Regulations in face of vulgarity
The top court has flagged larger concerns about free speech on social media, but is an obscenity law really the answer?
The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to Ranveer Allahbadia, a podcaster whose comments on a YouTube show have led to stormy debates on what is comedy and the boundaries of what can be passed off as entertainment. The two judges hearing Allahbadia’s plea — multiple FIRs have been filed against him — described his remarks as “perverted”, “dirty” and “disgusting” and barred him from broadcasting any new content until further orders. The bench described Allahbadia’s conduct as showing a “lack of responsibility” and felt that the YouTuber was “taking society for granted”. The bench also asked the government to consider an anti-obscenity law for YouTube channels and social media. These remarks, and particularly the court’s prescription, have wider repercussions beyond the specific case of Allahbadia — potentially impinging on matters of free speech and raising the spectre of censoring YouTube and other social media.
Allahbadia was coarse on the show and could even be accused of misusing the freedom that such platforms offer. But does this behaviour really demand new legislation against obscenity? The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has enough provisions to regulate, restrict, and even punish speech and acts that promote hate or violence and impinge on matters of national integrity and security. The Information Technology Act, too, has similar provisions to ensure that freedom of speech is subject to certain restrictions as enshrined in the Constitution. But obscenity is far more subjective — a law to clearly define and punish what is inherently undefinable will only make it easy for people to file cases against anything they find unsavoury, and for the State and its agencies to weaponise legal provisions. In lawmaking, an attempt to solve a problem should never lead to a tilting of the scales.
In any case, since YouTube and most social media platforms are trans-geographical entities, a new law is unlikely to be of any help in providing protections beyond what the BNS and IT Act provisions already do. The true power to control good, bad, and ugly content lies with audiences themselves, and viewers cannot shirk this responsibility. On their part, social media companies must ensure the use of proper age filters — users and firms that violate this must face action under the existing laws. Similarly, the primary responsibility for what content children are exposed to lies with parents. While Allahbadia’s comments may have been offensive to many, they should not be allowed to trigger overarching censorship.
Recommended Topics