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 of 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 it enough? Why do most women online face so much harassment and hate speech; comments on their body structure, their dressing sense, or simply for sharing thoughts on gender equality?
What follows is not just criticism of their ideas but a barrage of hostile comments targeting their gender and their worth as human beings. 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 comments.
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; it’s pervasive and deeply ingrained in online interactions. We need to recognize this reality and speak out against it more forcefully.
When individual women, queer activists, and Dalits share self-empowering content, whether it’s about body positivity, gender identity, or reclaiming sexual autonomy, they often become targets of hate speech. While such expression may be protected under freedom of speech and the right to personal expression, they too become targets of abuse. This raises complex legal questions about the balance between protecting individuals from harmful speech and safeguarding the right to free expression.
Online sexual expression refers to how individuals express their sexual feelings or desires in digital spaces, including 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 preferences, and many other aspects of their identity online. However, these expressions are often met with harsh judgment and comments, particularly targeting individuals’ choice of dress, gender identity, and other personal aspects.
This relentless scrutiny significantly impacts the mental health of those who choose to share their authentic selves online. This problem is especially pronounced among marginalized groups, including Dalits, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and others who face systemic discrimination. The fear of judgment and negative comments has led many to practice self-censorship, holding back from expressing themselves freely online. This phenomenon stifles the voices of those already underrepresented, further entrenching social inequalities and making digital space less inclusive for all.
Cyberspace offers freedom of communication and opinion expression. However, current social media platforms are regularly misused to spread violent messages, comments, and hateful speech. Research by organizations like UN Women, Amnesty International (AI), and Human Rights Watch (HRW) 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 group on the basis of characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or political affiliation. Hate speech often opposes freedom of speech and violates fundamental human rights.
Nepal’s Constitution of 2072, Article 17, talks about freedom of expression, but this right is not absolute. Freedom of expression is limited by the impacts one’s expression has on public order, another individual’s dignity, or if it incites violence or hatred.
However, the terms “public order” and “hatred” are not defined and are 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 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 actions. This inconsistency highlights the need for clearer legal standards. Restrictions 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 heavily policed, while sexual content produced by men may 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 significant law addressing 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 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 doesn’t explicitly cover online hate speech or sexual expression. It can, however, be applied to online platforms as it addresses harm to individual reputation through any communication, including online. Yet it does not directly address broader hate speech concerns such as incitement to violence or hatred.
The Electronic Transaction Act 2063 of Nepal, particularly Section 47, prohibits the online publication or distribution of illegal, offensive, indecent, or harmful content to public morality. This includes hate speech, defamatory material, and obscene content as well as content that threatens public order and national security. Violations can result in up to five years of imprisonment, a fine of up to Rs. 100,000, or both.
However, the Act is criticized for its vagueness, especially concerning online hate speech and sexual expression. The terms “offensive” and “against public morality” are unclear and open to misuse. This means the law could unfairly censor those expressing legitimate opinions, discussing sexual rights, or advocating for marginalized groups.
Similarly, under Section 94 of the Information Technology Bill of Nepal (2019), individuals are penalized for publishing or disseminating content that damages someone’s reputation or harms public decency and morality. This provision addresses both online hate speech and regulation of sexual content, particularly targeting harmful materials shared digitally.
In India, Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression and allows for reasonable restrictions, including maintaining public order, decency, and preventing hate speech. But the term “reasonable restriction” is undefined, and there are no clear laws for hate speech.
Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code punishes the promotion of enmity between groups based on religion or 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. These provisions are often vaguely worded, enabling broad interpretation by law enforcement and leading to self-censorship.
Both Nepal and India 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. A notable case involved Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, arrested in 2012 for Facebook comments deemed anti-national. Their arrest sparked outrage and raised concerns about free expression.
Similarly, Nepal’s Cybercrime Act has been criticized for ambiguity. A notable case involved journalist Pratik Shrestha, arrested for allegedly defaming a public figure on social media. These examples highlight the need for clearer definitions and fair implementation.
In a democratic country like Nepal, where people’s voices should be heard, the reality often differs. When someone faces online hate speech, the process of seeking justice can be disheartening. Authorities sometimes misuse power, and common people struggle to even file complaints. Often, perpetrators are not punished and are simply asked to apologize or delete comments, leaving victims unsupported.
This creates a double standard. If someone influential faces harassment, the matter is taken seriously. But ordinary people are often dismissed with comments like “it’s just a word” or “there was no physical assault,” overlooking the mental toll of online abuse. The legal and social systems can make it so difficult that people give up seeking justice.
The disparity in justice based on caste, gender, or social status is concerning. Even with increasing digital access and education, hate speech thrives, and online sexual expression remains taboo. Society fails to provide space for women, queer, and marginalized communities to express sexuality freely, forcing many to censor themselves out of fear. The case of Akhila Ashokan in India who was harassed for her LGBTQ+ identity, attempted suicide in 2018. It demonstrates the devastating consequences of societal taboos.
As a social activist with a law background, I have seen firsthand how marginalized and uneducated women struggle to access justice. Many don’t know their rights or how to report harassment. In outreach programs, I’ve met women hesitant to speak up due to fear of judgment or retaliation. This, combined with a legal system that fails to support them, highlights the urgent need for people-centric laws and empowerment.
In Nepal, there is a concerning rise in non-consensual sharing of intimate images, or “revenge porn.” Cases like that of a teenager in 2017, who attempted suicide after her intimate photos were shared, reflect the growing problem. Despite awareness and support networks, legal action remains inadequate, with delays in criminalizing such offenses.
The #MeToo movement in Nepal also shed light on emotional trauma faced by victims and called for mental health resources. When intimate content is shared during a relationship, its misuse after a breakup can have serious consequences, especially for women, who often bear the brunt of social judgment.
Queer individuals undergoing transformation or seeking information during transitions are frequently targeted. Even after transformation, they face hostility instead of support. Dalit women too are disproportionately subjected to online abuse, without protection or accountability.
Cybercrime is growing rapidly. While the internet facilitates communication, security is a critical issue. The government of Nepal must focus on updating and strictly implementing cyber laws. Awareness programs, clear laws, and specialized cybercrime units with trained officers are essential.
In conclusion, the prevalence of online hate speech, especially against marginalized communities like queer individuals and Dalit women, underscores the urgent need for better protection and education. Online platforms must enforce stricter policies, and society must foster empathy and inclusivity.
Education is key and digital literacy programs should include discussions on the ethical use of social media and the impact of hate speech. Addressing hate speech in Nepal requires legal clarity, executive awareness, and judicial efficiency. Through collective effort, we can build a safer, more inclusive digital environment where everyone’s voice is respected.nment where all voices are respected.