Passage 1
In India, the legal landscape surrounding online defamation is a subject of significant interest and debate. With the rise of social media, and online platforms, cases of online defamation have become increasingly common. defamation refers to making false statements about someone that harm their
reputation. Online defamation includes defamatory statements made on the internet, including social media, blogs, forums, and other online platforms. One critical aspect of online defamation is determining the liability of intermediaries, such as social media platforms or websites, for defamatory content posted by users. Section 79 of the information technology Act, 2000, provides a safe harbor for intermediaries, stating that they are not liable for third-party content if they act as intermediaries and follow due diligence in removing or disabling access to the content once notified. However, determining whether an intermediary has fulfilled its due diligence obligations can be complex. the indian judiciary has been actively interpreting this provision. One significant case is the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court clarified that intermediaries are required to act upon a valid court order or government directive for content removal, not upon private complaints. the court also emphasized that the intermediaries should not take a proactive role in monitoring content, as this could potentially infringe on free speech. While the law provides a safe harbor, it does not absolve intermediaries from their responsibilities. Online defamation cases often involve a balancing act between the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation. the indian legal system requires a careful examination of the content, context, and intent of the statements to determine whether they qualify as defamatory. Additionally, the plaintiff in an online defamation case must prove that the statement was false, damaging to their reputation, and made with a degree of fault, such as negligence or actual malice.

 

1. What is the primary focus of the passage?
(A) the rise of social media in India.
(b) the legal aspects of online defamation in India.
(C) the role of intermediaries in online content.
(d) the importance of free speech on the internet.

 

2. What is online defamation, as described in the passage?
(A) making harmful statements about someone in person.
(b) False statements made on the internet that harm someone’s reputation.
(C) Online harassment.
(d) A form of political activism.

 

3. What is the significance of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as mentioned in the passage?
(A) It defines defamation laws in India.
(b) it provides safe harbor for intermediaries in cases of online defamation.
(C) it regulates the content on social media platforms.
(d) it allows private complaints against online defamation.

 

4. According to the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, under what circumstances should intermediaries act in response to content removal?
(A) upon receiving a private complaint.
(b) upon a valid court order or government directive.
(C) Proactively to monitor content.
(d) Only if the content is found to be defamatory.

 

5. How does the Indian legal system balance the right to Freedom of expression and the right to reputation in online defamation cases?
(A) by favoring freedom of expression over reputation.
(b) by favoring reputation over freedom of expression.
(C) by carefully examining the content, context, and intent of statements.
(d) by absolving intermediaries of their responsibilities.

 

6. in an online defamation case, what must the plaintiff prove about the defamatory statement?
(A) that it was political activism.
(b) that it was made with good intentions.
(C) that it was true and intended to inform the public.
(d) that it was false, damaging to their reputation, and made with a degree of fault

 

7. What is the role of intermediaries in the context of online defamation cases?
(A) to actively monitor and censor content.
(b) to act upon private complaints for content removal.
(C) to completely absolve themselves of liability.
(d) to encourage online defamation.