The global state of free speech has been facing an alarming decline, including in the US where a crackdown on support to Palestine and action against antisemitism is just beginning, with Indian students too being dragged into this
How free is free speech in India? The question surfaces again at a time when Elon Musk’s X, formerly Twitter, has raised concerns over the Central government undermining free expression online. While India has never supported absolute freedom of speech, as evidenced in its handling of the free expression of extreme opinions, it must better define its approach to how much freedom it tolerates.
The global state of free speech has been facing an alarming decline, including in the US where a crackdown on support to Palestine and action against antisemitism is just beginning, with Indian students too being dragged into this. However, this is also a time when Musk is being supported in his quest to bring in absolute freedom of speech into social media platforms like his X.
A petition X has filed in the Karnataka high court brings out the apprehensions of social media handles over executive orders that show an intention to block content by ordering that what it objects to be taken down from sites. Not only do many such orders appear random but they also seem to flow through a parallel content-blocking process that the bureaucracy employs in using Section 79(3)(b) of the contentious Information Technology Act when a structured process exists under Section 69A for seeking the blocking of content to which the Centre may take objection to.
The issue, which is more fundamental, is to do with freedom of expression. While governments at the Centre and the states profess the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the reality is different with critics of leaders of the national and regional ruling parties being severely dealt with by having the book thrown at them, irrespective of whether the intent of the law was to gag people like this or not.
The petition by X can be a cause celebre as it seeks to take on the government over what it sees as a form of censorship. It is the arbitrariness of executive orders skirting due process — in which a reason must be furnished for blocking content viewed as objectionable by the government or the powers behind it for a court to issue an order to block content — that makes much government action violative of the principles of free speech and expression.
Various sections of the IT Act have been pilloried for their misuse by the executive, but Article 69 lays down a structured process. Bypassing such regulations that safeguard operations like social media and communications platforms while leaning on questionable powers under vague laws allowing arbitrary exercise of power is behind India’s place in global freedom of speech indices.
Social media is not the knight on a white charger bringing absolute freedom to people. It is a repository of the worst hate speech along political, ideological, social or communal lines. In times before the advent of these modern media platforms, it was believed that anything was permissible in speech if it was not to incite violence.
It may be getting far harder to define what is acceptable and what is not in these fractured times of political and social polarity. Even so, the government would do well to stick to using laws that are fair rather than subjective and overprotective of what political leaders perceive as being for the good of the people.
Lampooning a politician should be no grounds for blocking content. The real danger is hate speech, which should be recognised and blocked in time from social media. All governments at the Centre and states would do well to act for the common good rather than be champions who act capriciously to preserve and protect the fair name of leaders.
