“Free speech is the bedrock of a thriving democracy, a sacred space where ideas, opinions, and beliefs converge in a marketplace of thought.”
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND SOCIAL MEDIA
A few decades ago, the Internet revolutionized the information age. Currently, everyone’s daily routine includes these things to some extent. The advent of the Internet has revolutionized the dissemination of knowledge and interpersonal contact. Social media platforms are among the most frequently utilized internet tools in the contemporary digital age. Consequently, each of us presently inhabits a global community. The prevalence of information overload has increased as individuals exchange knowledge globally. Most governments exert influence over citizens’ ability to exchange information. Subsequently, we examine censorship.[1]
Censorship, in any manifestation, challenges individual liberty. Consequently, while the extent is debatable, the right to free speech is jeopardized on social media platforms. Concealing information indicates that the authorities responsible for censorship wish to keep the public uninformed. Censorship is necessitated when there is a known or suspected adverse outcome from disseminating such material or content, or when such impacts have already manifested. This form of censorship is warranted by the apprehension that public access to such content may jeopardize state security, communal tranquility, or individual safety. Consequently, either the government restricts individuals’ social media usage or the corporations themselves inhibit users from disseminating offensive content, as outlined in their Terms of Service.[2]
However, as social media is devoid of geographical constraints, such screening becomes increasingly challenging. Articulating oneself on social media enables one to traverse the world effortlessly. Furthermore, content accessible on the internet may be entirely legal in one nation while being strictly prohibited in others with even more stringent rules. The initial section of this study presents an overview of national policies regarding internet usage. We subsequently examine other instances of alleged social media misuse to assess India’s current social media regulation measures.
Social media enables users to function as global publishers. The rapid dissemination of potentially libelous or offensive material on social media platforms raises significant concerns. Conventional media sources modify articles before to publication to adhere to their policies, however social media content can rapidly go viral with minimal editing. Any form of communication that may be easily tailored or comprehended according to the sender’s requirements will substantially impact the recipients, as the medium is accessible to both parties.[3] Research on the legislation governing the Internet in many countries is crucial due to its prominent role in contemporary information dissemination.
In November 2015, the government of Bangladesh prohibited six prominent social media platforms: Facebook, WhatsApp, Viber, Tango, and Messenger. The Bangladesh Supreme Court upheld the death sentences for two notable opposition leaders, SalauddinQuader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, due to their involvement in the 1971 independence movement, citing national security concerns. The limitation was lifted on December 14 after the authorities determined that the threats had diminished. Bangladesh has consistently seen illicit social media activities. In 2010, following the circulation of offensive photographs of the Prophet Mohammed, the Bangladeshi government temporarily disabled Facebook. In Bangladesh and Myanmar, internet usage is predominantly associated with Facebook due to its widespread popularity. A single year’s growth in mobile and social media engagement has led to eighty percent of Bangladesh’s internet users employing Facebook. Enterprises dependent on social networking platforms and news websites—such as the BBC, which regards social media as fundamental in the digital era—suffered significantly from this ban.
China possesses one of the largest communist economies globally, and for an extended duration, its traditional media channels have been subjected to totalitarian oversight. This constraint is already impacting social media. Annually, the quantity of national regulations concerning social media increases.[4] China employs measures such as stringent surveillance, firewall systems, website shutdowns, and the incarceration of violators, including reporters and bloggers. In 2010, the Chinese government introduced the concept of “internet sovereignty,” stipulating that all Internet users, including foreign businesses and individuals, must comply with the laws and regulations established by the government. The central component of China’s internet surveillance and censorship apparatus is the Great Firewall of China, sometimes referred to as the Golden Shield Project.
In 2013, the State Internet Information Office instituted a stringent online content committee under the leadership of President Xi Jinping. In 2015, the government commenced regulation of VPNs, complicating access for internet users to American websites such as Facebook and Google. The prohibition of prominent global social media platforms has coincided with the rapid rise of government-supported Chinese alternatives. State-sanctioned alternatives comprise Facebook’s Douban and Renren, Twitter’s Sina Weibo, and YouTube’s Youku and Tudou.[5]
Middle Eastern states have not been very liberal in terms of policy. The Internet is not an exception. “The 2014 Counterterrorism Law of Saudi Arabia criminalizes online expression that advocates atheism, disparages the state’s reputation, disrupts public order, or jeopardizes state security.” Due to the expansive nature of this phrase, the monarch in an absolute monarchy wields significant authority over all internet content. Saudi Arabians perceive online freedom of expression as an unrealistic goal due to the abundance of information regarding the incarceration of individuals for their online conduct. The Saudi authorities meticulously monitor all individuals, including bloggers and social media users. Saudi Arabia prohibits numerous websites. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have disclosed that the government used malware to target activists, aiming to undermine their operations if they articulate dissenting views regarding the government.
In 2015, the USA Freedom Act was enacted. Following the passage of the law by the US Senate, the NSA’s massive surveillance capabilities were deactivated. In light of Edward Snowden’s alarming revelation on the NSA’s surveillance of phone and internet communications that previously astonished the world, this was a particularly considerate gesture.[6]
India is one of the few places on Earth where individuals can express themselves without fear of repercussions at this moment. Indians no longer perceive the image as pleasant or tranquil, despite their lives being far better than those of folks in other regions. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been ineffectively enforced, thereby obstructing the freedom to free expression on social media. The essence of freedom of speech and expression lies in the ability to articulate oneself in whatever manner without interference from authorities, such as censorship, or fear of retribution, including threats or persecution. One possesses a complex right to articulate oneself freely. Free speech is not absolute and entails some responsibilities and risks; hence, legal constraints may be imposed on it. This concept is not novel; it dates back over two millennia to the era of the Greek Athenians, known as “freedom of expression.”
Part III of the Indian Constitution, commonly known as the Magna Carta of India, enshrines the protected fundamental rights. The aforementioned chapter unequivocally guarantees every individual certain fundamental and inalienable rights. The widespread recognition of fundamental rights by nearly all contemporary nations, including India, underscores the essential necessity of safeguarding these rights for the populace. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab[7]case transforms previously recognized “natural rights” into fundamental rights. The Constitution guarantees all individuals in India the right to free expression. The text presents multiple compelling justifications for the legislature to limit this privilege; it requires a persuasive rationale to proceed.
In addition to the aforementioned liberties, persons possess other fundamental rights that can be classified based on their substance or context. Citizens will benefit from specific sections of the Fundamental Rights, including Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30, only if their arrangement aligns with their relevance. All individuals residing on Indian territory and subject to its jurisdiction, including citizens, foreign nationals, and non-citizens, are accountable for the requirements outlined in this Part (Article 21). Article 14(1), Article 16, Article 18(2), paragraphs 19, 20-22, and Article 31 restrict the state’s capacity to act; Article 15(2), Article 17, Article 18(1), Article 23(1), and Article 24 constrain the right of private individuals to act. Additionally, certain rights are specifically allocated to particular communities or groups (Article 26, Article 29, Article 1, and Article 30). The lack of a constitutional framework that permits the accountability of private entities for rights violations, insulated from state intervention, delineates the distinction between the two factions.[8]
Fundamental rights govern every activity undertaken by the state, both collectively and individually. Article 12 of the Constitution delineates the term “State” to aid the judiciary in adjudicating issues pertaining to the State or entities under its jurisdiction. The state comprises not just the branches of government but also the authority with legislative power. Article 12 encompasses not only the legislative and executive branches of the Union and the States but also any institution exercising statutory authority, whether governmental or non-governmental, including municipal administrations.
[1] P.K Singh, Freedom of Speech in the Digital Era, Bloomsbury, New Delhi, 2020.
[2]Ibid
[3] Abhinav Chandrachud, “Balancing Free Speech and Privacy in India,” (2014) 6 NUJS L. Rev. 1.
[4] Kritika Sharma,”Media Trials and the Right to Privacy: An Indian Perspective,” (2021) 10(2) NLIU L. J. 45.
[5]Ibid
[6] Krishnan, Madhav, “Navigating the Digital Age: Freedom of Speech and the Challenge of Regulation,” (2020) 8(3) Indian J. Const. L. 67.
[7] Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
[8]D.D.Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, 25th edn., LexisNexis, New Delhi, 2020.