Why we think 66d is not needed?
1) Persecuting accountable and responsible journalists on the ground of libel damages freedom of speech and diversity of opinions. Such legal actions greatly impair people’s right to hold opinion -- and express such opinion in speech and writing.
2) Attacking on legitimate political critique and criticism kills good practices that should flourish in a democratic country.
3) Jailing journalists on libel case for reporting on corruption protects government away from holding accountability on corruption.
4) Broad and vague legal definitions used in the provision and weak judiciary procedure allow the law to be abused easily, which affects the rule of law and order of the public in the long run and may decrease the level of trust on the government.
2) Attacking on legitimate political critique and criticism kills good practices that should flourish in a democratic country.
3) Jailing journalists on libel case for reporting on corruption protects government away from holding accountability on corruption.
4) Broad and vague legal definitions used in the provision and weak judiciary procedure allow the law to be abused easily, which affects the rule of law and order of the public in the long run and may decrease the level of trust on the government.
13 reasons why 66(D) should be abolished?
When we analysed why people think 66(D) is not needed to be amended or abolished, we found 13 misconceptions. Below we counter each of those and provide our reasons of why 66(D) should be abolished.
