When the Indian state tries to move, especially into hitherto unknown areas, it appears clumsy and awkward like a large multi-limbed creature that’s easily put off balance. That’s what the various avatars of the government have shown themselves to be when regulating the media, in particular online and social media in the recent past.

It is not properly established what caused communal violence in Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh). But to assume that some digital content is responsible for people killing each other is rather simplistic.

Whatever may have been the catalyst of the violence, it cannot be dealt with our heads in the sand — by banning or restricting access to social media and digital content.

Anything that is banned or heavily regulated gets pushed underground and becomes even harder to control.

This is not a defence for defamation, hate speech or any other internationally accepted standard for restrictions to unfettered speech and expression.

There are examples of companies, public figures and even governments that have suffered heavily (and perhaps unjustly in some cases) because they did not have a presence on social media. But their customers, fans or voters were on these platforms. And this meant that whoever or whatever was being attacked was not in a position to respond or engage with users on social media.

The Government recently announced that it was setting up a social media wing at a cost of Rs 22.5 crore for five years. Even as the Government wants to create another platform for propaganda, particularly in an election year, the move appears desirable because it creates an opportunity for the state to connect with citizens and fight rumour with fact.

It can’t be assured of working rightaway. But getting online, monitoring activity on social media networks and engaging meaningfully with users appears the way to go, rather than enforcing bans. The state needs to engage with its various constituents on whatever platforms exist.

Free flow of information is critical for the advancement of any society. It helps push good thoughts and ideas ahead. Instituting curbs on tools of communication in the hope of preventing undesirable ideas or content from circulating will inadvertently do more harm than good.

As long as voices of reason and truth outnumber those that are on the other side, we’re in good shape as a people.

But if it swings the other way, there will be trouble brewing, whether the poisonous ideas are hosted online or merely in people’s minds.

With this in mind, the state and its key stakeholders need to resist placing curbs on social media.

They need to do the opposite. You can’t be a part of the conversation if you don’t have a seat at the table. This realisation finally appears to have dawned in Delhi.

(The author is a senior fellow at National Law University, Delhi.)

Also read: >Do UP riots call for curbs on social media? - Yes

Related Topics