free speech — Current Events — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Weaponization of Colonial-Era Sedition Law: The Future of India’s Free Speech

In May 2022, the Indian Supreme Court heard the case SG Vombatkere v Union of India, which prompted a temporary halt and review of the enforcement of the sedition law located in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Instituted by the British in 1870, India’s sedition law is a remnant of colonial rule criminalizing publication or speech that incites hatred or contempt toward the nation’s government. The Supreme Court will soon hear debate over its constitutionality as measured by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which states “all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” Section 124a of the IPC squashes dissent and expression within the world’s largest democracy; with its use now manipulated by India’s rising authoritarianism, its amendment is necessary and rooted in precedent.

Ananya BhatiaJanuary 5, 2024free speech, India, Indian Supreme Court

It’s Time We Defend the First Amendment on Social Media

Traditionally, the First Amendment has protected speech in public spaces. But when virtually all political expression takes place on privately owned forums, it becomes a governmental duty to defend that fundamental right when it is threatened, whether that be in the streets and in parks or on the internet. When Twitter disabled then-president Donald Trump’s account following the 2021 Capitol riot, reactions were mixed across the political spectrum. While some praised the move as responsible content moderation, others condemned it as just one instance among many of anti-conservative bias on social media platforms. Yet there was one thing everyone could agree on: the debate over the role of social media in politics was only just beginning.

Mohammad HemeidaDecember 24, 2022social media, First Amendment, free speech

The Individual or the Free Press: Who Does the Actual Malice Standard Protect?

On February 14, 2022, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. Palin and her legal team argue that a 2017 opinion editorial published in the Times accused her of inciting the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona where, infamously, former representative Gabby Giffords was wounded. [1] James Bennet, the New York Times editorial page editor at the time of the Op Ed’s publication, described in the piece what he called a clear link between the shooting and Palin’s campaign ads, which depicted Giffords and other members of the Democratic Party under illustrations of a gun’s crosshairs. Palin's suit was dismissed, however, on the grounds that her legal team had not proved actual malice. Palin has since expressed the desire to take her case to the Supreme Court, an escalation that will surely invite a reconsideration of the actual malice standard and its precedent. In the wake of this renewed debate, however, it is crucial to remember the actual malice standard’s integral role as a function of free press protections. As such, the standard should be preserved in close to its original form.