Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Age of Social Media
Introduction
The debate between free speech and social responsibility is one of the oldest, long-running debates in history. Free speech is considered to be at the heart of every democracy. It is considered the “mother” of all other freedoms, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution under Part III: Fundamental Rights. It takes various shapes and forms according to the sociopolitical context of society. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a prominent English writer of the 19th century, laid the foundation of every democracy when she wrote in her book, "I disapprove of what you say, but I willdefend to the death your right to say it." The drastic misuse of social media to disseminate propaganda and fakenews makes it a marketplace of half-baked truth, becoming the antithesis ofwhat early philosophers dreamed of for a democratic modern age. Losethe ethics, and there you have it, the modern conceptualisation of freedom ofspeech and expression in the digital age. The right to freedom of speech andexpression is one of the most fundamental rights, but its exercise is notunfettered, and certain limits are placed upon this right under Art. 19 (2).Every right comes with a corresponding duty, and the exercise of such freedomalso puts the citizenry under the responsibility not to violate the rights ofothers and not to use the media to demean any other person.
SocialMedia: The New Public Square or a Weaponised Echo Chamber
InIndia, Art. 19(1)(a) of the constitution guarantees the right to freedom ofspeech and expression, but it is not absolute. Under Art. 19(2), this right issubject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency,morality, and national security. This is construed as a freedom for everyindividual to freely express their opinions, but not to incite violence, spreadfalsehoods, or harm others’ dignity. Unfortunately, the boundaries betweenthese are increasingly blurred.
Thedissemination of unfiltered media and the strangulation of innocence by pushingoften vulgar and obscene content down the throats of individuals, withoutverifying the age and gender profile of the social media user, is a big farcein the name of free speech and a conscious attempt by the intermediaries andsocial media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc., to wriggleout of their responsibility. A prime example is when Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, on7th January 2025, gave a statement asserting less intervention into what peoplefind on its social media platforms as the new “best practice”. While lessinterference would have worked in a generation that merely operated on thediffering, dissenting, and raw ideas bred by the minds of differentindividuals, it is not the case for this day and age. There has been asignificant rise in cases where social media platforms have been used as abattleground for disputes, spreading communal violence, misinformation, anddisinformation.
Thereis no debate about the fact that social media platforms have fostered a globalexpression, making the world a global village, bringing everyone together. Onthe other hand, the platforms have become the epicentre of computer-basedcrimes, where children and teenagers often become prey to these crimes,cyberbullying, and cyberstalking.
Rising Importance of Platform Accountability
Themost pertinent question that is to be asked with a conscious mind is whether anunregulated media is a reflection of Freedom of Speech, a right given to us byour constitution under Article. 19(1)(a), or whether free speech is just a garbby big stakeholders, and we are all victims of an impending infodemic andvictims of AI algorithms, because, as per the reports that surfaced during theCovid-19 pandemic, India saw a dramatic 214% rise in false information. Anotherreport by the UNESCO-Ipsos survey revealed that 85% of Indian respondentsencounter online hate speech, with around 64% pointing to social media as aprimary source.
While the focus on platform accountability is critical, it is equally important to recognise that the right to free speech is not absolute. Therefore, users also bear a constitutional responsibility while exercising this right. Free expression in a democratic society must be accompanied by civic digital behaviour, which includes refraining from spreading hate speech, misinformation, or engaging in harmful conduct online. The most recent example of this is the case of Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs. UOI (popularly known as “Latent Case”); the court came down heavily on the hosts and makers of the show and made its position crystal clear by stating, “there is nothinglike a fundamental right on platter...the fundamental rights are all followedby a duty...unless those people understand duty, there is no [...] deal withthat kind of elements...if somebody wants to enjoy fundamental rights, thiscountry gives a guarantee to enjoy, but guarantee is with a duty so thatguarantee will involve performing that duty also” .
The Way Forward: CyberPeace Suggests
In order to realise the benefits and derive the true benefits from the rights we are provided, especially the one in discussion, i.e., Freedom of Speech and Expression, the government and the designated intermediaries and regulators have to prepare both roadmaps, one for “Platform Accountability” and one for "User Accountability”, wherein the regulators with a reasonable foresight should conduct Algorithm Risk Audits which is a technique to make algorithms and there effects on content feeds visible. It can be an effective tool and an objective manner to compare how algorithms are automatically pushing different content to different users in an unfair or unbalanced way. As for user accountability, “Digital Literacy” is the way forward, ensuring that social media remains a marketplace of ideas and does not become a minefield of misfires.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In the labyrinthine corridors of the digital age, where information zips across the globe with the ferocity of a tempest, the truth often finds itself ensnared in a web of deception. It is within this intricate tapestry of reality and falsehood that we find ourselves examining two distinct yet equally compelling cases of misinformation, each a testament to the pervasive challenges that beset our interconnected world.
Case 1: The Deceptive Video: Originating in Malaysia, Misattributed to Indian Railway Development
A misleading video claiming to showcase Indian railway construction has been debunked as footage from Malaysia's East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). Fact-checking efforts by India TV traced the video's origin to Malaysia, revealing deceptive captions in Tamil and Hindi. The video was initially posted on Twitter on January 9, 2024, announcing the commencement of track-laying for Malaysia's East Coast Railway. Further investigation reveals the ECRL as a joint venture between Malaysia and China, involving the laying of tracks along the east coast, challenging assertions of Indian railway development. The ECRL's track-laying initiative, initiated in December 2023, is part of China's Belt and Road initiative, covering 665 kilometers across states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, and Selangor, with a completion target set for 2025.
The video in question, a digital chameleon, had its origins not in the bustling landscapes of India but within the verdant bounds of Malaysia. Specifically, it was a scene captured from the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, a monumental joint venture between Malaysia and China, unfurling across 665 kilometers of Malaysian terrain. This ambitious endeavor, part of the grand Belt and Road initiative, is a testament to the collaborative spirit that defines our era, with tracks stretching from Kelantan to Selangor, and a completion horizon set for the year 2025.
The unveiling of this grand project was graced by none other than Malaysia’s King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, in Pahang, underscoring the strategic alliance with China and the infrastructural significance of the ECRL. Yet, despite the clarity of its origins, the video found itself cloaked in a narrative of Indian development, a falsehood that spread like wildfire across the digital savannah.
Through the meticulous application of keyframe analysis and reverse image searches, the truth was laid bare. Reports from reputable sources such as the Associated Press and the Global Times, featuring the very same machinery, corroborated the video's true lineage. This revelation not only highlighted the ECRL's geopolitical import but also served as a clarion call for the critical role of fact-checking in an era where misinformation proliferates with reckless abandon.
Case 2: Kerala's Incident: Investigating Fake Narratives
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has registered 53 cases related to spreading fake narratives on social media to incite communal sentiments following the blasts at a Christian religious gathering in October 2023. Vijayan said cases have been registered against online news portals, editors, and Malayalam television channels. The state police chief has issued directions to monitor social media to stop fake news spread and take appropriate actions.
In a different corner of the world, the serene backdrop of Kerala was shattered by an event that would ripple through the fabric of its society. The Kalamassery blast, a tragic occurrence at a Christian religious gathering, claimed the lives of eight individuals and left over fifty wounded. In the wake of this calamity, a man named Dominic Martin surrendered, claiming responsibility for the heinous act.
Yet, as the investigation unfolded, a different kind of violence emerged—one that was waged not with explosives but with words. A barrage of fake narratives began to circulate through social media, igniting communal tensions and distorting the narrative of the incident. The Kerala Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, informed the Assembly that 53 cases had been registered across the state, targeting individuals and entities that had fanned the flames of discord through their digital utterances.
The Kerala police, vigilant guardians of truth, embarked on a digital crusade to quell the spread of these communally instigative messages. With a particular concentration of cases in Malappuram district, the authorities worked tirelessly to dismantle the network of fake profiles that propagated religious hatred. Social media platforms were directed to assist in this endeavor, revealing the IP addresses of the culprits and enabling the cyber cell divisions to take decisive action.
In the aftermath of the blasts, the Chief Minister and the state police chief ordered special instructions to monitor social media platforms for content that could spark communal uproar. Cyber patrolling became the order of the day, as a 20-member probe team was constituted to deeply investigate the incident.
Conclusion
These two cases, disparate in their nature and geography, converge on a singular point: the fragility of truth in the digital age. They highlight the imperative for vigilance and the pursuit of accuracy in a world where misinformation can spread like wildfire. As we navigate this intricate cyberscape, it is imperative to be mindful of the power of fact-checking and the importance of media literacy, for they are the light that guides us through the fog of falsehoods to the shores of veracity.
These narratives are not merely stories of deception thwarted; they are a call to action, a reminder of our collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity of our shared reality. Let us, therefore, remain steadfast in our quest for the truth, for it is only through such diligence that we can hope to preserve the sanctity of our discourse and the cohesion of our societies.
References:
- https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-misleading-video-claims-malaysian-rail-project-indian-truth-ecrl-india-railway-development-pm-modi-2024-01-29-914282
- https://sahilonline.org/kalamasserry-blast-53-cases-registered-across-kerala-for-spreading-fake-news
Introduction
Since the inception of the Internet and social media platforms like Facebook, X (Twitter), Instagram, etc., the government and various other stakeholders in both foreign jurisdictions and India have looked towards the intermediaries to assume responsibility for the content floated on these platforms, and various legal provisions showcase that responsibility. For the first time in many years, these intermediaries come together to moderate the content by setting a standard for the creators and propagators of this content. The influencer marketing industry in India is at a crucial juncture, with its market value projected to exceed Rs. 3,375 crore by 2026. But every industry is coupled with its complications; like in this scenario, there is a section of content creators who fail to maintain the standard of integrity and propagate content that raises concerns of authenticity and transparency, often violating intellectual property rights (IPR) and privacy.
As influencer marketing continues to shape digital consumption, the need for ethical and transparent content grows stronger. To address this, the India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC) has released its Code of Standards, aiming to bring accountability and structure to the fast-evolving online space.
Bringing Accountability to the Digital Fame Game
The India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC), established on 15th February, 2025, is founded with the objective to empower creators, advocate for fair policies, and promote responsible content creation. The IIGC releases the Code of Standard, not a moment too soon; it arrives just in time, a necessary safeguard before social media devolves into a chaotic marketplace where anything and everything is up for grabs. Without effective regulation, digital platforms become the marketplace for misinformation and exploitation.
The IIGC leads the movement with clarity, stating that the Code is a significant piece that spans across 20 crucial sections governing key areas such as paid partnership disclosures, AI-generated personas, content safety, and financial compliance.
Highlights from the Code of Standard
- The Code exhibits a technical understanding of the industry of content creation and influencer marketing. The preliminary sections advocate for accuracy, transparency, and maintaining credibility with the audience that engages with the content. Secondly, the most fundamental development is with regard to the “Paid Partnership Disclosure” included in Section 2 of the Code that mandates disclosure of any material connection, such as financial agreements or collaboration with the brand.
- Another development, which potently comes at a befitting hour, is the disclosure of “AI Influencers”, which establishes that the nature of the influencer has to be disclosed, and such influencers, whether fully virtual or partially AI-enhanced, must maintain the same standards as any human influencer.
- The code ranges across various other aspects of influencer marketing, such as expressing unpaid “Admiration” for the brand and public criticism of the brand, being free from personal bias, honouring financial agreements, non-discrimination, and various other standards that set the stage for a safe and fair digital sphere.
- The Code also necessitates that the platform users and the influencers handle sexual and sensitive content with sincere deliberation, and usage of such content shall be for educational and health-related contexts and must not be used against community standards. The Code includes various other standards that work towards making digital platforms safer for younger generations and impressionable minds.
A Code Without Claws? Challenges in Enforcement
The biggest obstacle to the effective implementation of the code is distinguishing between an honest promotion and a paid brand collaboration without any explicit mention of such an agreement. This makes influencer marketing susceptible to manipulation, and the manipulation cannot be tackled with a straitjacket formula, as it might be found in the form of exaggerated claims or omission of critical information.
Another hurdle is the voluntary compliance of the influencers with the advertising standards. Influencer marketing is an exercise in a borderless digital cyberspace, where the influencers often disregard the dignified standards to maximise their earnings and commercial motives.
The debate between self-regulation and government oversight is constantly churning, where experience tells us that overreliance on self-regulation has proven to be inadequate, and succinct regulatory oversight is imperative in light of social media platforms operating as a transnational commercial marketplace.
CyberPeace Recommendations
- Introduction of a licensing framework for influencers that fall into the “highly followed” category with high engagement, who are more likely to shape the audience’s views.
- Usage of technology to align ethical standards with influencer marketing practices, ensuring that misleading advertisements do not find a platform to deceive innocent individuals.
- Educating the audience or consumers on the internet about the ramifications of negligence and their rights in the digital marketplace. Ensuring a well-established grievance redressal mechanism via digital regulatory bodies.
- Continuous and consistent collaboration and cooperation between influencers, brands, regulators, and consumers to establish an understanding and foster transparency and a unified objective to curb deceptive advertising practices.
References
- https://iigc.org/code-of-standards/influencers/code-of-standards-v1-april.pdf
- https://legalonus.com/the-impact-of-influencer-marketing-on-consumer-rights-and-false-advertising/
- https://exhibit.social/news/india-influencer-governing-council-iigc-launched-to-shape-the-future-of-influencer-marketing/
AI-generated content has been taking up space in the ever-changing dynamics of today's tech landscape. Generative AI has emerged as a powerful tool that has enabled the creation of hyper-realistic audio, video, and images. While advantageous, this ability has some downsides, too, particularly in content authenticity and manipulation.
The impact of this content is varied in the areas of ethical, psychological and social harms seen in the past couple of years. A major concern is the creation of non-consensual explicit content, including nudes. This content includes content where an individual’s face gets superimposed onto explicit images or videos without their consent. This is not just a violation of privacy for individuals, and can have humongous consequences for their professional and personal lives. This blog examines the existing laws and whether they are equipped to deal with the challenges that this content poses.
Understanding the Deepfake Technology
Deepfake technology is a media file (image, video, or speech) that typically represents a human subject that is altered deceptively using deep neural networks (DNNs). It is used to alter a person’s identity, and it usually takes the form of a “face swap” where the identity of a source subject is transferred onto a destination subject. The destination’s facial expressions and head movements remain the same, but the appearance in the video is that of the source. In the case of videos, the identities can be substituted by way of replacement or reenactment.
This superimposed content creates realistic content, such as fake nudes. Presently, creating a deepfake is not a costly endeavour. It requires a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), software that is free, open-source, and easy to download, and graphics editing and audio-dubbing skills. Some of the common apps to create deepfakes are DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap, which are both public and open source and are supported by thousands of users who actively participate in the evolution and development of these software and models.
Legal Gaps and Challenges
Multiple gaps and challenges exist in the legal space for deepfakes and their regulation. They are:
- The inadequate definitions governing AI-generated explicit content often lead to enforcement challenges.
- Jurisdictional challenges due to the cross-border nature of crimes and the difficulties caused by international cooperation measures are in the early stages for AI content.
- There is a gap between the current consent-based and harassment laws for AI-generated nudes.
- Providing evidence or providing proof for the intent and identification of perpetrators in digital crimes is a challenge that is yet to be overcome.
Policy Responses and Global Trends
Presently, the global response to deepfakes is developing. The UK has developed the Online Safety Bill, the EU has the AI Act, the US has some federal laws such as the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 and India is currently developing the India AI Act as the specific legislation dealing with AI and its correlating issues.
The IT Rules, 2021, and the DPDP Act, 2023, regulate digital platforms by mandating content governance, privacy policies, grievance redressal, and compliance with removal orders. Emphasising intermediary liability and safe harbour protections, these laws play a crucial role in tackling harmful content like AI-generated nudes, while the DPDP Act focuses on safeguarding privacy and personal data rights.
Bridging the Gap: CyberPeace Recommendations
- Initiate legislative reforms by advocating for clear and precise definitions for the consent frameworks and instituting high penalties for AI-based offences, particularly those which are aimed at sexually explicit material.
- Advocate for global cooperation and collaborations by setting up international standards and bilateral and multilateral treaties that address the cross-border nature of these offences.
- Platforms should push for accountability by pushing for stricter platform responsibility for the detection and removal of harmful AI-generated content. Platforms should introduce strong screening mechanisms to counter the huge influx of harmful content.
- Public campaigns which spread awareness and educate users about their rights and the resources available to them in case such an act takes place with them.
Conclusion
The rapid advancement of AI-generated explicit content demands immediate and decisive action. As this technology evolves, the gaps in existing legal frameworks become increasingly apparent, leaving individuals vulnerable to profound privacy violations and societal harm. Addressing this challenge requires adaptive, forward-thinking legislation that prioritises individual safety while fostering technological progress. Collaborative policymaking is essential and requires uniting governments, tech platforms, and civil society to develop globally harmonised standards. By striking a balance between innovation and societal well-being, we can ensure that the digital age is not only transformative but also secure and respectful of human dignity. Let’s act now to create a safer future!
References
- https://etedge-insights.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/deepfakes-and-the-future-of-digital-security-are-we-ready/
- https://odsc.medium.com/the-rise-of-deepfakes-understanding-the-challenges-and-opportunities-7724efb0d981
- https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/how-easy-is-it-to-make-and-detect-a-deepfake/
