http://www.cybervictims.org
The past week saw an array of editorials and headlines on cyber security, free speech in the internet and government’s decision to ‘do some thing’ for checking internet contents for curbing hate speech etc. A very small news clipping caught my eyes on 23rd November which read “man checks net for suicide tips before hanging himself.”(seehttp://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article2652331.ece). The man in the news had apparently everything anyone would have wanted to live a good life. But what I got from the news report is that the police on a first hand search for evidences, found out the internet pages that he was supposedly checking before his death. The pages spoke about suicide, death by hanging, common mistakes people make while hanging themselves etc. The police booked the case under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation on unnatural death, which suggests that they are investigating on the issues as why and how did he commit suicide and whether it was really a death by self strangulation or a cold blooded murder. But what the police would not note was, if this was a death by self strangulation, would the creators of the web-pages, that he was seeing before death, be taken as ‘aides’ or abettors for his death? Most of the free speech advocates would laugh at this ‘ridiculous’ point raised by me. But think, how the *right* to expression of some body has pushed a man to extreme steps. Still then, to clarify, I had a quick view of some of the pages which speak about suicides. Some are really dangerous, as they show how to make the death painless. Any human being suffering from extreme depression probably would not stop in testing these steps. But, a further reading showed me the conclusion stanzas of most of these write-ups direct the reader to think something positive. Most of them speak of *living* , leaving these dreadful thoughts. But anyone in ‘madness’ to die, would hardly look at the conclusion. Mostly they will look for the steps to quick ending of the ‘disaster’ called life leaving endless web –writers in the danger of being called ‘provocative’ or ‘suicide predators’ .
Now that internet is being used for anything and everything, this presents a potential danger for young people, adolescent teens especially who turn suicidal at the slightest of unhappiness. But thinking from the other side, the creators of the web pages who speak about suicide are practicing their own rights to express and their write ups don’t really fall under the category of unprotected speech unless these write-ups are not accompanied by some positive notes or warnings. Under the Indian Penal Code, abettor for suicide is liable for an imprisonment term which may extend to ten years and which may also be accompanied by pecuniary fine under section 306. I don’t know what the investigation reports would suggest for this particular case. But if it is proved that this youth took his own life ‘provoked’ by the suicide method write-ups (off course this may not be the only ‘provocation’) due to extreme depression, could section 306, I.P.C be extended to tap those writers? Probably no, probably yes. Nonetheless, if the answer is yes, there would be huge hue and cry to fit this Indian provision in the light of US
Think twice before exercising your free speech right. It can take some one’s life.
Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2011), “The online ‘suicide predators’: examples of extreme (mis)use of internet ”, 10th December,2011 , published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”
