Question Description
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.The Constitution allows for certain reasonable restrictions with respect to freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality. The IT Act prohibits uploading or sharing content which is obscene, sexually explicit, relates to child sex abuse, or violates a person’s privacy. The 2021 Rules specify certain additional restrictions on the types of information users of intermediary platforms can create, upload, or share. These include: (i) “harmful to child”, (ii) “insulting on the basis of gender”, and (iii) “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. Some of these restrictions are subjective and overbroad, and may adversely affect the freedom of speech and expression of users of intermediary platforms. The Supreme Court (2015) has held that a restriction on speech, in order to be reasonable, must be narrowly tailored so as to restrict only what is absolutely necessary. It also held that a speech can be limited on the grounds under the Constitution when it reaches the level of incitement. Other forms of speech even if offensive or unpopular remain protected under the Constitution. The Rules require the intermediaries to make these restrictions part of their service agreement with users. This implies that users must exercise prior restraint, and intermediaries may interpret and decide upon the lawfulness of content on these grounds. Such overbroad grounds under the Rules may not give a person clarity on what is restricted and may create a ‘chilling effect’ on their freedom of speech and expression. This may also lead to over-compliance from intermediaries as their exemption from liability is contingent upon observing due diligence.Q. Is it possible for the accused in a high-profile criminal case to take legal action against Priya, a journalist, and the news organization she works for after an article they published, containing inaccurate information related to the case, prompted the accused to file a complaint under the 2021 Rules?a)Yes, as the article included information that was blatantly false and misleading.b)No, because the article was published in good faith without any intent to deceive.c)Yes, as per the 2021 Rules, intermediaries are accountable for the content they host or publish.d)No, because the article falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.