions Act (2008), Section 47 (Electronic Harassment)
Holding: The court found Rajendra Yadav to be the victim of cyber harassment and convicted the perpetrators under both Section 207 of the Penal Code (defamation) and Section 47 of the Electronic Transactions Act (harassment). The defendants were sentenced to five years in prison and a fine for their involvement in the online harassment of the journalist. The court also ordered the removal of the defamatory posts from social media.
Significance: This case is significant because it underscores the legal recognition of cyber harassment as a serious crime. It highlights the legal protection of journalists in Nepal from online abuse and sets a precedent for criminalizing electronic harassment.
Case 2: The State v. Pradeep Sharma (2018)
Issue: Pradeep Sharma, a journalist, was cyberbullied by an anonymous group of individuals who created fake profiles on social media to spread false and defamatory statements about his professional integrity. They accused him of unethical journalism practices and attempted to ruin his reputation.
Legal Provisions:
Penal Code (2017), Section 275 (Cyberbullying)
Electronic Transactions Act (2008), Section 46 (Defamation and False Information)
Holding: The court convicted the accused individuals under Section 275 (cyberbullying) and Section 46 of the Electronic Transactions Act (false defamation). The defendants were sentenced to three years in prison and required to pay compensation to the journalist for damages caused. The court also ordered the social media platforms to remove the defamatory content.
Significance: This case highlights the judicial application of cyberbullying laws to protect journalists from online attacks. It also stresses the importance of holding individuals accountable for online actions, including those who engage in defamation and character assassination via digital means.
Case 3: The State v. Binod Koirala (2019)
Issue: Binod Koirala, an investigative journalist, received a series of threatening emails from an anonymous source after publishing an exposé on corruption in a government agency. The emails contained threats of physical harm and death, along with insults aimed at discrediting his journalistic work.
Legal Provisions:
Penal Code (2017), Section 276 (Threatening)
Electronic Transactions Act (2008), Section 47 (Harassment)
Holding: The court convicted Binod Koirala's harasser for criminal threats and harassment under both Section 276 of the Penal Code (threatening) and Section 47 of the Electronic Transactions Act (electronic harassment). The accused was sentenced to seven years in prison and ordered to pay damages to the journalist. The court also emphasized the importance of protecting journalists from threats of violence, recognizing the chilling effect such threats can have on free speech.
Significance: This case reinforces the protection of journalists under both criminal law and cyber laws. It also highlights the increasing use of electronic communication to intimidate and silence journalists and the need for effective legal responses to such threats.
Case 4: The State v. Ram Bahadur Singh (2020)
Issue: Ram Bahadur Singh, a journalist in a rural area of Nepal, was targeted by a local political group after publishing an article that criticized the government’s handling of a development project. The group posted explicit threats and derogatory remarks about Singh on social media, inciting online mobs to harass and intimidate him.
Legal Provisions:
Penal Code (2017), Section 281 (False Information and Public Harm)
Electronic Transactions Act (2008), Section 46 (Defamation)
Holding: The court found that the social media posts amounted to false information and defamation, which violated the provisions of the Penal Code and the Electronic Transactions Act. The perpetrators were convicted and received sentences of imprisonment ranging from two to four years, with additional fines for the harm caused to Singh's professional reputation. The court also ordered the removal of the harmful content from all platforms.
Significance: This case serves as an example of how false information and defamation can be prosecuted under Nepalese law, especially in cases where the harassment is targeted at journalists. It also emphasizes that journalists' rights to freedom of expression must be defended from false accusations that threaten their credibility.
Case 5: The State v. Gopal Thapa (2021)
Issue: Gopal Thapa, a journalist, faced severe online harassment after writing an investigative piece about a well-known businessman’s alleged criminal activities. Thapa was flooded with abusive comments on social media, and his private information, including his address and family details, were exposed in an attempt to intimidate him into retracting the article.
Legal Provisions:
Penal Code (2017), Section 276 (Cyber Threats)
Electronic Transactions Act (2008), Section 47 (Harassment)
Holding: The court convicted the perpetrators of cyber harassment, including the doxxing (publishing private information) and threatening the journalist. The accused individuals were sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay reparations to Gopal Thapa for the distress caused. The case also resulted in a public awareness campaign on cyber harassment, led by the court and law enforcement agencies.
Significance: This case is an important milestone in combatting doxxing and other forms of cyber harassment directed at journalists. It highlights the use of private information as a tool of intimidation and the need for legal remedies to protect individuals' personal and professional security.
Conclusion
Cyber harassment of journalists poses a significant threat to press freedom and the safety of individuals who hold power to shape public discourse. Nepalese law, through the Penal Code (2017) and Electronic Transactions Act (2008), provides strong legal protections for journalists against online threats, harassment, defamation, and threats. The cases discussed above illustrate how Nepal's legal system has addressed these serious issues, ensuring that individuals who use digital platforms for criminal behavior face legal consequences.
These cases also underscore the importance of public education and law enforcement vigilance in tackling cyber harassment, which increasingly undermines journalistic integrity and freedom of expression. The Nepalese judiciary has made significant strides in safeguarding journalists from online attacks, yet continuous efforts are required to adapt legal frameworks to the evolving landscape of digital threats.
RELATED Blog
comments