Regulating Online Content

Relevance:
GS-02 (Indian Polity)

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has sought suggestions from the Solicitor-General on regulatory measures to control the use of vulgar language in online content, ensuring that humour does not cross the boundaries of decency and morality.

Background

The case involves YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, who was granted interim protection from arrest in Maharashtra and Assam over controversial remarks made on his show.
The court had initially barred him from airing content but later modified the order, allowing him to resume his podcast under the condition that it adheres to moral and decent standards.
The issue highlights the broader debate on freedom of expression versus the need for regulatory oversight to maintain ethical content standards in digital media.

Key Arguments on the Issue:

The Supreme Court underlined the need to draw a clear distinction between humour and vulgarity and pitched for a balanced regulatory mechanism.
It underscored that the freedom of expression is not absolute and must align with public morality and decency.
However, the court gave permission to Allahbadia to continue his show under the condition that it remain suitable for all age groups.

What is freedom of expression?

It is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). It encompasses the freedom to express oneself through various means, subject to reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2).
- All citizens have the right to express their views and opinions freely.
- This freedom does not only confine to words of mouth. It even includes speech by way of writings, pictures, movies, banners, etc. (Right not to speak is also incorporated in right to speech.)
- The Supreme Court of India has held that participation in sports is an expression of one’s self and hence is a form of freedom of speech.
- In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that hoisting the national flag is a form of freedom of speech and expression.
- The right to free speech also encompasses the right to access information, as it becomes meaningless if people are denied the ability to know or hear. This interpretation led to the recognition of the Right to Information (RTI) as a fundamental right.
- The Supreme Court has affirmed that freedom of speech is inherently linked to the right to life (Article 21), making them interconnected rather than separate rights.
- Restrictions on free speech can arise both from state action and inaction. If the state fails to ensure this freedom for all citizens, it constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights.
- This right extends to communication, printing, and advertising of information.

It also covers both commercial and artistic forms of speech and expression.

Note: Freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned but is inferred under this Article.

Conclusion:

Content creators, especially on social media platforms, are transcending their role as just content creators. Hence, their content should be created responsibly, ensuring their material does not degrade societal values

(Mains Question)

Discuss the challenges in regulating online content while ensuring the fundamental right to free speech. How can India strike a balance between digital freedom and content moderation? (250 words)