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
Executive Summary:
The viral image in the social media which depicts fake injuries on the face of the MP(Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha) Kangana Ranaut alleged to have been beaten by a CISF officer at the Chandigarh airport. The reverse search of the viral image taken back to 2006, was part of an anti-mosquito commercial and does not feature the MP, Kangana Ranaut. The findings contradict the claim that the photos are evidence of injuries resulting from the incident involving the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It is always important to verify the truthfulness of visual content before sharing it, to prevent misinformation.
Claims:
The images circulating on social media platforms claiming the injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face were because of an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport. This claim hinted that the photos are evidence of the physical quarrel and resulting injuries suffered by the MP, Kangana Ranaut.
Fact Check:
When we received the posts, we reverse-searched the image and found another photo that looked similar to the viral one. We could verify through the earring in the viral image with the new image.
The reverse image search revealed that the photo was originally uploaded in 2006 and is unrelated to the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It depicts a model in an advertisement for an anti-mosquito spray campaign.
We can validate this from the earrings in the photo after the comparison between the two photos.
Hence, we can confirm that the viral image of the injury mark of the MP, Kangana Ranaut has been debunked as fake and misleading, instead it has been cropped out from the original photo to misrepresent the context.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the viral photos on social media which claimed to be the results of injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face after being assaulted allegedly by a CISF officer at the airport in Chandigarh were fake. Detailed analysis of the pictures provided the fact that the pictures have no connection with Ranaut; the picture was a 2006 anti-mosquito spray advertisement; therefore, the allegations that show these images as that of Ranaut’s injury are fake and misleading.
- Claim: photos circulating on social media claiming to show injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut's face following an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport.
- Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter), thread, Facebook
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Executive Summary:
A viral message is circulating claiming the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has banned the use of black ink for writing cheques. This information is incorrect. The RBI has not issued any such directive, and cheques written in black ink remain valid and acceptable.
Claim:
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued new guidelines prohibiting using black ink for writing cheques. As per the claimed directive, cheques must now be written exclusively in blue or green ink.
Fact Check:
Upon thorough verification, it has been confirmed that the claim regarding the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issuing a directive banning the use of black ink for writing cheques is entirely false. No such notification, guideline, or instruction has been released by the RBI in this regard. Cheques written in black ink remain valid, and the public is advised to disregard such unverified messages and rely only on official communications for accurate information.
As stated by the Press Information Bureau (PIB), this claim is false The Reserve Bank of India has not prescribed specific ink colors to be used for writing cheques. There is a mention of the color of ink to be used in point number 8, which discusses the care customers should take while writing cheques.
Conclusion:
The claim that the Reserve Bank of India has banned the use of black ink for writing cheques is completely false. No such directive, rule, or guideline has been issued by the RBI. Cheques written in black ink are valid and acceptable. The RBI has not prescribed any specific ink color for writing cheques, and the public is advised to disregard unverified messages. While general precautions for filling out cheques are mentioned in RBI advisories, there is no restriction on the color of the ink. Always refer to official sources for accurate information.
- Claim: The new RBI ink guidelines are mandatory from a specified date.
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Introduction
In today’s hyper-connected world, information spreads faster than ever before. But while much attention is focused on public platforms like Facebook and Twitter, a different challenge lurks in the shadows: misinformation circulating on encrypted and closed-network platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram. Unlike open platforms where harmful content can be flagged in public, private groups operate behind a digital curtain. Here, falsehoods often spread unchecked, gaining legitimacy because they are shared by trusted contacts. This makes encrypted platforms a double-edged sword. It is essential for privacy and free expression, yet uniquely vulnerable to misuse.
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi rightly reminded,
“Think 10 times before forwarding anything,” warning that even a “single fake news has the capability to snowball into a matter of national concern.”
The Moderation Challenge with End-to-End Encryption
Encrypted messaging platforms were built to protect personal communication. Yet, the same end-to-end encryption that shields users’ privacy also creates a blind spot for moderation. Authorities, researchers, and even the platforms themselves cannot view content circulating in private groups, making fact-checking nearly impossible.
Trust within closed groups makes the problem worse. When a message comes from family, friends, or community leaders, people tend to believe it without questioning and quickly pass it along. Features like large group chats, broadcast lists, and “forward to many” options further speed up its spread. Unlike open networks, there is no public scrutiny, no visible counter-narrative, and no opportunity for timely correction.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims about vaccines spread widely through WhatsApp groups, undermining public health campaigns. Even more alarming, WhatsApp rumors about child kidnappers and cow meat in India triggered mob lynchings, leading to the tragic loss of life.
Encrypted platforms, therefore, represent a unique challenge: they are designed to protect privacy, but, unintentionally, they also protect the spread of dangerous misinformation.
Approaches to Curbing Misinformation on End-to-End Platforms
- Regulatory: Governments worldwide are exploring ways to access encrypted data on messaging platforms, creating tensions between the right to user privacy and crime prevention. Approaches like traceability requirements on WhatsApp, data-sharing mandates for platforms in serious cases, and stronger obligations to act against harmful viral content are also being considered.
- Technological Interventions: Platforms like WhatsApp have introduced features such as “forwarded many times” labels and limits on mass forwarding. These tools can be expanded further by introducing AI-driven link-checking and warnings for suspicious content.
- Community-Based Interventions: Ultimately, no regulation or technology can succeed without public awareness. People need to be inoculated against misinformation through pre-bunking efforts and digital literacy campaigns. Fact-checking websites and tools also have to be taught.
Best Practices for Netizens
Experts recommend simple yet powerful habits that every user can adopt to protect themselves and others. By adopting these, ordinary users can become the first line of defence against misinformation in their own communities:
- Cross-Check Before Forwarding: Verify claims from trusted platforms & official sources.
- Beware of Sensational Content: Headlines that sound too shocking or dramatic probably need checking. Consult multiple sources for a piece of news. If only one platform/ channel is carrying sensational news, it is likely to be clickbait or outright false.
- Stick to Trusted News Sources: Verify news through national newspapers and expert commentary. Remember, not everything on the internet/television is true.
- Look Out for Manipulated Media: Now, with AI-generated deepfakes, it becomes more difficult to tell the difference between original and manipulated media. Check for edited images, cropped videos, or voice messages without source information. Always cross-verify any media received.
- Report Harmful Content: Report misinformation to the platform it is being circulated on and PIB’s Fact Check Unit.
Conclusion
In closed, unmonitored groups, platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram often become safe havens where people trust and forward messages from friends and family without question. Once misinformation takes root, it becomes extremely difficult to challenge or correct, and over time, such actions can snowball into serious social, economic and national concerns.
Preventing this is a matter of shared responsibility. Governments can frame balanced regulations, but individuals must also take initiative: pause, think, and verify before sharing. Ultimately, the right to privacy must be upheld, but with reasonable safeguards to ensure it is not misused at the cost of societal trust and safety.
References
- India WhatsApp ‘child kidnap’ rumours claim two more victims (BBC) The people trying to fight fake news in India (BBC)
- Press Information Bureau – PIB Fact Check
- Brookings Institution – Encryption and Misinformation Report (2021)
- Curtis, T. L., Touzel, M. P., Garneau, W., Gruaz, M., Pinder, M., Wang, L. W., Krishna, S., Cohen, L., Godbout, J.-F., Rabbany, R., & Pelrine, K. (2024). Veracity: An Open-Source AI Fact-Checking System. arXiv.
- NDTV – PM Modi cautions against fake news (2022)
- Times of India – Govt may insist on WhatsApp traceability (2019)
- Medianama – Telegram refused to share ISIS channel data (2019)
