Have you ever noticed the comments women receive online? Men often openly express their desire to rape, have sex with or dominate women in the comments, on social media and in DMs. These are not bots: These are real people, likely sitting in different corners of the country, probably around women or their family members, saying what they would do if given the chance. this is the biggest scenario ‘sexual harassment of women online, and this is only because they know they cannot be caught? When does this stop? Why do we not talk about enough? Why do most of the women online face a lot of harassment and hate speech commenting their body structure, their dressing sense, sharing her thoughts on gender equality. What follows is not just criticism of her ideas but a barrage of hostile comments targeting her gender, her worth as a human being. A queer activist posts about LGBTQ+ rights, only to be met with a flood of homophobic slurs and threats of violence. In another instance, a Dalit person speaks out about caste- based discrimination and is immediately subjected to casteist abuse and exclusionary abuse.
Hate speech can be broadly defined as speech that expresses hatred or incites violence against individuals or groups based on characteristics like race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Although there is no universally accepted legal definition, it poses a serious threat to human rights. Countries around the world debate the balance between free speech and hate speech, questioning how far one can go before it becomes harmful. What is often overlooked is the impact of these comments on mental health. Sexual harassment is not just lurking in the dark corners of society; its pervasive and deeply ingrained in online interactions. We need to recognize this reality and speak out against it more forcefully.
Where the individual women, queer activist, Dalit share self –empowering- content, whether it’s about body positivity, gender identity, or reclaiming sexual autonomy. While such expression may be protected under freedom of speech and the right to personal expression, they too became target of hate speech. This raises complex legal questions about the balance between protecting individuals from harmful speech and safeguarding the right to free expression. Online sexual expression means how individuals express their sexual feelings or desires in digital space, which include sharing thoughts, images, videos, or messages on social media, websites or messaging platforms. In today’s digital age, people are increasingly expressing their vulnerability, sexuality, gender preference and many other aspects of their identity online. However, these expressions are often met with harsh judgement and comments, particularly targeting individual’s choice of dress, gender identity, and other personal aspects. This relentless scrutiny significantly impacts the mental health of those who choose to share this authentic self in online spaces. This problem is especially pronounced among marginalized groups, including Dalit’s, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and others who face systemic discrimination. The fear of judgement and negative comments has led many to practice self-censorship, holding back from expressing themselves freely online. This phenomenon stifles the voices of those who are already underrepresented, further entrenching social inequalities and making digital space less inclusive for all.
Cyber space offers freedom of communication and opinion expression. However, the current social media is regularly misused to spread violent messages, comments and hateful speech. Research by organizations like UN women, Amnesty International(AI), and Human Right Watch(HRW) which highlights the alarming rate at which cyber violence impacts women and marginalized groups worldwide. This has been conceptualized as online hate speech, defined as any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or political affiliation. Hate speech usually opposes freedom of speech and violates fundamental rights of a human being. Constitution of Nepal 2072 Article 17 had talked about the freedom of expression but the right is not an absolute right. The freedom of expression is limited by the impacts one’s expression has on the public order, another individual’s dignity, or it incites violence or hatred.
However, The terms “public order” and “hatred” are not defined and thus, open to interpretation, this allows authorities to suppress not just hate speech but also dissenting voices and political criticism under the guise of maintaining order. Without clear guidelines, hate speech laws can be applied legally inconsistently. In 2023, India’s supreme court criticized selective enforcement, where political leaders were not held accountable for hate speech, while ordinary citizens faced charges for similar action. This inconsistency highlights the need for clearer legal standards. Restriction on speech that could be interpreted as harmful to individual dignity can disproportionately affect women and marginalized sexual identities, especially in online spaces. For instance, women’s bodies and sexual expression might be policed heavily, while sexual content produced by men might be tolerated. In many cases, expressions of sexuality, especially those that challenge traditional norms- are targeted under the guise of protecting “public morality” or “individual dignity”. online sexual expression, particularly by women or LGBTQ+ individuals, may be censored or punished under the claim that it harms societal values. This leads to a restriction of sexual autonomy and expression, perpetuating conservative values at the cost of personal freedom.
One of the significant laws that addresses online hate speech is article 20(2) of the international covenant on civil and political rights(ICCPR), which states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This article mandates the suppression of hate speech while balancing the right to freedom of expression.
In the context of Nepal section 305 of the civil code 2075 focuses on defamation and the protection of individual dignity, but it doesn’t explicitly cover online hate speech or online sexual expression. However, it can be applied to online platforms, as it addresses harm to an individual reputation, whether it occurs through written, verbal or other forms of communication, which could include online content. It doesn’t directly address broader hate speech concerns such as incitement to violence or hatred against groups. The electronic transaction act 2063 of Nepal, particularly section 47, prohibits the online publication or distribution of the online publication or distribution of content that is illegal, offensive, indecent or harmful to public morality. It includes restriction on hate speech, defamatory material and obscene content as well as content that threatens public order and national security. Violating this law can result in up to five years of imprisonment, a fine up to RS one lakh or both. However, the Act can be criticized for being vague, especially when it comes to online hate speech and sexual expression. While it aims to stop harmful content, like hate speech or obscene material, the terms “offensive” and “against public morality” are unclear and open to misuse. This means the law could be used to unfairly censor people who are expressing legitimate opinions, discussing sexual rights or advocating for marginalized groups. Instead of protecting free speech, the broadness of the law could end up silencing voices that challenge the status quo or talk about sensitive issues.
Similarly, under section 94 of the information technology bill of Nepal (2019), penalizes individuals for publishing or disseminating content that damages someone’s reputation or harms public decency and morality. This provision addresses both online hate speech and the regulation of sexual content, particularly targeting harmful or offensive materials shared on digital platforms.
In India as well, article 19 of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression and allows for reasonable restriction, including maintaining public order, decency, morality and preventing hate speech but with this also there is no mention of what reasonable restriction means, and there are no clear laws for hate speech. Section 153 of the Indian penal code punishes promotion of enmity between groups based on religion, place of birth, race. Section 295 criminalizes acts that outrage religious feelings. Articles 499 and 500 cover defamation, and article 509 addresses offensive remarks or gestures toward a woman’s modesty. This provision is criticized for being vaguely worded, making it easier for law enforcement to interpret them broadly. Fear of prosecution leads to self-censorship, where individuals refrain from expressing controversial or critical opinions online.
Nepal and India both have laws regulating online hate speech and sexual expression, yet they face criticism for vagueness and potential misuse. In India, section 66A of the information technology act was struck down in 2015 for being overly broad which led to arbitrary arrest. A notable case involved Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, two arrested in 2012 for posting comments on Facebook that were deemed anti-national following the death of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray. Their arrest sparked widespread outrage and raised concerns about freedom of expression in India. Similarly, Nepal Cyber Crime Act has faced scrutiny for its ambiguity, allowing for discretionary interpretations of online speech. A notable case involved the arrest of journalist Pratik Shrestha for allegedly defaming a public figure on social media, highlighting the risk of misuse. Both countries show a pressing need for clearer definitions of hate speech and inappropriate sexual interpretation and promote a more just system, balancing regulation with fundamental rights. Clear guidelines would empower users to understand their rights and responsibilities online, fostering healthier discourse while safeguarding against genuinely harmful content.
In a democratic country like Nepal, where people’s voices should be heard, the reality often differs from what the law promises. When someone faces hate speech especially online, the process of seeking justice can be disheartening. Those in positions of power sometimes misuse their authority, and it becomes difficult for common people to even file a complaint. The police may refuse to register an FIR, claiming a lack of evidence or dismissing the issue altogether, in many cases, the perpetrator is not punished: instead, the situation is handled lightly by asking the offender to apologize or delete the comment, leaving the victim feeling unsupported.
This creates a double standard in how justice is delivered. If the person facing hate speech or harassment has power or influence, the matter is taken seriously. But when it comes to ordinary people, the issue is often brushed aside as trivial. Comments like “it’s just a word” or “there was no physical assault” shows a lack of understanding of how online harassment affects a person’s mental health. The psychological impact of constant hate and derogatory comments can lead to severe trauma. Instead of supporting victims through the process, the legal and social system often makes it so difficult that people give up seeking justice.
This disparity in justice based on caste, gender, or social status is concerning. Even though Nepal is becoming more connected and people are getting educated, hate speech continues to thrive, especially online. At the same time, expressing oneself sexually online remains taboo. The society doesn’t provide space for individuals, particularly women, queer and marginalized communities, to freely express their sexuality. This forces many to censor themselves out of fear of judgement, harassment, or worse Referencing a case of Akhila Ashokan in India, who was targeted online after sharing her LGBTQ+ identity. She faced severe harassment, leading her to attempt suicide in 2018. This case highlights how societal taboos around sexual expression, especially for queer individuals, can result in devastating consequences, forcing many to suppress their identities due to fear and stigma. As a social activist with a law background, I have witnessed firsthand the barriers marginalized, uneducated women face in accessing justice against hate speech. Many women are unaware of their legal rights or the processes involved in reporting harassment, which leaves them feeling powerless. In community outreach programs, I have encountered women who are hesitant to come forward due to fear of judgment or retaliation. This lack of awareness, combined with a legal system that often fails to support their needs, highlights the urgent necessity for people-centric laws and a more supportive environment to empower these women to seek justice.
In Nepal, there is a concerning trend of increased reporting of non- consensual sharing of intimate images commonly known as “revenge porn”. This rise has been noted since events like the 2017 case of a teenager who attempted suicide after her intimate photos were shared without consent. Such incidents have promoted victims to speak out, driven by greater awareness and support networks. The proliferation of social media has made it easier for perpetrators to share such content, leading to a surge in incidents, particularly affecting women from marginalized communities. Despite growing recognition of the issue, legal response remains inadequate, with efforts to criminalize revenge porn facing delays, as seen in the 2019 discussion in the Nepalese Parliament. This highlights a pressing need for urgent legal reforms. Furthermore, the #MeToo movement in Nepal has brought attention to the emotional and psychological consequences faced by victims, prompting calls for mental health support and resources. These trends underscore the necessity for stronger protection and societal change to effectively combat revenge porn and support victims. When two people in a relationship share intimate photos, videos or personal conversations, there can be serious consequences if those relationships end. Unfortunately, it’s common for one person to misuse the shared content, without consent. This can be particularly harmful for women, who often face severe emotional and social consequences. Such actions can have a devastating impact on the mental health of the person affected, especially when privacy and trust are violated. Our culture and society are shaped in such a way that it is mostly women who bear the consequences than men. Research has shown that youth with disabilities are at a greater risk of being bullied and bullying can also occur on social networking sites. Once something is shared, the user loses control of how the information is used in future.
Queer individuals, especially those undergoing a transformation or seeking information during their transition, often face hate speech when they share their queries or experiences online. Even after their transformation, when they post or express their views, they are met with hostility instead of support. Rather than receiving understanding or encouragement, they are subjected to negative comments and derogatory language. Similarly, Dalit individuals, particularly Dalit women, are frequently targeted online. They are disproportionately subjected to verbal abuse, hate speech and degrading remarks. These marginalized groups face the brunt of online hostility, often without any form of protection or support.
Cybercrime is the most powerful crime that is growing fastly. The main advantage of the internet is faster communication but security is the crucial issue of the internet. It is a global problem that affects every corner of electronic activities in our daily life. As it is increasing it must be mitigated by applying different measures. where one can amend the law from time to time and it must be strictly implemented and the government of Nepal must be more concerned about electronic transaction activities, cyber conduct and cybercrime. Different awareness programs should be conducted where people understand hate speech and laws about it. Separate and well trainee’s department should be established with well-trained officers to specifically deal with the misuse of cyber law.
In conclusion, the prevalence of online hate speech, particularly against marginalized communities such as queer individuals and Dalit women, highlights the urgent need for better protection and education within digital spaces. online platforms must take responsibility for enforcing stricter regulations, while society must cultivate greater empathy and understanding toward those expressing their identities and experiences. It is essential that we foster a culture where freedom of sexual expression and individuals can thrive without fear of harassment or hate. Society must take steps to dismantle deeply ingrained prejudices that fuel such hostility, encouraging empathy, respect and understanding for those who express their sexual identities and personal experiences online. Moreover, education is the key- digital literacy programs should include discussion on the ethical use of social media and the impact of hate speech on vulnerable communities. To effectively address online hate speech in Nepal, a multi-faceted approach involving legislative, executive and judicial initiatives is essential. Legally, the government should establish clear laws that define hate speech, ensuring protection of free expression while preventing abuse, including specific provisions targeting online hate speech and stricter penalties for offenders. Executively, enhancing digital literacy programs will educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities online, while collaboration with tech companies is crucial for implementing robust reporting mechanisms. Judicially, courts should prioritize cases of online hate speech to ensure swift justice for victims and establishing specialized cybercrime units within law enforcement can Improve investigations and prosecutions. Overall, these initiatives will promote better protection and education within digital spaces, emphasizing the responsibility of online platforms to enforce stricter regulations and safeguard users from hate speech. Legal frameworks must also evolve to offer greater protection for those who face abuse, ensuring that online spaces do not become breeding grounds for discrimination and harm. Only through collective effort can we create a safer, more inclusive environment where all voices are respected.