Blocking of Internet Content: Government v/s Twitter Row

    0
    185

    In News: The government expressed “strong displeasure” about Twitter’s response to the emergency order.

    • Government wanted Twitter to block more than a thousand accounts for alleged spread of provocative content and misinformation on the farmer protests.

    What is the controversy?

    • Pro-Government v/s Anti-Government Sentiments:
      • The government is pushing Agrarian reforms via three acts, providing the private sector a bigger role in its quest to empower farmers.
      • Whereas the farmers especially from Punjab, Haryana and Western UP are fearing that security of Minimum Support Price (MSP) will be slowly diluted after these reforms.
      • There are many fake news circling Social Media. For these propaganda, no responsibility was taken by Social Media Giants.
    • Involvement of Foreign Celebrities in Farm Protest v/s Sovereignty over the internal matters of India.
      • Recent tweets by Rihanna, Greta Thunberg, etc were seen as involvement of foreign celebrities in India’s internal matters.
      • There were allegations that Social Media Companies are not helping the government curb anti- National secessionist elements viz Khalistan and others.
    • Dichotomy in actions of Social Media Giants and need to regulate them
      • Indian Government has also pointed out the dual stance of Twitter in the US Capitol Incident and Farm Protest Incident of India.

    Need for Regulation and Stringent Laws:

    • Fake News spreads faster than Real News: Seeing increasing mob lynching cases targetting specific communities and innocent people, Supreme Court was forced to intervene by issuing directives.
    • Data Theft: Data is the oil of the 4th Industrial Revolution.
      • The companies sharing and keeping data abroad are often violating the Right to Privacy and Ownership of Self Data of Indian Citizens
    • Dual Standards: Social Media Firms are often taking different stands in different countries.
      • Viz they provide better control to Europeans over their Privacy as compared to Indians.
    • Internal Security: Digital Frauds are increasing due to different flaws in algorithms of Social Media.

    What are the laws for regulating Social Media?

    • Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 Social Media have to follow the intermediaries guidelines under IT Act 2000 and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
      • Criticism: It was misused by the government to silence even constructive criticism.
      • Due to the rampant misuse, Supreme Court declared Section 66A of IT Act as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India Case 2015. 
    • Government Directives: Social Media Channels need to take down any content as directed by Court or Law Enforcement Agencies.
    • Community Guidelines: There are provisions related to reporting mechanisms to involve citizens in community policing over obscene and immoral posts. But here the discretion of Social Media Platforms plays a dominant role.
      • Criticism of this Discretion: Many posts on Body Positivity and Menstruation were taken down while other explicit images continued under the Right to Artistic Expression.

    What is the debate about?

    • Setting the boundaries to freedom of Speech and Expression
      • Free Speech means one’s ability to express oneself in whatever way one wants.
      • Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution empowers all citizens with the right to freedom of speech and expression.
      • Article 19 (2): It empowers the government to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression “in the interests of
        • interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
        • the security of the State,
        • friendly relations with foreign States,
        • public order,
        • decency or
        • morality or
        • in relation to contempt of court,
        • defamation or incitement to an offence.”
      • Section 69A of IT Act 2000 also provides for similar provisions as Article 19(2).
      • No Harm Principle of J S Mill: Government should not interfere until there is substantial harm to the people.
      • Different Supreme Court Rulings (like Kedar Nath Singh V/s State of Bihar 1962 and Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India case, 2015) allow constructive criticism of Government and its Policies.

    Way Ahead

    • The current regime is not capable enough to meet the requirements of emerging challenges.
    • Hence there is a need to create a Code on Regulation of Social Media which may consolidate the provisions of different regulatory acts and enable constructive Freedom of Speech.

    Source: TH