A Dissertation

ON

MASS MEDIA : A SOCIAL STUDY IN CURRENT INDIAN

CONTEXT

Submitted to the

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

In the partial fulfillment of Course - IV of

LL.M. III Semester in Constitutional Law Branch

Under the Supervision of Submitted By

Dr. P.K Musha Sir Ritu Agarwal
( Assistant Professor) Roll No:
22LLM20094
 FACULTY OF LAW
JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

2021-2022

DECLARATION

I Ritu Agarwal, student of LL.M III-Semester, Constitution Law Branch do

hereby declare that:

1. The work contained in this dissertation is my own work and is

original.

2. The present work has not been submitted to any other University
for any degree or diploma.

3. I have followed the guidelines of the University.

4. I have properly acknowledged the material collected from
secondary sources wherever required

5. I own the responsibility for the originality of the entire contents.

Signature of student
 Ritu Agarwal

Dr. P.K MUSHA SIR

Assistant Professor
Faculty of Law
Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Ritu Agarwal, is a student of LL.M III Semester,

Constitution Law branch, Faculty of Law, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur. She has completed the dissertation entitled "MASS
MEDIA :A SOCIAL STUDY IN CURRENT INDIAN CONTEXT" under
my supervision. She has carried her work with utmost sincerity and
dedication.

___________________
Signature of Supervisor
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to

all those who have supported and guided me throughout the
completion of this LLM thesis. Firstly, I am indebted to my
supervisor, Dr.P.K Musha Sir, for their invaluable insights,
unwavering support, and constructive feedback, which have been
instrumental in shaping this work.
I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and
friends for their encouragement, patience, and understanding
during this academic journey. Your belief in me has been a
constant source of motivation.
Furthermore, I want to acknowledge the assistance of Jai Narain
Vyas University, faculty and staff, especially the Faculty of Law,
for providing the necessary resources and research facilities.
Lastly, I appreciate the countless authors, scholars, and legal
experts whose work and contributions have enriched this thesis.
Their dedication to advancing legal knowledge is an inspiration.
This thesis would not have been possible without the collective
support and guidance I have received. Thank you all for being an
integral part of this academic endeavor.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CASES (i-ii)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (iii-v)

LIST OF MAP/TABLES/ (if any) (vi-vii)

Page No.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Educational Role

1.2 The impact of the Mass Media in Society

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Historical perspective on Media Helds in Society

2.2 Existing legal frameworks for development

2.3 Challenges and controversies in the current affair

CHAPTER 3: ROLE OF MEDIA IN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

3.1 Social media and its role in online discourse

3.2 The risk of online activism and citizen journalism

3.3 The role of anonymity and pseudonymity

CHAPTER 4: LEGAL AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Balancing freedom of expression with concerns like hate speech, misinformation

4.2 International balancings on regulating online speech

4.3 The implication of internet intermediaries (e.g., social media platforms)

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDIES

5.1 Role of significant media related freedom of expression cases

5.2 Analyse the impact of these cases on legal precedents

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Rules recommendations for enhancing Mass Media in society

6.2 The importance of digital literacy and media literacy

6.3 Speculation on the future of online communication and expression

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION

7.1 Summarize key findings and insights

7.2 Emphasize the evolving nature of freedom of expression in the internet age

Bibliography

"MASS MEDIA : A SOCIAL STUDY IN CURRENT INDIAN CONTEXT”

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

In an age where the digital realm has become an integral part of our daily
lives, the concept of freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic
societies, has undergone a profound transformation. This dissertation
embarks on a journey to explore this transformation, investigating how
the internet has redefined both the boundaries and possibilities of what it
means to express oneself freely.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental pillar upon which democratic

societies are built. It represents the unassailable right of individuals to
articulate their thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and opinions without the fear of
censorship or suppression. This cornerstone of civil liberties is not only
enshrined in countless national constitutions but is also recognized as a
universal human right by international agreements and declarations. The
essence of freedom of expression lies in its capacity to nurture open
dialogue, encourage diversity of thought, and foster the exchange of ideas.
It is the fertile soil from which the seeds of innovation, progress, and social
change can sprout. Yet, it is a principle that has faced continual scrutiny,
adaptation, and challenge throughout history. As societies have evolved,
so too has the interpretation and application of this cherished right. From
the annals of ancient civilizations to the digital landscapes of the modern
era, the concept of freedom of expression has weathered the storms of
ideological conflict, technological advancement, and shifting social norms.
This dissertation embarks on a journey to explore freedom of expression
in the context of the internet age. In this digital epoch, where information
flows freely across borders, where voices from all corners of the globe
resonate, and where the boundaries between public and private discourse
blur, the very essence of this fundamental right faces new frontiers and
unforeseen challenges.

Through a multidimensional lens, this dissertation will delve into the

historical foundations of freedom of expression, tracing its evolution
through time, examining the legal and ethical frameworks that underpin
it, and scrutinizing the impact of the internet age on its manifestation.
It stands as one of the most fundamental and cherished rights in
democratic societies worldwide. At its core, it encapsulates the principle
that every individual possesses the inherent right to express their
thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and opinions openly and without fear of
repression or censorship. This principle is not merely a legal safeguard; it
is a cornerstone of the free exchange of ideas, essential for the vitality of
democratic societies. Throughout history, the concept of freedom of
expression has evolved, adapting to the ever-changing landscape of
communication and societal norms. From the early writings of
philosophers to modern constitutional guarantees, it has played a pivotal
role in shaping the course of human progress, enabling dissent,
encouraging innovation, and fostering the robust public discourse that
drives societal advancement. As we stand on the precipice of the internet
age, freedom of expression faces new challenges and opportunities. The
digital revolution has brought unparalleled avenues for communication,
empowering individuals to reach global audiences instantly. However, it
has also raised complex questions about the boundaries of this freedom
in the virtual realm, where information flows ceaselessly, and the
distinction between public and private discourse blurs.This dissertation
embarks on a journey to explore freedom of expression in the context of
the internet age, delving into its historical foundations, examining its
contemporary legal and ethical implications, and probing the
transformative impact of the digital era on the exercise of this cherished
right. Through this exploration, we seek to shed light on how societies can
navigate the intricate balance between preserving the essence of free
expression while addressing the complexities and challenges posed by the
ever-evolving communication landscape.1

1.1 Background and Education Role

According to Article 19(1)(a)2 of Indian constitution, all citizens shall have

the right to freedom of speech and expression. This implies that all citizens
have the right to express their views and opinions freely. This includes not
only words of mouth, but also a speech by way of writings, pictures,
movies, banners, etc. The right to speech also includes the right not to
speak. The Supreme Court of India has held that participation in sports is
an expression of one’s self and hence, is a form of freedom of speech. In
2004, the SC held that hoisting the national flag is also a form of this
freedom. Freedom of the press is an inferred freedom under this Article.
This right also includes the right to access information because this right is
meaningless when others are prevented from knowing/listening. It is
according to this interpretation that the Right to Information (RTI) is a
fundamental right. The SC has also ruled that freedom of speech is an
inalienable right adjunct to the right to life (Article 21). These two rights
are not separate but related. Restrictions on the freedom of speech of any
citizen may be placed as much by an action of the state as by its inaction.
This means that the failure of the State to guarantee this freedom to all
classes of citizens will be a violation of their fundamental rights. The right
to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to
communicate, print and advertise information. This right also includes
commercial as well as artistic speech and expression.3

1 https://www.vedantu.com/english/freedom-of-speech-essay
2 All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
3 https://byjus.com/free-ias-

prep/freedomofspeech/#:~:text=According%20to%20Article%2019(1,freedom%20of%20speech%20and
%20expressio
n.&text=This%20implies%20that%20all%20citizens,%2C%20movies%2C%20banners%2C%20etc.

Freedom of expression, a principle deeply rooted in the annals of history,

has evolved through centuries of philosophical contemplation and
political upheavals. From the Enlightenment philosophers’ advocacy for
the right to voice one’s thoughts without censorship to the inclusion of
freedom of expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
1948, it has consistently been regarded as a fundamental human right. Yet,

as our society becomes increasingly interconnected, the boundaries of this

cherished freedom blur. Historically, freedom of expression has been
associated with print media, public gatherings, and traditional forms of
communication. It was a safeguard against government overreach and a
means for individuals to challenge the status quo. However, the rise of

the internet has ushered in a new era, one where information flows at the
speed of light, and the distinction between public and private spaces
becomes fluid.

Freedom of expression, often referred to as freedom of speech, is a

fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democratic societies. It
encompasses the principle that individuals have the inherent right to
express their thoughts, ideas, opinions, and beliefs without fear of
censorship, restraint, or punishment. This concept has deep historical and
philosophical roots, shaping the way societies approach communication
and discourse.1

• Historical Origins: The notion of freedom of expression can be

traced back to ancient civilizations like Athens and Rome, where
democratic processes encouraged open debate and free speech in
public forums. Philosophers in antiquity, such as Socrates, engaged
in critical discourse despite the potential for persecution.
• Ancient Greece and Rome: The concept of freedom of expression
has ancient roots. In ancient Athens, for example, the democratic
system encouraged free speech in the form of open debates in the

Athenian Assembly. Similarly, the Roman Republic had laws protecting

the right to criticize the government.
• Magna Carta (1215): Often considered one of the foundational
documents for civil liberties, the Magna Carta included clauses that
limited the arbitrary power of the English monarch and implied the
principle that certain legal procedures must be respected, indirectly
contributing to the concept of freedom of expression.

1 https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/freedom-of-speech
• Enlightenment Philosophers: Enlightenment thinkers like John
Locke, Voltaire, and John Stuart Mill played pivotal roles in

articulating the principles of freedom of expression as a natural

right. Their writings emphasized the importance of individual
autonomy and the need to protect the expression of unpopular or
controversial ideas.
• The Enlightenment and Declarations: The Enlightenment era’s ideas
greatly influenced the American and French Revolutions. These
pivotal moments in history led to the inclusion of freedom of

expression in documents like the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of the Citizen.
• The Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries): Enlightenment
philosophers like John Locke, Voltaire, and John Stuart Mill played
pivotal roles in shaping the modern idea of freedom of expression.
John Locke's writings on the "natural right" to freedom of speech
influenced the later development of this principle.
• The Printing Press: The invention of the printing press by Johannes
Gutenberg in the 15th century revolutionized communication. It
enabled the mass dissemination of ideas, religious texts, and
political pamphlets, contributing to the spread of free expression.
• The First Amendment (1791): In the United States, the First
Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, was
adopted in 1791. It enshrined the principle of freedom of speech,
religion, press, assembly, and petition into American law, becoming
a cornerstone of democratic values worldwide.
• European Declarations: In the wake of the French Revolution,
various European countries started adopting declarations and
constitutions that included provisions on freedom of expression
and the press. France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen (1789) is an example.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights: In the aftermath of World
 War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
United Nations in 1948, explicitly recognized freedom of expression
as a fundamental human right in Article 19. This international
recognition underscored the importance of this right in the postwar
global order.
• Legal Frameworks: Various countries have established legal
frameworks and constitutional provisions to protect freedom of
expression. These frameworks often differ in their scope and
limitations, reflecting the diverse cultural and legal contexts in
which they operate.
• Challenges and Controversies: In the internet age, freedom of
expression faces new challenges related to online communication,
social media, and the global dissemination of information.
Balancing this right with concerns about hate speech,
misinformation, and privacy remains a complex and evolving issue.

These historical developments laid the groundwork for the recognition of

freedom of expression as a fundamental human right in various legal and
philosophical traditions. Over time, this concept evolved, especially with
the advent of the internet and digital communication, presenting new
challenges and opportunities for the exercise of free speech.

Understanding the historical origins and evolving context of freedom of

expression is essential to appreciate its significance and the ongoing
debates surrounding its application in today’s rapidly changing world.

Freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic societies, has its

origins in the ancient civilizations that valued open debates and public
discourse. It gained philosophical underpinnings during the
Enlightenment, with thinkers like Locke and Voltaire advocating for the
protection of individual autonomy and the right to express unpopular
ideas. This concept found its way into pivotal documents, such as the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and France’s Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution. In 1948,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized it as a global human
right. Over time, the interpretation of freedom of expression has evolved,
addressing issues like hate speech and national security. The rise of the
internet has introduced new challenges and opportunities, shaping
debates on online communication, privacy, and content moderation.
Understanding this rich historical and philosophical context is essential for
appreciating its enduring significance and navigating the complexities of
modern discourse.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that has been

recognized and protected by international and national laws. It allows
individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of
censorship or punishment. This right has a long history, with its origins
dating back to ancient civilizations and its formal recognition in documents
such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the digital age, the concept of freedom of expression has taken on new
dimensions and challenges. The internet has revolutionized
communication and information dissemination, providing individuals with
unprecedented opportunities to express themselves on a global scale.
Social media platforms, blogs, and online forums have become powerful
tools for self-expression, enabling individuals to share their thoughts and
creativity with a wide audience.

This newfound freedom of expression has empowered marginalized

voices, facilitated political activism, and fostered cultural exchange. It has
allowed individuals to connect with like-minded people, form
communities, and challenge traditional power structures. However, along
with these benefits, the internet has also brought forth ethical dilemmas
and challenges to freedom of expression.

The spread of fake news and disinformation campaigns has raised

concerns about the manipulation of public opinion and the erosion of trust
in traditional media sources. Online harassment and hate speech have
become rampant, posing threats to individual well-being and social
cohesion. Governments and authorities have grappled with balancing
freedom of expression with the need to protect individuals from harm,
leading to debates over censorship, content moderation, and surveillance.
In this context, it is crucial to examine the evolving nature of freedom of
expression in the digital era. This dissertation aims to explore the concept
of a new freedom of expression for the internet age, analyzing its
implications on society, democracy, and individual rights. By examining
legal frameworks, technological advancements, and social dynamics, this
study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges
and opportunities presented by the digital landscape.

The research objectives of this dissertation are to investigate the historical

evolution of freedom of expression and its relevance in the internet age,
examine international and national legal frameworks governing freedom
of expression in the digital era, analyze the impact of technological
advancements on online platforms and their implications for freedom of
expression, assess the societal and democratic impacts of the internet age
on freedom of expression, and consider ethical considerations and
propose future directions for safeguarding freedom of expression in the
digital landscape.

By addressing these research objectives, this study aims to contribute to

the existing body of knowledge on freedom of expression and provide
insights for policymakers, researchers, and internet users on how to
navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the internet age. 5

1.2 The impact of the media in current society

The Internet has had a profound impact on communication and social

interaction. With the rise of the World Wide Web in the 1990s, people
gained access to new modes of communication, which have
fundamentally changed the way we interact with each other.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/Politics/r466y9j288BIqEnOm9SWFL/Ashorthistoryof-
Indian-freedom-of-speech.html%3ffacet=amp

The impact of the Internet on communication is immense. First and

foremost, the Internet has made communication faster and more efficient.
Email, instant messaging, and social media platforms like Facebook and
Twitter have all but replaced traditional letter writing, telephone calls, and
face-to-face conversations as the primary means of communication. In
addition, the Internet has made it possible to communicate with people
all over the world, breaking down geographical barriers and bringing
people closer together.

However, this newfound ability to communicate easily and instantly has

also led to some negative consequences. For example, many people now
struggle to disconnect from their devices and are constantly bombarded
with notifications and messages, leading to feelings of overwhelm and

burnout. In addition, the anonymity of the Internet can lead to a lack of

accountability, which can result in cyberbullying, trolling, and other forms
of online harassment.

The Impact of the Internet on social interaction is similarly complex. On

the one hand, the Internet has made it easier to connect with others who
share similar interests and passions. Online communities and forums
provide a space for people to connect with others who may not be
geographically close but who share common experiences and
perspectives.

On the other hand, the rise of social media has also contributed to feelings
of loneliness and isolation, particularly among younger generations. The

constant pressure to present a curated and idealized version of oneself

online can lead to feelings of inadequacy and a lack of authenticity in social
interactions. Furthermore, the Internet has also had a profound impact on
the way we consume news and information. With the rise of social media,
it is now easier than ever to access news and information from a variety
of sources. However, this has also led to the proliferation of fake news and
disinformation, which can have serious consequences for democracy and
public health.2

2 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-internet-communication-social-
interactionpriyankaahuja#:~:text=With%20the%20rise%20of%20the,communication%20faster%20and%
20more
The internet has revolutionized communication, reshaping how
individuals, businesses, and societies connect and interact. Its global reach
has transcended geographical boundaries, enabling instant
communication with people worldwide. This unprecedented speed and
efficiency have accelerated information exchange, transforming industries
and decision-making processes. User-generated content platforms, such
as social media and blogs, have democratized communication,
empowering individuals to share their thoughts and perspectives on a
global scale. Moreover, the internet’s multimedia capabilities have
enriched communication, offering a diverse range of media formats for
conveying messages. Real-time interaction tools, like video conferencing
and instant messaging, have become integral for remote work, education,
and maintaining personal connections. Online communities and social

networks have flourished, creating virtual spaces for like-minded

individuals to engage. Nevertheless, the digital age has brought
challenges, including online harassment and the spread of
misinformation. Privacy concerns persist as personal data flows freely,
necessitating robust data protection measures. As the internet continues
to shape our communication landscape, society grapples with striking a
balance between its vast opportunities and the responsibility to navigate
the complexities and risks of the digital wor

The emergence and ubiquity of the internet have wrought an

unprecedented revolution in communication. With the capacity to reach a
global audience instantaneously, the internet has democratized the
dissemination of ideas and information. User-generated content on social
media, blogs, and forums has diversified the voices that shape our

discourse. However, this digital realm is not without its challenges. Online
spaces have become breeding grounds for hate speech, misinformation,

and cyberbullying. Governments and platforms grapple with how to

balance the preservation of freedom of expression with the necessity of

%20effici ent.
curbing harmful content.This dissertation embarks on a multidimensional
exploration of the interplay between freedom of expression and the
internet age. It delves into the historical foundations of this fundamental
right, unravels its evolution in the digital age, and probes the implications
for society, law, and governance. By examining key cases and current
debates, we will navigate the complex landscape where timeless principles
meet the ever-shifting tides of technology. Through this exploration, we
hope to shed light on how society can forge a new path, one that preserves
the essence of free expression while navigating the intricacies of the
internet's transformative power.

• Global Reach: The internet has transformed communication by

enabling individuals to reach a global audience instantly, breaking
down geographical barriers. This global reach has expanded
opportunities for cross-cultural and international communication.
• User-Generated Content: Social media platforms, blogs, and forums
have empowered users to create and share content, democratizing
the flow of information.
• Diversity of Voices: The internet allows a wide range of voices and
perspectives to be heard, fostering diversity of thought and
discourse.
• Challenges: The internet has also brought challenges, including
issues of online harassment, misinformation, and the spread of hate
speech.
• Regulatory Responses: Governments and online platforms have
introduced various regulations and content moderation policies to
address these challenges, raising questions about the balance
between freedom of expression and content control.
• Speed and Accessibility: Communication on the internet is nearly
instantaneous. Emails, social media posts, and messages can be
sent and received within seconds, enhancing the efficiency of
information exchange.
• Real-Time Interaction: Internet-based communication tools, like
video conferencing and instant messaging apps, enable real-time
interaction. This has proven especially valuable for remote work,
 online education, and maintaining personal connections across
distances.
• Virtual Communities: Online communities and social networks have
formed around shared interests, hobbies, and causes. These virtual
communities provide spaces for like-minded individuals to connect,
share knowledge, and engage in discussions.
• Speed and Accessibility: Communication on the internet is nearly
instantaneous. Emails, social media posts, and messages can be
sent and received within seconds, enhancing the efficiency of
information exchange.

These points provide a starting framework for your dissertation’s

introduction section. You can delve deeper into each aspect, explore
relevant legal cases and scholarly literature, and discuss how the internet
has reshaped the landscape of freedom of expression and communication
in the modern age.

The Internet has ushered in a seismic shift in the way we communicate,

fundamentally altering the landscape of human interaction. Its impact is
most conspicuous in the realm of global connectivity, as geographical
boundaries have dissolved, allowing instant communication with
individuals worldwide. This unprecedented speed and efficiency have
transformed not only personal relationships but also the way businesses
operate and governments respond to crises. The internet’s democratizing
influence is evident through the proliferation of user-generated content
platforms, enabling anyone with access to the web to be a content creator
and participant in a diverse and decentralized media ecosystem. This
digital realm accommodates a rich variety of media types, from text to
images, audio, and video, providing engaging and interactive
communication channels. Furthermore, the real-time capabilities of the
internet, such as video conferencing and instant messaging, have become
indispensable tools for remote work, education, and maintaining social
connections. Online communities and social networks, built around
shared interests, have flourished, fostering a sense of belonging and
support. However, the internet’s transformative impact on
communication has also raised significant challenges, including issues of
online harassment, cyberbullying, and the rapid spread of misinformation.
Privacy concerns loom large, as personal data can be easily shared and
exploited. As the internet continues to shape our communication
landscape, society grapples with striking a balance between its
unparalleled opportunities and the need for responsible, ethical, and
secure digital interactions. Overall, the internet has revolutionized
communication by breaking down barriers of time and distance, enabling
instant global connectivity, and democratizing access to information. It has
transformed personal relationships, business operations, and media
landscapes. However, it also poses challenges such as the spread of
misinformation, privacy concerns, and issues of online harassment. As
society continues to navigate the digital age, finding a balance between
the benefits and risks of internet communication is crucial.

The Internet has had a profound impact on communication,

revolutionizing the way people connect and interact with one another.
One of the most significant changes brought about by the internet is the
breaking down of barriers of time and distance. With the advent of email,
instant messaging, and social media platforms, individuals can now
communicate with others across the globe in real-time. This has enabled
instant global connectivity, allowing people to stay connected with friends,
family, and colleagues no matter where they are located.

Moreover, the internet has democratized access to information. In the

past, knowledge was often limited to those who had access to libraries or
academic institutions. However, with the internet, anyone with an
internet connection can access a wealth of information on virtually any
topic. This has empowered individuals to educate themselves and has
opened up opportunities for learning and personal growth.

The Internet has also transformed personal relationships. Social media

platforms have made it easier for people to connect and maintain
relationships with others. Long-distance friendships and relationships
have become more manageable, as individuals can communicate through
video calls, messaging apps, and social media posts. Additionally, online
dating has become increasingly popular, allowing people to meet potential
partners from different backgrounds and cultures.
In the business world, the internet has revolutionized operations.
Companies can now communicate with clients and customers around the
world, expanding their reach and potential customer base. Online
collaboration tools have made it easier for teams to work together
remotely, breaking down geographical barriers and increasing efficiency.

However, the internet also poses challenges. The spread of misinformation

is a significant concern, as anyone can publish content online without
proper verification. This has led to the proliferation of fake news and
conspiracy theories, which can have detrimental effects on society.

Privacy concerns are another challenge posed by the internet. With the
amount of personal information shared online, individuals are at risk of
identity theft and cyberattacks. Moreover, online harassment has become
a prevalent issue, with individuals facing cyberbullying, stalking, and other
forms of online abuse.3

In summary, the internet has had a transformative impact on

communication. It has broken down barriers of time and distance, enabled
instant global connectivity, and democratized access to information.
However, it also presents challenges such as the spread of misinformation,
privacy concerns, and online harassment. As society continues to navigate
the digital age, finding a balance between the benefits and risks of internet
communication is crucial. It has revolutionized communication by
providing global reach, speed, and accessibility while enabling
usergenerated content and diverse forms of media. However, it has also

3https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aequivic.in/amp/freedom-of-expression-in-
thedigitalageregulating-over-the-top-ott-platforms
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Impact-Of-The-Internet-On-Communication-F3J4M85YVJ
8
introduced challenges related to privacy, online behavior, and regulation,
shaping the way we communicate and interact in the digital age. 8

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Freedom of speech, a cornerstone of democratic societies, has deep
historical roots. Its origins can be traced to ancient civilizations,
particularly Athens and Rome, where democratic processes encouraged
open debates and the expression of diverse viewpoints. The
Enlightenment era further cemented the concept as philosophers like
John Locke and Voltaire argued for the protection of individual autonomy
and the right to express unpopular ideas. These principles found their
way into foundational documents such as the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man
9
and of the Citizen during the French Revolution. The international
community recognized freedom of speech as a universal human right in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This historical context
underscores the enduring significance of free speech as a safeguard
against authoritarianism and a driver of social progress.In the modern
era, freedom of speech is not only a philosophical ideal but also a legally
protected right. National constitutions and legal frameworks provide
varying degrees of protection for free expression, reflecting different
cultural and political contexts. International agreements, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)9, set global
standards and norms for the protection of freedom of speech. Court
decisions have played a pivotal role in shaping the boundaries and
interpretation of this right, addressing issues ranging from hate speech to
political dissent.
Contemporary debates surrounding freedom of speech are fueled by the
challenges posed by the digital age. The internet, with its global reach
and diverse communication platforms, has expanded the terrain where
free speech is exercised. However, it has also brought new complexities,
including the proliferation of hate speech, misinformation, and
disinformation. Social media platforms, as influential arbiters of online
discourse, face ongoing scrutiny for their content moderation practices
and their role in shaping public narratives. Privacy concerns intersect
with free speech, as data collection and surveillance raise questions
about the balance between national security and individual rights.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Cultural and political contexts significantly influence the interpretation
and application of freedom of speech. Different countries grapple with
their unique approaches to regulating speech in the digital realm.
Moreover, cultural sensitivities shape the boundaries of acceptable
discourse, making it essential to consider diverse perspectives on free
10
speech. As we navigate the digital age, it is increasingly important to
address emerging issues, such as the impact of artificial intelligence on
content moderation and the rise of deep fakes, which challenge the
traditional notions of free speech. Policy and regulatory solutions,
technological innovations, and cross-cultural dialogues are all essential
components of safeguarding the principles of free speech while adapting
to the complexities of the contemporary communication landscape. This
literature review provides a comprehensive understanding of the
historical, legal, and contemporary dimensions of freedom of speech,
emphasizing its critical role in democratic societies and the need to
navigate the evolving challenges it faces.

2.1. Historical Perspective on Media helds in society

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an

individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without
fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of
expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the
United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free
speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of
expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a
legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking,
receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium
used.

Article 19 of the UDHR10 states that “everyone shall have the right to hold
opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to
freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive,
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
11
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
media of his choice”. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR11 later amends
this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and
responsibilities” and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions”
when necessary or respect of the rights or reputation of others or the
protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public
health or morals”.
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as
being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of
speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition,
incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright
violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the
right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and
perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by
John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that “the only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”.
The Idea of the “offense principle” is also used to justify speech limitations,
describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to
society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the
speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[3] With the evolution of
the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more
controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for
example, the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government’s
Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from
foreign countries.
The Human Rights Measurement Initiative[4] measures the right to
opinion and expression for countries around the world, using a survey of
in-country human rights experts.

12
Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in
international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article
10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the
American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

13
Based on John Milton’s arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a
multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or
disseminate, information and ideas but three further distinct aspects:

1. The right to seek information and ideas;

2. The right to receive information and ideas;
3. The right to impart information and ideas

International, regional and national standards also recognise that freedom

of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, whether
orally, in writing, in print, through the internet or art forms. This means
that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes the content
and the means of expression.

Following are the key points for historical perspective of freedom of

expression -

• Ancient Origins: Explore the historical roots of freedom of

expression in ancient civilizations such as Athens and Rome, where
democratic processes fostered open debates and public discourse.
• Enlightenment Philosophers: Examine the contributions of
Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Voltaire, and John Stuart
Mill, who laid the philosophical foundations for freedom of
expression as a natural right.
• Founding Documents: Analyze the Inclusion of freedom of
expression in pivotal documents like the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and France’s Declaration of the Rights of
Man during the French Revolution.
• International Recognition: Discuss the recognition of freedom of
expression as a universal human right in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (1948).8

8
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/Politics/r466y9j288BIqEnOm9SWFL/Ashorthistor
y-of-Indian-freedom-of-speech.html%3ffacet=amp
2.2. Existing Legal Frameworks for development :

The legal framework governing free speech in the virtual world in India
primarily relies on the Information Technology Act, of 2000, and its

subsequent amendments. These laws aim to regulate digital platforms,

protect users’ rights, and address various challenges posed by online
communication. However, the broad and ambiguous provisions in these
laws have raised concerns regarding their potential misuse and the
potential chilling effect on free speech.

One of the key provisions under the Information Technology Act is

Section 66A4, which criminalized the sending of offensive or menacing
messages through communication services. However, this provision faced
significant criticism for its vague language and potential for misuse,
leading to its eventual removal by the Supreme Court of India in 2015.
The judgment highlighted the need for clarity and precision in defining
offences related to online speech to avoid a chilling effect on free
expression.

Another provision under the Information Technology Act that has

generated debate is Section 69A, which grants the government the power
to block or remove online content that is considered a threat to national
security, public order, or decency. While this provision allows for the
restriction of content in certain circumstances, there is a need for
transparent processes and safeguards to ensure that it is not used as a tool
for censorship or to stifle dissenting voices.
The lack of clarity and specificity In the legal framework poses challenges
in applying it to the virtual world effectively. The rapid pace of
technological advancements often outpaces the development of legal

4 Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc

frameworks, making it challenging to address emerging issues
adequately. Moreover, the global nature of the internet adds another

layer of complexity, as online content can easily cross borders and

jurisdictional boundaries.
The Interpretation and application of the existing legal framework by the
judiciary play a vital role in shaping the landscape of free speech in the
virtual world. The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in

interpreting the constitutional provisions related to free speech and

setting precedents for the protection of online expression. However,
consistent and uniform interpretation of these provisions is essential to
ensure clarity and predictability in the legal landscape.

One of the ongoing challenges is the balance between freedom of speech

and other constitutional values, such as public order, morality, and
national security. While free speech is a fundamental right, it is not
absolute, and the Constitution recognizes the need to impose reasonable
restrictions in certain circumstances. However, determining the limits of
these restrictions and striking a balance that respects both free speech
and other constitutional values is a delicate task. Moreover, the liability of
intermediaries, such as social media platforms, internet service providers,
and search engines, is a significant aspect of the legal framework.
Intermediaries play a crucial role in moderating content and regulating
user behaviour. However, the liability provisions in the Information
Technology Act can pose challenges and create a chilling effect on
intermediaries’ willingness to host and facilitate free expression. Balancing
the responsibility of intermediaries to combat illegal and harmful content
with the need to protect free speech is an ongoing challenge.

The Constitutional Framework of Free Speech in India -

The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, establishes a robust framework
for the protection of free speech and expression as a fundamental right.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the
right to freedom of speech and expression.1 This foundational principle
reflects the framers’ belief in the importance of open dialogue, public
discourse, and the free flow of information in a democratic society.

The constitutional recognition of free speech as a fundamental right

signifies its significance in shaping public opinion, holding those in power
accountable, and fostering a culture of democratic participation. The
framers of the Indian Constitution were mindful of the historical context
in which India gained independence, where freedom of speech and
expression had been curtailed under colonial rule. They sought to ensure
that the citizens of India would have the freedom to express their
thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of repression or censorship.

The constitutional protection of free speech In India extends not only to

spoken and written words but also to various forms of expression,
including artistic expression, political dissent, and the right to access
information. This expansive understanding of free speech reflects a
commitment to fostering a pluralistic society that embraces diversity and
encourages the free exchange of ideas. The Constitution recognizes that
the right to free speech is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable
restrictions. Article 19(2) outlines specific grounds on which the State can
impose restrictions on free speech, such as public order, decency, morality,
defamation, incitement to an offence, and the sovereignty and integrity of
India. These restrictions aim to strike a balance between protecting free
speech and maintaining social harmony, national security, and the rights
and reputations of others.

The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, plays a vital role in

interpreting and protecting the right to free speech in India. Over the
years, the Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark
judgments that have further clarified and strengthened the scope and
extent of free speech rights. These judgments have emphasized the
importance of free speech in a democratic society, recognizing it as a tool
for citizens to participate in governance, criticize the government, and
promote social change.

The constitutional framework of free speech In India provides a solid

foundation for the protection of this fundamental right in the virtual
world. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to ensure
that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are upheld and applied in
the context of online communication. Balancing the right to free speech
with other competing interests and challenges posed by the virtual world
requires continuous evaluation and adaptation of legal frameworks and
policies

The virtual world has revolutionized the way individuals exercise their right
to free speech and expression. With the advent of the internet and social
media platforms, people now have unprecedented opportunities to share
their thoughts, opinions, and ideas on a global scale. The virtual world
transcends physical boundaries and provides a platform for individuals to
engage in public discourse, connect with diverse communities, and
contribute to the formation of public opinion.

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have

emerged as powerful tools for self-expression and information sharing.
They allow individuals to express their views on a wide range of issues,
engage in discussions, and raise awareness about social, political, and
cultural matters. The virtual world empowers individuals who may not
have had access to traditional media channels to have their voices heard
and participate in shaping public discourse.

Moreover, the virtual world fosters a sense of community and

belongingness, connecting individuals with shared interests, values, and
goals. Online forums, discussion boards, and digital platforms provide
spaces for dialogue and the exchange of ideas, enabling individuals to
learn from each other, challenge prevailing norms, and broaden their
perspectives. The virtual world has become a catalyst for social and
political movements, allowing like-minded individuals to organize,
mobilize, and advocate for change.
However, the expanding boundaries of free speech in the virtual world also
present challenges. The ease of anonymity and the absence of facetoface
interactions can lead to the proliferation of hate speech, cyberbullying,
and the spread of misinformation. Individuals may misuse the platform to
engage in malicious activities, undermining the principles of free speech
and causing harm to others. Striking a balance between facilitating open
dialogue and mitigating these negative consequences is essential.

As the virtual world continues to evolve, it is crucial to establish guidelines

and norms that respect the principles of free speech while addressing the
challenges it presents. Platforms need to implement robust content
moderation policies to combat hate speech, harassment, and
disinformation, while also ensuring transparency and accountability in
their decision-making processes. Empowering users with tools to report
abusive behaviour, promoting digital literacy, and fostering a culture of
responsible online speech can contribute to a healthier and more inclusive
virtual environment.

The digital world has expanded the boundaries of free speech, enabling
Individuals to exercise their right to expression and participate in public
discourse on a global scale. However, with this expansion comes the
responsibility to address the challenges posed by hate speech,
cyberbullying, and misinformation. By promoting responsible online
behaviour and implementing effective content moderation strategies, we
can foster an inclusive virtual space that upholds the principles of free
speech while protecting the well-being of individuals and communities. 5

Challenges to Free Speech in the Virtual World

While the virtual world offers immense opportunities for free speech, it
also presents several challenges that need to be addressed. One of the
primary concerns is the proliferation of online hate speech and the spread

5https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aequivic.in/amp/freedom-of-expression-in-
thedigitalageregulating-over-the-top-ott-platforms
of misinformation. The ease of anonymity and the vast reach of the
internet can embolden individuals to engage in hate speech, targeting
specific individuals or groups based on their race, religion, gender, or other
characteristics. This not only poses a threat to the well-being of those
targeted but also undermines the principles of equality and inclusivity.

Furthermore, the spread of misinformation or “fake news” in the virtual

world has the potential to mislead and manipulate public opinion. The
viral nature of social media platforms and the rapid dissemination of
information make it challenging to distinguish between factual and false
content. This poses a significant risk to democratic processes, as
misinformation can shape public perceptions, influence elections, and
erode trust in institutions.

Another challenge in the virtual world is the phenomenon of online

harassment and cyberbullying. The relative anonymity provided by digital

platforms can encourage individuals to engage in abusive behaviour,

targeting others with threats, insults, or personal attacks. The
psychological and emotional impact of online harassment can be severe,
leading to self-censorship and silencing of marginalized voices.

Moreover, the virtual world also faces the challenge of algorithmic biases
and echo chambers. Algorithms used by social media platforms and search
engines often personalize content based on user preferences, leading to
the creation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. This can limit

exposure to diverse perspectives and hinder the healthy exchange of

ideas, reinforcing pre-existing beliefs and polarizing public discourse.

Balancing the need to combat hate speech, misinformation, and online

harassment with the principles of free speech is a complex task. While
regulation and content moderation are necessary to maintain a safe and
inclusive online environment, there is also a risk of overreach, leading to
censorship and stifling of legitimate expression. Striking the right balance
requires nuanced approaches that take into account the context, cultural
sensitivities, and the evolving nature of online communication.

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-stakeholder approach

involving platforms, governments, civil society organizations, and users
themselves. Platforms must invest in robust content moderation systems
that effectively identify and address hate speech, harassment, and
misinformation while ensuring transparency and accountability in their
processes. Governments should enact and enforce laws that strike a
balance between protecting free speech and addressing the harmful
consequences of online communication.

Digital literacy and media literacy programs are crucial in equipping

individuals with the skills to critically evaluate information, identify
misinformation, and engage in responsible online behaviour. Empowering
users to report abusive content and providing accessible mechanisms for
redressal can create a safer online space for free speech.

The virtual world presents challenges to free speech in the form of hate
speech, misinformation, online harassment, and algorithmic biases.
Addressing these challenges requires a balanced and collaborative
approach, ensuring that the principles of free speech are upheld while
protecting individuals from harm. By promoting digital literacy, fostering
responsible online behaviour, and implementing effective regulation, we
can create an inclusive and democratic virtual world that encourages free
speech and respects the dignity of all individuals.6

2.3. Challenges and Controversies in the current affair:

The internet age has ushered in a host of challenges and controversies that
span the digital landscape. Among these, perhaps the most pervasive

6https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aequivic.in/amp/freedom-of-expression-in-
thedigitalageregulating-over-the-top-ott-platforms
concern is online privacy. The constant collection and sometimes misuse
of personal data by tech giants and digital platforms have raised
fundamental questions about data protection, surveillance, and the extent
to which individuals can control their digital footprints. Concurrently, the
digital realm is besieged by cybersecurity threats, encompassing data
breaches, ransomware attacks, and cyberattacks on critical infrastructure,
necessitating continuous efforts to safeguard online systems. The
internet’s anonymous nature has also given rise to troubling issues such
as online harassment and cyberbullying, prompting discussions about
legal remedies, platform policies, and the boundaries of digital civility.

Moreover, the spread of hate speech, extremist ideologies, and

radicalization online poses a grave societal concern, requiring tech
companies and governments to navigate the fine line between free speech
and countering harmful content. The rapid dissemination of
misinformation and disinformation further complicates matters,
necessitating strategies for content moderation, fact-checking, and digital
literacy education. These challenges are inextricably linked to debates on
content moderation and potential censorship, which involve contentious
issues of transparency and algorithmic bias. Meanwhile, addressing the
digital divide remains essential to ensuring equitable participation in the

digital age, with access and digital literacy disparities persisting among
different socioeconomic groups. Additionally, concerns about tech
monopolies, online election interference, ethical AI deployment, online
addiction’s mental health impact, and the complex interplay between
digital rights and national security underscore the multifaceted nature of
navigating the internet age. Tackling these challenges and controversies
requires a collaborative and adaptable approach by policymakers, tech
industry leaders, and society as a whole to harness the potential of the
internet while mitigating its associated risks and ethical dilemmas.

1. Online Privacy: The internet has raised significant concerns about

individual privacy. The collection, use, and sometimes misuse of
personal data by tech companies, social media platforms, and other
 online entities have led to debates about data protection,
surveillance, and the need for comprehensive privacy regulations.
2. Cybersecurity Threats: The internet is rife with cybersecurity
challenges, including data breaches, ransomware attacks, and
cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Ensuring the security of
online systems and protecting against cyber threats is an ongoing
battle.
3. Online Harassment and Cyberbullying: The anonymity provided by
the internet has led to an increase in online harassment and
cyberbullying. These issues can have severe emotional and
psychological effects on victims, prompting discussions about legal
measures, platform policies, and digital etiquette.
4. Hate Speech and Extremism: The internet has facilitated the spread
of hate speech, extremist ideologies, and radicalization. Social
media platforms and online communities grapple with the balance
between free speech and the need to combat harmful content.
5. Misinformation and Disinformation: The rapid dissemination of
false or misleading information online poses a significant challenge.
Efforts to combat misinformation while preserving freedom of
speech have led to debates about content moderation,
factchecking, and media literacy.
6. Content Moderation and Censorship: Online platforms face
dilemmas regarding content moderation. Decisions about what
content to remove or restrict have sparked controversies about
censorship, transparency, and bias in algorithmic systems.
7. Digital Divide: Despite the internet’s widespread use, the digital
divide persists, with disparities in internet access and digital literacy
among different socioeconomic groups. Bridging this divide is
critical for ensuring equitable participation in the digital age.
8. Tech Monopolies and Antitrust Issues: A few tech giants dominate
the internet landscape, leading to concerns about monopolistic
behavior and antitrust violations. Calls for increased regulation and
competition in the tech industry have grown.
 9. Online Election Interference: The internet has become a
battleground for election interference, including disinformation
campaigns and cyberattacks targeting electoral systems.
Safeguarding the integrity of elections in the digital age is a pressing
concern.
10. Ethical AI and Automation: The deployment of artificial intelligence
and automation in various sectors raises ethical questions, including
concerns about job displacement, bias in algorithms, and the need
for responsible AI development.
11. Online Addiction and Mental Health: Excessive internet use,
particularly on social media, has raised concerns about addiction
and its impact on mental health. Research and debates center on
the psychological effects of constant online engagement.
12. Digital Rights and Freedoms: The balance between protecting
digital rights and freedoms and addressing the challenges posed by
the internet age remains a central controversy. Navigating issues like
government surveillance, encryption, and digital sovereignty
requires careful consideration of individual liberties and national
security.
These challenges and controversies highlight the complexities of
navigating the internet age. Policymakers, tech companies, and society as
a whole must grapple with these issues to ensure that the internet remains
a force for positive change while addressing the concerns and risks it
presents.

The legal framework governing free speech in the virtual world in India
primarily relies on the Information Technology Act, of 2000, and its
subsequent amendments. These laws aim to regulate digital platforms,
protect users’ rights, and address various challenges posed by online
communication. However, the broad and ambiguous provisions in these
laws have raised concerns regarding their potential misuse and the
potential chilling effect on free speech.

One of the key provisions under the Information Technology Act is Section
66A, which criminalized the sending of offensive or menacing messages
through communication services. However, this provision faced significant
criticism for its vague language and potential for misuse, leading to its
eventual removal by the Supreme Court of India in 2015. The judgment
highlighted the need for clarity and precision in defining offences related
to online speech to avoid a chilling effect on free expression.

Another provision under the Information Technology Act that has

generated debate is Section 69A, which grants the government the power
to block or remove online content that is considered a threat to national
security, public order, or decency. While this provision allows for the
restriction of content in certain circumstances, there is a need for
transparent processes and safeguards to ensure that it is not used as a tool
for censorship or to stifle dissenting voices.

The lack of clarity and specificity In the legal framework poses challenges
in applying it to the virtual world effectively. The rapid pace of
technological advancements often outpaces the development of legal
frameworks, making it challenging to address emerging issues
adequately. Moreover, the global nature of the internet adds another
layer of complexity, as online content can easily cross borders and
jurisdictional boundaries.

The Interpretation and application of the existing legal framework by the

judiciary play a vital role in shaping the landscape of free speech in the
virtual world. The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in
interpreting the constitutional provisions related to free speech and
setting precedents for the protection of online expression. However,
consistent and uniform interpretation of these provisions is essential to
ensure clarity and predictability in the legal landscape.

One of the ongoing challenges is the balance between freedom of speech

and other constitutional values, such as public order, morality, and
national security. While free speech is a fundamental right, it is not
absolute, and the Constitution recognizes the need to impose reasonable
restrictions in certain circumstances. However, determining the limits of
these restrictions and striking a balance that respects both free speech
and other constitutional values is a delicate task. Moreover, the liability of
intermediaries, such as social media platforms, internet service providers,
and search engines, is a significant aspect of the legal framework.

Intermediaries play a crucial role in moderating content and regulating

user behaviour. However, the liability provisions in the Information
Technology Act can pose challenges and create a chilling effect on
intermediaries’ willingness to host and facilitate free expression. Balancing
the responsibility of intermediaries to combat illegal and harmful content
with the need to protect free speech is an ongoing challenge.

The legal framework governing free speech in the virtual world in India
faces challenges stemming from the broad and ambiguous provisions of
the Information Technology Act. Ensuring clarity, precision, and
consistency in the interpretation and application of these laws is crucial.
Striking a balance between freedom of speech and other constitutional
values and addressing the liability of intermediaries requires ongoing
dialogue, legislative reforms, and engagement with relevant stakeholders.
A robust and well-defined legal framework is essential to protect and
promote free speech in the virtual world while upholding democratic
principles and safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals.

• National Constitutions and Laws: Review the legal protections and

limitations on freedom of expression in various countries,
highlighting how these legal frameworks have adapted to the digital
age.
• International Agreements: Explore international agreements,
conventions, and treaties that address online speech, such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
• Case Law: Analyze key legal cases and decisions related to online
speech, including landmark rulings that have shaped the legal
landscape for internet-related freedom of expression issues.
• Role of Internet Intermediaries: Discuss the evolving responsibilities
and legal obligations of internet intermediaries, such as social
 media platforms, in moderating content and safeguarding free
speech.
• Online Hate Speech: Examine the proliferation of hate speech on
the internet and the challenges in defining and regulating such
content while respecting free speech rights.
• Misinformation and Disinformation: Investigate the spread of
misinformation and disinformation online, its impact on public
discourse, and efforts to combat false information.
• Cyberbullying and Online Harassment: Discuss the prevalence of
cyberbullying and online harassment, the psychological effects on
victims, and legal responses to these issues.Content Moderation
and Platform Policies: Explore controversies surrounding content
moderation on social media platforms, including debates about
censorship, algorithmic bias, and transparency.
• Privacy Concerns: Analyze the privacy implications of online
communication and the trade-offs between free expression and
data protection.7

This literature review will provide a comprehensive foundation for your

dissertation, allowing you to delve deeper into each of these aspects and
explore how they intersect and shape the landscape of freedom of
expression in the internet age. This has ushered in an era of
unprecedented connectivity and technological advancement, but it has
also brought forth a myriad of challenges and controversies. One of the
most pressing concerns revolves around online privacy, as individuals
grapple with the constant collection and potential misuse of their personal
data by tech giants and digital platforms. This issue has spurred discussions
about data protection, surveillance, and the boundaries of digital
surveillance. Simultaneously, the digital landscape is under

7https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aequivic.in/amp/freedom-of-expression-in-
thedigitalageregulating-over-the-top-ott-platforms
constant siege from cybersecurity threats, encompassing data breaches,
ransomware attacks, and cyberattacks on critical infrastructure,
necessitating ongoing efforts to fortify digital defenses. The anonymity
afforded by the internet has given rise to issues like online harassment and
cyberbullying, raising questions about legal remedies, platform policies,
and the need to establish norms of digital civility. Moreover, the internet
has become a breeding ground for the dissemination of hate speech,
extremist ideologies, and the radicalization of individuals, posing
significant societal challenges that require a delicate balance between
preserving free speech and countering harmful content. Misinformation
and disinformation, spread rapidly online, have compounded these
problems, driving the need for content moderation, fact-checking, and a
concerted focus on digital literacy. These debates invariably lead to
discussions about the boundaries of content moderation and potential
censorship, featuring contentious issues of transparency and algorithmic
bias. Meanwhile, addressing the digital divide remains essential to
ensuring equitable participation in the digital age, with disparities in

access and digital literacy persisting among different socioeconomic

groups. The rise of tech monopolies, concerns over online election
interference, ethical considerations in deploying AI, the mental health
impact of online addiction, and the complex interplay between digital
rights and national security further underline the multifaceted nature of

navigating the internet age. Successfully addressing these challenges and

controversies necessitates a collaborative, adaptable, and forwardthinking
approach by policymakers, tech industry leaders, and society at large to
harness the transformative potential of the internet while effectively
mitigating its associated risks and ethical dilemmas. The internet age has
ushered in an era of unparalleled connectivity and technological
innovation, yet it has also unfurled a tapestry of intricate challenges and
controversies. Foremost among these is the quagmire of online privacy,
with individuals grappling with the relentless collection and potential
misuse of their personal data by tech conglomerates and digital platforms.
This issue has sparked extensive discourse about data protection,
surveillance, and the limits of digital privacy. In tandem, the digital realm
faces ceaseless assaults from cybersecurity threats, including data
breaches, ransomware attacks, and cyber assaults on critical
infrastructure, necessitating an unending quest to bolster digital defenses.
The cloak of anonymity bestowed by the internet has precipitated vexing
problems such as online harassment and cyberbullying, prompting
introspection on legal remedies, platform regulations, and the imperative
to foster a culture of digital civility. Furthermore, the internet has become
an arena for the propagation of hate speech, extremist ideologies, and the
radicalization of individuals, eliciting profound societal concerns that call
for a precarious balance between safeguarding free speech and curbing
harmful content. Misinformation and disinformation, disseminated at
breakneck speed, have exacerbated these quandaries, necessitating
content moderation, fact-checking, and a concerted effort to enhance
digital literacy. These disputes inevitably lead to deliberations concerning
the bounds of content moderation and potential censorship, fraught with
contentious issues like transparency and algorithmic biases. Meanwhile,
bridging the digital divide remains indispensable for ensuring equitable
participation in the digital age, given that disparities in access and digital
literacy persist among diverse socioeconomic groups. The ascent of tech
monopolies, apprehensions regarding online election interference, ethical
quandaries concerning AI deployment, the psychological toll of online
addiction, and the intricate interplay between digital rights and national
security collectively underscore the multifaceted nature of navigating the
internet age. Effectively addressing these intricate challenges and
controversies necessitates a collaborative, adaptable, and forwardthinking
approach by policymakers, tech industry leaders, and society at large to
harness the transformative potential of the internet while adeptly
mitigating its inherent risks and ethical dilemmas.

While bringing unprecedented connectivity and technological

advancement, it has ushered in a complex web of challenges and
controversies. Foremost among these is the relentless issue of online
privacy, as individuals grapple with the constant collection and potential
misuse of their personal data by tech giants and digital platforms. This has
ignited debates surrounding data protection, surveillance, and the scope
of digital privacy. Simultaneously, the digital landscape faces ceaseless
assaults from cybersecurity threats, spanning data breaches, ransomware
attacks, and cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, necessitating constant
vigilance and innovation in cybersecurity measures. The cloak of
anonymity conferred by the internet has given rise to vexing issues such
as online harassment and cyberbullying, prompting discussions about
legal remedies, platform policies, and the urgent need to foster a culture
of digital respect and responsibility. Moreover, the internet has become a
breeding ground for the dissemination of hate speech, extremist
ideologies, and the radicalization of individuals, posing significant societal
challenges that demand a delicate balance between preserving free
speech and countering harmful content. Misinformation and
disinformation, spread at lightning speed online, have further
compounded these dilemmas, prompting the need for robust content
moderation, fact-checking mechanisms, and a concerted focus on digital
literacy. These debates inevitably raise questions about the boundaries of
content moderation and potential censorship, entangled in contentious
issues like transparency and algorithmic biases. Bridging the digital divide
remains a paramount concern to ensure equitable participation in the
digital age, as disparities in access and digital literacy persist among
diverse socioeconomic groups. The rise of tech monopolies, concerns over
online election interference, ethical considerations in deploying AI, the
psychological impact of online addiction, and the intricate interplay
between digital rights and national security all underline the multifaceted
nature of navigating the internet age. Effectively addressing these
challenges and controversies necessitates a collaborative, adaptable, and
forward-thinking approach by policymakers, tech industry leaders, and
society as a whole to harness the transformative potential of the internet
while adeptly mitigating its associated risks and ethical quandaries. 8

8https://legaldesire.com/defamation-in-the-digital-age-balancing-free-speech-
andonlinereputationprotection-in-india/
CHAPTER 3 : ROLE OF MEDIA IN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
 3.1 : Social Media and it’s role in online discourse

Social media has profoundly transformed the landscape of online

discourse. Its impact is pervasive, providing a platform for individuals and
communities to engage in discussions, share information, and amplify
their voices on a global scale. It democratizes communication, allowing
anyone with an internet connection to participate in conversations that
transcend traditional media gatekeepers. Real-time interaction on social
media enables immediate responses to news and events, making it a vital
tool for discussing current affairs, crisis communication, and social
activism. These platforms serve as powerful conduits for the swift
dissemination of news, information, and content, often shaping public
perception and contributing to the virality of specific topics. However,
social media also grapples with challenges such as filter bubbles and echo
chambers, where users may be exposed primarily to content that
reinforces their existing beliefs. Additionally, algorithms curate users’
feeds, potentially limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints. Combatting
disinformation and misinformation on social media is an ongoing concern,
and content moderation decisions made by platforms can be contentious.
Despite these challenges, social media remains a driving force in online
discourse, both empowering and challenging the way individuals and
societies communicate and engage with information.9

It has emerged as a powerful tool for shaping public opinion and political
discourse in recent years. With the rise of platforms such as Twitter,
Facebook, and Instagram, individuals have gained an unprecedented
ability to express their opinions and engage with others on a global scale.
While social media has had many positive effects on society, it has also had
a significant impact on political discourse and public opinion.

9https://martech360.com/social-media-technology/social-media-monitoring/the-role-
ofsocialmediain-shaping-public-discourse/
One of the most significant ways in which social media has impacted
political discourse is by democratizing the conversation. In the past,

political discourse was primarily controlled by traditional media outlets

such as newspapers and television networks. However, social media has

given everyday citizens a platform to share their opinions and engage in

discussions about politics. This has led to a more diverse range of voices
being heard in the political arena, and has helped to create a more
inclusive public discourse.

Social media has also played a role in shaping public opinion on political
issues. Because social media allows individuals to share information and
opinions quickly and easily, it has become a powerful tool for influencing
how people think about political issues. For example, during the 2016 US
presidential election, social media played a significant role in shaping
public opinion about the candidates and their policies. Social media
allowed individuals to share news articles, videos, and other content about
the candidates, which in turn influenced how people viewed them. It has
also had a significant impact on the way political campaigns are run. In the
past, political campaigns primarily relied on television ads and other forms
of traditional media to reach voters. However, social media has changed
the game by allowing campaigns to reach voters directly through platforms
such as Facebook and Twitter. This has made it easier for campaigns to
target specific demographics and tailor their messaging to different groups
of voters. However, social media has also had some negative effects on
political discourse and public opinion. One of the biggest concerns is the
spread of misinformation and fake news. Because social media allows
anyone to share information, it can be difficult to distinguish between
reliable sources and unreliable sources. This has led to the spread of
conspiracy theories and other false information, which can have a
significant impact on public opinion. Another concern is the role of social
media in creating echo chambers. Because individuals can curate their
own news feeds and social circles on social media, it is easy for them to
only be exposed to information and opinions that align with their own
views. This can lead to a polarized political discourse and can make it
difficult for individuals to engage in meaningful discussions with those
who hold different viewpoints.

While it has had many positive effects, such as democratizing the

conversation and allowing for more diverse voices to be heard, it has also
had some negative effects, such as the spread of misinformation and the
creation of echo chambers. As social media continues to evolve, it is
important for individuals, politicians, and society as a whole to consider
the impact it has on our political discourse and to work to address any
negative effects.10

Here are key aspects of social media’s role in online discourse:

1. Amplification of Voices: Social media platforms have democratized
communication, allowing individuals and groups to amplify their
voices and share their perspectives with a wide audience. This
empowerment has led to a diverse range of voices participating in
online discourse, transcending traditional media gatekeepers.
2. Real-Time Interaction: Social media enables real-time interaction,
fostering immediate responses to events and news. This feature has
made it a powerful tool for discussing current events, crisis
communication, and social activism.
3. Information Dissemination: Social media platforms serve as
conduits for the rapid dissemination of news, information, and
content. Users can share articles, videos, and infographics, often
contributing to the virality of certain topics and shaping public
perception.
4. Algorithmic Influence: Algorithms on social media platforms curate
users' feeds based on their preferences and interactions. This can

10 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/role-social-media-shaping-public-opinion-political-discourse-birla
 result in users being exposed to content that reinforces their
existing views, further exacerbating filter bubbles.
5. Disinformation and Misinformation: Social media is a fertile ground
for the spread of disinformation (false information spread
intentionally) and misinformation (false information spread
unintentionally). This challenges the accuracy of online discourse
and has led to efforts to combat fake news.

6. Online Activism and Mobilization: Social media has played a pivotal

role in facilitating online activism and mobilization efforts.
Movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo gained momentum
through social media, allowing individuals to connect, organize, and
advocate for change.
7. Online Harassment and Toxicity: Social media is not immune to
online harassment, cyberbullying, and toxic behavior. These issues

can stifle constructive discourse, silencing marginalized voices and

driving some users away from participating in online discussions.

8. Content Moderation: Social media platforms face challenges in

content moderation, balancing free speech with the removal of
harmful content, including hate speech and incitement to violence.
Decisions made by platforms about what content to remove or
restrict can be contentious.
9. Privacy Concerns: Privacy concerns arise as social media platforms
collect and utilize user data for targeted advertising and content
recommendations. This raises questions about the trade-off
between personalization and data protection

In summary, social media is a double-edged sword in online discourse. It

empowers individuals and enables global conversations, but it also
presents challenges related to polarization, misinformation, online
harassment, and content moderation. Balancing the benefits and pitfalls
of social media’s role in online discourse remains a complex and ongoing
endeavor for individuals, platforms, and policymakers alike.

3.2 : The risk of online activism and citizen journalism

Online activism and citizen journalism have emerged as powerful tools for
grassroots movements and independent reporting, but they come with
inherent risks. One of the foremost concerns is the potential for
misinformation and disinformation to spread rapidly through these
channels. Individuals engaged in these activities may inadvertently or
deliberately share inaccurate or misleading information, which can erode
trust and undermine the credibility of their causes. Verification of
information can be challenging, particularly for citizen journalists who lack
the training and resources of traditional journalists. Additionally, online
activists and citizen journalists can face threats to their personal safety,
including harassment and cyberattacks from those who oppose their
views. Legal consequences are also a concern, as activities that run afoul
of local laws can result in legal actions. Ethical dilemmas arise when
determining what and how to report, as striking a balance between the
public’s right to know and considerations like privacy and avoiding harm
can be complex. Furthermore, engagement in online activism and citizen
journalism can amplify existing polarization, expose individuals to
manipulation by external actors, and lead to digital exhaustion. Despite
these risks, these forms of activism and reporting continue to play crucial
roles in promoting transparency, accountability, and social change in the
digital age, calling for a cautious and responsible approach by those
involved.

While instrumental in amplifying marginalized voices and holding power

structures accountable, it carry inherent risks that warrant thoughtful
consideration. Chief among these concerns is the rapid spread of
misinformation and disinformation through these channels. Individuals
involved may unwittingly or deliberately share inaccurate or misleading
information, which can erode trust and compromise the credibility of their
causes. Verification becomes a complex challenge, especially for citizen
journalists lacking the resources and training of traditional media outlets.
Additionally, online activists and citizen journalists often find themselves
exposed to personal safety threats, including harassment and cyberattacks
from adversaries. Legal consequences pose another significant risk, as
activities that conflict with local laws can lead to legal repercussions.
Ethical dilemmas emerge when determining what to report and how, with
the delicate task of balancing the public’s right to information with
considerations like privacy and harm avoidance. Furthermore,
engagement in online activism and citizen journalism may inadvertently
amplify existing polarization, render individuals vulnerable to
manipulation by external actors, and induce digital exhaustion. Despite
these risks, these forms of advocacy and reporting continue to be vital
drivers of transparency, accountability, and social change in the digital age,
demanding a cautious and ethical approach by all participants.

Citizen journalism began in 1963 when Abraham Zapruder documented

the assassination of the then United States President, John F. Kennedy,
with his Bell & Howell camera at a time android phones or the Internet
were non-existent. Citizen journalism is also known as Public or
Participatory or Democratic journalism; Guerilla journalism and Street
journalism, respectively.

Many scholars have advanced several definitions of citizen journalism and

prominent among them is a Nigerian communication expert and
renowned scholar, Professor Desmond Onyemechi Okocha. He defines
citizen journalism as an emerging genre of journalism in which content is
user-generated, user unedited, uncensored, and comes real time. It is a
practice whereby people, without any form of training in journalism, take
advantage of modern technological communication tools to collect and
report breaking news accompanied by live pictures and images to a hungry
audience, faster than the traditional or mainstream media.

According to Prof. Okocha, advancement in technology has made citizen

journalism to attain greater heights in practice and spread. It has changed
event witnesses into reporters; passive media audiences have become
unstoppable media actors using websites and the social media, such as
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, Tiktok, blogs etc.
Today, citizen journalism has made in-roads in Nigeria. According to the
National Bureau of Statistics, the number of smartphone subscribers and
users worldwide stands at over 7.26 billion in 2022/2023, representing 69
per cent of the global population. Of the number, 170 million are
Nigerians. This shows that Nigerians are active users of mobile phones and
therefore constitute a large number of citizen journalists.

Many examples abound at home and abroad on citizen journalism as a tool

for various purposes, including information sharing during risk/crisis
events, increasing involvement in social mobilisation for social action and
political campaigns to mention a few.

Citizen journalism social mobilisation activities in Nigeria are the 2012

“Occupy Nigeria Movement” against the removal of fuel subsidy, the 2020
#EndSARS protests against police brutality and the alleged Lekki Toll Gate
shooting of the unarmed protesters by the Nigerian Army which live video
stream by the female Disc Jockey (DJ Switch) exposed. It was the same
video that the CNN later used to conduct a further analysis on the issue.
The protest received widespread international support and media
coverage.

In addition, during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, the only access to

information by most Nigerians was the social media platforms because
most people had no access to the information published in the
mainstream media due to the limitation of movement.

In other climes for example, citizen journalism was at its best with the live
streaming on Facebook by Diamond Reynolds of the shooting of her
boyfriend, Castilo by the Minneapolis Police in the United States in 2016,
the US “Black Lives Matter” Movement of 2013, the Arab Spring
Movement of 2010/2011, the 2009 Iranian Green Movement etc.

Hitherto, journalism practice had been squarely made the preserve of

professionals in the field; those who have been trained and are qualified
practitioners paid to engage in this legitimate practice. Journalism has
cannons of professional practice which include accuracy, balance,
objectivity, credibility, truthfulness etc.; it has a code of ethics which
regulates the conduct of practitioners in the execution of their duties, and
regulatory authorities such as the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation
(NBC) and the Nigerian Press Council (NPC).

However, the trust reposed in the mainstream media and the journalism
profession became fragile and on the downward spiral long before the
advent of citizen journalism. The deficiency of having reporters
everywhere events occur causes a lack of speed in information delivery of
unfolding events. Traditional journalists are alleged to have openly
displayed political, economic, religious and ethnic biases.

The ownership and control of the mainstream media by governments,

dictatorial systems and a privileged few also exposed them to undue
manipulation, and hampered their effective performance. Hence, citizen
journalism became a response to the people’s dissatisfaction with them.
All the above and more birthed the unprecedented rise of citizen
journalism as an alternative form of news gathering and sharing.

The dynamics of citizen journalism”notwithstanding, the practice comes

with its dangers and challenges. Some of these include cases arising from
disinformation, misinformation, mal-information and fake news.

Disinformation is information that is false, and the person who is

disseminating it knows it is false. It is a deliberate, intentional lie that
points to people being actively disinformed by malicious actors. An
example is the news that the late Chief of Staff of President Buhari, Abba
Kyari, died of coronavirus.

Misinformation is information that is false but the person who is

disseminating it believes that it is true. One of such is the news in 2014
that Ebola could be prevented by drinking and bathing with salt water, a
move which hospitalised and claimed a number of lives across the country.
Mal-information is information that is based on reality but is exaggerated
and used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country. An example
was the news that the long absences of President Buhari due to ill health
had resulted in death, and had been replaced by a Sudanese double.

Fake news is information that has been deliberately fabricated and

disseminated with the intent to deceive and mislead others into believing
falsehoods. The picture attached to the story by AIT on Facebook about
the Nigerian driver who conveyed the Italian that tested positive of the
COVID-19 virus from the airport to his hotel was of someone else.

To stem the tide of this unfortunate trend, the Nigerian government

banned Twitter for over six months for fear that social mobilisation like the
#EndSARS and the Igbo Youth Movement were capable of undermining
the corporate existence of the country. Government has also pushed to
regulate social media through the proposed National Broadcasting
Commission (NBC) Act Amendment Bill. More legislations being
considered include a Data Protection Bill, a bill expanding criminal
penalties for online speech and one that extends the NBC’s mandate to
online content hosts.

Other measures to check the activities of citizen journalism should include

increased media literacy and sensitisation strategies for the public through
adverts, jingles, flyers, and posters on print, TV, radio and social media.
Citizens should check the source and integrity of information received
before sharing. Media literacy should be part of the regular curriculum in
primary, secondary and tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Carriers of
disinformation, misinformation, mal-information and fake news should be
sanctioned by government/relevant agencies or face litigation to serve as
a deterrent to others.

Finally, the mainstream media should engage in self-examination to

discover and fill in the gaps it created which must have given rise to the
emergence of citizen journalism or lose their power of social mobilisation.
20
Online activism and citizen journalism have emerged as powerful tools for
civic engagement and information dissemination, but they also carry
inherent risks. Here are some of the potential risks associated with these
activities:
1. Misinformationation: Online platforms can be breeding grounds for
the spread of misinformation (false information spread
unintentionally) and disinformation (false information spread
intentionally). Activists and citizen journalists may inadvertently or
deliberately share inaccurate or misleading content, which can
damage credibility and undermine the trustworthiness of their
causes.
2. Lack of Verification: Citizen journalists often lack the training and
resources of professional journalists, making it challenging to verify
the accuracy of information. Rushing to report unverified or
incomplete details can lead to the dissemination of false or
sensationalized stories.
3. Security and Safety: Engaging in online activism or reporting on
contentious issues can expose individuals to harassment, threats, or
cyberattacks. Activists and citizen journalists may become targets
for those who oppose their views, compromising their personal
safety.
4. Legal Consequences: Some jurisdictions have stringent laws
governing online activities, which can lead to legal repercussions for
online activists and citizen journalists. Posting content that is
perceived as defamatory, seditious, or in violation of copyright laws
can result in legal actions.
5. Ethical Dilemmas: Decisions about what to report and how to report
it raise ethical dilemmas. Balancing the public’s right to know with
privacy considerations, avoiding harm, and maintaining objectivity
can be challenging for citizen journalists.
6. Amplification of Polarization: Online activism and citizen journalism
can inadvertently amplify existing divisions and polarization. When
individuals selectively share and engage with information that
20 https://dailytrust.com/dynamics-and-dangers-of-citizen-
journalismindigitalera/#:~:text=The%20dynamics%20of%20citizen%20journalism,it%20knows%20it%2
0is%20fals
e.aligns with their views, it can reinforce ideological bubbles and hinder
constructive dialogue.
7. Manipulation by External Actors: Activist movements and citizen
journalists may be susceptible to manipulation by external actors,
including governments, political groups, or corporate interests, who
may seek to influence narratives or exploit online movements for
their own agendas.
8. Digital Exhaustion: The constant exposure to distressing or
emotionally charged content, whether as an activist or a journalist,
can lead to digital exhaustion and emotional burnout.
9. Credibility Challenges: Building and maintaining credibility as a
citizen journalist can be difficult. Skepticism from audiences and
mainstream media outlets may hinder the impact and reach of their
reporting.
10. Dependency on Tech Platforms: Online activism and citizen
journalism often rely on tech platforms and social media. These
platforms can change their algorithms or policies, impacting the
visibility of content and the reach of activists and journalists.

Despite these risks, online activism and citizen journalism have played
crucial roles in raising awareness, advocating for social change, and
providing alternative perspectives in the digital age. Acknowledging these
risks and taking steps to mitigate them, such as fact-checking, safeguarding
personal information, and adhering to ethical guidelines, can help
individuals navigate these activities more effectively and responsibly.11

3.3 : The role of Anonymity and Pseudonymity

Anonymity and pseudonymity play crucial roles in the digital landscape,

each offering a unique blend of advantages and challenges. Anonymity, by

11 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/opinion/politics/the-dangers-of-digital-activism.html
allowing individuals to interact online without revealing their true
identities, safeguards privacy, promotes open discourse, and offers
protection for whistleblowers and vulnerable groups. However, it can also
be misused for malicious activities, erode trust, and raise legal and ethical
concerns. Pseudonymity, on the other hand, strikes a balance between
identity and privacy. It enables individuals to establish consistent online

personas while maintaining some level of accountability. Pseudonymous

users can positively contribute to online communities, express creativity,
and shield themselves from personal harassment. Nonetheless, it too can
be abused for deceptive or harmful purposes, posing verification
challenges and vulnerabilities to doxing. Achieving a balance between
these tools is a complex endeavor, one that requires responsible online

conduct, thoughtful community norms, and, at times, regulatory measures

to mitigate misuse and protect individuals' rights and safety in the digital
age.

Anonymity refers to the state of being anonymous or unidentified,

particularly in the context of online or offline interactions. When someone
is anonymous, their true identity is concealed, and they are often
represented or referred to by a pseudonym, username, or other means
that does not reveal their real name or personal information. Anonymity
allows individuals to engage in activities, discussions, or transactions
without disclosing who they are, providing a level of privacy and
protection from being personally identified. Anonymity can be both

intentional, where someone actively conceals their identity, or

unintentional, where someone’s identity is unknown due to
circumstances or technological factors. It plays a significant role in various
aspects of life, from online interactions and activism to privacy protection
and whistleblowing. However, it also raises ethical and legal
considerations, as anonymity can be used for both constructive and
potentially harmful purposes.
Pseudonymity refers to the practice of using a fictitious name or alias in
place of one’s real name when engaging in various activities, especially
online or in written works. In a pseudonymous identity, individuals adopt
a recognizable but not necessarily true name to represent themselves
while keeping their actual identity concealed. Unlike complete anonymity,
where a person’s identity is entirely hidden, pseudonymity involves the
use of a consistent and often recognizable persona, username, or
pseudonym, allowing others to interact with and recognize the individual
under that chosen name.

Pseudonymity serves several purposes. It can protect an individual’s

privacy by preventing the direct association of their real name with their
online activities or writings. It also enables individuals to maintain a
consistent online presence while maintaining a level of separation
between their online and offline lives. Pseudonymous identities are
commonly used in various online communities, social media platforms,
and creative outlets.

However, it’s important to note that while pseudonymity provides a

degree of privacy, it does not guarantee complete anonymity, as
individuals can potentially be identified or linked to their real identities
through various means, including IP addresses, behavior patterns, or data
breaches.

Anonymity and pseudonymity serve pivotal roles in the digital realm,

offering individuals a delicate balance between privacy and accountability.
Anonymity, allowing users to engage online without disclosing their true
identities, serves as a shield for privacy-conscious individuals,
whistleblowers, and those in need of protection. It can foster more candid
discourse and nurture freedom of expression. However, anonymity’s
downside lies in its potential for misuse, as it can enable malicious
behavior, undermine accountability, and challenge trust within online
communities.
Pseudonymity, on the other hand, permits users to create online personas
distinct from their real identities. This middle ground allows for some level
of consistency and accountability in digital interactions while safeguarding
personal privacy. Pseudonymous identities can be positive contributors to
online communities, fostering creative expression and protecting against
personal harassment. Nevertheless, they are not immune to misuse, and
the challenge often lies in verifying the credibility and intentions of
pseudonymous users.

Ultimately, both anonymity and pseudonymity have their merits and

demerits, and their roles reflect the evolving dynamics of online
interactions. Striking the right balance between these tools necessitates
responsible conduct, community guidelines, and, in certain cases,
regulatory measures to preserve individual rights, encourage constructive
discourse, and mitigate the risks associated with online engagement in the
modern age.

Both play distinct but interconnected roles in the digital world, each with
its advantages and drawbacks:

Anonymity:
1. Protection of Privacy: Anonymity allows individuals to communicate
and engage online without revealing their true identities, safeguarding
their privacy.
2. Whistleblowing: It provides protection for whistleblowers who may
need to expose wrongdoing or share sensitive information without fear of
retaliation.
3. Freedom of Expression: Anonymity can encourage more open and
honest discourse, as individuals may feel less inhibited by social or
professional consequences.
4. Safety for Vulnerable Groups: It offers a level of safety for individuals
facing harassment, stalking, or persecution, enabling them to participate
in online discussions without revealing their identity.

Drawbacks of Anonymity:
1. Misuse: Anonymity can be abused for malicious purposes, such as
cyberbullying, trolling, or spreading false information.
2. Accountability: The lack of accountability may result in online spaces
becoming toxic, as individuals are less likely to face consequences for their
actions.
3. Erosion of Trust: Anonymity can erode trust in online interactions,
as it becomes challenging to verify the authenticity and intentions of
anonymous users.
4. Legal and Ethical Concerns: Some actions conducted under the veil
of anonymity may infringe on legal and ethical boundaries, making it
difficult to address illegal activities.

Pseudonymity:
1. Balancing Identity and Privacy: Pseudonymity allows individuals to
use online identities (pseudonyms) that are distinct from their real
identities, striking a balance between privacy and accountability.
2. Community Building: Pseudonymous users can build a consistent
online presence, contributing positively to online communities and
discussions. 3. Protection from Harassment: Pseudonyms can shield users
from personal harassment while still maintaining a level of accountability
within a particular online space.
4. Creative Expression: It offers a platform for creative expression and
online personas, enabling individuals to explore different facets of their
personalities.

Drawbacks of Pseudonymity:
1. Potential for Deception: Pseudonymous users can still engage in
deceptive or harmful behavior, as their true identities remain hidden.
2. Trolls and Harassment: Some individuals may misuse pseudonyms
for trolling or harassing others, relying on the relative anonymity it
provides.
3. Verification Challenges: It can be challenging to verify the credibility
and authenticity of pseudonymous users, particularly in situations where
trust is crucial.
4. Vulnerability to Doxing: Pseudonymous identities can be linked to
real identities through doxing (revealing private information), which poses
risks to individuals’ privacy and safety.

In summary, anonymity and pseudonymity offer individuals varying

degrees of privacy and accountability in the digital realm. These tools can
empower individuals to engage, express themselves, and protect their
privacy, but they also pose challenges related to misuse, accountability,
and trust within online communities. Balancing these factors requires
thoughtful consideration and responsible online conduct.22

22https://www.google.com/search?q=the+risk+of+anonymity+and+pseudonymity&client=msandroid-
oneplus&sca_esv=562459021&sxsrf=AB5stBj89MdZ5yTlBvYCbXWRMAEYqm3i1g%3A1693815142768
&ei=ZpH1ZLetLuGK4-
EPtMuQQA&oq=The+risk+of+anonymity+and+ps&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhxUaGUgc
mlzayBvZiBhbm9ueW1pdHkgYW5kIHBzKgIIAjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgQQIRgVMggQIRgWGB4YHTIIEC
EYFhgeGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdMggQIRgWGB4YHUiZdFCeFVjIXnACeACQAQCYAcwCoAHnMKoBCTAuMTU
uMTIuMrgBAcgBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYs”PCAg’QIxgnwgIFEAAYgATCAggQABiKBRiGA8ICBhAAGBYY
HsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIKECEYFhgeGA8YHcICBxAhGKABGAriAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=mobilegwswi
z-serp
CHAPTER 4 : LEGAL AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Balancing freedom of expression with concerns like hate speech,

misinformation

Balancing freedom of expression with concerns like hate speech,

misinformation, and cyberbullying is a complex and ongoing challenge in
the digital age. Here are some key considerations:

1. Legal Framework: Most democratic societies recognize freedom of

expression as a fundamental right. However, this right is not
absolute and is subject to legal restrictions. Laws vary from country
to country, but they often prohibit hate speech, incitement to
violence, and other forms of harmful speech. Balancing these legal
restrictions with the protection of free expression requires careful
consideration.
2. Content Moderation: Online platforms play a crucial role in
regulating content. They have policies and mechanisms for
removing or restricting content that violates their terms of service.
Striking the right balance between content moderation and free
speech is challenging, as it involves making judgment calls about
what constitutes hate speech, misinformation, or cyberbullying.

3. Transparency and Accountability: Platforms must be transparent

about their content moderation policies and decisions. Users should
have a clear understanding of how and why content is removed or
restricted. Platforms should also be accountable for their actions,
with avenues for appeal and redress.

4. User Responsibility: Users also bear responsibility for their online

behavior. Promoting digital literacy and responsible online conduct
can help individuals distinguish between valid free expression and
harmful behavior. Encouraging digital etiquette and respectful
discourse is essential.

5. Counter-Speech and Education: Countering hate speech,

misinformation, and cyberbullying often involves promoting
counter-speech and providing accurate information. Education
campaigns that enhance media literacy and critical thinking skills
can empower individuals to navigate the online world more
effectively.

6. International Collaboration: Given the global nature of the internet,

addressing these issues often requires international collaboration
and cooperation. Governments, tech companies, and civil society
organizations must work together to develop and implement
solutions.
 7. Protection of Marginalized Voices: Efforts to combat hate speech
and cyberbullying must also prioritize the protection of
marginalized and vulnerable voices. These groups are often
disproportionately affected by online harassment and
discrimination.

8. Continuous Adaptation: The digital landscape evolves rapidly, and

new challenges emerge regularly. Policymakers and tech companies
must continuously adapt their approaches to address emerging
issues while safeguarding freedom of expression.

Balancing freedom of expression with concerns like hate speech,

misinformation, and cyberbullying is an ongoing process that requires
careful deliberation, collaboration, and a commitment to protecting both
individual rights and the well-being of online communities. Finding the
right equilibrium may be challenging, but it’s essential for fostering a
healthy and inclusive digital environment.

Balancing the cherished principle of freedom of expression with the

pressing concerns of hate speech, misinformation, and cyberbullying
represents a complex and vital challenge in the digital era. While freedom
of expression is a fundamental democratic right, it is not absolute and
must coexist with the need to prevent harm and protect individuals from
abuse. Legal frameworks in many countries set limits on expression by
criminalizing hate speech and incitement to violence. Online platforms
also engage in content moderation to curb harmful content. Striking a fair
balance requires transparent content moderation policies, accountability
for platform actions, and responsible behavior from users. Empowering
individuals through digital literacy and promoting counter-speech and
education campaigns are essential components of the solution.
Additionally, international collaboration and adaptability to the
everevolving digital landscape are crucial to effectively address these
concerns while upholding the principles of free expression and
safeguarding the well-being of online communities, especially
marginalized voices that are often disproportionately affected by these
issues. Balancing the need to combat hate speech, misinformation, and
online harassment with the principles of free expression requires a careful
and nuanced approach. The role of intermediaries, such as social media
platforms and internet service providers, is pivotal in facilitating
communication and content sharing23

While regulation and content moderation are necessary to maintain a safe

and inclusive online environment, there is also a risk of overreach, leading
to censorship and stifling of legitimate expression. Striking the right
balance requires nuanced approaches that take into account the context,
cultural sensitivities, and the evolving nature of online communication.

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-stakeholder approach

involving platforms, governments, civil society organizations, and users
themselves. Platforms must invest in robust content moderation systems
that effectively identify and address hate speech, harassment, and
misinformation while ensuring transparency and accountability in their
processes. Governments should enact and enforce laws that strike a
balance between protecting free speech and addressing the harmful
consequences of online communication. Digital literacy and media

23
https://www.google.com/search?q=balancing+freedom+of+expression+with+concerns+like+hate+spe
ech%2C+misinformation%2C+and+cyberbullying&client=msandroidoneplus&sca_esv=562487504&sxsr
f=AB5stBj728MJ5v6jrxtGJr9R5AgfLciiQ%3A1693819114229 &ei=6qD1ZKu-DeaZ4-
EPxda9gAs&oq=Balancing+freedom+of+expression+with+concerns+like+hate+speech%2C+misinform
ation%2C+and+cyberbullying&gs_lp=E”Ntb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwImFCYWxhbmNpbmcgZnJlZWRv
bSBvZiBleHByZXNzaW9uIHdpdGggY29uY2VybnMgbGlrZSBoYXRlIHNwZWVjaCwgbWlzaW5mb3JtYXRpb
24sIGFuZCBjeWJlcmJ1bGx5aW5nKgIIADIEECMYJ0i01AZQAFgAcAF4AZABAJgBkwOgAZYFqgEHMi0xLjAu

literacy programs are crucial in

MbgBAcgBAOIDBBgAIEGIBgE&sclient=mo”Ile-gws-wiz-serp
equipping individuals with the skills to critically evaluate information,
identify misinformation, and engage in responsible online behaviour.
Empowering users to report abusive content and providing accessible
mechanisms for redressal can create a safer online space for free speech.
The virtual world presents challenges to free speech in the form of hate
speech, misinformation, online harassment, and algorithmic biases.
Addressing these challenges requires a balanced and collaborative
approach, ensuring that the principles of free speech are upheld while
protecting individuals from harm. By promoting digital literacy, fostering
responsible online behaviour, and implementing effective regulation, we
can create an inclusive and democratic virtual world that encourages free
speech and respects the dignity of all individuals.12

The internet has had a significant impact on freedom of speech in both

positive and negative ways. On the positive side, the internet has
democratized communication and made it easier for people to express

their opinions and ideas to a wider audience. Anyone with an internet

connection can now create and publish content, bypassing traditional
gatekeepers such as publishers, editors, and media outlets. This has led to
a proliferation of diverse voices and perspectives, allowing marginalized
groups and individuals to have a platform to express themselves and have
their voices heard.

On the negative side, the internet has also created new challenges and
risks for freedom of speech. While the internet has made it easier for
people to express themselves, it has also made it easier for governments
and other entities to monitor and censor online speech. In some countries,
governments use sophisticated surveillance tools to track and censor
online content that is critical of the government or its policies. In addition,
online platforms such as social media have been criticized for allowing
hate speech, misinformation, and other harmful content to flourish, which
can have a chilling effect on free speech. Furthermore, online harassment
and threats have become a serious issue for many

12https://legalvidhiya.com/free-speech-in-the-virtual-world-and-
theconstitutionofindia/#:~:text=on%20free%20speech.-
,Balancing%20the%20need%20to%20combat%20hate%20speech%2C%20misinformation%2C%20and
%20online,facilitating%20communication%20and%20content%20sharing.
people who express their opinions online. Women, minorities, and other
marginalized groups are particularly vulnerable to online harassment,
which can include threats of violence, doxxing, and other forms of abuse.
This can create a climate of fear that silences voices and limits the diversity
of perspectives that are represented online. Overall, the internet has had
a complex and nuanced effect on freedom of speech. While it has opened
up new avenues for expression and participation, it has also created new
challenges and risks that need to be addressed in order to protect and
promote free speech in the digital age.

Internet and freedom of speech by article 19 –

Article 19 is a human rights organization that advocates for the protection

and promotion of freedom of expression and access to information.
According to Article 1913 , the internet plays a crucial role in enabling

people to exercise their right to freedom of expression and access to

information. Here are some of the key points that Article 19 makes about
the internet and freedom of speech:
• The internet has created new opportunities for people to express
themselves and access information. The internet has enabled
people to connect with others, share their opinions, and access
information that was previously unavailable to them.
• The internet has become a vital tool for journalists and other media
professionals. The internet allows journalists to report on issues
that might otherwise go unreported, and it provides a platform for
citizen journalists and bloggers to share their perspectives.
• Governments must respect the right to freedom of expression on
the internet. Governments should not use internet censorship or
surveillance as a means of controlling the flow of information or
suppressing dissent.

13 All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression
 • Private companies that provide internet services have a
responsibility to respect human rights. Companies should not be
complicit in human rights violations, and they should take steps to
ensure that their services are not used to facilitate censorship or
surveillance.

• Freedom of expression on the internet is not an absolute right.

There may be legitimate reasons for restricting certain types of

speech, such as hate speech, incitement to violence, or child

pornography.

Overall, Article 19 believes that the internet has the potential to be a

powerful tool for promoting freedom of expression and access to
information, but that this potential can only be realized if governments
and private companies respect human rights and uphold the principles of
free expression.

However, Article 19 also recognizes that the internet can be a doubleedged

sword when it comes to freedom of expression. On the one hand, the
internet has the potential to facilitate free and open communication, but
on the other hand, it can also be used to spread hate speech,
disinformation, and other harmful content.

To ensure that freedom of expression is protected on the internet, Article

19 advocates for a number of measures, including:
• Ensuring that laws and regulations related to freedom of expression
are consistent with international human rights standards, including
the right to freedom of expression and the right to access
information.
• Promoting access to information and digital literacy, so that
individuals can make informed decisions about the content they
consume and share online.
 • Protecting journalists, bloggers, and other online content creators
from harassment, intimidation, and censorship.
• Encouraging online platforms and intermediaries to adopt
transparent and consistent content moderation policies, and to
ensure that their policies are consistent with international human
rights standards.
• Ensuring that internet shutdowns and other restrictions on internet
access are only used in limited circumstances and in accordance
with international human rights law.

Overall, Article 19 believes that freedom of expression is essential to a

healthy democracy, and that the internet has the potential to be a
powerful tool for promoting and protecting that right. However, they also
recognize that there are challenges and risks associated with the internet,
and that it is important to take steps to ensure that the benefits of the
internet are balanced against the need to protect individuals from harm.

Freedom of speech on the internet is a powerful weapon because it allows

individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship
or retribution. The internet has become a global platform for sharing
information, and it allows people to connect with others who share similar
views or experiences. This has enabled individuals to organize and
mobilize around social and political causes, and to hold those in power
accountable.

One of the key benefits of the internet is that it provides a level playing
field for individuals to express their views. Unlike traditional media outlets,
which are often controlled by a small number of corporations or
individuals, the internet allows anyone with a computer or Smartphone to
publish their thoughts and ideas for the world to see. This has enabled
marginalized groups to have a voice and to challenge the dominant
narratives that have been perpetuated by the mainstream media.
However, the power of freedom of speech on the internet can also be a
double-edged sword. The same platform that allows individuals to share
their ideas and opinions can also be used to spread misinformation, hate
speech, and propaganda. The internet has become a breeding ground for
conspiracy theories and extremist ideologies, and it can be difficult to
distinguish between credible sources of information and those that are
not.

In summary, the freedom of speech on the internet is a powerful weapon

because it enables individuals to express their ideas and opinions without
fear of censorship or retribution. However, this power also comes with
responsibility, and it is important to ensure that the information being
shared is accurate and does not harm others.

The question of whether freedom of speech on the internet should be

restricted to protect public welfare is a complex one that requires a
nuanced answer. On the one hand, there are legitimate concerns about
the harm that can be caused by hate speech, misinformation, and other
forms of harmful speech online. These can have serious consequences for
individuals, communities, and even society as a whole.

On the other hand, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that

is enshrined in many international and national laws and constitutions. It
is a cornerstone of democracy and is essential for promoting the free
exchange of ideas, fostering innovation, and holding those in power
accountable. Any restrictions on freedom of speech must be carefully
balanced against these important values. In general, restrictions on
freedom of speech should be limited to cases where there is a clear and
imminent danger to public welfare. This might include speech that incites
violence, promotes terrorism, or threatens national security. In such cases,
the restriction on speech should be narrowly tailored to address the
specific harm in question, and it should be subject to judicial review to
ensure that it is not overly broad or discriminatory. It is also important to
note that restrictions on freedom of speech should be the exception rather
than the rule. In general, it is better to promote free speech and to rely on
counter-speech, education, and other forms of public discourse to address
harmful speech. This requires a commitment to promoting media literacy,
critical thinking, and digital citizenship, and to fostering an online culture
that values open dialogue, respect for diverse perspectives, and a
commitment to the common good.14

Provision for freedom of speech through internet under the IT Act

Anyone who uses a computer resource or communication device to

communicate “grossly offensive” or “menacing” information is guilty of a
penal crime under Section 66A15 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Additionally, the clause made it illegal to repeatedly communicate false
information in an effort to annoy, inconvenience, danger, obstruct, insult,
harm, criminally intimidate, incite hostility, hatred, or ill will. Additionally,

Section 66A made it illegal to send a “electronic mail message” with the
intent to irritate or inconvenience the receiver or to deceive or mislead
them regarding the communication’s origin.

The Section’s ambiguous and arbitrary terminology caused extensive

misuse of both personal and political communication, and various
innocent online expressions—including political commentary and
humor—has become the target of criminal prosecution. The IT Act’s

sections 66A and 79, as well as any rules adopted in accordance with the
Act, imposed a strict liability system on internet intermediaries.16

4.2 International balancing on regulating online speech

International perspectives on regulating online speech in relation to
freedom of speech and expression showcase a spectrum of approaches
that reflect diverse cultural, legal, and political values. In the United States,
the First Amendment is paramount, emphasizing the protection of free

14 https://legalvidhiya.com/effect-of-internet-on-freedom-of-speech-expression/
15 Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.
16 https://legalvidhiya.com/effect-of-internet-on-freedom-of-speech-expression/
expression, even when it involves contentious or offensive content. This
approach grants online platforms significant autonomy in content
moderation. In contrast, the European Union has adopted a more
regulatory stance, prioritizing the safeguarding of user rights and
addressing issues like hate speech and misinformation. China employs
strict censorship and control over online speech, demonstrating a sharp
contrast where government authority supersedes free expression. Russia
has implemented laws granting authorities extensive powers to monitor
and restrict online speech, raising concerns about its impact on freedom
of expression. India and Brazil are navigating the challenges of regulating
online speech, particularly in response to hate speech and misinformation,
with varying degrees of government intervention. International
organizations like the United Nations advocate for a balanced approach
that respects freedom of expression while addressing online harms. These
perspectives underscore the complex and evolving nature of the global
debate on regulating online speech while upholding

fundamental rights. International collaboration remains essential for

establishing common principles and standards in this ever-changing digital
landscape.
In the United States, a staunch defender of free speech, the First
Amendment of the Constitution guarantees substantial protections for
online expression. This fosters a culture where online platforms often have
significant autonomy in content moderation, even when it involves

contentious or offensive material. The European Union, on the other hand,

adopts a more regulatory stance, emphasizing user rights and digital
safety. The Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

aim to establish a framework that holds tech companies accountable for

content moderation, seeking to strike a balance between freedom of
expression and the imperative to combat hate speech and misinformation.
In contrast, nations like China and Russia exercise rigorous control over
online speech, leveraging extensive censorship and surveillance
mechanisms to restrict content and maintain state authority. In India and
Brazil, the approach to regulating online speech remains in flux, reflecting
evolving discussions about government intervention and the
responsibilities of digital platforms. International organizations, including
the United Nations, promote a balanced approach rooted in international
human rights standards, underlining the importance of transparency,
accountability, and the protection of individual liberties in the regulation
of online speech. These diverse global perspectives emphasize the
multifaceted nature of this complex issue and the ongoing quest to
harmonize digital governance with the principles of freedom of speech
and expression in the digital age.
International perspectives on regulating online speech with regard to
freedom of speech and expression vary significantly, reflecting diverse
cultural, legal, and political values. Here are some key viewpoints:

1. United States: The United States places a strong emphasis on the

First Amendment of its Constitution, which protects freedom of
speech. U.S. law generally prioritizes the protection of free
expression, even when it involves controversial or offensive
content. Online platforms in the U.S. often have broad discretion in
moderating content according to their own policies, with limited
government intervention.
2. European Union (EU): The EU has taken a more regulatory approach
to online speech, especially concerning hate speech,
misinformation, and privacy. While recognizing the importance of
free expression, the EU has implemented measures to hold tech
companies accountable for content moderation and ensure
transparency and user rights. The balance between regulation and
freedom of speech varies among EU member states.
3. China: China adopts a highly controlled approach to online speech,
with strict censorship and monitoring. The Chinese government
enforces a comprehensive system of content control, known as the
“Great Firewall,” to restrict access to foreign websites and
platforms. Content on domestic platforms is closely monitored, and
dissenting voices are often silenced.
 4. Russia: Russia has implemented laws that grant authorities
significant power to monitor and restrict online speech. Platforms
must store user data on Russian servers, and there are restrictions
on certain types of content, including political dissent and LGBTQ+
content. These measures are seen by some as impinging on
freedom of expression.
5. India: India has been grappling with the regulation of online speech,
particularly related to hate speech and misinformation. The
government has taken steps to increase control over digital
platforms and social media, including requiring them to comply with
content takedown requests. These actions have raised concerns
about the impact on free expression.
6. Brazil: Brazil has also faced debates over regulating online speech,
especially in the context of political content. Proposed legislation
seeks to hold platforms accountable for content, potentially leading
to the removal of certain types of content deemed illegal or
harmful.
7. International Organizations: International bodies like the United
Nations emphasize the importance of upholding freedom of
expression while addressing hate speech, misinformation, and
other online harms. They promote a balanced approach, rooted in
international human rights norms, that seeks to protect both free
speech and the safety and well-being of individuals online.
These international perspectives illustrate the diversity of approaches to
regulating online speech and their varying impacts on freedom of speech
and expression. Striking the right balance between protecting
fundamental rights and addressing online harms remains a complex and
evolving global challenge. International cooperation and dialogue are
essential for developing common principles and standards in this dynamic
digital landscape.
Many countries recognized the right to internet is a basic human right and
shall not be subjected to unreasonable restrictions. Every individual has a
right to access the internet and it is the responsibility of the state to avoid
unreasonable suspension and blackouts in the state to curb citizens’ right
to the internet.
United Nations has declared that online freedom is a human right and the
right to internet must be protected from unreasonable interference. The
Apex court of Costa Rica29 has ruled that access to the internet and
information technology is a basic tool to facilitate participation in society
and access to public services. Estonia30 declared the right to internet is a
basic human right in an attempt to expand internet service in 2000.
According to Estonia, the internet is an essential requirement of the 21 st
century. France highest court declared that internet access is a basic
human right. Article 5A of Greece’s Constitution31, states that everyone
has a right to participate in the information society. Spain declared that
there should be a reasonable price for internet broadband connections for
at least one megabit per second throughout the country. According to
United Nations Human Right Council, the Right to access the internet is a
fundamental freedom and a tool to ensure the right to education. 32

4.3 The implications of Internet Intermediaries (eg; social media

platforms)
Internet intermediary refers to a company that facilitates the use of the
Internet. Such companies include internet service providers (ISPs), search
engines and social media platforms.
According to OECD, and cited by UNESCO, Internet intermediaries can be
defined as organizations (primarily, for-profit companies) that “bring
together or facilitate transactions between third parties on the Internet.
They give access to, host, transmit and index content, products and
services originated by third parties on the Internet or provide
Internetbased services to third parties” and lists the following
organizations as fitting this definition:33

29Cases of Right to Internet outside India, 2 June 2022, Freedom of Speech and Expression on the
Internet : A Fundamental Right – Current Affair Article for UPSC, IAS, Civil Services and State PCS
Examinations | Dhyeya IAS® – Best UPSC IAS CSE Online Coaching | Best UPSC Coaching | Top IAS
Coaching in Delhi | Top CSE Coaching
30 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia
31 Article 5 [Freedom, Integrity]
32 https://lawcorner.in/freedom-of-speech-and-expression-internet/#_ftn5

33 The Economic and Social Role of Internet Intermediaries

1. Internet access and service providers (ISPs);

2. Data processing and web hosting providers, including domain name
registrars;
3. Internet search engines and portals;
4. E-commerce intermediaries, where these platforms do not take title
to the goods being sold;
5. Internet payment systems; and
6. Participative networking platforms, which include Internet
publishing and broadcasting platforms that do not themselves
create or own the content being published or broadcast.17

Internet intermediaries play an increasingly important role in modern

societies. Their actions influence the choices we make, the way we
exercise our rights, and how we interact. The market dominance of some
places them in control of principal modes of public communication. What
are the roles they play? How do they impact human rights, democracy and
the rule of law? What are their corresponding duties and responsibilities?
The Council of Europe has developed human rights-based guidelines to
help member states address this challenge.

The term ‘Internet intermediaries’ commonly refers to a wide, diverse and

rapidly evolving range of service providers that facilitate interactions on
the internet between natural and legal persons. Some connect users to

the internet, enable processing of data and host web-based services,

including for user-generated comments. Others gather information, assist
searches, facilitate the sale of goods and services, or enable other

17 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_intermediary#:~:text=Internet%20intermediary%20refers
%20to%20a,engines%20and%20social%20media%20platforms.
commercial transactions. Importantly, they may carry out several
functions in parallel, including those that are not merely intermediary.
Internet intermediaries also moderate and rank content, mainly through
algorithmic processing, and they may perform other functions that
resemble those of publishers. As a result, different regulatory frameworks
can apply, respectively, to their intermediary roles and to their other
functions.
Internet intermediaries, such as social media platforms and other online
service providers, play a pivotal role in facilitating online communication,

content sharing, and access to information. Their functions and impact can
be summarized as follows:

1. Content Hosting and Distribution: Internet intermediaries provide

platforms where users can create, publish, and share content,
including text, images, videos, and more. These platforms enable
the dissemination of diverse perspectives, creativity, and
information.
2. User Interaction: They facilitate user interaction through features
like comments, likes, shares, and direct messaging. These
interactions contribute to the formation of online communities and
the exchange of ideas.
3. Accessibility: Internet intermediaries enhance accessibility to
information and resources. Users can access a wide array of
content, news, educational material, and entertainment through
these platforms.
4. Freedom of Expression: They empower individuals to exercise their
freedom of expression by providing a space for sharing opinions,
experiences, and viewpoints. This can be particularly important in
regions with limited traditional media freedom.
5. Social and Political Movements: Internet intermediaries have
played a significant role in the organization and dissemination of
 social and political movements, making it easier for individuals to
mobilize and advocate for change.
6. Economic Opportunities: These platforms offer economic
opportunities to content creators, influencers, and businesses
through advertising, sponsored content, and e-commerce.
7. Content Moderation: To maintain the quality of their platforms,
intermediaries engage in content moderation. They establish
community guidelines and remove or restrict content that violates
these rules. This involves addressing issues such as hate speech,
misinformation, and harassment.
8. Data Collection and Privacy: Internet intermediaries collect user
data to personalize content and ads, which can raise privacy
concerns. Many platforms have faced scrutiny for their data
practices and have implemented privacy features and controls.
9. Responsibility and Accountability: As gatekeepers of online content,
intermediaries face ethical and legal responsibilities. They are often
called upon to balance the protection of free speech with the need
to curb harmful content and misinformation.
10. Global Reach: Internet intermediaries have a global reach,
connecting users from around the world. This global presence
brings about challenges related to cultural differences, legal
jurisdictions, and international regulations.
11. Innovation: These platforms drive technological innovation by
constantly evolving their features and services to meet user
demands and market trends.
12. Regulation and Oversight: Governments and regulatory bodies
often seek to regulate internet intermediaries to ensure compliance
with local laws, protect user rights, and address concerns related to
harmful content and misinformation.
In summary, internet intermediaries, particularly social media platforms,
have become central to modern online communication and
informationsharing. They offer a multitude of benefits, but their role also
comes with significant responsibilities and challenges related to content
moderation, privacy, and the regulation of online speech and behavior.
Finding a balance that respects individual freedoms while addressing
concerns about harmful content is an ongoing societal and regulatory
challenge.
Internet intermediaries, exemplified by social media platforms and online
service providers, occupy a critical role in the digital age. These platforms
serve as virtual town squares where individuals congregate to express
themselves, share ideas, and engage in social discourse. They facilitate the
creation and dissemination of a vast array of content, from personal
thoughts to news, art, and commerce. This accessibility has democratized
information sharing, granting a global audience to anyone with an internet
connection. Moreover, intermediaries play an instrumental role in
empowering individuals and movements, enabling the coordination of
social and political action on a scale previously unimaginable. However,
with their influence and reach come ethical and regulatory
responsibilities. Internet intermediaries must grapple with content
moderation challenges, balancing the principles of freedom of expression
with the imperative to combat harmful content, including hate speech and
misinformation. Their data practices also raise concerns about privacy and
surveillance. Consequently, they find themselves at the nexus of debates
regarding regulation, accountability, and the future of online discourse in
an increasingly interconnected world.
The rise In the number of internet users in the last two decades has
witnessed an increase in intellectual property infringement and theft.
Presently, there exists in massive numbers, bad actors who leverage on the
brands, identity and works of innocent internet (particularly social media)
users, to derive personal gains and benefits. While such act of intellectual
property theft may be intentional or unintentional depending on the level
of knowledge or awareness of the infringer, the role and the liability of
social media platforms where IPR infringement occurs must be examined.
To this end, our Davidson Oturu and Rapheal Irenen examine the liability
of social media platforms in intellectual property infringement. They also
highlight the various international viewpoints on the extent of the liability
of these social media platforms.
The last two decades has witnessed a rise in the use of the internet in
general, and social media in particular. For example, in the United States,
the number of internet users has increased from about 241 million in 2011
to over 302 million in 2021 with a projection to increase to about 321
million by 202518. Similarly, internet usage in Africa has increased by about
12,795% between the years 2000 and 202136.

This rise in the use of internet services can be linked to the introduction,
use, and growth of social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp,
Telegram, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, and a host of others19. Over
the last decade, social media has become a viable tool through which
communication is effected, entertainment is created and promoted, goods
and services are advertised, and transactions are consummated. With
social media, internet users can communicate with each other, regardless
of where they find themselves and at the same time, share content such
as pictures, images, videos, and even voice messages. Indeed, social
media, keeps the world connected!

Social Media Platforms as Intermediaries

Social media platforms serve as intermediaries between the parties that
access their platforms. Given their structures, users can develop content
and upload such content for other users to access. These activities can be
carried out due to the ease of accessibility of social media platforms.
However, one major pitfall of this ease of accessibility is the opportunity
that it provides for the platforms to be used for unlawful and unscrupulous
activities such as business impersonation, fraud, and intellectual property
theft.

18 Joseph Johnson (“United States: Number of online users 2010-2025”, August 4 2021,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/325645/usa-number-of-internet-users/ ) 36 Internet
World Stats (“Internet users statistics for Africa” May 20 2021,
https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1
19 Facebook is currently the largest social media platform in the world, with a over 2.4 billion users.
Some of these activities also involve intellectual property rights (IPRs)
violations and infringements which include unlawful use and distribution

of content (such as text, videos or photographs) design or patent

infringement and business trademark misuse. These IPR infringements

have affected several businesses that utilize social media for the
promotion and advertisement of their brands, products, and content.
This has become a huge challenge for these businesses, as they are pushed
to go through the rigours of enforcing their rights, where breached on
social media. To compound things, very few countries have specific laws
targeted at the prevention of IPR infringement on social media.
In Nigeria, save for the provision of Section 15 of the Copyright Act20 under
which a person may be held liable for secondary copyright infringement
where such person exhibits in public, any article in respect of which
copyright has been infringed on, there is no standalone legislation that
regulates intellectual property infringement on social media.
This absence of regulation suggests that owners of social media platforms
are left with the authority to determine how to deal with any IPR
infringement that occurs on their platforms. Instagram for example, in a
bid to control and curb intellectual property infringement on its platform,
has included provisions in its terms of use that prohibits content that are
“unlawful, misleading, or fraudulent or for an illegal or unauthorised
purpose” and gives Instagram the right to remove or terminate an account

that displays such content21. TikTok27 and Twitter have similar provisions in
their terms of use.

20Section 15(1) © provides that Copyright is infringed Chapter C28 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
21https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870 27 Tiktok (“Intellectual
Property Policy, June 7 2021
While these provisions and steps are commendable, it is instructive to
note that they do not particularly address the liability of these social media
platforms, where despite provisions prohibiting their users from infringing
the IPR of any person, a breach or infringement occurs.

The pertinent question at this juncture is, to what extent are these social
media platforms liable for intellectual property infringements that occur
on their platforms? The succeeding paragraph of this article addresses the
scope and extent of their liabilities.

Liability of Social media platforms

As earlier noted, social media platforms serve as internet/online
intermediaries for their users. According to the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) “internet intermediaries bring
together or facilitate transactions between third parties on the internet.
They give access to, host, transmit and index content, products, and
services originated by third parties on the internet or provide
internetbased services to third parties”. This suggests that in the use of the
internet, they serve a very major and profitable purpose. Hence, it can be
argued that they should be held liable for unlawful activities that occur on
their platforms.
There are generally three approaches to the liability of internet
intermediaries for any intellectual property infringement that occurs on
their platforms. These are:

1. The strict liability model.

2. The safe harbour model.
3. The broad immunity model.

https://www.tiktok.com/legal/copyrightpolicy?lang=en) now banned in

India
Under the strict liability model-
Under the strict liability model, the Intermediaries are held totally and
unconditionally liable and responsible for user-generated content. Hence,

they are required to monitor content and ensure its compliance with the
law.
Under this model, where any unlawful activity occurs, the intermediaries
are held liable for same and would not be granted any form of exception
whatsoever.22

Under the Safe Harbour Model -

Here, the social media platforms as intermediaries, are granted

conditional immunity. This is, however, provided that they comply with
certain requirements specified by law
Instructively, this model includes “notice-and takedown” procedures to be
put in place by the intermediaries. The intermediaries may also be
required to have content filters. This is to prevent the hosting or
transmitting of unlawful content.23

Under the Broad Immunity Model -

Under this model, the intermediaries are accorded a broad, but
sometimes conditional, immunity from liability for user-generated
content. Here, a social media platform as an intermediary is not required
to observe or monitor user-generated data for unlawful content.

22 Anjana Viswanath (India: Intermediary Liability For Intellectual Property Infringement, 3rd March
2020, https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/899230/intermediary-
liabilityforintellectualproperty-infringement)
23 It is also instructive to note that this model is followed by the EU e-commerce directive, US Digital

Millennium Copyright Act.

Currently, it appears that the broad immunity model is the most commonly
used model. This is because, in the absence of any regulation, social media
platforms regulate their interactions with their users. Some of them go as
far as providing for exclusion clauses that excludes them from any liability,
where something wrong occurs, or where an unlawful activity is carried
out. Notwithstanding, it is important to note that irrespective of the
liability model adopted, social media platforms, acting as intermediaries,
may be mandated to remove unlawful content when instructed to do so
through lawful procedures.

Intermediaries are entities that store or transmit data on behalf of other

persons, and include telecom and internet service providers, online

marketplaces, search engines, and social media sites, according to the IT

Rules, 2021.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 were released via a notification dating 25th
February 2021. It introduced the concept of SSMIs – Significant Social
Media Intermediaries.

Rule 2(1)(w) of the IT Rules 202143 define a “social media intermediary” as

“an intermediary which primarily or solely enables online interaction
between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share,
disseminate, modify or access information using its services.” Social media
intermediaries with more than 50,00,000 registered users in India fall in
the category of being classified as SSMIs, and are thus mandated to meet
the additional due diligence requirements.
Free speech and the autonomy offered through platforms like Instagram,
Facebook, WhatsApp, etc have a powerful pull on both advocates of
liberty and expression but also those individuals/groups in the society that
use these to target others and spread chaos in any and every possible
manner. It is important to draw a Line of Control (LOC) in these situations
and this is what was the aim of the 2021 Rules which contained within it a
specific and dedicated section on regulating Significant Social Media
Intermediaries (SSMIs).24

Internet intermediaries, prominently represented by social media

platforms and online service providers, have emerged as central conduits
of contemporary digital life. These platforms serve as bustling digital town
squares, connecting billions of individuals across the globe. They empower
users to share thoughts, ideas, and content, fostering diverse online

communities. Through these intermediaries, access to information, news,

entertainment, and economic opportunities has become more accessible
than ever. They democratize freedom of expression, enabling users to
voice opinions, engage in discourse, and support social and political
movements. Yet, with this immense influence comes a dual challenge.
Intermediaries are entrusted with the duty of content moderation,
navigating the complex terrain of hate speech,
43

misinformation, and harmful content. Moreover, their data practices raise

intricate questions concerning user privacy and surveillance. As they
grapple with these responsibilities and ethical dilemmas, intermediaries
find themselves at the crossroads of debates over regulation,

accountability, and the evolving landscape of online discourse in our

increasingly interconnected world.
Social media intermediaries represent the digital spaces where people
come together to connect, communicate, and share content in our
interconnected world. These platforms have transformed the way we
interact, allowing users to create profiles, form connections, and share a
wide array of content, from personal updates to news articles and

24https://singhania.in/blog/significant-social-media-intermediaries-ssmis-
#:~:text=Rule%202(1)(w,intermediaries%20with%20more%20than%2050
multimedia creations. Social media intermediaries introduce users to
personalized content feeds, shaping their digital experiences based on
their preferences and connections. The interactions on these platforms,
including likes, shares, and comments, fuel engagement and enable
content to reach broader audiences. Messaging features enable private
conversations, enhancing both personal and professional communication.
With a focus on user privacy, these platforms allow individuals to control
who sees their content. However, they also face significant challenges,
such as content moderation to uphold community standards, addressing
concerns related to hate speech and misinformation, and navigating the
intricacies of data collection and user privacy. The advertising
opportunities they offer have transformed digital marketing, while
ongoing discussions about their regulation aim to strike a balance
between freedom of expression and the need for responsible governance
in the digital age.
In summary, social media intermediaries are at the heart of contemporary
digital social interaction. They offer a platform for users to connect, share,
and engage with content, but they also face complex challenges related to
content governance, privacy, and the responsibility of managing vast
online communities.

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDIES 5.1 : Role of significant media related

freedom of expression cases
Analyzing significant internet-related freedom of expression cases in India
reveals a dynamic and evolving legal landscape. The landmark case of
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India in 2015 marked a pivotal moment, as the
Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act emphasized the importance of protecting online free
speech and highlighted the need to balance the right to offend with the
right to be offended in the digital realm. Similarly, the 1989 case of S.
Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram set a precedent that applies to online speech,
underscoring that the state cannot suppress speech merely because it may
be offensive or provoke strong reactions. The Aseem Trivedi Cartoon
Controversy spotlighted the boundaries of artistic expression online and
the chilling effect of suppressing satirical commentary. Ongoing cases like
the WhatsApp traceability issue demonstrate the ongoing tension
between privacy and combating misinformation. The pervasive use of
internet shutdowns in regions like Kashmir raises questions about the
proportionality of such measures and their impact on freedom of
expression. Lastly, cases involving content takedowns and government
requests to platforms like Twitter underscore the challenges of navigating
diverse regulatory environments while preserving free expression. These
cases collectively underscore the need for a balanced approach that
upholds fundamental freedoms while addressing the complexities of
online speech and its societal implications. Here’s an analysis of some key
cases:

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This case is a watershed

moment in Indian internet law. The Supreme Court’s decision to
strike down Section 66A of the IT Act 25 was a robust defense of
freedom of expression in the digital realm. It reaffirmed that the

right to free speech includes the right to offend and be offended,

emphasizing that vague and overbroad provisions that stifle online
speech have no place in a democratic society.

2. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): While not an internetspecific

case, it sets a crucial precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling
emphasized that the state cannot suppress speech simply because
it might be offensive or provoke strong reactions. This principle

25Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000 made it a punishable offence for any person
to send offensive information using a computer or any other electronic device.
 applies to online speech and underscores the importance of free
expression, even when it challenges established norms.
3. Aseem Trivedi Cartoon Controversy (2012): This case highlights the
fine line between artistic expression and potential offense. While
Aseem Trivedi’s cartoons were provocative, his arrest raised
concerns about artistic freedom and the chilling effect on satirical
commentary. It underscores the need to protect creative expression
in the digital age.
4. WhatsApp Traceability Case (Ongoing): The ongoing debate over
traceability of messages on platforms like WhatsApp reflects the
tension between privacy and combating misinformation. The case
necessitates a delicate balance between preserving user privacy
and addressing issues like fake news and online harm.
5. Internet Shutdowns in Kashmir: The use of internet shutdowns as a
means of control in Kashmir illustrates the broader implications of

restricting online speech. While governments argue they are

necessary for security reasons, these shutdowns significantly curtail
freedom of expression and access to information, raising concerns
about their proportionality.
6. Twitter Content Takedowns and Government Requests: Cases
involving Twitter’s compliance with government requests shed light
on the challenges faced by tech companies operating in diverse
regulatory environments. These cases underscore the need for
transparency and accountability in content moderation decisions.
7. Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (2015): In this case, a petitioner
sought a ban on adult content on the internet, claiming it was
responsible for social problems. The Supreme Court rejected the
plea, emphasizing the importance of free expression on the
internet.
8. In the case of Anuradha Basin V. Union of India 26, Supreme Court
held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under

26 Citation: AIR 2020 SC 1308

 Article 19(1) (a) and the right to freedom of trade and commerce
under Article 19(1) (g) through internet is constitutionally protected
but subjected to reasonable restrictions.
9. In the case of K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India 27, Supreme Court
of India held that any restrictions imposed by the state on the right
to freedom of speech and expression and right to practice any
profession or occupation over the medium internet under Article 19
have to pass the proportionality test. The proportionality test is
used to measure the reasonability of the government’s decision.
Kerala High Court held that right to have access to the internet is an
integrated part of the fundamental right to education and the right
to privacy under article 21 of the Indian Constitution 28.

These cases reflect the evolving nature of freedom of expression in the

digital age in India. They demonstrate the complexities and challenges

involved in protecting individual freedoms while addressing issues

related to online content, privacy, and government intervention. 29

5.2Analyse the impact of these cases on legal precedents and

The right to express one’s own ideas, thoughts and opinions freely through
writing, printing, picture, gestures, spoken words or any other mode is the
essence of freedom of speech and expression. It includes the expression
of one’s ideas through visible representations such as gestures, signs and
other means of the communicable medium. It also includes the right to
propagate one’s views through print media or through any other
communication channel.
This implies that freedom of the press is also included in this category.

27 Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012; (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161
28 According to Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
29https://lawcorner.in/freedom-of-speech-and-
expressioninternet/#Cases_Of_Right_To_Internet_Outside_India
Free propagation of ideas is the necessary objective and this may be done

through the press or any other platform. These two freedoms i.e., freedom
of speech and freedom of expression have their own respective
qualifications.
According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), the freedom to seek, receive, and convey information and
all kinds of ideas irrespective of boundaries, either orally or in the form of
writing, print, art or through any other media of their choice are included
in the right to freedom of speech and expression.30

Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian constitution

In India, the freedom of speech and expression is granted by
Article19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which is available only to the
citizens of India and not to foreign nationals. Freedom of speech under
Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to express one’s views through any
medium, which can be by way of writing, speaking, gesture or in any other

form. It also includes the rights of communication and the right to

propagate or publish one’s opinion.
The right that Is mentioned above, guaranteed by our constitution, is
regarded as one of the most basic elements of a healthy democracy
because it allows citizens to participate in the social and political process
of a country very actively.
It was well said by Cicero, a Roman politician as well as a lawyer that “The
people’s good is the highest law”. The manner in which this can be
achieved can be inferred from our constitutional provisions, which
demonstrate that if a person raises his/her voice against any evil then
everybody will listen to the voice and stand against that evil to scrap it out
from its root.

30https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedom-speech-
expression/#People%E2%80%99s_Union_for_Civil_Liberties_v_Union_of_India16
Let us have an example of this: compare the past when women were not
allowed to vote with the present day. Now women are allowed to vote.
How does this happen? It happens because of the right of free speech and

expression. The right to free speech and expression have that power
through which it can break any type of giant brick that comes in its way.

Other rights that allow or help Indian society develop and progress are
supported by freedom of speech and expression which is also a
fundamental human right. Free speech and expression have always been
important throughout history as it facilitates many changes, one of which
is the French revolution.
Free speech and expression not only includes the right to express what
one thinks but it also includes listening to others. When a person expresses
his/her opinion, it only carries the intrinsic value of that opinion and being
silent on that opinion is an injustice to the basic human rights.
Union of India v Naveen Jindal and Anr.31

Facts: The respondent Naveen Jindal was not allowed to hoist the national
flag at the office premise of his factory by government officials on the
ground that it was not permissible under the Flag Code of India.
Judgment: In this case, the high court held that the restrictions that the
Flag Code imposed on citizens on hoisting the National Flag were not
permissible under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The
court has also stated that displaying a flag is an expression of pride as well
as an expression of genuine enthusiasm and it can only be restricted in
accordance with what has been prescribed in the Constitution, otherwise,
the restriction would discourage the citizens or Indian nationals from
identifying with the flag of the country.

31 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40605/
Virendra v. The State of Punjab and Anr.32

Facts: Serious communal tension had arisen in the state of Punjab

between the Hindus and the Akali Sikhs because of the question of
partition of the state on a linguistic and communal basis. There were two
petitioners and both were from different newspapers. Their newspapers’
policy was to support the ‘Save Hindi agitation’. A notification was passed

by the home ministry office under the impugned Act prohibiting the
publication and printing of any material relating to the ‘Save Hindi
agitation’. Both the petitioners filed a complaint alleging that the Punjab
Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956 passed by the state legislature was
unconstitutional.

Judgment: The court held that Section 2 of the impugned Act did not
merely impose restrictions but imposed a total prohibition against the
exercise of the right of freedom of speech and expression, making the
same a violation of the right guaranteed by the Constitutional provision.

Sakal Papers v. Union of India33

Facts: The petitioner was the owner of a private limited company, ‘Sakal’,
which published daily and weekly newspapers in Marathi. This newspaper
used to play a leading part in the dissemination of news and in moulding
public opinion. They claimed that their net circulation of copies in
Maharashtra and Karnataka on weekdays was 52,000 and on Sunday it was
56,000. However, the Central Government passed the Newspaper (Price
and Page) Act, 1956, later, the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order,
1960. Because of that order, the government fixed the maximum number

32 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1475436/
33 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/243002/
of pages that could be published by the newspapers. So the petitioner filed
a case challenging the constitutionality of that Act.
Judgment: The court held that Section 3(1) of the Act was unconstitutional
and also an order made under the same would be unconstitutional.
Freedom of press-
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be
limited without being lost” is stated by Thomas Jefferson to define the
importance of freedom of the press.
To preserve the democratic way of life it is necessary that people should
have the freedom to express their feelings and to make their views known
to people at large. Freedom of speech includes propagation of one’s views
through print media or any other communication channels like radio and

television, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2)

of the Indian constitution.
Although freedom of the press is not mentioned in Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution, yet it has been a part of freedom of speech and expression
as considered by judges of the Supreme Court through decided cases.

In the leading case of Romesh Thapar v. The State of Madras, 34 it has been
decided by the supreme court that freedom of the press is an intrinsic part
of freedom of speech and expression.
Why freedom of the press is important in the Indian context?
An American lawyer and free press advocate Trevor Timm have stated that
“An independent press is one of the important pillars of democracy”.

34Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950

Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
Freedom of the press has always been a barricade against the secret
government, against tyranny and against authoritarianism. The press has
a very important role in showing the real face of political parties and also
any type of incident that has been disguised and cannot be seen by the
common people.
It is the press who revealed the income of a kachori wala (in U.P., Aligarh)
recently and also showed the face of some dhongi type babas such as Ram
Raheem and many others. It is the media who have the power to provoke
people against a political party by showing or revealing their truth. It is
used to measure the checks and balances in a democracy.
In the case of Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 35 it was held
that the press plays an important role in the democracy machinery. The
courts have a duty to uphold the freedom of the press and invalidate all
laws and administrative actions that would take that freedom.
An important aspect to be noted is that the freedom of the press has been
specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, 36 while it is a

mere inference made by courts in the Indian context, which explains the
possible variation in the adjudication of disputes relating to this right in
both jurisdictions.
Right to Broadcast
The concept of freedom of speech and expression has evolved to include
in its ambit all available means of expression and communication because

of the advancements in technology. This includes broadcast media,

electronic media and many other types of media.

In the case of Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. V. Lokvidayan

Sanghatana, 37 the supreme court held that the right of the citizens to

35 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/223504/
36 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
37 Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd vs Lokvidayan Sanghatana & Ors on 19 July, 1988
display films on state channels such as Doordarshan came under the
purview of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution.
Right to Information
The right to know or to get information is one of the aspects of freedom
of speech and expression. Freedom to receive information is also included
in the freedom of speech and expression through various supreme court
judgments. Right to Information Act, 2005, which especially talks about
the right of the people to ask for information from the government
officials.
Rights of voters to know about their candidates
In the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms38 it has
been held that the amended Electoral Reform Law passed by the
Parliament was unconstitutional as it violated the right of the citizens to
know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution.
Right to Criticize
In a monarchy, we know that the king is supreme and people are his
subjects. This system of relationship gets reversed in a democratic form of

government. The people are supreme and the state authority is a servant
of the people. In Kedar Nath Singh v. The State of Bihar 39, the supreme
court held that mere criticism of the government is not sedition unless this

criticism leads to incitement of violence or breach of public order.

Similarly, there is a case of Manipur, where a journalist named
Kishorechand Wangkhem was charged for criticizing the chief minister and
charged with the offence of sedition under the National Security Act.

Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1642, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 486
38 Association For Democratic … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. On 2 November, 2000 Equivalent

citations: AIR 2001 Delhi 126, 2000 (57) DRJ 82

39 Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962

Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769
However, he was released as the court found that the people of India had
the right to criticize under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

In another case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 40 it was held that

everyone has got the right through the Indian constitution to form his/her
opinion on any issue of general concern.
Right to Expression Beyond Boundaries
The advancement in technology or the revolution in communication and
electronic media has narrowed the gap of transnational barriers or we can
say that it has diminished this barrier. It has made the transmission of
information possible, even to other parts of the world within a fraction of
second. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 41 the Supreme Court
analysed whether Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution was confined
to the Indian territory and finally held that the freedom of speech and
expression was not confined to the national boundaries.
Right not to Speak
This right has also been included in freedom of speech and expression.
This right came to the notice of people after the judgment in the leading
case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. The State of Kerala.42 This case is also known as
the National Anthem case. In this case, three students were expelled by
the school authority on refusal to sing the National Anthem.

However, these children stood from their seats in respect, when the
national anthem was playing. The validity of the expulsion of children was

40 S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574
41 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597

42 Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 August, 1986
challenged before the Kerala High Court. The court held that the expulsion
of students on the ground that it was their fundamental duty to sing the
national anthem was upheld.
However, on a further appeal by the students before the Supreme Court,
it held that the students had not committed any offence under the
Prevention of Insult to National Honor Act, 1971. Also, there was no law
through which their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution could be curtailed. And also it was held that expulsion
of children from school violated the right of freedom not to speak under
Article 19(1)(a).

Some of the important cases relating to the freedom of speech and

expression are as follows:

• People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India43

This case challenged the validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885, which stated that if there occurred any public emergency, or in
the interest of public safety, the Central Government or the State
Government or any other officials were authorized to take temporary
possession of any telegraph, on behalf of the government. Two conditions
were observed while dealing with this case:

1. The occurrence of public emergency

2. In the interest of public safety
For the application of the provisions of Section 5(2), these two conditions
were the sine qua non. If any of these two conditions were not present,
the government had no right to exercise its powers under the said Section.

43 People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 490 of 2002

 • Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India44

This case challenged the validity of the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1956, on the ground of restriction
that it took away or abridged this freedom. The Supreme Court held that
an advertisement is a form of speech only if every advertisement was held
to be dealing with commerce and trade and not for propagating any idea.

• A. Abbas v. Union of India45

It is the first case in which the issue of the prior censorship of films came
into consideration by the supreme court of India. The petitioner’s film was
not given ‘U’ certificate so he challenged the validity of censorship under
the criteria as it violated his fundamental rights of freedom of speech and
expression. The court, however, held that the motion picture stirs

emotions more deeply than any other form of art. Hence pre-censorship
was valid and was justified under Article 19(2).52

44Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India,1960 AIR 554

45A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 AIR 481 52 https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedom-
speech-
expression/#People%E2%80%99s_Union_for_Civil_Liberties_v_Union_of_India1
6
CHAPTER 6 : RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Rules recommendations for enhancing mass media in society

Enhancing freedom of expression online requires a multifaceted
approach rooted in clear policies and responsible practices. Firstly,
legislation should be crafted to protect free speech while addressing
specific online concerns, such as hate speech and misinformation.
Ensuring transparency and accountability in content moderation
practices is essential, allowing users to appeal decisions and preventing
arbitrary censorship. Equally vital is a robust digital literacy program that
empowers individuals to navigate the online landscape responsibly.
Protecting whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing online is crucial to
preserving free expression. Upholding data privacy regulations, net
neutrality, and an open internet are foundational to safeguarding online
freedoms. Collaboration among stakeholders, including governments,
civil society, tech companies, and users, should be encouraged to shape
effective policies. Policies should also target the protection of vulnerable
communities from online harassment and discrimination. Alignment with
international human rights standards is paramount, and ethical AI tools
can aid in content moderation while respecting free expression. Efforts to
counter disinformation and protect journalists should be prioritized, and
global cooperation is key in addressing cross-border online speech
challenges. Regular policy reviews ensure adaptability to the evolving
digital landscape. These recommendations collectively form a
comprehensive framework for enhancing freedom of expression online,
promoting responsible and inclusive digital discourse.
Strictly regulate the use of surveillance tools and personal-data collection
by government and law enforcement agencies. Government surveillance
programs should adhere to the International Principles on the Application
of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, a framework agreed
upon by a broad consortium of civil society groups, industry leaders, and
scholars for protecting users’ rights. The principles, which state that all
communications surveillance must be legal, necessary, and proportionate,
should also be applied to biometric surveillance technologies and
opensource intelligence methods such as social media monitoring. In the
United States, lawmakers should reform or repeal existing surveillance
laws and practices to better align with these standards, including those
under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and
Executive Order 12333, and pass the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not
For Sale Act, which would require government agencies to obtain a court
order before purchasing data from data brokers. Policymakers in the
United States should also investigate the extent to which commercial
surveillance tools, such as spyware and extraction technology, have been
used against Americans and ensure that appropriate safeguards are in
place.
Commission (FTC) has initiated important action to strengthen privacy
enforcement under existing authorities by issuing an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to explore whether stronger protections are needed
regarding commercial surveillance and data security. In the current
absence of a federal data privacy law, the FTC should issue a final rule that
provides robust protections and facilitates enforcement. Comprehensive
data-privacy legislation is also needed in the United States. The proposed
American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), which would institute
a comprehensive framework that limits what data can be collected by
companies, would be a positive step. The ADPPA would be made stronger
by making it clear that states are free to pass their own, more robust
privacy protection laws.
Required to report annually to the public on the impacts of their exports.
Reports should include a list of countries to which they have exported such
technologies, potential human rights concerns in each of those countries,
a summary of preexport due diligence undertaken to ensure that their
products are not misused, human rights violations that have occurred as a
result of the use or potential use of their technologies, and efforts to
mitigate the harm done and prevent future abuses. In the United States,
Congress should pass the Foreign Advanced Technology Surveillance
Accountability Act, which requires the Department of State to include
information on the status of surveillance and use of advanced technology
in its annual report on global human rights practices.
Maintain access to internet services, digital platforms, and circumvention
technology, particularly during elections, protests, and periods of conflict.
Intentional disruptions to internet access and online services impact
individuals’ economic, social, political, and civil rights. Governments
should avoid blocking or imposing onerous regulatory requirements on
circumvention tools, and imposing outright or arbitrary bans on social
media and messaging platforms. While some services may present
genuine societal and national security concerns, bans unduly restrict user
expression. Governments should instead address any legitimate risks
posed by social media and messaging platforms through existing
democratic mechanisms including regulatory action, security audits,
parliamentary scrutiny, and legislation passed in consultation with civil
society and affected stakeholders. Any restrictions to online content
should adhere to international human rights standards of legality,
necessity, and proportionality, and include robust oversight, transparency,
and consultation with civil society and the private sector. When sanctions
are imposed, it should be made clear that internet communications
services are exempt so as not to limit essential online tools for users in
authoritarian countries.
Enshrine human rights principles, transparency, and democratic oversight
in laws that regulate online content. Legal frameworks addressing online
content should establish special type- and size-oriented obligations on
companies, incentivize platforms to improve their own standards, and
require human rights due diligence and reporting. Such requirements
should prioritize transparency across core products and practices,
including content moderation, recommendation and algorithmic systems,
collection and use of data, and political and targeted advertising practices.
Laws should also provide opportunities for vetted researchers to access
platform data—information that can provide insights for policy
development and civil society’s research and advocacy. Intermediaries
should continue to benefit from safe-harbor protections for most
usergenerated and third-party content appearing on their platforms, so as
not to encourage restrictions that could inhibit free expression. Laws
should also protect “good Samaritan” rules and reserve decisions on the
legality of content for the judiciary rather than companies or executive
agencies. Internet users whose account or content is limited or removed
should have access to systems for notice, explanation, redress, and appeal.
Independent, multistakeholder bodies and independent regulators with
sufficient resources and expertise should be empowered to oversee the
implementation of laws, conduct audits, and ensure compliance.
Provisions within the EU’s Digital Services Act, notably its transparency
provisions, data accessibility for researchers, and a coregulatory form of
enforcement, offer a promising model for content-related laws.
Support online media and foster a resilient information space. Combating
disinformation and propaganda begins with public access to reliable
information and local, on-the-ground reporting. Democracies should scale
up efforts to support independent online media in their own countries and
abroad through financial assistance and innovative financing models,
technical support, and professional development support. They should
pair those efforts with broader civic education initiatives and digital
literacy training that help people navigate complex media environments.
They should also expand protections for journalists who face physical
attacks, legal reprisals, and harassment for their work online, including by
supporting the creation of emergency visas for those at risk. Laws should
protect the free flow of information, grant journalists access to those in
power, allow the public to place freedom of information requests, and
guard against state monopolization of media outlets.

Fully integrate human rights principles in competition policy enforcement.

Diversifying the market for online services—particularly through the
creation of smaller platforms that can be tailored toward the needs of a
particular community or audience—is a key step toward a more resilient
information environment. Competition in the digital market can also
encourage companies to create innovative products that protect
fundamental rights and tackle online harms such as harassment. When
enforcing competition policy, regulators should consider the implications
of market dominance on free expression, privacy, nondiscrimination, and
other rights. Governments should also ensure antitrust frameworks can
effectively be applied in the digital age, and create legal regimes that
incentivize such diversity, such as by introducing interoperability and
dataportability provisions like those in the EU’s Digital Markets Act.
Address the digital divide. Unequal access to the internet contributes to
economic and social inequality and undermines the benefits of a free and
open internet. In the short term, governments should work with service
providers to lift data caps and waive late-payment fees; they should also
support community-based initiatives to provide secure public-access
points and lend electronic devices to individuals who need them.
Longerterm efforts should include expanding access and building internet
infrastructure for underserved areas and populations, ensuring that
connectivity is affordable, and enacting strong legal protections for user
privacy and net neutrality.
Ensure that cyber diplomacy is both coordinated among democracies
and grounded in human rights. Democracies should facilitate dialogue
among national policymakers and regulators to coordinate on best
practices for
tech policy, and strengthen engagement at international standards-–
setting bodies. Diplomats should develop common approaches to
countering authoritarian influence within the UN General Assembly,
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and other multilateral
bodies. Multilateral decision-making should support and complement,
not replace, specific internet-governance and standards-setting activities
by multistakeholder bodies like the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN). In the United States, there is an
opportunity to institutionalize and sustain new initiatives and funding
streams focused on global technology policy and internet freedom,
especially those announced at the inaugural Summit for Democracy. The
State Department’s new Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy should
make human rights a central component of its mandate, including by
ensuring that staff have relevant expertise and coordinating closely with
other internet-focused departments within and across agencies. These
efforts should also formalize regular, ongoing engagement with civil
society and the private sector.
Strengthen the Freedom Online Coalition’s capacity to protect internet
freedom. As the upcoming 2023 chair, the United States should focus on
strengthening the FOC’s name recognition and its ability to drive
diplomatic coordination and global action. This includes by more
proactively articulating the benefits of a free and open internet to
governments, being more publicly and privately vocal on threats and
opportunities for human rights online, mainstreaming FOC activity in
other multilateral initiatives like the ITU and Group of 7 (G7), and creating
more avenues to engage with civil society and the private sector, including
through diversifying and expanding the coalition’s advisory network. The
FOC should consider increasing internal staffing to achieve these goals,
and creating an internal mechanism by which member states’ activities
can be evaluated to ensure they align with FOC principles. A new funding
mechanism, supported by member states, for programs and activities led
by nonstate stakeholders could also advance FOC priorities. Any expansion
of the coalition’s membership should be carried out in consultation with
the advisory network, and new members should be selected based on
their capacity to bolster the FOC’s work and contribute to greater
geographic diversity within the body.

Defend and expand internet freedom programming as a vital component

of democracy assistance. Democracy assistance targeting internet
freedom activities should prioritize digital security and digital activism
trainings, as well as provision of software that can protect or assist users.
Policymakers should support programs that seek to strengthen judicial
independence, enhance technical literacy among judges and others within
the legal system, and provide other financial and administrative resources
for strategic litigation. Governments should increase support for
technologies that help individuals in closed environments circumvent
government censorship, protect themselves against surveillance, and
overcome restrictions on connectivity. Such tools should be open-source,
user-friendly, and locally responsive in order to ensure high levels of
security and use. Finally, programming should support efforts aimed at
strengthening the independence and expertise of regulators, which can
serve as politically neutral bodies that protect internet freedom across
changes in political leadership.
Advocate for the immediate, unconditional release of those imprisoned
for online expression protected under international standards.
Governments should incorporate these cases, in addition to broader
internet-freedom concerns, into bilateral and multilateral engagement
with perpetrator countries. It should be made standard practice to raise
the names of those detained for their online content, to request
information or specific action related to their treatment, and to call for
their release and the repeal of laws that criminalize online expression. 46

Enhancing freedom of expression online while ensuring responsible use of

the internet is crucial in the digital age. Here are key points for policy
recommendations to achieve this:

1. Clear and Balanced Legislation: Develop clear and balanced

legislation that protects freedom of expression online while
addressing specific concerns like hate speech, cyberbullying, and

misinformation. Ensure that laws are not overly broad or vague to

prevent misuse.
2. Transparency and Accountability: Require online platforms to be
transparent about their content moderation policies and practices.
Establish mechanisms for users to appeal content removal decisions
and hold platforms accountable for inconsistent or biased
moderation.
3. User Education: Invest in digital literacy and media literacy
programs to empower users to discern credible information from
misinformation and engage in responsible online behavior.
4. Protection of Whistleblowers: Create legal protections and support
systems for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing online,
ensuring that their freedom of expression is safeguarded.

46 https://freedomhouse.org/policy-recommendations/internet-freedom
5. Data Privacy: Strengthen data privacy regulations to protect users’
personal information and ensure that online platforms responsibly
handle user data. Provide users with greater control over their data.
6. Net Neutrality: Uphold net neutrality principles to prevent internet
service providers from throttling or blocking access to specific
websites or content, preserving equal access to information.

7. Open Internet: Promote an open and accessible internet by

opposing internet shutdowns, which can disproportionately impact
freedom of expression and access to information.
8. Multistakeholder Collaboration: Encourage multistakeholder
collaboration involving governments, civil society, tech companies,
and users to develop and implement policies that protect freedom
of expression online.
9. Protecting Vulnerable Communities: Develop targeted policies to
protect vulnerable groups from online harassment, hate speech,
and discrimination, recognizing that certain communities may face
disproportionate risks.
10. International Human Rights Standards: Ensure that online freedom
of expression policies align with international human rights
standards, emphasizing that freedom of expression is a universal
right.
11. Ethical AI and Content Moderation: Invest in research and
development of ethical artificial intelligence tools to aid in content
moderation, helping platforms identify and remove harmful content
more effectively without compromising free expression.
12. Counter Disinformation: Promote collaborative efforts to counter
disinformation by supporting fact-checking organizations,
promoting media literacy, and encouraging responsible reporting.
13. Protection of Journalists: Strengthen protections for journalists,
bloggers, and online content creators, both legally and physically, to
ensure they can operate safely and freely.
 14. Global Cooperation: Encourage international cooperation to
address cross-border challenges related to online speech,
recognizing that the internet transcends national boundaries.
15. Regular Review: Periodically review and adapt online freedom of
expression policies to keep pace with evolving technology and
societal needs.
These policy recommendations aim to strike a balance between upholding
freedom of expression online and addressing the challenges posed by
harmful online behavior and content. Implementing these measures can
contribute to a healthier digital ecosystem where individuals can exercise
their rights responsibly and safely.47

6.2 : The importance of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy

Digital literacy and media literacy have become indispensable skills in our
information-saturated and digitally connected world. They serve as the
foundation for responsible and informed engagement in the digital age.
Digital literacy equips individuals with the ability to navigate digital tools,
platforms, and technologies effectively, fostering confidence and

competence in the digital realm. Media literacy, on the other hand,

empowers individuals to critically analyze and decode the messages
conveyed through various media forms, recognizing biases, stereotypes,
and misinformation. Together, these literacies enhance critical thinking,

enabling individuals to discern between credible and unreliable

information sources, safeguard their online privacy, and protect
themselves from digital threats. Moreover, digital and media literacy
foster responsible digital citizenship, promoting respectful and
constructive online interactions, and contributing to a more informed and

47https://www.unesco.org/en/multi-donor-programme-freedom-
expressionandsafetyjournalists/areas-action/policy-legislation-foe
democratic society. They are essential skills for personal empowerment,
safeguarding against misinformation, and fostering a digitally literate and
media-savvy populace capable of navigating the complexities of our
interconnected world.
Digital media literacy is often understood as the ability to access,
understand and participate or create content using digital media.
Developments in digital technology have had significant effects on the way
individuals interact with communications and media services. An
increasingly wide range of sources of information, ways of doing business,
services (including government services) and entertainment are now

commonly made available and accessed online and/or through digital

media.
Why is digital media literacy important?
The ability to confidently use, participate in and understand digital media
and services is becoming an important prerequisite to effective
participation in the digital economy and society more generally.
We all need to have at least basic digital media literacy skills because:

• The development of our country’s digital economy will be

constrained if its citizens are limited in their ability to participate
because they lack adequate skills or confidence
• Those unable to participate will be excluded from the benefits that
will increasingly flow from digital media as they become more
integrated into everyday social, cultural and economic life
• Those who are not digitally literate, or who have low levels of digital
literacy, will be less likely to have the confidence, knowledge and
understanding needed to participate in a safe, secure and informed
manner in the digital media and communications environments
they enter.
A digitally literate person should be able to:
 • Understand the nature of different types of digital services and the
content they provide
• Have basic capacity and competence to get connected, to operate
and access various digital technologies and services
• Participate confidently in the services provided by digital
technologies
• Exercise informed choices in online and digital media and
communications environments
• Have an adequate level of knowledge and skills to be able to protect
themselves and their families from unwanted, inappropriate or
unsafe content

With an increasingly complex array of services and technologies, people

need to be confident and skilled in navigating an expanding range and
choice of content while at the same time understanding how they might
protect themselves and their families from exposure to harmful or
inappropriate material. They need to know how to manage security and
privacy risks online and be able to make informed decisions between
various platforms and competing service providers.’ Chris Chapman,
ACMA Digital Media Literacy Research Forum September 2008. 48

Digital literacy and media literacy are of paramount importance in today’s

information-driven society. They equip individuals with the knowledge
and skills needed to navigate the complex digital landscape, critically
assess information, and engage responsibly online. Here’s why they are
crucial:

1. Critical Thinking: Digital and media literacy foster critical thinking

skills. They empower individuals to question information sources,
evaluate credibility, and discern between reliable and unreliable
content. In an era of vast online information, these skills are

essential for making informed decisions and avoiding

48 https://www.reached.co.nz/digital-media-literacy/
 misinformation.

2. Preventing Misinformation: Misinformation and fake news are

pervasive online. Digital and media literacy help people recognize
red flags, fact-check information, and avoid falling prey to
falsehoods. This is vital for maintaining an informed citizenry and
democratic processes.
3. Online Safety: Digital literacy includes knowledge about online
safety, privacy, and security. Users learn to protect their personal
information, recognize online threats, and safeguard themselves
against cyberbullying, scams, and other digital risks.

4. Empowering Users: These literacies empower individuals to

become active participants in the digital world rather than passive
consumers. Users can create content, engage in online discussions,
and contribute to meaningful online dialogue.
5. Responsible Citizenship: In a digital society, responsible citizenship
extends to the online realm. Digital and media literacy help
individuals understand their rights and responsibilities in the digital
space, promoting respectful and constructive online interactions.
6. Access to Opportunities: Proficiency in digital skills opens up
economic and educational opportunities. It enhances employability
and facilitates participation in online learning, remote work, and
ecommerce.
7. Cultural Awareness: Media literacy encompasses understanding
media’s role in shaping culture and society. It encourages critical
examination of media representations, stereotypes, and biases,
fostering cultural awareness and empathy.
8. Promoting Diversity of Voices: Media literacy encourages
consumers to seek out diverse perspectives and engage with a wide
 range of media sources. This helps counter echo chambers and
promotes a more inclusive media landscape.
9. Lifelong Learning: Digital and media literacy are lifelong skills. As
technology evolves and new media emerge, individuals equipped
with these skills can adapt and continue to engage effectively in a
rapidly changing digital environment.
10. Enhancing Democracy: In democratic societies, informed citizens
are essential. Digital and media literacy contribute to an informed
electorate capable of making decisions based on accurate
information, which is fundamental to the functioning of democracy.
11. Global Perspective: In a globalized world, these literacies enable
individuals to engage with diverse cultures, perspectives, and
information sources from around the world, fostering a global
outlook and cross-cultural understanding.

In summary, digital literacy and media literacy are indispensable in the

digital age. They empower individuals to be critical thinkers, responsible
digital citizens, and active participants in a globalized and information-rich
society. By promoting these literacies, we can navigate the complexities of
the digital world while upholding the values of informed decisionmaking,
freedom of expression, and responsible online behavior.49

6.3 : Speculation on the future of online communication and

expression.
The future of online communication and expression holds immense
promise and a fair share of challenges. As technology continues to evolve,
we can expect more immersive and interactive forms of online
communication, with virtual reality and augmented reality redefining how
we connect and share experiences. However, the rise of deepfakes and
AIgenerated content will intensify concerns about misinformation and
trustworthiness. Striking the right balance between freedom of expression

49 https://echo-breaking-news.com/blog/media-literacy-vs-digital-literacy/
and combating harmful content will remain a complex challenge,
prompting the development of more advanced content moderation tools
and regulations. The role of internet intermediaries, such as social media
platforms, will continue to be scrutinized, and we may witness efforts to
decentralize online communication to empower users further. Privacy
concerns will persist, pushing for more robust data protection regulations.
Ultimately, the future of online communication and expression will be
shaped by our ability to harness technology’s potential while addressing
the ethical, legal, and societal implications it brings to the forefront. The
future of online communication and expression promises both exciting

advancements and pressing challenges. On the positive side, we can

anticipate more immersive and interactive

platforms that leverage technologies like virtual reality, augmented reality,

and 5G to create richer digital experiences. These innovations will enable
more natural and authentic online interactions, bridging geographical

distances and fostering a sense of presence. Additionally, emerging

technologies may enhance accessibility for individuals with disabilities,
ensuring that online spaces are more inclusive.
However, the proliferation of deep fake technology and AI-generated
content raises concerns about the authenticity and reliability of online
information. Safeguarding against misinformation and ensuring the
trustworthiness of digital content will be paramount. This will necessitate
the development of robust fact-checking tools, digital authentication
methods, and media literacy initiatives.
The ongoing debate over content moderation and freedom of expression
will likely intensify. Striking a balance between open discourse and the
prevention of harmful content will remain a significant challenge. This may
lead to the emergence of more transparent and decentralized content
moderation systems, as well as increased scrutiny of the role played by
tech giants in regulating online speech.50

Privacy concerns will continue to be at the forefront, driven by issues

surrounding data collection, surveillance, and the ethical use of personal
information. Strengthening data protection regulations and empowering
individuals with greater control over their data will be crucial steps
forward. In the future of online communication and expression will be
shaped by our ability to harness technological advancements while
addressing the ethical, legal, and societal challenges they present.
Achieving a balance between innovation, freedom of expression, and
responsible digital citizenship will be the key to shaping a positive and
inclusive digital future.
We are likely to witness the convergence of emerging technologies that
will reshape how we connect and communicate. Firstly, the integration of
virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) into our digital interactions

will enable immersive and lifelike experiences. Meetings, social gatherings,

and even education could take place in virtual spaces, blurring the lines
between physical and digital realms. Artificial intelligence (AI) will

play a central role in personalizing content and recommendations, making

online interactions more tailored to individual preferences. AI-generated
content will become more prevalent, challenging our ability to distinguish
between human-created and AI-generated information.
However, the proliferation of deep fakes and AI-powered misinformation
will necessitate stronger digital literacy and fact-checking skills to discern
truth from deception. New forms of cyber threats and privacy breaches
may emerge, demanding innovative cybersecurity measures and robust
data protection regulations. The debate over the regulation of online
content will intensify. Striking the right balance between preserving

50 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-online-communication-christian-kromme
freedom of expression and curbing harmful content will remain a
contentious issue. Decentralized and block chain-based platforms may
offer alternative models for content moderation, empowering users to
have a greater say in community standards. Moreover, the growing
importance of online communities will redefine the way we engage with
information and each other. Niche online groups will continue to shape
narratives and influence public discourse, highlighting the need for
responsible online citizenship and critical thinking skills. In this evolving
landscape, digital inclusion will be paramount. Efforts to bridge the digital
divide and ensure equitable access to emerging technologies will be
crucial in preventing further disparities in online communication and
expression. In essence, the future of online communication and
expression promises incredible possibilities but also significant challenges.
Our ability to adapt, innovate, and uphold fundamental principles of
digital ethics will determine how we navigate this dynamic digital frontier.
The debate over content moderation and freedom of expression will
continue. Striking a balance between an open internet and preventing the
spread of harmful content will remain a complex challenge. Decentralized
technologies and block chain-based platforms may offer new solutions,
enabling users to have more control over content governance. Privacy
concerns will persist, particularly as data collection and surveillance
technologies advance. Regulations and frameworks for data protection
will evolve to ensure individuals have more control over their personal
information and are adequately protected from privacy breaches. Online
communities will gain even more significance, becoming influential hubs
for discourse, activism, and information dissemination. Niche
communities and social networks may reshape how we consume and
engage with content, emphasizing the need for responsible and informed
digital citizenship.51

Ultimately, the future of online communication and expression will be

shaped by our ability to harness technological advancements responsibly.
It will require a combination of robust regulations, improved digital
literacy, and ethical considerations to ensure that the digital landscape

51 https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/03/11/digital-life-in-2025/
remains a space for free expression, innovation, and meaningful
connections.52

52 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-online-communication-christian-kromme
CHAPTER 7 : CONCLUSION 7.1 Summarize key findings and insights
As the Internet expands and provides greater access, it also places
censorship and surveillance capacities in the hands of states and
corporations. It is therefore crucial that there exist strong protections of
the right to freedom of expression that balance state powers and citizen
rights. While the Internet has thrown up its own set of challenges such as
hate speech, the verbal online abuse of women and the use of the Internet
to spread rumors of violence, the regulation of content is a question that
is far from being settled and needs our urgent attention. What role can
and should the law play? When is it justified for the government to
intervene? What can be expected from intermediaries, such as social
networks and ISPs? And what can users do to protect the right to free
speech – their own and that of others?
Balancing freedom of expression with other rights is further complicated
by the challenges of fast paced and changing regulatory environment. By
highlighting these challenges and questioning the application of existing
frameworks we aim to contribute to further promoting and strengthening
the right to freedom of expression, in India and beyond.
Over the years, the norms and standards required for freedom of
expression in the traditional media world have received much attention.
When regulating communication, some restrictions upon freedom of
expression have been regarded necessary and are enforceable by national
or international courts. Such restrictions have been defined in
international human rights laws and cover issues such as defamation,
incitement to violence and hate speech. While these restrictions are not
affected by the introduction of new means of communication, the
proliferation of digital communications does warrant the recognition that
there are new forms of censorship, unsettled questions of jurisdiction, and
the need to develop new norms and standards that can keep pace with
the myriad forms of expression and information sharing.
Communication in the digital age has led to the evolution of the Internet
as a medium that has revolutionized largely local capacity for
communication into a worldwide phenomenon that encompasses
everything from personal one-to-one emails, social networks and reaching
out to large audiences globally. The proliferation of digital technologies
has not only fostered unprecedented access to information; the very
environment stands transformed by the introduction of new kinds of
information from voice, sound, image, text and code, that are accessible
on a range of devices and across several types of technologies.
These networks and services democratized communication by lowering
barriers to access and creating new space for publishing and peer-to-peer
collaboration. Bypassing traditional gatekeepers of other forms of media,
users can take on the role of writers, broadcasters or publishers on the
Internet thus creating limitless possibilities for producing, sharing and
exchanging all kinds of content. From this view, the Internet has sprung up
as a globally accessible means of communication that is free from
traditional restraints on free speech and expression. However, there are
other unintended consequences that the Internet has had on both forms
of power and control in the regulation of content, as online content has
become increasingly contested, enclosed in a nationalized sphere
challenging the free flow of information and freedom of expression.53

The examination of the new freedom of expression in the internet age has
revealed a complex and evolving landscape. On one hand, the internet has
empowered individuals to express themselves globally, democratizing
communication and amplifying diverse voices. However, this newfound
freedom coexists with challenges like misinformation, hate speech, and
privacy concerns. Digital and media literacy have emerged as essential
skills to navigate this digital realm, enabling users to critically assess
information and engage responsibly online. The global perspective on
freedom of expression varies, reflecting cultural and legal contexts, while
internet intermediaries play a pivotal role in shaping online discourse. As
we look to the future, emerging technologies promise to further transform
online expression, necessitating ongoing discussions about ethics, privacy,
and the delicate balance between openness and regulation in the digital
age.
In examining the new freedom of expression in the internet age, several
key findings and insights have emerged:

• Empowerment Through Connectivity: The internet has empowered

individuals to express themselves on a global scale, enabling diverse
voices and marginalized groups to be heard. Online platforms and
social media have democratized communication, fostering
unprecedented opportunities for self-expression and activism.

53https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/freedom-of-
expressionindigitalage#:~:text=As%20the%20Internet%20expands%20and,state%20powers%20and%2
0citizen%2
0r ights.
 • Challenges of Online Expression: Alongside these opportunities,
there are significant challenges. Misinformation, hate speech,
cyberbullying, and privacy concerns have arisen in the digital realm,

necessitating the development of effective strategies for content

moderation and protection.

• Digital and Media Literacy: The importance of digital and media

literacy has grown substantially. These skills are crucial for users to
navigate the online landscape responsibly, critically evaluate
information sources, and differentiate between credible and
unreliable content.
• Global Perspectives: Freedom of expression online varies
significantly across regions, reflecting diverse cultural, legal, and
political contexts. Balancing the universal right to free speech with
region-specific concerns and regulations remains a complex issue.
• Internet Intermediaries’ Role: Internet intermediaries, particularly
social media platforms, wield significant influence over online
expression. Their content moderation policies and practices raise
questions about transparency, accountability, and the
concentration of power in the digital sphere.
• Future Transformations: The future of online expression is poised
for transformation with emerging technologies such as virtual
reality, artificial intelligence, and blockchain. While these
innovations offer new avenues for self-expression, they also pose
ethical and privacy challenges that require ongoing consideration.
In summary, the new freedom of expression in the internet age is marked
by empowerment, challenges, and ongoing evolution. It underscores the
importance of striking a balance between the openness of the digital
space and responsible safeguards that protect individuals and society from
its associated risks.
The exploration of the new freedom of expression in the internet age has
uncovered a dynamic landscape marked by both promise and challenges.
The internet has democratized communication, granting individuals
unprecedented opportunities to share their voices globally. However, this
empowerment coexists with pressing issues such as misinformation, hate
speech, and privacy concerns. As a response, digital and media literacy has
emerged as a crucial skill set for navigating the digital realm responsibly.
Additionally, global perspectives on freedom of expression vary widely,
influenced by diverse cultural, legal, and political contexts. Internet
intermediaries, particularly social media platforms, wield considerable
influence over online discourse, raising questions about their
accountability and content moderation practices. Looking ahead, the
future of online expression promises continued transformation as
emerging technologies reshape digital communication, sparking
discussions about ethics, privacy, and the need to strike a delicate balance
between openness and regulation in the evolving digital age.

7.2 Emphasize the evolving nature of freedom of expression in the

internet age.
The evolving nature of freedom of expression in the internet age is a
central theme that underscores the dynamic and transformative character
of this fundamental right. Unlike in traditional mediums, online expression
is characterized by its rapid evolution and adaptability. The internet has
continually expanded the scope of what can be expressed and by whom,
democratizing access to global audiences. However, this evolution has also
given rise to new challenges, such as the spread of misinformation and the
need for nuanced content moderation. As technology advances, the
methods of expression and the platforms for communication continually
shift, necessitating ongoing discussions and adaptations to ensure that the
principles of free speech and responsible online behavior remain relevant
and effective in this ever-changing digital landscape.
Unlike traditional forms of communication, the digital realm offers
unprecedented opportunities for individuals to share their thoughts,
ideas, and perspectives on a global scale. The internet has disrupted
established hierarchies of information dissemination, democratizing the
ability to express oneself and connect with diverse audiences. However,
this evolution is not without its challenges. The internet age has
introduced new complexities, including the rapid spread of
misinformation, the emergence of echo chambers, and the need for
effective content moderation. As technology continues to advance and
reshape the ways we communicate, the concept of freedom of expression
remains in a constant state of flux, requiring ongoing adaptation and
thoughtful consideration to ensure that it remains relevant, effective, and
aligned with the evolving needs and values of our digital society.
The government also published its digital strategy in June 2022, which set
out the government’s vision for “building a more inclusive, competitive
and innovative digital economy”. As part of the strategy, the government
published an initial outcome monitoring framework for digital regulation
and invited views from stakeholders on how to measure regulatory
outcomes. The outcomes which it is seeking to assess include:

• Promoting competition and innovation

• Keeping the safe and secure online
• Promoting a flourishing democratic society, with digital
technologies that support democratic engagement and preserve
freedom of expression and human rights54

The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, establishes a robust framework

for the protection of free speech and expression as a fundamental right.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the
right to freedom of speech and expression.1 This foundational principle

54https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/freedom-of-expression-online-
communicationsanddigitalcommittee-report/#heading-13
reflects the framers’ belief in the importance of open dialogue, public
discourse, and the free flow of information in a democratic society.
The constitutional recognition of free speech as a fundamental right
signifies its significance in shaping public opinion, holding those in power
accountable, and fostering a culture of democratic participation. The
framers of the Indian Constitution were mindful of the historical context
in which India gained independence, where freedom of speech and
expression had been curtailed under colonial rule. They sought to ensure

that the citizens of India would have the freedom to express their
thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of repression or censorship.

The constitutional protection of free speech In India extends not only to

spoken and written words but also to various forms of expression,
including artistic expression, political dissent, and the right to access
information. This expansive understanding of free speech reflects a
commitment to fostering a pluralistic society that embraces diversity and
encourages the free exchange of ideas. The Constitution recognizes that
the right to free speech is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable
restrictions. Article 19(2) outlines specific grounds on which the State can

impose restrictions on free speech, such as public order, decency, morality,

defamation, incitement to an offence, and the sovereignty and integrity of
India. These restrictions aim to strike a balance between protecting free
speech and maintaining social harmony, national security, and the rights
and reputations of others.
The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, plays a vital role in
interpreting and protecting the right to free speech in India. Over the
years, the Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark
judgments that have further clarified and strengthened the scope and
extent of free speech rights. These judgments have emphasized the
importance of free speech in a democratic society, recognizing it as a tool
for citizens to participate in governance, criticize the government, and
promote social change.
The constitutional framework of free speech in India provides a solid
foundation for the protection of this fundamental right in the virtual
world. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to ensure
that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are upheld and applied in
the context of online communication. Balancing the right to free speech
with other competing interests and challenges posed by the virtual world
requires continuous evaluation and adaptation of legal frameworks and
policies.55

Also, there is no doubt that fake news abounds in society especially

through digital means such as WhatsApp forwards and morphed videos
and pictures which urgently needs to be put in check by the authorities.

However, the manner in which they seem to be going about the same
might not be the best possible approach. The government needs to
exercise its power cautiously so that it can avoid facing flak from society
on its apparently arbitrary measures.
As stated by the Court in the case of Romesh Thappar 56, the circulation of
ideas through press media upholds Article 19(1)(a) 57. Like any situation,
the era of digital media can be looked at in two ways- as a blessing or as a

boon. For example, the recent ban of Chinese applications by the Central
Government on the grounds that the applications were ‘prejudicial to
sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and

55 https://legalvidhiya.com/free-speech-in-the-virtual-world-and-the-constitution-of-india/
56 Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras (1950) AIR 124
57 INDIA CONST. art. 19 cl.1, sub cl.a
public order58 been seen in a positive light by some but others claim that
it is a move that is violative of the right to freedom of speech and
expression as the ban included various social media apps which had a
major user base in India.
Therefore, along with the government keeping its powers in check we
must also make the most of the digital era for positive purposes only and
not take advantage of the freedom it gives us through a click of a button.
In the absence of any data protection laws in our country, it is imperative
that the legislature, executive and judiciary take steps to pass and
implement laws which adequately make the digital world a safe space for
the public while simultaneously ensuring that their freedom to speech and
expression is not encroached upon in any way.

The first step towards the same would be to proactively garner the public
opinion (which can be easily facilitated thanks to the digital era) as to what

they, as the primary users who voice their opinions on the digital platforms
find are areas where they feel their freedom of speech and expression are
being inhibited so that the regulating authorities can meet their demands
at the middle while simultaneously imposing truly reasonable restrictions
on the same to maintain public law and order.

Bibliography

• https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-
12081influenceoffreedom-of-speech-on-media-right-to-privacy-

58 PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1635206
anddataprivacy-theinability-to-bar-the-public-from-intervening-
intoones-life.html
•
https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedom-speech-
expressiondigitalera/#Conclusion
• https://legalvidhiya.com/free-speech-in-the-virtual-
worldandtheconstitution-of-india/
• https://www.google.com/search?q=article+21+of+indian+constitu
tion&client=ms-android-
oneplus&sca_esv=562574765&sxsrf=AB5stBi6rzdHKP6o7_kc8poa
WRZVgER87Q%3A1693848780581&ei=zBT2ZP-EI8-
O4EPlc682AU&oq=article+21+of+in&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXd
pe
i1zZXJwIhBhcnRpY2xlIDIxIG9mIGluKgIIADIIEAAYigUYkQIyDhAAGIo
FGLEDGIMBGJECMgUQABiABDIKEAAYgAQYFBiHAjIFEAAYgAQyCBA
AGIoFGJECMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARIqC5Q4”tYqC’wBHgBkAEAmAG
XAqABwRuqAQUwLjguObgBAcgBAPgBAagCD8ICChAAGEcY1gQYsA
PCAgcQIxjqAhgnwgIHECMYigUYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgcQABiKBRhDwgILE
AAYigUYsQMYkQLCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMB4gME
GAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
• https://lawcorner.in/freedom-of-
speechandexpressioninternet/#Cases_Of_Right_To_Internet_Outs
ide_In dia
• https://legalvidhiya.com/free-speech-in-the-virtual-
worldandtheconstitution-of-india/
• https://www.aelex.com/are-social-media-
platformsasinternetintermediaries-liable-for-
intellectualpropertyinfringements/
• https://www.google.com/search?q=key+findings+and+insights+o
n
+new+freedom+of+expression+for+internet+age&oq=key+finding
s+and+insights+on+new+freedom+of+expression+for+internet+ag
e&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10.16133j0j4&client=msandroidoneplus
&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
• https://www.google.com/search?q=the+importance+of+digital+lit
eracy+and+media+literacy&oq=the+importance+of+digital+literac
•
•
y+and+media+li&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j33i10i160l2j33i22i29i30l2.1
1300j0j7&client=ms-
androidoneplus&sourceid=chromemobile&ie=UTF-8
• https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/bhasinvu
nion-of-india/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedom-
speechexpression/#People%E2%80%99s_Union_for_Civil_Libertie
s_v_Un ion_of_India16
• https://prsindia.org/billtrack/theinformationtechnologyintermedi
ary-guidelines-and-digital-mediaethics-coderules-2021
• https://singhania.in/blog/significant-
socialmediaintermediariesssmis-
#:~:text=Rule%202(1)(w,intermediaries%20with%20more%20than
%2050
• Sharma, A. (2021). Free Speech and Expression: A Constitutional
Perspective. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Patel, R. (2020). Digital Democracy and the Indian Constitution.
Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2), 45-68.
• Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. (2022).
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules. Retrieved from
https://www.meity.gov.in/
• Supreme Court of India. (2021). Judgment on XYZ v. Government of
India, AIR SC 2021 (Vol. 5).
• Verma, S. (2019). The Dilemma of Hate Speech Regulation:
Balancing Free Speech and Social Harmony. Indian Journal of Law
and Public Policy, 28(3), 109-125.
• Prasad, R. K. (2017). Free Speech and Social Media: An Analysis of
Online Hate Speech. Communication Law Review, 43(2), 178-195.
• Bhatia, A. (2016). Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Digital
Age. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(26-27), 89-97.
•
•
• Indian Constitution. (1950). Article 19(1)(a). Government of India.
• Dey, S. (2015). Virtual Boundaries: Challenges of Free Speech in
Cyberspace. International Journal of Legal Studies and Research,
4(2), 89-103.
• Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. And Ors. V. Union
of India (UOI) and Ors (1986) SCC (1) 259
• Information Technology Act, 2000
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January 2004, 2920 of
1996
• Virendra v. The State of Punjab, 1957 AIR 896
• Sakal Papers v. Union of India, 1962 AIR 305
• Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124
• Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 1986 AIR 515
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
• Sakal Papers v. Union of India, 1962 AIR 305
• Tata Press Limited v. Mahanagar Telephone Nagar Limited, 1995
SCC (5) 139
• Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd .v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, 1988
AIR 1642
• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2001
Delhi 126
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1987 AIR 748
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 490 of 2002
• Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India,1960 AIR 554

• A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 AIR 481 • Article 19(2),

•
•
Constitution of India, 1950.
• AIR 1948 Nag, 199
• Indirect Tax Practitioner Assn. v. R.K. Jain, NO.15 OF 1997 • The
constitution of India, P.M. Bakshi, 8th Edn. ( New Delhi:
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2007)
• Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Thirty-third Edition, 2006
• Future of OTT in India’ (Community by NASSCOM Insights 2020)
https://community.nasscom.in/communities/digitaltransformatio
n/telecom-media-communities/future-of-ott-
inindia.html#:~:text=Production%20houses%20are%20going%20d
igi tal,catering%20to%20subscribers%20”n%20India accessed
• Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 1 SCR 65.
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257.
The Information Technology Act 2000
• Centre establishes grievance mechanism with I & B Ministry
oversight for OTT, digital media platforms’ The Wire (New Delhi, 25
February 2021) https://thewire.in/government/ott-
digitalmediagrievance-mechanism-rules-
informationbroadcastingministry
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/centreframesguideline
s-for-ott-platforms-digitalmedia/article33932444.ece
• The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, cl. II(A)(c).
• https://cis-
india.org/internetgovernance/events/freedomofexpression-in-
digital-
age#:~:text=As%20the%20Internet%20expands%20and,state%20p
owers%20and%20citizen%20rights.
• https://www.vedantu.com/english/freedom-of-speech-essay
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedomspeechexpression/#People%E2
%80%99s_Union_for_Civil_Libertie s_v_Un ion_of_India16
•
•
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impactinternetcommunicationso
cial-interaction-priyanka-
ahuja#:~:text=With%20the%20rise%20of%20the,communication
% 20faster%20and%20more%20efficient.
• https://singhania.in/blog/significant-
socialmediaintermediariesssmis-
#:~:text=Rule%202(1)(w,intermediaries%20with%20more%20than
%2050
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedom-
speechexpressiondigitalera/#Conclusion
• https://www.google.com/search?q=the+importance+of+digital+lit
eracy+and+media+literacy&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.69i176j35i39i362l
14.-1j0j7&client=ms-
androidoneplus&sourceid=chromemobile&ie=UTF-8
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1241147/
•

https://www.google.com/search?q=article+21+of+indian+constitu
tion&client=ms-android-
oneplus&sca_esv=562574765&sxsrf=AB5stBi6rzdHKP6o7_kc8poa
WRZVgER87Q%3A1693848780581&ei=zBT2ZP-EI8-
O4EPlc682AU&oq=article+21+of+in&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXd
pe
i1zZXJwIhBhcnRpY2xlIDIxIG9mIGluKgIIADIIEAAYigUYkQIyDhAAGIo
FGLEDGIMBGJECMgUQABiABDIKEAAYgAQYFBiHAjIFEAAYgAQyCBA
AGIoFGJECMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARIqC5Q4gtYqClwBHgBkAEAmA
GXAqABwRuqAQUwLjguObgBAcgBAPgBAagCD8ICChAAGEcY1gQYs
APCAgcQIxjqAhgnwgIHECMYigUYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgcQABiKBRhDwgI
LEAAYigUYsQMYkQLCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMB4gM
EGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
• https://www.reached.co.nz/digital-media-literacy/
• https://www.google.com/search?q=Speculation+on+the+future+o
f+online+communication+and+expression.+&client=msandroidon
eplus&sca_esv=562677350&sxsrf=AB5stBj5c8knGMwIv
Dr_ZMcOmwnhqU44Q%3A1693897688023&ei=2NP2ZIxzj_ax4w_
iyzc&oq=Speculation+on+the+future+of+online+communication+
a
nd+expression.+&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIkJTcGVj
dWxhdGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgZnV0dXJlIG9mIG9ubGluZSBjb21tdW5pY2
F
0aW9uIGFuZCBleHByZXNzaW9uLiBI1itQ_CNY_CNwAngCkAEAmA
H
9AaAB8QOqAQMyLTK4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQKoAg_CAgQQABhHwgI
HECMY6gIYJ-
IDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=mobilegwswizserp#sbfbu=1&pi=Spe
culation%20on%20the%20future%20 of% 20
online%20communication%20and%20expression.
• https://www.igi-
global.com/chapter/intermediariesinecommerce/148948#:~:text=
Internet%20Intermediaries%3A%2
0I nt
 ernet%20intermediaries%20or,users%20to%20the%20system%2C
%20B)

• https://thedailyguardian.com/role-and-liability-
oftheinternetintermediaries-an-analysis/
https://www.google.com/search?q=IAS+Coaching+in+Delhi+%7C+
Top+CSE+Coaching%0A%0AShare+This+Post%0AFacebookWhatsA
ppLinkedInTwitterPinterestPrint%0ARelated+Posts%0A%0AFreedo
m+Of+Speech+In+Cyberspace%0A%0ARight+to+Freedom+of+Spe
ech+and+Expression%0A%0ASpeech+%26+Expression+%26+Defa
mation%3A+with+reference+to+the+Indian+Constitution%0ACate
goriesLegal+Articles%0ATags2000%2C+Freedom+of+Speech+and+
Expression%2C+IT+Act%2C+liberty+of+a+person%2C+Shreya+Sing
hal+vs+Union+of+India%2C+social+media%0AFunctions+of+Com
m
ercial+Banks%0AHelp+with+Math+Homework%3A+Online+Math+
Solutions+to+Ease+Your+Student%E2%80%99s+Life%0A%0APrash
ant+Sharma%0A%0APrashant+Sharma+is”a+law+student+at+Gov
ernment+Law+College%2C+Mumbai.+He+secured+AIR+46+in+M
H
CET+2021.+He+used+to+write+content+based+on+legal+issues%
2
C+social+Issues%2C+economic+aspects%2C+current+issues%2C+
maritime+industries%2C+technology+and+other+related+topics.
%
0A%0A...%0ASearch+for%3A%0A%0A%0A%0A%0AFreedom+Of+S
peech+In+Cyberspace%0AJune+5%2C+2021%0ARight+to+Freedo
m+of+Speech+and+Expression%0AOctober+18%2C+2019%0ASpe
e
ch+%26+Expression+%26+Defamation%3A+with+reference+to+th
e+Indian+Constitution%0ASept%E2%80%A6&client=msandroidon
eplus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
• https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/978-1-349-94990-8
• https://legalvidhiya.com/effect-of-internet-on-
freedomofspeechexpression/
• https://www.google.com/search?q=Article+5A+of+Greece%E2%8
0%99s+Constitution&oq=Article+5A+of+Greece%E2%80%99s+Co
n
•

stitution&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160j33i22i29i30.873j0j4&clie
n t=ms-android-oneplus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
• https://www.google.com/search?q=IAS+Coaching+in+Delhi+%7C+
Top+CSE+Coaching%0A%0AShare+This+Post%0AFacebookWhatsA
ppLinkedInTwitterPinterestPrint%0ARelated+Posts%0A%0AFreedo
m+Of+Speech+In+Cyberspace%0A%0ARight+to+Freedom+of+Spe
ech+and+Expression%0A%0ASpeech+%26+Expression+%26+Defa
mation%3A+with+reference+to+the+Indian+Constitution%0ACate
goriesLegal+Articles%0ATags2000%2C+Freedom+of+Speech+and+
Expression%2C+IT+Act%2C+liberty+of+a+person%2C+Shreya+Sing
hal+vs+Union+of+India%2C+social+media%0AFunctions+of+Com
m
ercial+Banks%0AHelp+with+Math+Homework%3A+Online+Math+
Solutions+to+Ease+Your+Student%E2%80%99s+Life%0A%0APrash
ant+Sharma%0A%0APrashant+Sharma+is”a+law+student+at+Gov
ernment+Law+College%2C+Mumbai.+He+”ecur’d+AIR+46+in+MH
CET+2021.+He+used+to+write+content+based+on+legal+issues%
2
C+social+issues%2C+economic+aspects%2C+current+issues%2C+
maritime+industries%2C+technology+and+other+related+topics.
%
0A%0A...%0ASearch+for%3A%0A%0A%0A%0A%0AFreedom+Of+S
peech+In+Cyberspace%0AJune+5%2C+2021%0ARight+to+Freedo
m+of+Speech+and+Expression%0AOctober+18%2C+2019%0ASpe
e
ch+%26+Expression+%26+Defamation%3A+with+reference+to+th
e+Indian+Constitution%0ASept%E2%80%A6&client=msandroidon
eplus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
• https://lawcorner.in/freedom-of-
speechandexpressioninternet/#:~:text=United%20Nations%20has
%20de clar ed%20that,
be%20protected%20from%20unreasonable%20interference.
• https://lawcorner.in/freedom-of-
speechandexpressioninternet/#Cases_Of_Right_To_Internet_Outs
ide_In dia

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/
• https://www.google.com/search?q=article+21+of+indian+constitu
tion&client=ms-android-
oneplus&sca_esv=562574765&sxsrf=AB5stBi6rzdHKP6o7_kc8poa
WRZVgER87Q%3A1693848780581&ei=zBT2ZP-EI8-
O4EPlc682AU&oq=article+21+of+in&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXd
pe
i1zZXJwIhBhcnRpY2xlIDIxIG9mIGluKgIIADIIEAAYigUYkQIyDhAAGIo
FGLEDGIMBGJECMgUQABiABDIKEAAYgAQYFBiHAjIFEAAYgAQyCBA
AGIoFGJECMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgARIqC5Q4gtYqClwBHgBkAEAmA
GXAqABwRuqAQUwLjguObgBAcgBAPgBAagCD8ICChAAGEcY1gQYs
 APCAgcQIxjqAhgnwgIHECMYigUYJ8ICBBAjGCfCAgcQABiKBRhDwgI
LEAAYigUYsQMYkQLCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMB4gM
EGAAgQYgGAZAGCA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1475436/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedomspeechexpression/#People%E2
%80%99s_Union_for_Civil_Libertie s_v_Un ion_of_India16