Supreme Court on Regulating Social Media

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to frame guidelines for regulating social media conduct, especially concerning commercialised free speech by influencers, after hearing a case involving insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities.

Balancing Free Speech with Social Responsibility

Judicial Observations on Free Speech

• Commercialisation of Free Speech: The Court noted that influencers and comedians often monetise speech, which cannot justify hurting sentiments of vulnerable groups.
• Varied Communities and Sensitivities: Justice Bagchi highlighted that humour must not breach sensibilities in a diverse society comprising women, children, minorities, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities.
• Consequences of Violation: Justice Kant emphasised that guidelines must provide clear, proportionate consequences for violations to prevent misuse of free speech.

Case-Specific Context

• Insensitive Remarks by Comedians: The case involved comedians, including Samay Raina, accused of making derogatory comments about persons with disabilities.
• Impact on Constitutional Objectives: Justice Kant underlined that such remarks undermine efforts to integrate disabled persons into mainstream society.
• Apology and Sensitisation: The Court directed comedians to issue an unconditional apology and suggested influencers should use their platforms to spread awareness.

Government and Legal Framework

• Centre’s Response: The Attorney-General stated that guidelines would primarily aim at sensitisation but also hold violators accountable.
• Categories of Speech: The Court referred to its jurisprudence distinguishing free speech, commercial speech, and prohibited speech, noting the overlap in this case.
• Regulatory Challenge: The Court clarified it is not curtailing free speech but ensuring a framework that distinguishes between free expression and harmful speech.

Significance of the Judgment:

• The Court recognises the growing influence of digital platforms and their capacity to shape public discourse.
• Commercialisation of free speech raises accountability concerns as speech becomes both content and commodity.
• The directive reinforces the constitutional value of dignity (Article 21) for all citizens, particularly marginalised groups.

Concerns Highlighted:

• Lack of regulatory clarity in distinguishing between free expression and harmful content.
• Risks of misuse of humour and satire leading to normalisation of discrimination.
• Possibility of guidelines being misinterpreted as censorship if not framed carefully.

Way Forward:

• Balanced Guidelines: Establish clear, transparent, and proportionate consequences while safeguarding free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
• Community Sensitisation: Mandatory awareness modules for influencers, comedians, and podcasters to ensure inclusivity in content.
• Collaborative Regulation: Government should involve civil society, digital platforms, and legal experts in drafting guidelines.
• Promoting Responsible Content Creation: Encourage influencers to act as ambassadors of inclusivity, thereby transforming apology into positive advocacy.