Can social media balance free speech, accountability?
TThe advent of technology has empowered every citizen to take their opinion to the masses, following their own rules
he concern expressed by the Supreme Court on Thursday about the spread of fake news and events getting communal colour on media, especially social media, must trigger a discussion on how this nation would move towards attaining the twin objectives of addressing the menace the court has flagged and protecting freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
The advent of technology has rephrased the idea about media. It has empowered every citizen to take his opinion to the masses, following their own rules, unlike the conventional media. The two forms coalesce at some point in the larger media framework. The process, ideally, should result in both the platforms learn from each other and improve themselves in the larger interests of society. Unfortunately, it’s the opposite that has happened in the country. The apex court was only holding a mirror to it, which the hope that all who have a stake in the sustenance and growth of democracy may take notice.
The court aired its opinion while hearing petitions seeking directions to the Union government to take action against those who link the spread of Covid-19 and the Tablighi Jamat meeting that took place in the national capital in February last year. It may be remembered that television channels vied with one another, blaming the religious congregation for the spread of the pandemic.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, was unequivocal in its condemnation of the mainstream media as well as the web-based, and highly critical of the communal colour a section of private news channels give to news. The court reminded the government that such portrayals would give the country a bad name and asked if it has any plans to regulate them. Social media platforms show no accountability and there is no control over fake news and slandering on the platform, the court observed.
Most right-thinking people would agree with the concerns the judges expressed as fake and communally-coloured news comes in the way of the citizens getting the right information based on which they take decisions. Compromises made on this count will take the nation on the path of destruction and peril of democracy.
Democratic governments across the world would set some basic rules on communication and expect the media to self-regulate, for restrictive action by the state would undermine the very idea of democracy. The right way is for the fourth estate to behave on its own, but if it does not, then the other three will have to intervene. But that intervention has to be based on fair rules and cannot be arbitrary. Parliament will have to move with the times and update the laws. The executive has to play a fair, quick game as only that can check the impact fake and communally coloured news can have on society. And the courts too have to act decisively and swiftly. It’s a paradox that the court was making comments on a new item that was aired almost one-and-a-half years ago.
All the stakeholders of the republic must view the concerns expressed by the apex court seriously, and address them without infringing on citizens’ democratic rights.