CHENNAI: It's a thin line that separates freedom of expression from offensive remarks in our highly sentimental society. In the recent arrest of three YouTubers, over charges of creating and sharing “obscene videos,” activists feel the State police have transgressed that line in dealing with a subjective concept like morality. The issue began when they released a video featuring a young woman, talking about her sexual preferences and having multiple partners.
Following the arrests, all the videos in that YouTube channel were taken down. The Chennai Police went to the extent of sending out an informal warning to all content creators, asking them to remove such “indecent content.”
A sizeable section of the society feels the police action is problematic on multiple levels. “Aren’t there thousands of such videos online where men say similar things in the very same tone?” asks Radhika Ganesh, co-convenor of Young People for Politics. “The content came across as being exceedingly explicit because it’s a woman saying it,” she says.Gender-rights activists, too, feel the reaction is disproportionate to what is seen when male actors mouth expletives on the big screen. They see the reaction to this particular video as nothing but patriarchal conditioning.
“The content, despite being explicit, is nothing out of ordinary. If users employ appropriate parental controls, it will not reach young viewers,” says Radhika Ganesh.“The police and legal action against the three should be proportional to the offence (if they have committed any), and not arbitrarily excessive just to make examples out of them.”But, this particular case is not all that straightforward, feels another section of activists. The reason being the intention behind the very video in question.
Patriarchal Production
After the video hit the headlines, the woman featured in it faced severe online abuse. She claimed that the video was scripted, and she was paid to speak. She also said that despite her requests, the channel did not turn off the comments section, subjecting her to undue duress. The reason, it is believed, is because the producers were reaping profits.“The very idea of making such a video is a patriarchal thought,” argues Kavitha Gajendran of All India Democratic Women’s Association. “When they scripted such a programme, they chose a woman for sensationalism. It’s because the society still believes a woman cannot talk about certain things.”
What is the law?
While the penal code does have provisions to deal with obscenity, it fails to define as to what constitutes an obscene act. Over the years, courts have pondered over this question. A textbook judgment on this is the 1964 Supreme Court verdict in the Ranjit D Udeshi Vs The State of Maharashtra case. The broad definition court gave was that, “obscenity can be something that suggests thoughts of the most impure and libidinous character, tends to arouse sexually impure thoughts, and passes permissive limits of community standards.” Again, what is “sexually impure” and “community standards” are still undefined.
“Various aspects have to be considered before adjudging obscenity, a responsibility wrested with the judiciary,” says retired justice K Chandru. When Express asked a senior police officer supervising the case on what was obscene about the videos in question, he simply said the matter is “subjective and open to debate.” He added, “Proper legal opinion would be sought before filing a charge sheet (based on which the court will try the accused).”
Excessive action?
Stating that the video is in poor taste, People’s Union for Civil Liberties’ V Suresh said there are consumers for such videos and people who are catering to them. “However, the issue of prosecution under the law has to follow due procedures. While the power to arrest is one thing, the need to arrest is a different thing,” he said referring to an SC judgment that suggests arrests only if there are chances of accused escaping or intimidating witnesses or destroying evidence.
“Only conviction through the judicial process will act as a deterrent and not knee-jerk reactions of arrest, which only gets momentary public attention and gets forgotten,” Suresh said. An open judicial process and a thorough debate can be the way forward, instead of vague dictums issued under a threat of arrests.