Context: Balancing the need for regulation to keep out obnoxious online content that promotes violence and vulgarity with the need to preserve our constitutional values and freedom of expression is at the core of the new rules which have been formulated by the Union government to address concerns regarding new media.

Positives in the new guidelines:

• The policy has tried to create the much-needed level-playing field between online news platforms and print media on the one hand and online and television news media on the other.
• It has also tried to bring online news portals within the ambit of the code of ethics that governs print media.
• These include the norms of journalistic conduct drawn up by the Press Council Act and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Rules, 1994.
• Similarly, while the cinema industry has a film certification agency with oversight responsibilities, OTT platforms have none. However, in order to ensure artistic freedom, the government has proposed self-regulation and has said that the OTT entities should get together, evolve a code and come up with content classification so that a mechanism is evolved to preclude non-adults from viewing adult content.
• The grievance redressal mechanism thought of is three-tier, with the publishers and self-regulating bodies being the first two. The third tier is the central government oversight committee.
• The policy proposed requires publishers to appoint grievance redressal officers and ensure a time-bound acknowledgement and disposal of grievances. Then, there can be a self-regulating body headed by a retired judge.

Global Learnings:

• The Indian digital and OTT players can draw lessons from the concerted action taken by digital companies in Australia, which have come together and drawn up a code to deal with fake news and disinformation. This is called the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation and was released only recently by the Digital Industry Group.
• In the UK, the government is all set to bring in a law to make online companies responsible for harmful content and also to punish companies that fail to remove such content.
• The aim of the proposed “Online Safety Bill” is to protect internet users and deal firmly with platforms that promote violence, terrorist material, child abuse, cyber bullying, etc.
• In the UK, self-regulation governs print media and private television and radio are regulated by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority as provided by a statute.

Conclusion:

• Twitter has tried to define freedom of expression and even claimed that it seeks to protect the freedom of expression of Indians. “Freedom of expression” is embedded in the chapter on fundamental rights in our Constitution and it is circumscribed by what are called “reasonable restrictions”.
• These are in place because India is a vibrant democracy and the most diverse society in the world with many social, political and economic complexities.
• That is why India’s founding fathers had, with great intuition and foresight, introduced a caveat vis-à-vis freedom of expression, so that constitutional rights promote internal peace and harmony.
• What these freedoms are and what these restrictions are have been defined by our Supreme Court in innumerable cases and the law as laid down by India’s apex court is the law of the land.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/digital-space-social-media-regulation-govt-control-it-act-7206572/

Download PDF