Define commercial speech that seeks to monetise ridicule
The Supreme Court has cautioned social media influencers that ‘commercialised’ speech cannot come at the cost of hurting sentiments. During a hearing on comedians’ offensive jokes about people with disabilities, the court asked the government to swiftly draft guidelines that balance the right to free speech with every group’s right to live with dignity. Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s point that humour must never cross into mockery and Justice Surya Kant’s emphasis on balancing rights and duties spotlight a crucial truth too often drowned out online. Today’s influencers build careers around clicks, likes, and brand partnerships, sometimes stooping to jokes about disability, stereotypes about minorities, or even making fun of the elderly. When ridicule rakes in money, it demeans communities, spreads prejudice, and widens social divides. The court’s concern echoes its earlier view in the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan case (2014) where it had warned unchecked hate speech can corrode cohesion. In diverse India, this carries a greater risk.
The situation is complicated by this new form: commercial speech online. Traditional media and entertainment platforms also generate revenue from what they publish or broadcast. However, they generally adhere to clear ethical rules and regulations. Influencers fall in a gray area. They are part citizen, part business. Their posts can be both personal opinions and product promotions. The court has called for guidelines for commercial speech, asking, “Anybody can start making fun… where is all this going to end?” It is important to remember that this is not a criticism of satire or honest critique. Satire has a valuable role in democracy by challenging those in power and revealing hypocrisy. However, making fun of someone’s disability or age is not satire—it is simply cruelty disguised as content. Making money from this kind of cruelty cannot be justified as a form of free speech.
The court’s reminder is timely. First, parliament must define commercial speech in the digital domain and distinguish between private expression, satire, and monetised content. Influencer speech that crosses into advertising or brand promotion should be held to the same standards as those of consumer protection law. Two, the responsibility must also shift to audiences: to disengage from toxic creators, to demand better content, to use their collective agency. Ultimately, conscience should guide us. Words must remain free, but never be inhuman.