OTT regulation: Much easier said than done

The government considers regulating "offensive" OTT content; key points include parity with other media, defining offensiveness, and focusing on age-based ratings.

As the government mulls creating a statutory framework to regulate “offensive” OTT content, there are three points that need consideration.

There are enough examples of OTT platforms removing controversial content, Satluj being a recent one (HT Archive)

The first is parity. Movies screened in theatres and cable TV content are governed under independent laws (the Cinematograph Act, which provides for the film certification board, and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, respectively). However, OTT content is regulated through a light-touch, three-tiered structure framed in the IT Rules 2021. This structure is premised on self-regulation, by content producers first and self-regulating bodies next, before government oversight kicks in. In sharp contrast is the censorship regime that exists for movies.

That said, there are enough examples of OTT platforms removing controversial content, Satluj being a recent one. This brings us to the second consideration — what the planned statute seeks to achieve. A parliamentary committee report talks of post-release screening for socially or morally offensive content, by an independent panel. To regulate “offensive” content, the government must very clearly define what will be perceived as such — and this could be the Achilles’ heel of such legislative enterprise. The range of OTT content that could be ideologically offensive than non-partisanly such is vast. So, any regulatory instance that appears partisan only lends to censorship controversies.

The third consideration was first talked about for movies, but the underlying principle applies to OTT too. The Shyam Benegal committee, in 2016, had recommended changes to the Cinematography Act to focus on age-based certification with explicit and abundant warnings about specific bits that could affect one group’s sensibilities or the other’s, rather than wholesale censorship. This is even more applicable now given the number of internet-mediated ways to beat censorship or bans. This perhaps would make for a more mature viewing culture, where a viewer is warned enough in advance to avoid watching anything that they don’t find palatable.

The government must do the hard yards if a future statute is not to be rendered infructuous in practice.