The question whether the freedom of expression enjoyed by the people on social media should be regulated or left unrestricted is on the minds of many government leaders and political and social analysts globally. The answer to this question can be both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, depending on the nature of the content shared on social media platforms, their targeted audiences and objectives, prevailing political conditions, social situations and circumstances, and the likely implications of this freedom.
Freedom of expression refers to the ability of an individual or a group to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas and emotions about various issues free from government censorship. Every human being has the right to this freedom because it is essential to individual liberty and contributes to the marketplace of ideas. Since this freedom is a core value in the democratic process, it is enshrined in the constitutions of most democratic countries.
In the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. Several of these freedoms are termed under “freedom of expression”. In Europe, everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Article 11 of the EU Charter protects the freedom of expression and information, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
In India, Article 19 of the Constitution provides the right to freedom, guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression as one of its six freedoms. However, this right is not absolute and it allows the government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the country’s sovereignty and integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
Besides individuals and groups who deliver statements and speeches, major outlets of freedom of expression are the print and electronic media, radio, books, posters and fliers. In recent years, however, social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and WhatsApp, have become the most widespread and vocal sources of this freedom. While individuals and the groups mentioned above are generally regulated and covered by a country’s censorship laws, there are relatively few restrictions on social media and virtually no censorship of their content.
Now governments in several countries are considering regulating social media outlets and censoring their content. They are also working to make social media companies protect users from content involving things such as violence, terrorism, cyber-bullying and child abuse. Among the major countries seeking to control social media are the US and India, the world’s two largest democracies.
This control on social media is not only desirable but also warranted to protect individuals and institutions from being targets of violence, to eradicate unlawful activities and evil practices and maintain peace in society. However, some governments try to curb freedom of expression by controlling social media for political reasons. This should not be allowed in democratic countries such as India. Yet there is a worrying global trend among governments that unjustifiably restricts freedom of speech by targeting journalists, protesters and other people who are considered to be critical of the views of the government.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that needs to be upheld. It would be wrong to regulate or control this freedom on social media for political reasons or to protect interest groups. However, no government or civilized society can swallow absolute freedom, which only means anarchy. Such a situation will prove the maxim “might is right” and seize the rights of weaker sections. Any threat to social peace and communal and racial harmony caused by social media should not be tolerated and the content promoting violence, communal hatred, social disturbances and evils must be cubed with an iron hand.
In Western democracy too, laws curtail opposition movements and through mandatory metadata retention schemes, impede the freedom of the press and free speech. Civil societies across the world should be proactive in protecting freedom of expression. This is important for improving people’s lives and for preserving healthy democratic societies. Journalistic freedom, though invaluable, cannot be used to heap insults on any community and create a situation that was faced by the Jews in the early 20th century and in Rwanda in the 1990s. The need of the hour is to promote tolerance, liberal attitudes, pluralistic values, and to develop an enduring attitude to tolerate each other.