--- layout: default title: "Offended by a Tweet? Live with It" description: "A Times of India WebWise blog by Javed Anwer responding to the arrest of a businessman under Section 66A of the IT Act, reflecting contemporary criticism of online speech regulation and citing concerns raised by Sunil Abraham." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2012-11-02 source: "The Times of India" authors: ["Javed Anwer"] permalink: /media/offended-tweet-live-with-it-times-of-india/ created: 2025-12-25 --- **Offended by a Tweet? Live with It** is a blog post published on *The Times of India* on 2 November 2012, written by technology journalist Javed Anwer. The piece examines the arrest of businessman S Ravi for tweeting about Karti Chidambaram's wealth, criticising Section 66A of the IT Act as deliberately ambiguous legislation that enables powerful figures to criminalise mere annoyance. Anwer cites Sunil Abraham's assessment that the provision exceeds constitutional limits on free speech, and argues that the web's equalising nature makes criminal penalties for offensive speech both disproportionate and counterproductive. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
đź“° Published in:
The Times of India (Blog)
✍️ Author:
Javed Anwer
đź“… Date:
2 November 2012
đź“„ Type:
Opinion Blog Post
đź“° Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

It is a sad reflection on India of our times that a tweet can land you in jail. Yes, that is what happened to S Ravi, a small-time businessman. His fault? He tweeted that Karti Chidambaram, son of Union finance minister P Chidambaram, has amassed more wealth than Robert Vadra. Karti obviously found the tweet "offensive". Cops were roped in and, because the son of a VVIP is a VVIP, they acted pretty fast.

In a country like India where people are murdered on the street, women are raped in daylight and lawlessness is the order of the day, the guy who made the "offensive tweet" was behind the bars within days! And we thought our cops couldn't act fast.

Well, that's not the main story though. The bigger issue is Section 66A of the IT Act, which has been invoked against Ravi. Ever since this clause was inserted into the IT Act in 2008, web activists are up in arms against it. Sunil Abraham, director of Bangalore-based group Centre for Internet and Society, told TOI on Thursday that it "goes beyond the constitutional limits on free speech".

There are several problems with Section 66A. Let me first tell you what it is:

Section 66A of the IT Act says any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, — (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, — shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

In typical Indian fashion, it is ambiguous. In all probability, deliberatively, so that people like Mamata Banerjee and Karti Chidambaram can let loose cops on anyone who "offends" them.

I mean what the hell is information with 'menacing character'? If I enter a virtual chat room and shout "Boo, a ghost is here. I am gonna eat all of you," will it be considered menacing information?

Causing annoyance? Really… is this what we have come to now? Are we punishing people because they can cause annoyance to others on the web? I am annoyed everyday by many pointless emails I get from PR people. I should better file an FIR against them. Right?

I can go on and on.

Section 66A is also a typical real-world law that fails to understand the virtual world. As I have argued here earlier, the online world is a reflection of humanity with all its banalities and goodness. (Sometimes banalities are more visible because buoyed by anonymity and the tools the web provides, people can be quite nasty in their virtual avatars). But yet because it is all virtual, it is not comparable to similar acts in real life even if the actions on the web can sometimes have real-world implications.

It is also easy to be a lot more careless on the web. People talk nonsense and rubbish all the time on social media sites without meaning it. It has something to do with the nature of the web.

The lawmakers, when they try to put limits on the web or when they try to punish people for online wrongdoings, need to factor in this. And create laws that are logical.

There is no reason for putting someone in jail for three years for an "offensive" tweet. Even molesters in India, if the cops catch them and book them, don't get three years in jail.

No one in their right mind will say that people are not abused or slandered on the web. Everyday, I get tweets from people calling me names. Celebrities have it worse. But the great bit about the web is that it is a great equalizer. You too have access to the same power that your detractors and haters have. If they have anonymity, you too have it. Unlike in the real world, where you may not be able to ignore something, on the web you can. You can block people on Twitter. If they are saying bad and untrue things about you, you can always clarify your bit. If somebody writes a slanderous blog post, you can take care of it through your response. You too can use the tools that others use against you.

More importantly, if you are on the web, you need to develop a thicker skin. For our high and mighty, used to the servitude from their subordinates, it may come as a surprise; but the reality is that on the web no one gives a damn to how much money or clout you have.

Take the case of Karti. No one knew what Ravi said until he was arrested. He had less than 100 followers. It was like gossip within friends. Once cops got to him, the tweet started circulating. It was retweeted over 250 times. His subsequent tweet about the arrest was retweeted over 450 times.

Karti, meanwhile, got it bad. There were thousands of tweets mentioning his name or twitter profile. Almost all against him. And many of them more slanderous and offending than Ravi's tweet.

That's how it is. People, even your real-life subordinates, speak their mind on the web.

Live with it!

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background This blog post appeared the day after Ravi Srinivasan's arrest received widespread media coverage, crystallising public anger about Section 66A into a coherent critique. Javed Anwer, then a technology journalist with The Times of India (later Technology Editor at India Today), had been covering internet policy and digital rights issues through his WebWise blog since its inception. The piece documented what became a textbook example of the Streisand effect—Karti Chidambaram's attempt to suppress criticism massively amplified the very allegations he sought to silence. Ravi's original tweet had reached fewer than 100 followers, functionally invisible in Twitter's vast ecosystem. The arrest transformed it into national news, with the tweet and subsequent arrest announcement receiving hundreds of retweets and spawning thousands of hostile mentions directed at Karti. Anwer's framing of Section 66A as "deliberatively" ambiguous captured activist consensus about the provision's design. Terms like "grossly offensive," "menacing character," "annoyance," and "inconvenience" lacked objective definitions, empowering police to arrest based on subjective complaints from connected individuals. The comparison with sentencing for molestation highlighted the disproportionality—three years imprisonment for causing "annoyance" exceeded punishment for many violent crimes in India's sluggish justice system. The argument about the web as "great equalizer" reflected early 2010s techno-optimism about social media democratising speech. Anwer contended that unlike hierarchical real-world interactions where subordinates remained silent before powerful figures, the internet enabled anyone to respond to criticism, block harassers, or deploy counter-speech. This perspective minimised structural inequalities in access to legal remedies, police responsiveness, and media amplification that privileged elites like Karti could leverage. The blog format allowed for more colloquial, opinionated prose than straight news reporting. Phrases like "what the hell is information with 'menacing character'?" and the sarcastic suggestion to file FIRs against annoying PR emails conveyed frustration with the provision's absurdity that formal journalism constrained. This rhetorical approach resonated with internet users similarly exasperated by arbitrary enforcement. The post situated Ravi's case within a pattern including Ambikesh Mahapatra's April 2012 arrest and singer Chinmayi Sripada's October 2012 complaint about Twitter harassment. Yet it drew distinctions—Anwer acknowledged that Chinmayi's case involved criminal intimidation including threats of bodily harm, justifying legal intervention unlike mere offensive speech. Written just weeks before the Palghar girls' arrest for a Facebook post criticising a political bandh would further intensify Section 66A backlash, the piece anticipated the wave of activism that eventually led to the Supreme Court striking down the provision in March 2015. The blog's title—"Offended by a Tweet? Live with It"—became an enduring slogan for digital rights advocates arguing that hurt feelings shouldn't trigger criminal prosecution. ## External Link - [Read on The Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/WebWise/offended-by-a-tweet-live-with-it/)