Can You Be Punished For Sharing Offensive Content Online?

In today’s hyper-connected digital world, is it punishable to share offensive content online?

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: In the digital era, where social media dominates public discourse, the act of sharing, retweeting, or forwarding content—often done impulsively—can have significant legal consequences. With increased judicial and regulatory scrutiny, the question arises: Can you be held criminally liable for content that you did not originally create but merely shared?

The answer, though nuanced, is yes—under certain circumstances, sharing or retweeting offensive or unlawful content can amount to a criminal offence under Indian law.

Understanding the Digital Landscape

Social media platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp have become powerful tools for communication and opinion-sharing. However, with their widespread use has come a rise in misinformation, hate speech, defamation, communal incitement, and harassment. The viral nature of posts means that a single click can amplify offensive or unlawful content to a massive audience, giving it fresh life and visibility.

Legal Framework Governing Social Media Content in India

Several Indian laws can be invoked against individuals who share or forward offensive content, even if they are not the original creators:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

a. Section 499 and 500 – Defamation

• Publishing defamatory content (including retweeting or reposting it) can be construed as a fresh act of publication.
• The Delhi High Court in a 2024 ruling stated that retweeting defamatory content amounts to publication and can attract liability under defamation laws.

b. Section 153A – Promoting Enmity Between Groups

• Sharing content that promotes enmity between different communities based on religion, race, language, etc., is a criminal offence.
• Even if you didn’t create such content, sharing it can amount to endorsing and spreading hatred.

c. Section 295A – Insulting Religious Beliefs

• Any shared content that insults or attempts to insult religious beliefs with deliberate intent can attract liability under this provision.

d. Section 505 – Statements Conducing to Public Mischief

• This penalizes those who spread false or inflammatory content, including through social media, capable of causing fear or alarm or inciting violence.

2. Information Technology Act, 2000

a. Section 66A (Struck down)

• Previously criminalized sending offensive messages electronically. Though struck down in 2015 by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, police authorities have often tried to invoke it mistakenly.

b. Section 67 – Publishing Obscene Material

• Sharing or forwarding obscene or sexually explicit content over electronic platforms can attract punishment, even if the sender is not the originator.

c. Section 67A – Sexually Explicit Content

• Enhances penalties for sharing material that contains sexually explicit acts or conduct.

d. Section 69 and 69A

• Authorize the government to intercept or block content and hold intermediaries (including users) responsible if they fail to comply with directions.

Judicial Perspective: Case Laws and Observations

1. Delhi High Court (2024) – Retweeting is Publication

In a defamation suit involving retweeted content, the Delhi High Court held that every retweet or repost constitutes a new publication. The Court noted that even if a user did not originally create defamatory content, by retweeting it, they actively disseminate the statement, which can harm the reputation of the aggrieved person.

This decision aligns with traditional principles of publication in defamation law, where republication is treated as an independent tort.

2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending “offensive messages” online, calling it vague and a threat to free speech. However, the Court clarified that reasonable restrictions still apply under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Hence, while mere expression is protected, speech that incites violence, communal hatred, or defames an individual may still attract criminal liability.

Intent vs. Impact: Does Intention Matter?

A critical legal issue is whether a person must have the intention to cause harm or if the mere act of sharing is enough to attract criminal liability.Mens Rea (Intention) in Criminal Law

• Most criminal offences require some degree of mens rea or guilty mind.
• However, in some statutory offences (like obscenity or communal hatred), the impact or effect of the act can override the need for proving intent.

Therefore, even if someone shares offensive content unknowingly or casually, they may still be held liable if the post:

• Incites violence
• Defames a public figure or private individual
• Offends religious sentiments
• Spreads communal disharmony

The Role of Disclaimers: Are You Safe?

Some users write in their bios—“Retweets are not endorsements.” But do such disclaimers hold legal value?

Legal Position:

Courts and law enforcement authorities have generally not accepted such disclaimers as valid defences. The reasoning is:

• Retweeting or forwarding content adds fresh visibility and implied consent to the content.
• It also contributes to the viral spread, making the sharer complicit in its impact.

Thus, each act of sharing or forwarding is treated as an independent act of publication, not insulated by disclaimers.

WhatsApp Forwards: Private Messaging, Public Consequences

While Twitter and Facebook are considered public platforms, what about closed groups like WhatsApp?

Legal View:

• Courts have held that administrators of WhatsApp groups may not be held criminally liable for every message unless there is active participation or endorsement.
• However, users who forward offensive content in these groups can be held liable if the content is unlawful, particularly under Sections 67 and 295A IPC.

Recent cases show that even private messages can lead to FIRs if screenshots are circulated and offend the public at large.

ALSO READ: Why Mediation Needs Expert Oversight: Controversial Social Media Post Sparks Debate

Police Perspective: What Law Enforcement Says

Law enforcement agencies, especially cybercrime cells, now treat retweeting, sharing, or forwarding as acts of endorsement or republication. According to a Delhi Police cyber unit official:

“The moment you share or retweet, you’re giving that content your own reach. You’re responsible for what you’re circulating, regardless of who wrote it first.”

This view reflects a stricter and more cautionary approach to controlling the spread of unlawful or harmful online content.

Freedom of Speech vs. Responsible Use

India guarantees freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), but it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the state
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to an offence

Therefore, while you have a right to express yourself, sharing or amplifying offensive, illegal, or inflammatory content may cross the line.

ALSO READ: EXPLAINER | Is It Legal to Monitor Someone Else’s Social Media?

Best Practices for Social Media Users

1. Verify Before You Share: Always check the authenticity of the content, especially if it concerns sensitive issues.
2. Avoid Hate or Provocative Content: Stay away from forwarding content that targets religion, caste, community, or individuals.
3. Report, Don’t Repost: If you come across objectionable content, report it rather than resharing it.
4. Understand the Law: Ignorance is not a defence. Be aware that even your digital actions can have legal consequences.
5. Be Mindful in WhatsApp Groups: Even in private circles, exercise caution. Messages can be leaked or screenshotted.

In a digitally connected society, retweeting, sharing, or forwarding content is not a neutral act. It has legal implications, especially when the content is offensive, defamatory, or unlawful. Indian courts and law enforcement agencies are increasingly holding individuals accountable for their digital footprint, even when they are not the original creators of the content.

The bottom line is:

You are responsible for what you share. In the eyes of the law, amplification equals endorsement. In an age where misinformation can go viral in seconds, it’s not just what you say, but what you share, that can land you in legal trouble.

READ MORE REPORTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE