UP’s New Digital Media Policy

Recently, The UP Digital Media Policy 2024 was cleared by the UP cabinet.

About UP Digital Media Policy 2024

Following are the key Highlights of the UP Digital Media Policy 2024:

• Features: 
  • Government Tieing up With Influencers: Under the policy, the government would give advertisements to eligible visual and digital media firms and influencers active on popular social media platforms of X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. 
    • The actual payment would be determined on the basis of subscribers and followers commanded by these firms and social media influencers.
  • Categorisation: The social media agencies would be segregated into four broad categories based on the count of subscribers and followers.
    • The maximum payment to account holders, operators and influencers of X, Facebook and Instagram has been fixed at Rs 5 lakh, Rs 4 lakh, Rs 3 lakh per month respectively.
    • Similarly, the category-wise ceiling for payment pertaining to videos, shorts and podcasts on YouTube has been fixed at Rs 8 lakh, Rs 7 lakh, Rs 6 lakh and Rs 4 lakh per month respectively.
  • Punishment for Anti-National: New social media policy gives for the stringent punishment for those posting derogatory/indecent, vulgar and anti-national content and financial rewards for influencers promoting government policies.
    • Earlier: Derogatory posts, police currently book the accused under Section 66 (E) and 66 (F) of the IT Act.
    • Under The New Policy: If found guilty, there is a provision for punishment ranging from three years to life imprisonment (for anti-national activities).
    • An accused could also stand trial for criminal defamation for posting indecent and obscene content on social media.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Censorship on Social Media in India

Censorship is exercised in India directly and indirectly via different legislations and authorities in India: 

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
• Indian Penal Code (IPC): The IPC contains several provisions that restrict speech and expression, including:
  • Section 124A (Sedition): Penalizes speech or writing that incites hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the government.
  • Sections 153A and 153B: Prohibit promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and making assertions prejudicial to national integration.
  • Section 295A: Criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs.
  • Section 292 and 293: Deal with the sale, distribution, and display of obscene materials.
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Provides procedures for law enforcement to suppress content deemed objectionable or a threat to public order. 
  • Section 95 allows state governments to forfeit publications that violate specific sections of the IPC.
• Information Technology Act, 2000:
  • The IT Act provides the government with powers to block websites, remove online content, and regulate digital and social media platforms.
  • Section 69A of the IT Act : It allows the government to block public access to any information in the interest of national security, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense.
• Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code (2021): It mandate social media platforms to remove or disable access to content that is unlawful or violates guidelines within a stipulated time frame.
  • The primary aim was at placing obligations on SMIs to ensure an open, safe and trusted internet.
• Obscene Publications Act, 1956: Regulates the publication and distribution of obscene materials and provides the basis for criminal action against such content.

Check Out UPSC NCERT Textbooks From PW Store

Pros of Censorship on Social Media in India

Here are some pros of censorship on social media in India:

• Prevents Misinformation and Fake News: Censorship can help limit the spread of misinformation, fake news, and false narratives that can incite panic, hatred, or violence. 
  • It helps in creating a more reliable information environment, especially during critical times like elections, pandemics, or communal tensions.
• Protects National Security and Public Order: Censorship can prevent the circulation of content that poses a threat to national security, such as propaganda from extremist groups, hate speech, and incitement to violence. 
  • It helps maintain public order and safety.
• Safeguards Children and Vulnerable Groups: Restricting harmful content, such as explicit material, cyberbullying, or self-harm promotion, protects children and vulnerable groups from exposure to damaging information or activities.
• Promotes Social Harmony: By filtering out inflammatory or hate-filled content, censorship can reduce communal tensions, religious intolerance, and discrimination, fostering a more harmonious social environment.

Critical Analysis of The Act & Cons of Censorship on Social Media

Following are the key challenges of the UP Digital Media Policy 2024: 

• ‘Freedom of Speech’ and ‘Freedom to Criticize’: Balancing Freedom and Censorship:
  • Freedom of Speech and Expression: Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
    • It  is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution of India. However, the Constitution does not guarantee an absolute individual right to freedom of expression. 
    • Instead, it envisages reasonable restrictions that may be placed on this right by law.
    • Article 19(2): Many laws that restrict free speech such as the laws punishing sedition, hate speech or defamation, derive their legitimacy from Article 19(2).
  • Freedom to criticise and dissent: These are part of one’s broader freedom of speech, which is seen as fundamental to the functioning of a democracy. 
    • If a state’s citizenry is not free to express themselves, then their other civil and political rights are also under threat.
• Anti National Tagging of Content: The provision for stringent punishment, including life imprisonment for “anti-national” content, may lead to increased censorship and self-censorship among social media users, influencers, and digital media agencies. 
• Vague & Ambiguous Words: The terms “anti-national,” “derogatory,” and “indecent” are often vague and subject to interpretation. 
  • This ambiguity could lead to arbitrary enforcement and misuse of the law against political opponents, activists, journalists, and others who express dissent.
• Skewed Market Favoring Government/Ruling Party:
  • Growth in Government-Funded Content: Tying up with influencers and digital media firms and providing them with financial incentives to promote government policies could lead to a rise in content favorable to the government. 
    • This could influence public opinion in favor of government initiatives and programs.
  • Demotivate Critical views on Government Policies: Content creators may avoid posting content that could be interpreted as critical of the government to avoid severe penalties.
    • Unfavorable for the Critics: : The policy may create a skewed market for influencers, where those who receive government support gain an unfair advantage over others who choose not to or are not eligible to participate in the program.
  • Commercialization of Content: With payments determined by followers and subscribers, influencers may prioritize content that aligns with government policies over independent or critical content, potentially reducing the diversity of perspectives available on digital platforms.
• Impact on Journalism and Media Freedom: By incentivizing influencers and digital media to produce content that promotes government policies, the independence of journalism could be compromised. 
  • This could blur the lines between genuine news and government propaganda, eroding public trust in the media.
• Compliance Pressure on Platforms: Social media platforms may face pressure to comply with the new rules, including content takedowns, user data sharing with law enforcement, and monitoring of “anti-national” activities.
  • Potential for Content Moderation Challenges: Platforms may need to invest in better content moderation tools and personnel to handle the increased scrutiny and ensure compliance with the new regulations.
  • Already Existing Rules:  Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code three years back to curb such activities. Need to penalize it in the separate act is not clear.

Way Forward

• Ambiguity in “Anti National”: It’s crucial to have a clear and precise definition of what constitutes anti-national behavior. 
  • Clear definitions and guidelines are necessary to prevent misuse.
  • This should be based on a severity scale that considers the impact on national integrity, peace, and security—not just on dissent against political ideologies, policies, or practices.
• Balancing Regulation with Freedom of Expression: The government should ensure that any new policy balances the need to regulate harmful content with the fundamental right to free speech. 
• Transparent and Fair Implementation: Establishing an independent oversight mechanism to monitor the implementation of the policy and prevent arbitrary enforcement would be crucial.
• Promoting Media Literacy: Launch campaigns to educate the public on identifying misinformation and understanding the importance of diverse perspectives, helping to build resilience against biased content.
• Encouraging Ethical Advertising: Develop ethical guidelines for influencers and digital media firms to promote transparency in government-funded content and disclose paid promotions to maintain credibility and trust.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

Censorship is a double-edged sword with both advantages and disadvantages. Its impact largely depends on how, why, and by whom it is implemented. Balancing ‘Freedom of Speech’ and Censorship is necessary in the smooth functioning of a democracy. 

DOWNLOAD PDF