IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

ABSTRACT

Every individual in society is guaranteed with right to free speech, and they use their right to voice their opinion freely and express their views on the political decisions against any government decision regarding the nation with the use of social media platforms. But the right that is guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is imposed with certain reasonable restrictions to protect the nation’s sovereignty, morality, and integrity. This reasonable restriction is necessary so that no individual can exercise their right to spread hateful speech or to defame others, or engage in violent activities with the use of social media.

To ensure all this government made certain legislation like the IT Act 2000, IT Act 2021, which states intermediary guidelines to intermediaries (social media platforms, hosting services).

Keywords:  Right to free speech, citizen, Indian Constitution, restrictions 

INTRODUCTION

Right to freedom of speech and expression, defined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. This right also includes the following aspects under Article 19(1)(a):

• Freedom of Press

In the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to exchange information and ideas through any medium, including the press. (drishti judiciary , n.d.)

• Right to information

In the case of Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reform (2002), the SC held that one-sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry, which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to impart and receive information, which includes the freedom to hold opinions. (drishti judiciary , n.d.)[1]

•  Freedom of silence

In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the SC held that the right to speak includes the right to be silent or to utter no words. (drishti judiciary , n.d.)[2]

The rights that are enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) are not an absolute right. Along with it, the state imposes certain reasonable restrictions to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of India, 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.

In a democratic country like India, our constitution grants its citizens the right to express their opinion freely regarding government decisions and contribute to the democratic functioning of the nation through social media platforms. By the use of social media platforms, citizens also keep a check on the government’s decisions and the exercise of its arbitrary power.

Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram are crucial in today’s digital era for the spreading of information instantly. But the information that is posted on social media platforms is not necessarily accurate. It can be misleading, spreading hatred among people regarding political decisions, which makes it necessary for the state to impose certain reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

The challenges that arise with technological advancement and social media are multiple. Infringement of intellectual property rights, encroachment of privacy, hate speech, rumors, fraud, defamation, all these are challenges faced by social media are real and it require the need for judiciary to strike a balance between the right of free speech and technological advancement of social media.

EVOLUTION OF FREE SPEECH AND SOCIAL MEDIA

In earlier times, people’s opinions and views were presented through TV, newspapers, and public forums. But at that time, people didn’t have the freedom of free speech as compared to today’s time; their voices of opinion against government decisions were sometimes suppressed by political leaders. Before, citizens did not have a proper platform to spread their information freely regarding the injustice that came about with them. Some have access to share their opinion through the press, while some are aside to put their view freely. In traditional times, an accident that occurred in one corner of the world did not instantly spread to each corner.

While in today’s time, with the advancement of technology and social media platforms, every citizen becomes aware of their right to free speech and voice their opinion freely in matters of their interest without any government force. No discrimination can occur against any citizen with the advancement of social media platforms. Through social media, people keep their views regarding any matters concerning the state, and injustice occurs towards them in front of the world. People raise their own opinions towards any injustice, discrimination that took place with other people. Sometimes citizens may also use these social media platforms to spread misinformation, defame others, hate speech, fraud.

On one hand, social media provides a platform for people to express their opinions freely. On the other hand, it is also used to spread hatred among the people against government decisions, for defamation, and to commit fraud.

Today, every citizen of the state has easy access to information and can freely express their opinion on it. Examples such as awareness campaigns, political debates, social movements (#MeToo movement, farmers’ protests, etc.).

POSITIVE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON FREE SPEECH

• Democratization of speech: With the advent of social media and technological advancement in internet access, anyone can voice their opinion.
• Platform for marginalized voices: Through social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram, minorities and women voice their opinions freely in society without the fear of being suppressed.
• Political participation: Having the right of free speech and having a proper platform, citizens can voice their opinion regarding election campaigns, political decisions, and hold the government accountable for their decisions.
• Global connectivity: social media connects every corner of the world and makes people aware of the international issues regarding climate change, human rights.

NEGATIVE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON FREE SPEECH

• Misinformation and fake news: People use social media platforms to spread falsehood information, influencing public opinion as a result of which creates distress among the common people. Sometimes they use their freedom negatively to spread violence.

Example: COVID-19 rumours

• Online harassment: through social media, people use their right of free speech negatively by trolling, cyberbullying, and threatening women.
• Censorship and platform bias: Social media platforms are mostly owned by private companies. These platforms claim that they have the right to decide what speech is acceptable on their site and also that they are capable of effectively filtering out the harmful content that incites violence or is misleading. Often, these platforms are very powerful; they use this power to benefit their own corporate interests or to support their political ideologies. For example, platforms may censor certain viewpoints that are in conflict with their policies or interests, or may tactically push such content that suits their interests, potentially infringing on the freedom of speech.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

• Constitutional safeguard:

Article 19 (1)(a) provides citizens the right to voice their opinion freely, take part in political discourse, and actively contribute to the democratic functioning of the nation.

It provides an individual the liberty to free speech, whereas with some reasonable restrictions to safeguard the nation’s security, morality, and integrity under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.

It prevents the nation from hate speech, defamation, and terrorism, raising activities and activities that lead to violence among people.

• Judicial interpretation:

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

This case is a landmark that significantly impacted the present shape of freedom of speech and expression in India. At the core of this case was the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It was argued that the scope of Section 66A was too broad and far-reaching and thus violative of the right to free speech. This case leads the way in understanding the constitutional boundaries of freedom within the digital space. The Supreme Court found that Section 66A was ambiguous and very broad, thus declared it to be unconstitutional basis of its inconsistency with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression. It was pointed out that criticism and dissent are crucial aspects of a successful democracy and must be protected by all means. Section 66A was held to be unconstitutional and struck down as it failed the test of “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) and did not have enough safeguards that could prevent any possible misuse. Thus, this judgment upheld citizens’ rights to free speech and expression. (Akriti Shashank, 2025)

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

This landmark case addressed the constitutional validity of internet shutdowns and 

restrictions on movement in Jammu and Kashmir, emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech and access to the internet as fundamental rights. (indian kanoon , n.d.)

• Legislative framework:

Information Technology Act, 2000

It is a crucial piece of legislation that was enacted to meet the challenges of digital and technological advancement of media in India. The Act provides an outline to the legal aspects of cybercrimes, fixing the intermediary liability while playing a significant role in the regulation of online content and social media.

Section 69A – Power to Block Online Content:

• The government has the authority to block websites or online content if it poses a threat to national security, sovereignty, or public order.
• Online content, including hate speech, terrorism related content, or defamatory content, deemed to be harmful or controversial, is blocked by virtue of this section.

Information Technology Act, 2021

This act imposes obligations on intermediaries regarding the content on social media.

Section 79 of this Act protects intermediaries (social media platforms, hosting services, online content providers). This means intermediaries are not liable for the content posted by their users unless they fail to act on illegal content reported by the Government or its agencies. (Akriti Shashank, 2025)

CONCLUSION

 In today’s time, the key challenge of the judiciary is to maintain a proper regulation to maintain a balance between the individual right of free speech and their access to social media. The intermediaries need to take care of that the contents that are being posted by their users do not harm, or go against national security and morality. It must ensure that moderate content is posted on its platforms. The government must be responsible for maintaining public order and ensuring that people are protected from any harm caused by the exchange of information online. 

Reference(S):

[1] Freedom of Speech & Expression, Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution – Drishti Judiciary

[2] Freedom of Speech & Expression, Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution – Drishti Judiciary