DC Edit | Court Can’t Let Govt Hold Sway over Social Media
Handing over the job of controlling the social media to the government could end up in a repeat of the proverbial fence eating the crop
The Supreme Court’s warning to social media influencers and podcasters against offending the dignity and sensitivities of others, especially of vulnerable groups, and its directive to the Union government to come up with a regulatory framework for social media users that demarcates the boundaries of free speech and defines the obligations that accompany its exercise, too, appear as a timely reminder regarding the exceptions to the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the rationale of this warning and the logic that “commercial content” is not entitled to this fundamental right available to citizens otherwise are both baffling.
To start with, the directive of the court is not in sync with its own past orders. Those always safeguarded the right to freedom of speech and expression without any reservations and defended it against governmental trespasses. The court may have been constrained to look at liberties taken by some New Age “influencers” in the content put out by them on social media, unlike that in legacy media which has its own checks and balances. So it is perfectly understandable that these individuals must necessarily be sensitised to the impact of their efforts. Their message may be perfectly enjoyable for their own followers but might touch a raw nerve with other members of the larger audience.
Equally, while self-deprecation may be acceptable, laughing at others can both breach sensitivities and be in bad taste, as the court has pointed out. There must be attempts to understand the concerns of the larger society, including those who struggle for their daily subsistence. The court’s attempts are welcome up to that point.
And, too, Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens also authorises the government to impose reasonable restrictions on it under six specific occasions.
However, “commercial content” is not one among those occasions. In other words, someone who makes commercial content cannot be subjected to control based on criteria other than the six specified in the Constitution. The bench is authorised to hold that the citizen’s right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails over another’s right to free speech under Article 19. But that end can be achieved by better sensitisation, and in extreme cases, by punitive means, and not by governmental control.
Disconcertingly, the apex court has vested the responsibility of preparing guidelines for social media users with the government at a time when votaries of free speech across the globe fight governments to protect their and others’ right to information.
It has been repeated ad nauseam that media-persons (and citizen journalists) exercising rights under Article 19 (1) (a) enjoy no more protection than an ordinary citizen. As a corollary, a restriction imposed on the journalist will inevitably be extended to every citizen by a government which is trigger-happy when it comes to curtaining citizens’ rights.
The apex court’s attempts to come to the rescue of vulnerable sections of the society and protect their self-respect are indeed laudable, and the court has added to its own prestige by siding with the meek once again. But handing over the job of controlling the social media to the government could end up in a repeat of the proverbial fence eating the crop. The court must, hence, keep its eyes wide open when the government gets back to it with these so-called guidelines.