The largest public platform, the Internet is utilised for a variety of activities, including conducting business and exchanging data and information. This is a global platform for many kinds of networks. There should be a way to regulate or stop the wrong use of a platform that offers so many diverse options and information.  The idea of internet censorship was introduced in series to avoid misuse. The control and/or suppression of what can be accessed, seen, and published online is known as internet censorship. Governments from different nations are mostly in accuse of it, but private organisations and people may also carry it out for ethical, religious, or commercial purposes. The sole reason the internet is restricted is to stop any form of pandemic[1].

The Internet was formerly known colloquially as the “Information Superhighway” because it offered anyone approach to an infinite amount of material that could be obtained. A particular advantage of internet filtering is that it shields kids from adult information that is extremely improper for their development as adults that can be found on the internet. The authority’s goal is to try to regulate how much information the country has access to. The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1) (a)[2] guarantees the right to free speech to all of its inhabitants. To have the free right to openly express one’s beliefs and thoughts through words, writing, printing, photographs, or any other medium is known as the Free Speech.

1. INTERNET CENSORSHIP PURPOSE:

Nowadays, everyone may access a wealth of knowledge on the internet at anytime from anywhere in the world. The internet has data that is useful to international corporations, also information and home delivery services. The old age pensioners can take benefit from the information available on the internet, in summation to adults and youth. Thank you to the internet, people may express their viewpoints on any platform. Many opportunities for freedom of speech and expression have been granted to people. They are set loose to express their opinions on any subject pertaining to any industry (politics, the arts, entertainment, sports, philosophy, etc.)[3] given that it doesn’t negatively impact someone else’s mental or physical health.  Internet restriction is needed to deal with these kinds of circumstances. There should be a valuation of the quantity of data available online. It is hard to monitor anything that is offensive, filthy, harmful, and horrible on the internet.

• MERITS AND DEMERITS OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP:
• MERITS:

The Merits of internet censorship are as follows:

1. Internet restriction comes up with the elimination of widespread disinformation. Since anyone can easily share their opinions on a website, misinformation found online is essentially phone.
2. Internet restriction can aid in reducing online pornographic content and trafficking operations. Because so many global corporations are interested in obtaining personal information about individuals, privacy concerns have reached a record high in the modern era.
3. It contributes positively to a person’s sense of security. The website gives permission to the customer to vend their personal data for a set amount. The most of the data that is available online is not unlawful, yet it nonetheless violates people’s privacy because it might lead to more harmful situations.
4. Restricting the amount of content below moral standards is a particular quantity of the numerous benefits of internet censorship. There are most of the people, who may find inappropriate and unsettling stuff on the dark web.
5. When it comes to national security, internet censorship is crucial. Since, cyberpunks at every time are introducing new methods, nobody can truly ban these kinds of activities, but the least that internet censorship can do is create regulations when specific rules are disobeyed.
6. DEMERITS:

The Demerits of internet censorship are as follows:

1. The regulators, or one group of individuals, have authority over another group of people. An organisation handling internet censorship should exist so that reports can be made; otherwise, monopolies will arise.
2. The data is under control. One in four internet users worldwide report frequently experiencing internet censorship, in accordance to a World Economic Forum survey[4].
3. Internet filtering impedes opportunities and economic availability.
4. The ability of expressing an individual is curtailed. Political parties take away citizens’ right of free speech in a way to politicise and advance their agenda.
5.  The citizen’s degree of intelligence declines. The information people see on the internet would numb society.

Following a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of internet censorship, nations must realise that free speech is just a shell without any real content. Abuse of the liberty of speech is usually a double-edged sword.

• THE RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH:

Article 19(2) spells forth the necessary restrictions because of the limitations that should be placed on the right of freedom of speech in order to stop social disturbance. With view to these limitations, content that is accessible online can be changed or removed using the internet censorship tool.

• State Security:

In accordance of the Clause (2) of Article 19, the right to free speech may be curtailed in order to guard the state’s security. “Security of State” refers to war, revolt, and insurrection—but not to rioting or unlawful assembly—against the State. This means that curtailments on the free speech are permissible when it points out to the certainty of our country.

• Persuasion to an unlawful act:

This clause was adjoined by the (First Amendment) Constitution Act of 1951. The right to free speech cannot be used to explain the incitement of violent crimes.

• Goodwill towards other countries: 

The First Amendment itself imposed this requirement in 1951. This was included to make sure that an individual could not abuse their right to Liberty of Speech, which could damage ties among the nation and other nations. The Foreign Relations Act (XII of 1932)[5] in India punishes Indian individuals who libelegise foreign dignitaries. Nonetheless, the desire for amiable ties with other nations does not excuse the government from stifling legitimate criticism of its International policy.

• Defamation:

Basically, defamation is when someone’s reputation is at risk or is set off, which results in defamation. It might be communicated orally or in writing.

• Contempt of court:

Basically, disrespecting or disparaging a court’s order is considered deprecation of court, unless you are analysing a decision the court has made. As stated in Section 2, there are two categories of contempt: criminal and civil.

• Decency or morality:

Decency and morals have conduct to the strain of numerous restrictions found in Sections 292 to 294 of IPC (Indian Penal Code). The definitions of the concepts morality and decency are more expansive. These terms adhere to specific criteria that stop the propagation of pornographic and dubious content.

• Sedition:

It is not listed as a requirement for limiting the right to freedom of speech in clause (2) of Article 19. However, under English law, if a person or group of person’s attempts to topple the government through writing or other actions, the community will be held lawfully liable for breaching the reduction on liberty of speech.

• INDIAN CASE LAW RELATED TO INTERNET CENSORSHIP:

• K.A Abbas v. Union of India & Anr. [1970]:

FACTS: Khwaja Ahmad, or K.A., Abbas (1914-1987) was an Indian filmmaker and journalist and had been a Kholsa Committee Member (1969). His documentary, A Tale of Four Cities, was awarded an A certification by the Censor Board because it included scenes of prostitution in a Bombay red-light district. Abbas refused the A certificate and sought to challenge the constitutionality of the pre-censorship of cinema, in relation to Clause (1)(a) of Article 19 or the primary right of free speech, in India’s Supreme Court. Ruling in his favour, the Supreme Court granted the documentary a U certificate without the censor board’s required cuts, but it upheld the constitutionality of film censorship[6].

HELD: In his judgement, Supreme Court Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah justified censorship through his conception of film as distinct from other media. He famously stated that:
“Motion movies need to be serve differently than other mediums of expression. This results from the movie’s immediate appeal, adaptability, realism (often surrealism), and ability to synchronise the senses of sight and sound. Compared to other artistic creations, a motion film has the most profound emotional impact. It has a particularly strong impact on kids and teenagers because of their immaturity, which leads them to suspend their disbelief more readily than adult men and women. They attempt to mimic or reproduce the activity seen in the picture as well as recall it. It is therefore appropriate to classify films into two categories: “U” films and “A” films.”[7]

• Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi ;( AIR 1950 SC 129):

FACTS: It was in this case that the legitimacy of censorship was called into doubt. The printer, publisher, and editor of an English weekly named the ORGANISER were ordered by the chief commissioner of Delhi, in accordance with section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949[8], to submit all news and opinions about Pakistan, including pictures and cartoons that weren’t taken from official sources or provided by news agencies, for review in duplicate before publication, until further directives were given.

HELD: The court overturned the directive, noting: “Pre-censorship of a newspaper is an infringement on press freedom, which is a basal component of the free speech guaranteed by article 19(1)(a)”.

• In TATA PRESS V. MTNL (1995) 5 SCC 139:

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 19(1)(a)’s The freedom to engage in “commercial speech” or advertisements is a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. As a result, Tata Press, a private enterprise, is sanction to print the yearly buyers mentor for Bombay, which consists of yellow pages with adverts. The most significant effect of the lawful advertising being recognised as a basic right is that it can now only be confined for the reasons listed in Article 19(2)[9]. As there is no mention of MTNL interfering with Tata Press’s yellow pages in the “public interest” under Article 19(2), the company cannot do so. Nowadays, commercial speech is just as protected as another kind of speech.

• FOREIGN CASE LAW RELATED TO INTERNET CENSORSHIP:
• In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, held that blocking or filtering online content should be practiced only in consonance with a strict legal system  guaranteeing of judicial review to prevent abuse of powers by concerned authorities.
•  Further, in Ekin Association v. France, the Court highlighted that a legal framework of censorship should exercise tight control over the expanse of restrain. Effective judicial review is imperative to prevent any abuse of power as such filtering mechanisms often encroach upon basic human rights of people.
• In landmark judgement Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[10] the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 66A of IT Act is unconstitutional and subsequently quashed it. By this perception the judiciary reinstated the faith of citizens in the principles of the Constitution of India.
•  In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India[11] the Supreme Court of India held that: “an indefinite suspension of internet would be illegal. Such limitations on right to freedom of speech shall be according to the tests of proportionality and necessity. This prevents the arbitrariness of the authorities in application of censorship laws. Additionally the court carry that right to freedom of expression can be limited for protection of national security. In this case the court opined that the government was empowered to impose such limitation on free speech if they are made public and are concern to judicial exploration of the court.”

• METHOD FOR REDUCING FAKE NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

Keeping false information from spreading on social media has sparked crucial discussions about speech rights and censorship.

 “An unspoken premise has been that censorship, fact-checking and education are the only tools to fight misinformation,” says Duke University economist David McAdams. In a recent survey that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, McAdams and associates investigate techniques to raise the calibre of information provided on networks without giving authority to any one party to regulate material and determine what is real or incorrect.

In accordance to the model, the network can put reasonable limitations on users by limiting the circulation of specific messages, so preventing the spread of inaccurate data.

“We show that caps on either how many times messages can be forwarded (network depth) or the tally of others to whom messages can be forwarded (network breadth) increase the relative number of true versus false messages circulating in a network, regardless of whether messages are accidentally or deliberately distorted,” McAdams says.

For Example: In 2020, Facebook announced that users could only forward messages to five different people or organisations at once. This act was taken, in part, to refute erroneous information about COVID-19 and voting. WhatsApp banned its more than two billion users from forwarding messages to more than five recipients at once earlier that year, enforcing similar limitations. The researchers inspection that this action was taken in part because misleading information circulated on the app was linked by Indian governmental officials to more than a hundred deaths[12].

• CONCLUSION:

Numerous highs and lows have occurred on the roller coaster journey that is internet censorship. Positives and negatives (merits and demerits) have already been covered. The right to free speech is key to a democracy. The correct amount of balance should be struck between other factors including security, privacy, and liberty of speech. Internet censorship has not performed up to standard thus far and is grossly inadequate. Businesspeople and politicians have always benefited from free speech, whether or not laws are in place. A breach of the right to free speech also occurs when material is blocked for political purposes or when private data is stolen. A sufficiently transparent law is needed so that people feel comfortable trusting it with their personal data. Citizens’ personal information is frequently taken for purposes such as voting privileges, preferences, etc. A government should enact a few adjustments in accordance to effectively support right to free speech in this nation.

---

[1]  Raagya Priya Zadu,  Internet Censorship is the freedom of speech and expression being misused or is internet the new platform to stage the views of the worlds largest democracy…, University of Pune (Jan. 20, 2024, 05:51 PM)

 http:/www.legalservicesindia.com/article/946/Censorship.html

[2] TELANGANA TODAY, https://telanganatoday.com/social-media-and-freedom-of-speech  (Nov. 16, 2020, 11:57)                                   

[3] Raagya Priya Zadu,  Internet Censorship is the freedom of speech and expression being misused or is internet the new platform to stage the views of the worlds largest democracy…, University of Pune (Jan. 20, 2024, 05:51 PM)

http:/www.legalservicesindia.com/article/946/Censorship.html

[4] Prasad Krishna, Resisting Internet Censorship: Strategies for Furthering Freedom of Expression in India, Bangalore International Centre (April 21, 2012, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.) https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resisting-internet-censorship

[5] Rohit Raj, “Defining Contours of Press Freedom in Backdrop of National Emergency of 1975”, All India Reporter (Journal Section), 2008, pp. 155-160, at 160.

[6] Abbas, Khawaja Ahmad, “Khwaja Ahmad Abbas”, Aspects of Indian Literature 145-154 (1975).

[7] K.A. Abbas  v.  the Union of India,  (1970) 2 SCC 780; AIR SC 481 (India)

[8] Brij Bhushan  v.  State of Delhi,  AIR 1950 S.C. 129 (India)

[9] Tata Press v. MTNL, (1995) 5 SCC 139 (India)

[10]  Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,  AIR 2015 SC 1523 (India).

[11]  Sristi Ray and Kanika Chugh, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 1 AIJACLA 464, 464-167, (2021).

[12]  DUKE TODAY, https://today.duke.edu/2022/08/economists-have-method-reducing-fake-news-social-media  (August 23, 2022).

---

Author: Aisha Saifi

---