Freedom Of Speech In The Era Of Social Media

Introduction

India is a vast and diverse country than many other which is a paradise or a dream land for many people as they can walk, talk and say freely about anything and anyone with the point of their individual perspective over that particular field. The people have freedom over speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) which states that its people’s fundamental right to freely express their thoughts and emotions or perspective about anything through speech, words, comments, etc.  subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article19(2) of COI. It also applies to the expression presented on social media in these current times where everybody has access to social media which could be for free of cost and all are free to express their minds to the people of the country which doesn’t violate any laws. 

Explanation

The right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed by the constitution of India and also in some International statutes. It ensures that the right to speech plays a crucial role in a democratic society. International statutes which guaranteed freedom of speech are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.

This freedom was not always absolute as the establishment of the section 66A in 2009 in IT Act,2000 which ultimately put some more restrictions on this in the social media world. The mentioned section states:

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device or 

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

The same got struck down in 2015 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India. It was held by the two-judge bench is that section 66A of IT Act, 2000 is being an obstruction in performing peoples right of freedom of speech and expression in online expression so they make this section unconstitutional and illegal with its judgement as proving more the court to be the court of law with protecting the same. This section was also not safeguarded by the Article 19(2) of COI which is reasonable restrictions in performing speech.

Another landmark case for this freedom is of Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India where the Supreme court held that prolonged shutdown for internet is unconstitutional as violates the right of Article 19(1)(a) of COI as internet is an integral part to access this right so it became mandatory to be available as unavailable internet silences digital speech and opinion over any perspective. 

In social media platforms, differencing from social media sites to news portals or gateways, they all empower citizens to speak, as they also open an opportunity to speak of problems like anything in bad sense or in hatred or unlikely to be false . The main seed of social media upon which this all revolves in our country is its democratizing effect. Not only does it provide a platform for the marginalized, but it also makes information accessible to anyone easily. Youths have become social media influencers, and intellectuals are increasingly taking onto blogs, article, etc.  to speak and interpretate upon politics, society, and even international relations. Dr. Ambedkar once said, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated,” Without checks, social media cannot cultivate just constitutional morality but constitutional immorality. Cases are found where false information has fuelled communal violence, eroding the very democratic presence these platforms aim to uphold. Platforms that recheck and censor content which have come under the scale of harmful substance for social media which doesn’t follow the reasonable restrictions or is not appropriate for anyone and is a mean false or wrong use of the right which exploits social media are considered as legitimate site. Furthermore, these sites leads to a phenomenon of self-censorship among users who become increasingly wary of the penalties of overstepping ill-defined boundaries, inadvertently suppressing the bad or optimistic opinions that should be a cornerstone of democratic life. Concurrently, the diverse narrative fostered by online news portals quashes the single person’s perspective on traditional media often unwittingly perpetuate. It is as Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized, “Crises and deadlocks when they occur have at least this advantage that they force us to think.” It’s under such digital enlightenment that communities separated by geographic vastness or social stratification find an egalitarian square for discussion. Yet, there roams an unsettling underbelly. Just as social media has enabled freedom, it has also leased the capability for the people to misuse it in wrongful manner to recreate hateful expression towards anyone and could spread misinformation. B. R. Ambedkar believed that, “I like the religion that teaches liberty, equality, and fraternity,” takes a different contour when social liberty is unshackled to an extent that it threatens social equality and communal fraternity. Therefore, the goal is clear. Effective regulation of social media is not merely an option but an required task. Striking a judicious balance between the Gandhian freedom to real life and the Ambedkar sir will against exploiting liberty can ensure a holistic utilization of social media. It is  necessary to an make an adaptive framework that could safeguard the freedom of speech. To summarise Rabindranath Tagore thoughts , the objective is to let the mind be without fear, navigating through the social mountains of thoughts, where words emanate from the depth of truth. Thus, as one embraces the social media era’s promise, it becomes not just relevant but vital to forge pathways that retain democratic sanctities while forging social enthusiasm.

The right to freedom of speech and expression does not ultimately means that the citizens right to speak or write is without responsibility. It is not an unconditional license giving immunity from every possible use of language and prevents punishment for those who target and abuse others using this freedom. Article 19(3) of the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] imposes restrictions on the following grounds :

1. Provided by law and 
2. Necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.

And acc. to Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the legislature may enact laws to impose restrictions on the right to speech and expression on the following grounds: 

(a) Sovereignty and integrity of India 

(b) Security of the State 

(c) Friendly relations with foreign States 

(d) Public order 

(e) Decency or morality 

(f) Contempt of court 

(g) Defamation 

(h) Incitement to an offence.

Conclusion

Therefore, The era of social media has been reconstructed into freedom of speech, transforming it into a powerful and borderless right. While this transformation has strengthened democratic participation and individual expression in its own way through any means, it has also exposed society to new risks and vulnerabilities.

The current challenge before India lies in achieving a delicate balance between protecting free speech and expression with preventing its misuse. Constitutional values, judicial vigilance, and informed public discourse must guide this balance. As technology evolves, the law must adapt without compromising the fundamental principles of liberty and democracy.