Gagging online

The Communications and IT Minister, Mr Kapil Sibal's directive to social networking websites to evolve a mechanism for pre-screening user content and weeding out “incendiary material” before they go online is an unworkable proposition. Moreover, it raises suspicions, not without reason, about the real intent behind the Government's move and the timing — just ahead of Team Anna's launch of the next phase of its anti-graft agitation. Those supportive of the proposal point out that if content in so-called traditional media such as newspapers, television and movies are subject to regulation, why cannot material posted on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube be, like wise, put under the scanner? Defending national security and maintenance of law and order are, after all, key governmental responsibilities. It has every right, then, to keep tabs on all forms of media and suppress abusive or blasphemous content with potential to create ill-will and enmity among citizens. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, these are, however, rights that do not extend to inciting people to commit offence or endangering public order.

But what the above arguments ignore is a basic difference between traditional and the new ‘social' media. Newspapers or TV news-channels have their own reporters and editors to generate or select content. The social networking sites have no such in-house providers; the content in their case is driven entirely by the users numbering in the millions, if not billions. Facebook alone has over 800 million active users, with more than half of them logging on to it in any given day. That makes these sites ‘media' in the more universal, messenger sense. Newspapers may claim to be mere platforms for airing diverse views; the fact is they are much more amenable to editorial oversight or controlled expression. This is not so with content in social media sites that are virtually impossible to even monitor – let alone establishing proactive systems to filter objectionable matter before they are posted. Although there are technologies to block content based on identification of key words/phrases, they are messy at best.

So what is the solution? Banning Twitter or Facebook is what the likes of China and Saudi Arabia have done – which is certainly not the way to go for the world's largest democracy. The more sensible thing to do is to monitor content after it has been uploaded and reported as being objectionable. But whether it is actually objectionable is something that is to be determined by the laws of the land. Thus, if a particular picture or video on a site has been really found to foment social tensions, the intermediary hosting that content would be obliged to remove it. And these could be covered under the already existing provisions in the Indian Penal Code. There is no need for separate guidelines to regulate online content, as Mr Sibal wants.

COMMENT NOW