Hush hush attempt to shackle social media
The new broadcast Bill proposed by the government could make content creation and distribution difficult and seriously impinge on freedom of speech and expression in ways not seen before.
The first draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, intended to replace cable TV regulations, was released last year for public consultation. Subsequent drafts are being circulated among select stakeholders, including the broadcasting and entertainment industry, with strict confidentiality conditions attached to the consultations.
This is wrong because there should be no secrecy about consultations over a Bill that will impact a basic Constitutional right. The Bill has been criticised not only for the secrecy that surrounds it but also for its controversial provisions.
Online streaming services, social media accounts, and online video creators from across the globe are likely to come under the purview of the proposed law. Individual content creators who upload multimedia content related to current affairs on social media platforms will be considered digital news broadcasters if they earn revenue. Restrictions on social media influencers, including YouTubers and Instagammers above a threshold will lead to curbs on the most popular mode of expression now. They will have to register with a regulatory system and set up content evaluation committees to vet their content.
Social media companies that do not provide the government with information about their users will face criminal liability. All information about users will have to be provided to the government on demand. Generally, all the penalties and liabilities prescribed by the Bill are high. Advertisement networks will also be regulated. There are many other controversial provisions in the Bill.
There is even a provision for selective use of the provisions. It allows the government to ‘exempt a distinct class of players or a group for avoiding genuine hardship’. That will enable the government to spare some and pick and choose others against whom it wants to wield the law. There are many vague expressions in the Bill. It has been noted that the phrase ‘as may be prescribed’ appears 42 times in it. That will leave a lot of discretion with the government, and the consequences can be imagined.
The Opposition has raised the matter in Parliament, accusing the government of suppressing the truth and proposing to enact an undemocratic and draconian law. The Bill, if it becomes a law, can turn out to be a bigger threat to freedom of expression than any other idea or measure conceived or used by the government in the past