MENU
In 2015, Section 66A of India's IT Act was ruled unconstitutional. What did this section previously prohibit?
Suggested Answer: D
Get Premium CIPP/A Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
29 comments · newest first
FR
Francine
11 months ago
Really? That seems surprising, was it really that bad?
PE
Peggie
11 months ago
Wait, I didn't know it was ruled unconstitutional!
ED
Edelmira
12 months ago
I thought it was about tampering with documents?
DE
Dewitt
12 months ago
Totally agree, it was a huge overreach!
DA
Dannette
1 year ago
It prohibited sending offensive messages.
MI
Minna
1 year ago
I vaguely recall that it was about restricting certain types of messages online, so I'm leaning towards D as well.
TR
Truman
1 year ago
I feel like it might have had something to do with publishing private images, but that doesn't sound right for this section.
CH
Christa
1 year ago
I remember practicing a question on this topic, and it was definitely related to online communication. Could it be option D?
MA
Margery
1 year ago
I think Section 66A was about sending offensive messages, but I'm not entirely sure.
CH
Cheryl
1 year ago
Ah, I remember this topic from our discussions in class. I think I know the answer, but I'll double-check the options just to be sure.
CA
Casey
1 year ago
I'm a little unsure about this question. The options seem pretty broad, and I'm not super familiar with the details of this law. I'll have to make an educated guess.
JA
Jacqueline
1 year ago
Alright, I've got a good feeling about this one. I remember learning about this in class, so I think I can narrow it down pretty quickly.
AN
Andra
1 year ago
Okay, let me see here. I'm pretty sure this has to do with online content, but I'm not sure exactly what kind of content was prohibited. I'll have to read the options closely.
KE
Kerry
1 year ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the different options and what Section 66A of the IT Act might have prohibited.
GE
Geraldo
2 years ago
Offensive messages, huh? Sounds like the legislators were a bunch of snowflakes. D is the winner here, no doubt.
RI
Rickie
2 years ago
Ah, the good old days of the 'Draconian Statutes' era. Thank goodness those are behind us now. D is the correct answer, I reckon.
ZO
Zona
2 years ago
My money's on option D. Sending offensive messages online? What could go wrong with that? *rolls eyes*
CH
Chana
2 years ago
I agree with you, D. Sending offensive messages can have serious consequences.
EM
Emmett
2 years ago
I believe it was A. Publishing images with sexually explicit content is definitely not okay.
AL
Aleta
2 years ago
I think it was C. Publishing private images of others is a serious violation of privacy.
BR
Brunilda
2 years ago
Actually, it was publishing images with sexually explicit content.
ST
Stevie
2 years ago
I believe it was sending offensive messages.
SH
Sharan
2 years ago
Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to criminalize 'offensive messages'? Talk about a violation of free speech.
BR
Brunilda
2 years ago
I think it prohibited publishing private images of others.
QU
Quinn
2 years ago
Section 66A was a huge overreach, I'm glad it was struck down. Option D all the way!
MY
Myong
2 years ago
Section 66A was definitely overreaching. Option D was a clear infringement on our rights.
HO
Horace
2 years ago
I'm glad Section 66A was ruled unconstitutional. Option D was a violation of free speech.
NI
Niesha
2 years ago
Sending offensive messages should not be a criminal offense. Option D is the way to go.
AN
An
2 years ago
I agree, Section 66A was too restrictive. Option D is definitely the right choice.