CENSORSHIP IN SOCIAL MEDIA: DOES IT GOES TOO FAR?

The social media platform has emerged as new means of interaction, self-organizing, self- articulation and identities throughout borders bringing together millions of people to share their opinions and ideas all across the globe. He however notes that with the development of social media, content filtering also appears especially to control fake news, hate speech, and prohibited content. Some point to this fact as positive for the society stating that the risks exceed the need of free speech while others see it as violation of human rights. In India, this principle has generated a lot of discussion due to political, cultural and legal considerations. The following article sets out to define the role of censorship on social media, applicable Indian laws, legal cases and controversies surrounding the idea that censorship has reached its extreme.

 

The Possibility of Concept of Censorship and the Applicable Application of Censorship to Social Media.

Censorship in social media entails how some piece of content is regulated, limited, or deleted for being provocative, obscene or undesirable. This content can include hate speech, fake news and calls to violence or riot as well as subjectively shared political views or religious beliefs. Modern social platform owners observe the content autonomously or using community guidelines thus arousing the questions of openness, responsibility, and prejudice. Due to the social media especially in India for political activities, freedom of speech, right to information and security/scope issues of censorship have raised debates.

 

Censorship of Social Media and Legal Provision in India

 

The official approach of India to the issue of regulation of social media is mainly confined to the IT Act, 2000 along with consequential amendments from time to time. Key provisions that address social media censorship include:

 

1. Section 69A of the IT Act: This section authorises the government to deny access to information to the public on grounds of national security, public order and sovereignty. It has been particularly employed to suspend what it considers detrimental to the stability of the society. Government is given the power to compel the social media firms to take down such posts, which creates further discussion on sections of being overbearing.

 

2. Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code, 2021: According to these rules, it is social media sites that are deemed as intermediaries, and anything that is removed by authorities must be done so within 36 hours. These guidelines also state that platforms must designate officers to handle grievances and many platforms must create procedures to deal with complaints from users. They require “trackability” of some messages and that is a problem for people’s privacy and their horse watching.

 

3. Constitutional Provisions (Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)): Section 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and speech expression but this right cannot be exercised to shock the rationale of society or in any manner infringe Articles 19(2) for sovereignty, security, public order or decency.

 

 While it is clear that the First Amendment permits a wider latitude of censorship than is traditional of a democratic nation, the events of the past year demonstrate:

The several cases in Indian laws show that it is hard to determine limits of censorship protecting free speech. Notable cases include:

 

– Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): In one of its recent decisions, the Supreme Court of India has declared Section 66A of the IT Act unconstitutional as is violates free speech. The court ruled that one may not restrict expression where standards are subjective and include terms such as ‘offensive’; this is a win for the internet freedom of speech.

 

– Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): This case relates to restriction of accessing internet connection in Jammu and Kashmir. But it remained case that has not particularly concern social media censorship but more on issues of information access and freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ruled that having a knew internet shutdowns as unconstitutional; the court affirmed that any limitations on communications must consider necessary and must have a time limit.

 

– Facebook India v. Delhi Legislative Assembly (2021): This case was concerned with the question of determining whether online communities should be most responsible for content containing calls for violence or unrest. The Supreme Court concluded that though there are duties of these platforms, there are also rights to freedom of speech extending to them; it urged for moderation moderation in content regulation.

 

These cases show that despite there being such valid justifications for banning or restricting hateful or provocative content, reckless censorship may well stifle free and legal communication, and reduce users’ freedom of access to information and opinion.

 

 The main censoring practices of social media platforms

Most of the social media platforms such as Facebook, twitter, and Youtube have set down elaborate rules on content moderation. The loopholes of these policies are that rely on community guidelines, algorithms and human moderators to come up with mechanisms for removing obscene materials. However, concerns have been raised about these practices, including:

 

1. Automated Censorship: Most of the platforms in the current world employ a type of a filter that is automated to identify and then remove any toxic content. But they fail to distinguish between dangerous speech and free speech, which creates what is called ‘false positive’.

 

2. Opaque Content Moderation Policies: The use of social media comes with some concern especially with regard to issues of content regulation accused of being Proceeds too close to moderate. Learners often fail to get specific information as to why their content was removed or why some accounts get suspended.

 

3. Bias and Discrimination: Evan some critics say that the act of moderating content on the social media platforms is bias especially for certain polarized political views or cultural depictions. There are some sources claiming that specific accounts or material promoting specific ideologies tend to experience restrictions much more often than similar damaging content.

 

 Does Censorship Go Too Far?

Arguments in Favor of Censorship:-

1. Public Safety and Security: Censorship is often justified as a means to prevent the spread of content that incites violence, hatred, or terrorism. In a diverse country like India, where religious and political tensions are sensitive, regulating incendiary content is seen as essential to maintaining public order.

 

2. Preventing Misinformation: Social media can rapidly spread misinformation, especially during events such as elections or public health crises. Censorship helps in curbing rumors and false information that could endanger public health or democratic integrity.

 

3. Protection of Minor and Vulnerable Groups: Censorship can help shield vulnerable individuals, such as minors, from harmful content, including graphic violence, hate speech, and explicit material.

 

 Arguments Against Censorship:-

1. Infringement on Free Speech: Censorship, particularly when imposed without clear justification, restricts freedom of expression, a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Overreaching censorship can lead to a chilling effect, where users are deterred from sharing legitimate opinions out of fear of retaliation or silencing.

 

2. Lack of Accountability: Both social media companies and the government have been accused of lacking accountability and transparency in how censorship decisions are made. When the reasons behind content takedowns or account suspensions are not disclosed, it fosters distrust and a sense of unfairness among users.

 

3. Suppression of Dissent and Criticism: There are instances where censorship appears to target specific poli Arguments in Favor of Censorship:-
4. Public Safety and Security: Censorship is deemed necessary for filtering out the information that triggers violence, hatred or terrorism or, in general, that is unsafe for society. Even in a multicultural democracy like India, dealing with religious and political extremisms are criminalised and controlling supposedly ‘inflammatory’ speech is viewed as critical for public safety.

 

2. Preventing Misinformation: The social networks may involve and disseminate fake news in a very short time, for instance after elections or during critical diseases. This assistance is extended to restriction of rumors and fake news that may be existent to jeopardize health or pollute democracy.

 

3. Protection of Minor and Vulnerable Groups: The censorship may assist in protecting susceptible groups of people, which are children, young people, women, and others from obscene materials, dangerous calls to violence, racism, pornography.

 

 Arguments Against Censorship:-

1. Infringement on Free Speech: Censorship hence limits freedom of speech which is a right enshrined to the Indian Constitution under Article 19 more so when it is done without evident reason. Excessive regulation of content is known to generate or result to the creation of a chilling atmosphere since users will be wary of publishing their genuine opinion of content fearing retribution from the authorities.

 

2. Lack of Accountability: The two have been criticized for not being clear on how they make decisions on censorship, with both social media firms and the government being blamed for secrecy. When this is done such hypothesis leads to more loss of trust and feeling of injustice which is not healthy for the users.

 

3. Suppression of Dissent and Criticism: It is not unheard of accidents where censorship could seem to be aimed at certain political or ideological stance. It has been pointed out that censorship is only applied to shut down ‘voice of dissent’ or criticism of the government policies with the intent of denouncing democratical or ideological voices. Critics argue that censorship is selectively applied to silence dissent or criticism of government policies, undermining democratic principles.

 

4. Negative Impact on Businesses and Creators: People who create content, artists, and small business owners leverage their visibility and income from the social media. Such issues as algorithm mistakes or misconceptions can be especially dangerous for such users as the former will largely restrict their access to the target audience.

 

 International benchmarking and India’s strategy

This paper explores and compares how India deals with social media censorship with that of other nations. Even in a country like the United States where the First Amendment provides extended freedom of speech censorship is hard to enforce. While the European Union countries have banned hate speech and fake news more rigidly but, they also demand more accountability from these social media giants. This paper has shown how India’s censorship policies are dictated by factors including security, and political factors, and situations. Nevertheless, there is no defined policy measure that provides reasonable protection of freedom of speech with reference to regulation requirements resulting in irrationality and, in some instances, unreasonable restrictions. There is a rationale for legal reforms to bring the Philippines legislation in line with the best global practice, where censorship must be done with openness, responsiveness to the public, and constitutional rights.

 

 Conclusion: Striking a Balance

It is very difficult to discuss the problem of social media censorship in detail, as far as it is rather delicate, and India is one of the most diverse and democratic nations in the world. This free speech rights intersect with a real need to filter out malicious content that is dangerous to public health and pillars of democracy such as the dissemination of fake news. Thus, example of legal reforms, policies’ openness, as well as pronounced emphasis on the given country’s accountability can contribute to achieving the proportional enhancement of the cited key factors as per India while protecting democracy. When the restriction is reasonable,”], [following”, visible, and revisable, India can protect the principles of liberty and the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is experiencing a very significant surge in popularity amongst the U.S. population, especially democratic socialists joining the military or considering doing so. This is where social networks with their millions of users, governments, and civil society organizations must find an answer that will satisfy both freedom of the individual and the collective responsibility of society.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY: VAISHNAVI KUMARI