Published on 12th June 2025
Authored By: Raj Sanjay Mitra
University of Delhi
INTRODUCTION
A few decades have passed since the Internet swept the information age. It now plays a crucial role in people’s daily lives. The Internet has completely transformed the way individuals communicate and share information. One of the most widely used computer-mediated communication channels nowadays is social media. As a result, the entire world has evolved into a global village. Information overload has become ubiquitous as a result of individuals sharing information from all over the world. In most nations, however, the government has some degree of control over the information that citizens disclose. Herein, it becomes imperative to assess the various liberties given as well as restrictions that are imposed with regard to free speech and expression in the context of digital and social media.
Every person has the freedom to freely express their thoughts and to use any media, regardless of boundaries, to seek, receive, and share information and ideas. Every citizen in a democracy like India has the freedom to use social media to express themselves and spread knowledge. The way people interact and exercise their right to free speech has changed drastically as a result of the advent of the internet and the pervasive usage of social media platforms. The protection of this basic right has faced new opportunities as well as problems in the digital era. The purpose of this research paper is to examine the intricate link between online communication and freedom of expression, examining the ethical, sociological, and legal aspects of an ever-changing environment. It seeks to bring out the many liberties that are granted under the ambit of freedom of speech and expression as well as to highlight the various restrictions like censorship that are imposed on the said freedom. This study aims to provide light on the current discussions and conundrums regarding freedom of expression in the digital age by looking at global viewpoints, legal frameworks, and the involvement of internet corporations. [1]
THE INTER-RELATION OF DIGITAL MEDIA WITH FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
There are several valid points of contention regarding social media and its effects on society. One of the more concerning aspects of how social media has changed public discourse is the spread of horrifying content, which ranges from sexually explicit material to the abuse of children. Therefore, social media could go from being a place where an infinite number of voices can reach an infinite number of people to one where a small number of powerful voices can reach a big number of people if these conflicts are used as an excuse to impose restrictions on freedom of expression. Each person has the freedom to express their opinions in any way and across any boundaries without fear of retaliation, such as threats or abuse, regardless of where they really live. This is often seen as self-evident. The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and thinking. The right to free speech is a complicated one. The law may take into account some limitations on how freedom of expression may be used, given that it isn’t free and comes with a number of obligations. The right to free speech does not grant citizens the right to speak or distribute without consequence. It’s far from a free-for-all that protects everyone from consequences no matter how they choose to use language. The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(2)[2] permits the legislature to adopt rules that restrict the right to free speech and expression on the grounds of the independence and integrity of India, the nation’s safety and security, positive relations with other nations, upholding social order and law, among others.[3]
In the past year or two, there has been a growing global movement in support of reform, justice, equality, the accountability of the powerful, and the respect for human rights. Because social media and the Internet make it so simple for people to interact and share information, they have been crucial to many of these movements. Although it has faced challenges, the UN Human Rights Committee has also attempted to implement the concept of freedom of expression in the contemporary media landscape, which is dominated by the internet and mobile devices.
In addition to its positive uses, the Internet can be abused, which justifies the government’s constitutionally mandated control over online information for the benefit of the public. Social media makes it simple to commit a number of cybercrimes, such as defamation, invasions of privacy, inciting criminal activity, and racial remarks. Once such offensive content is out there, it spreads quickly and is very difficult to stop or limit. Thus, social media regulation by the government is essential in this situation. As long as it serves the interests of the people, government authority can meet the demands of people both individually and collectively.
As long as it serves the interests of the people, government authority can meet the demands of people both individually and collectively. In this instance, the government starts filtering, which entails limiting citizens’ civil liberties, including the right to free speech. However, states are more likely than not to go above and above in some fashion, even though the extent varies from state to state, even when safeguards are in place. The Indian government’s control over social media seems to be becoming more and more illiberal. This has led to a great deal of criticism of the constraints in India and around the world. At least two serious human rights issues arise from the extensive usage of social media platforms like Facebook. Regardless of which government or political party is in power, the government’s authority to declare information illegal increases the likelihood that political discourse will be unacceptably censored. Additionally, the initial restrictions on acceptable content are stricter than the exceptions to freedom of expression allowed by international law and India’s constitution. Social media sites and other digital communication channels are the subject of intense discussion and dispute under the standards.[4]
CENSORSHIP OF SOCIAL MEDIA
When censorship is enacted in any form, it raises questions about individual freedom. In the realm of social media, this particularly pertains to the right to free speech and expression, although the degree of this threat is subject to debate. Censoring a specific piece of information indicates that the authority imposing the censorship seeks to prevent the public from accessing it. Typically, censorship arises from anticipated negative consequences or from past incidents where similar information or content has led to adverse effects. The rationale behind such censorship is that public access to this information could potentially disrupt the integrity or harmony of the state, a community, or individuals. Consequently, social media platforms may restrict users from posting content deemed unacceptable, as outlined in their Terms of Service, or governments may impose regulations on how social media is utilized by their citizens. The complexity of censorship increases in the context of social media, as international boundaries become irrelevant. When individuals use social media to express their thoughts, they have the entire world at their fingertips. Additionally, content that is legal in the country of origin may be considered illegal in other regions with more stringent regulations. This paper will first provide an overview of internet regulatory policies across various countries and subsequently analyse different instances of alleged social media misuse, particularly in India, to examine the current state of social media censorship in the country.[5]
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTERNET LAWS GOVERNING DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD
In 2015, the USA Freedom Act was enacted, following its passage by the United States Senate. This legislation significantly curtailed the mass surveillance capabilities of the National Security Agency (NSA). This development was particularly well-received, as it came in the wake of Edward Snowden’s startling disclosures regarding the NSA’s extensive monitoring of phone and internet communications. [6]
In contrast, countries in the Middle East have generally maintained stringent policies across various domains, including internet regulation. In 2014, Saudi Arabia enacted a Counterterrorism Law that criminalizes online expressions deemed to promote atheism, damage the state’s reputation, disrupt public order, or threaten national security, among other criteria. This broad definition indicates that, in this absolute monarchy, the King holds substantial authority over online content. Numerous reports have surfaced regarding individuals being arrested for their online activities, leading many in Saudi Arabia to perceive freedom of expression on the internet as an unattainable aspiration. From bloggers to social media users, all are subject to scrutiny by the Saudi authorities. [7]
In November 2015, the Bangladeshi government imposed a ban on six social media platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp, Line, Messenger, Tango, and Viber, citing security concerns. This action followed the Bangladesh Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death sentences of two prominent opposition figures, Salauddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, for war crimes committed during the 1971 independence conflict. The ban was subsequently lifted on December 14, as the government assessed that the security threats had diminished. Social media restrictions are not unprecedented in Bangladesh; in 2010, the government temporarily blocked Facebook in response to the posting of satirical images of the Prophet Mohammed. [8]
In India, social media primarily functions to facilitate connections, networking, and the expression of opinions. Recently, there has been a perception that individuals often overreact to certain events on these platforms. However, it is widely believed that, barring posts that incite sedition (an offense previously recognised under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code), individuals should have the right to express their personal views. Nonetheless, Section 66A of the IT Act significantly restricted this freedom of speech, and like many other laws in our country, it contained numerous ambiguities, as previously noted. Many individuals faced arrest under this Act. To illustrate how censorship operates in India, consider a specific case.
In November 2012, a young woman was detained for a Facebook post in which she questioned the city’s paralysis following the death of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray. Her post read: “With all respect, every day, thousands of people die, but still the world moves on. Just due to one politician dying a natural death, everyone just goes bonkers. They should know, we are resilient by force, not by choice. When was the last time anyone showed some respect or even a two-minute silence for Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Azad, Sukhdev, or any of the individuals who contributed to our freedom? Respect is earned, given, and definitely not forced. Today, Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not due to respect.” A friend who had liked her post was also arrested. Their detentions sparked significant public outcry, and the court subsequently dismissed the charges against both women. [9]
PERTINENT CASE LAWS
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[10]
In this significant Indian case, the esteemed court determined that the prohibition on publishing critiques of the state administration violated the free speech rights enshrined in Article 19. This ruling is pivotal in establishing the foundation of free speech, which is essential to a government that operates with the consent of the governed.
State of Madras v. V.G. Row[11]
The court decisively concluded that the state government acted unconstitutionally by prohibiting a pamphlet that criticized certain governmental policies, thereby infringing upon the right to freedom of speech and expression. This decision reinforced the principles of free speech within the context of Indian democracy.
Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar[12]
The Supreme Court clarified that governmental criticism does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence or leads to public disorder. This case outlines the limits of free speech and the reasonable restrictions that may be applied.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Ghulam Nabi Azad v. Union of India (Kashmir Internet shutdown case) [13]
In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the rights to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to conduct business or trade online, are protected by the Constitution. The court mandated that the authorities in Jammu & Kashmir promptly restore internet services in all institutions providing essential services, such as banks and hospitals. The judgment addressed the procedures governing internet shutdowns and the restrictions imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized that all orders leading to an internet shutdown must be made public and clarified that indefinite extensions of such orders would be unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION
It is evident that utilizing social media to exercise the right to free expression is beneficial. However, the increasing misuse of these platforms for unlawful activities has prompted governments worldwide to enhance their regulations regarding what individuals can communicate on them. While there is considerable support for legislative oversight of social media, there are valid concerns about the potential for human rights infringements stemming from such regulations. To mitigate the risk of social media becoming a source of discord, it is essential to implement regulation rather than outright restrictions. Nevertheless, India’s current cyber laws are neither adequate nor suitable. An evaluation of existing IT regulations reveals that the government possesses extensive and unchecked authority over cyberspace security. Merely monitoring social media misuse is insufficient to prevent its occurrence. Therefore, a dedicated legislative framework is necessary to effectively regulate social media. In light of this, the government should form a committee of technical experts to examine the various dimensions of social media usage and abuse, with the aim of providing recommendations for regulation that safeguards individuals’ civil liberties.
REFERENCES
[1] Dr. Pyar Singh, “An Analysis of the Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution and Distorting Form of Freedom of Speech & Expression in the Era of Social Media in India”, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5100601#:~:text=The%20present%20research%20study%20found,speech%20and%20expression%20and%20Central
[2] The Constitution of India
[3] Mansi Singh, “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ONLINE SPEECH”, 8(7), IJNRD, 668-679, (2023)
[4] Arpana Bansal, Anita Rani, “FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION VS SOCIAL MEDIA VIOLATIONS”, 12(1), TJCME, 862- 872 (2021)
[5] Greeshma Govindarajan and Nanditha Ravindar, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: MYTH OR REALITY, 7(1), Global Media Journal – Indian Edition, (2016)
[6] Cindy Cohn and Rainey Reitman (2015, June 2). USA Freedom Act Passes: What We Celebrate, What We Mourn and Where We Go From Here. Retrieved from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/usa-freedom-act-passes-what-we-celebrate-what-wemourn-and-where-we-go-here
[7] Alexander Howard (2015, May 26). In Saudi Arabia, Embracing New ‘Freedom’ On Social Media May Come With Serious Risks. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/saudi-arabia-socialmedia_n_7444742.html?section=india
[8] Osman Hosain (2015, November 24) Facebook, WhatsApp, Viber blocked ‘indefinitely’ in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://tribune.com.pk/story/997382/facebook-whatsapp-viberblocked-indefinitely-in-bangladesh/
[9] Vinaya Deshpande (2012, December 19). Charges dropped against girls held for FB post on Thackeray. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/chargesdropped-against-girls-held-for-fb-post-on-thackeray/article4214545.ece
[10] Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594
[11] State of Madras v. V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196
[12] Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
[13] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Ghulam Nabi Azad v. Union of India AIR 2020 SC 1308
