An increase in “censorship-related policies and practices” in India has affected American businesses across different media segments, including films, social media and video streaming, according to a new report released by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), an independent and non-partisan US federal agency.
In particular, the report has flagged rules related to intermediary rules, increase in instances of internet shutdowns, and rules related to foreign investment limits in digital media in India as having an impact on US businesses. Some of the instances it cited included “threat of arrest” of Twitter executives and increase in takedown orders sent to the microblogging service as well as Google.
The Commission prepared the report based on a request by the Senate Committee on Finance; it is the first of two reports focusing on foreign censorship practices that American businesses cite as “impediment for trade or investment in key foreign markets”.
A major section of the report focuses on China, and concludes it has one of the highest levels of censorship “across all sectors” — a conclusion that has already led to calls from Senators for action and new measures against Beijing.
Besides India and China, the report focuses on four other markets – Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Turkey. The report claims these markets were examined because governments here had deployed a “wide range of censorship policies” with regard to digital content, and because demand in each of these markets represented a significant opportunity for US businesses.
{{/usCountry}}Besides India and China, the report focuses on four other markets – Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Turkey. The report claims these markets were examined because governments here had deployed a “wide range of censorship policies” with regard to digital content, and because demand in each of these markets represented a significant opportunity for US businesses.
{{/usCountry}}The report is advisory in nature, but can be used as a basis for a probe and action.
India’s commerce ministry did not respond to an email seeking its response to the USITC report.
“Indo-US trade relationships are very vibrant and growing,” a government official said on condition of anonymity.
Indian officials have in the past said that companies are free to operate as long as they respect the law of the land. “I politely remind the companies, whether it is Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or WhatsApp or anyone, they are free to work in India, do business, but they need to respect the Indian Constitution, they need to respect the Indian law,” former Union minister for electronics and information technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said during the Budget session of Parliament in 2021.
USITC said US businesses were active in most segments of the media market in India – television, publishing, films, online services, and were among the “leading providers of social media and video streaming services”.
The report claimed that the government exercised censorship practices in two ways – by citing relevant laws and regulations to provide notices to “remove content, shut or slow down internet access, file criminal charges, block the release of a documentary or prevent a television station from broadcasting”; and through a “variety of informal mechanisms based on intimidation and harassment”.
The report has outlined a series of what it sees as restrictive measures.
One, it asserts that a range of laws “have been used extensively in India to target speech and have had a significant impact on US firms operating in India” – these include Indian Penal Code, Information Technology (IT) Act, Disaster Management Act, Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, among others.
Two, it refers to Cinematographer Act requiring that a film first get certification for public exhibition, and says, “In some instances, so many edits are required that they affect the content of the movie, and therefore, its box office success”.
Three, it cites internet shutdowns. “The number of internet shutdowns in India has increased, with significantly more shutdowns in 2020 than in 2016… these shutdowns are typically regional in nature”, and claimed that it affected both US and Indian firms. “For example, Facebook reported 90 shutdowns that affected access to their service for a total of 17 months (combined lengths for all regions) in 2020.”
Four, the USITC referred to the government using its authority to “block access to websites and user accounts”. “The government’s use of Section 69A (of the IT Act) has increased significantly in recent years, with the number of ‘websites/wepages/accounts’ blocked… increasing from 2,799 in 2018 to 9,849 in 2020.” The report claimed that the section had also been used to block access to US firm websites and user accounts on US social media platforms.
Five, the USITC report refers to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Rules), 2021 – these rules impose a range of obligations on social media companies and digital media platforms – as having raised a number of concerns for US firms. It cites Facebook’s legal challenge against the provision requiring it to identify the “first originator” of information; Facebook has claimed that this will break WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption, while the government has cited the need for this provision for law enforcement and in the interests of public order.
Six, the report flags that the requirements, under the new rules, to have local presence “may enable censorship”.
Seven, the report flagged the government capping foreign investment in digital media to 26% (which is in line with print media, but below the 49% set for television media), and claimed, “These new rules have subsequently led a number of US firms to close news operations in India”. And finally, the report claimed informal mechanisms “promoting self-censorship” have affected US firms. “US firms also pre-emptively self-censor certain content in India. For example, certain video streaming services reportedly censor content before releasing it in India. In addition, they have withheld all or parts of certain shows in India because of perceived sensitivities to criticism within the government”.
(With inputs from Rajeev Jayaswal in New Delhi)