Consult stakeholders to frame norms for digital platforms

Given the hazy picture, to argue right now that this is the first step towards censorship, as some stakeholders have said, could be premature.

For representational purposes (Illustration | Express)

The Union government’s announcement last week bringing all digital platforms, including entertainment, films and news portals, under the information and broadcasting ministry, was on expected lines, though the exercise could end up being contentious.

The Centre had in recent weeks told the Supreme Court that it considered policing the unregulated digital and social media content a higher priority than strengthening the fence around electronic media, since TV and print already have a regulatory framework.

What kind of new norms will be put in place is yet unclear, though digital media has been lumped with over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Netflix and Hotstar and placed in the film basket, instead of the media category.

Given the hazy picture, to argue right now that this is the first step towards censorship, as some stakeholders have said, could be premature. Will the government finally end up restricting licensing, imposing entry barriers or resorting to censorship if the content is not to the liking of the establishment? There are two sides to the argument.

While those managing online news portals have pointed out that regulations that govern print or electronic media are also applicable to digital platforms in a broad sense, the government’s argument is that given the scope for wider and faster reach of digital content, it is important to place them under legally established regulatory structures.

Regulation of the internet is not unique to India, as countries like the US, France, Germany, Singapore and China are attempting newer ways to control the medium. Typically, restrictions are sought to be placed on grounds of national security, economic security (fraud) and protection of reputation.

While none would argue against checking the proliferation of fake news and spread of objectionable content, the latter hinges on a thin line as anything that is seen against the government of the day or a religion can be branded as objectionable.

Holding divergent thoughts and views is not a crime. A healthy debate needs to be encouraged, not the kind of online threats, abuses, falsehoods and offensive language that we are witness to. The government would do well to adopt a consultative process in the true spirit of democracy so that regulations strengthen and not muzzle online content.