The Supreme Court demands guidelines for social media and apologizes from Samay Raina to disabled comments

The most recent guideline of the Supreme Court for the Population Comedian Samay Raina A public apology for mocking people with disabilities in an episode of a podcast has triggered a long -term debate about regulating freedom of speech in the digital age. The Court mentioned that even freedom of expression is a pillar of democracy, but not absolutely, especially if such a language converts into discriminatory content. This special guideline of the court reminds us that the Internet and social media platforms are also subject to the same standards and laws as any other offensive and discriminatory law in public life.

The Supreme Court then asked the government to determine clean and comprehensive guidelines for social media in order to prevent the abuse of freedom of speaking on platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. This order can be seen as a welcome step to contain the harmful online speech and abuse. Cases of online abuse, hate speeches and fake news increase in digital rooms, which can damage the cohesion and harmony of society. The question remains: If the state receives this dynamic digital space, how can the government and legislators then regulate without preventing the creators from expressing their opinions or being creative?

Freedom of speech in digital space: potential and problem

The Internet, which is the requirement of everyone in this digital age, has a significant impact on public opinion. It helps us express us and connect us with broader information and take part in movements without controlling conventional media. These platforms, such as YouTube, Twitter and Instagram, have made marginalized communities, activists and independent creators possible to promote important discussions about the caste, breed, gender, disability and many social and political questions. We can clearly see this in recent movements such as #metoo and #blacklives matter, etc.

Source: AAJ TAK

On the other hand, this freedom also brings great risks: the risk of digital violence and abuse. These platforms strengthen voices, but also enable widespread abuse. From the cases, this scenario is very clear Heavy online abuse With false news, trolling, hate speeches and cyberbullying. It is also noted that digital abuse such as DoxxingStalking and online hostility to women limit the participation of women in public discourse.

Although humor and satire are legally protected forms of expression, the court decided that it is something beyond satire, and this can lead to real damage.

The comedian’s current case clearly underlines this tension. Although humor and satire are legally protected forms of expression, the court decided that it is something beyond satire, and this can lead to real damage. This specific judgment sends a message that Freedom of speech Comes with social responsibility, mainly for creators and influencers with commercial influence. At the same time, the efforts to control the online language can go beyond the limits of regulation. India leads the world on Internet closings, often during protests or communal unrest. As reported by Human Rights Watch These shutdowns influenced the municipalities of the working class unevenly by disturbing access to education and essential services.

As a result, India is to regulate harmful content before a delicate compensation task, without suppressing the free expression of social media creators and their opinions. This requires a law that is clear in addition to the protection of the rights of people in relation to the accountability of such platforms. The digital space must be open, safe and inclusive and more of a place of discriminatory and harmful content that remains deactivated and not a place. At the same time, it shouldn’t be the place where the government forces the creators to stay calm and to prevent them from expressing their views.

The challenge of developing effective guidelines for social media

The development of rules for the regulation of social media can be a challenge because it is difficult to stop the damage without violating freedom of speaking. The command of the Supreme Court to the government of regulating social media requires fair and transparent approach, which also focuses on various other aspects. First, define harmful content clearly. These terms such as hate speeches, misinformation and harassment are not clearly defined, which leads to unfair and biased actions. To prevent abuse and ensure fairness, the law should clearly explain these terms. The right -wing experts, tech specialists, civil society and even the municipalities affected by online exploitation should be involved in the process of defining these terms.

Fii

The rules should be transparent and accountable. These social media platforms should implement their content rules fair and openly. If someone is blocked/removed to someone, these platforms must provide a clear reason for this, with the creators have the right to make an appeal against the decision. The act of the ban on accounts or the removal of content without explanation can be risky for our democracy, since it will silence honest opinions and basic views. There is a need to understand that online abuse affects some groups more than others, for example women, religious minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community and people with disabilities. For this reason there must be a simple, safe and quick way to report harmful content For victims of such an online abuse. In addition, the platforms should react immediately to such reports and support the victims (UN women).

The term “digital censorship” is often associated with the strict state control and a complete ban on vigils and honest voices that the government do not agree. In India, the assertion of encouragement is responsible, the risk of abuse of such power and regulation by the rulers is very high.

Together with the protection of the victims, there is also a need to protect freedom of speech and innovation. Rules must protect creativity, activism, satire or the act of whistleblow. Central regulation can affect creativity and prevent people from talking. The independent journalists and creators will be most affected who question the government or question the dominant social norms. During the future of the future of digital India, it should be to protect but not to control. The rules should be made to ensure that online platforms are safe, integrative and really democratic.

Risks of handing over and digital censorship on social media

The term “digital censorship” is often associated with the strict state control and a complete ban on vigils and honest voices that the government do not agree. In India, the assertion of encouragement is responsible, the risk of abuse of such power and regulation by the rulers is very high. The law should not be used to make criticism or opinions that challenge people in power.

Fii

Numerous past actions by the government, such as internet switching during political protests or municipal violence, have taken care of human rights activists. Such acts limit people’s freedom of speech and prevents them from obtaining information that hinder economic activity, education and access to essential services. This will prevent people from free to speak freely without fear.

Assign a path forward

This is the time to issue fair and responsible rules in an age in which the life of online content is overwhelmed. The judgment of the Supreme Court on the recent case shows the urgent need for accountability and respect in the online area. It should also be noted that a rule should maintain the constitutional values ​​and protect human rights. Civil society and digital law groups should be included in the process to ensure that the rules are fair and balanced. Even digital competence, respectful and ethical online behavior should be part of school education and educate people on these platforms through a campaign to raise awareness of public awareness.

With today’s digital development, the Internet and social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter etc. play a key role in the exchange of ideas and are part of this democratic environment, but also bring challenges such as discrimination and misinformation. There is a need for balanced laws that ensure digital justice for groups in need of protection and ensure freedom of expression. But here too the question is: how can this be achieved without censorship in a country like India?