The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 31st July 2024 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

 A Licence Raj for Digital Content Creators 

Why in News?

Could Dhruv Rathee and Ravish Kumar’s YouTube videos have influenced voter preferences in the 2024 general election? This question concerns a Union government that asserted that it would return to power with an increased majority but was voted back as a coalition with a diminished mandate. Recognising a threat to its power, it aims to neuter digital creators under the Broadcasting Regulation Bill, 2024.

What are the Key Features of the Draft Broadcasting Regulation Bill, 2023?

• Consolidation and Modernisation: Addresses the need to bring together and update rules for different broadcasting services in one law. It also includes control over online streaming (OTT) and digital news, which were previously managed under the IT Act, 2000.
• Contemporary Definitions and Future-Ready Provisions: Keeps up with new technologies by defining modern broadcasting terms and adding rules for upcoming broadcasting tech.
• Strengthens the Self-Regulation Regime: Improves self-control by creating 'Content Evaluation Committees' and upgrading the 'Inter-Departmental Committee' to a more inclusive 'Broadcast Advisory Council'.
• Differentiated Programme Code and Advertisement Code: Allows different rules for programs and ads on different services, requiring broadcasters to classify content themselves and have strict controls for restricted content.
• Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities: Considers the needs of people with disabilities by creating guidelines for better accessibility.
• Statutory Penalties and Fines: Introduces penalties like advice, warnings, or fines for operators and broadcasters. Imprisonment or fines are only for severe offenses, maintaining a fair system.
• Equitable Penalties: Links fines to the financial status of the entity to ensure fairness.
• Infrastructure Sharing, Platform Services, and Right of Way: Includes sharing infrastructure among broadcasting networks, carrying platform services, and improving the Right of Way section for better relocation and dispute resolution.

What are the Arguments in Favour of the Bill?

• Updated Legal Framework:
  • The proposed law replaces the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act of 1995.
  • It's seen as a crucial law that aims to update the rules to match the current trends in OTT, digital media, DTH, IPTV, and new technologies.
  • It also includes detailed rules for making content accessible to people with disabilities.
• Empowering Broadcasters:
  • The new law gives broadcasters more power to regulate themselves.
  • It tries to find a balance between government control and letting the industry make its own decisions.
• Different Rules for Different Content:
  • The draft Bill suggests having separate rules for programs and ads on different services.
  • This way, rules can be customized for traditional and on-demand content, giving creators more freedom and relevance.
• Fairness Measures:
  • Under this law, fines are based on how much money a company has, ensuring fair penalties.
  • Companies with more money may face bigger fines than smaller ones with less financial strength.
• Involving Stakeholders:
  • The law mentions including feedback from the public. The industry supports the idea of a single law that will make it easier to follow the rules.

What are the Arguments Against the Bill?

• Apprehensions of Control and Regulation:
  • The bill sparks worries about whether the main focus is genuinely on public service or on increasing government control and regulation.
  • Concerns arise that the Bill might strengthen government control over digital infrastructure and what citizens can view.
• Ambiguous Provisions in the Draft:
  • A particular provision (point 36) in the draft underscores the vague and broad language that gives authorities the ability to ban content.
  • This raises doubts about the impact of "authorized officers" who work under government direction.
• Potential Impact on Minority Communities:
  • Fears emerge that the bill could result in the disappearance or selective portrayal of minority communities in India.
  • The unclear language in the draft could be misused to push for a singular majority identity in India.
• Issues with Cable Regulation:
  • The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, originally designed to tackle illegal cable operators, lacked transparency due to interconnections among operators, politicians, entrepreneurs, and broadcasters.
  • The new bill does not rectify the gaps and challenges in enforcing the existing Act, including conflicts of interest and non-transparent practices within the Indian media sector.
• Government's Trust Deficit:
  • The bill scrutinizes the recent government track record in media regulation, highlighting a trend of unmet assurances and questionable results.
  • The bill draws similarities with the controversial IT Rules of 2021 introduced for national benefit.
• Oligopolistic Media Ownership Tendencies:
  • Amid discussions on "cultural invasion" and "anti-national" programming, the connection between government officials and media organizations might encourage concentrated media ownership.

What are the Steps Ahead for Effective Broadcasting Regulation in India?

• Develop a thorough and up-to-date set of laws that cover everything about broadcasting, such as regular TV, online streaming services, digital content, and new technologies.
• Promote healthy competition among broadcasters and creators to have a wide variety of content. Prevent one entity from owning too much media to ensure many different opinions are heard.
• Listen to and gather insights from various experts, creators, broadcasters, and the public to make well-informed rules.
• Create rules that can adapt to new technologies. Keep in mind that the media world changes quickly, so make rules that will always be relevant.
• Set up a strong system for classifying and rating content to help viewers choose what to watch based on clear guidelines.
• Make an independent group that can make sure everyone follows the rules fairly. They should be open, fair, and accountable in their decisions.
• Understand that different types of broadcasting platforms have different needs. Make rules that fit each platform's unique features and challenges.
• Have a way to regularly check and update the rules. This will help keep them in line with changes in technology, society, and new problems that come up.
• Have clear ways to deal with rule-breakers. Make sure there is a fair and quick process for handling complaints, investigations, and punishments to keep the rules strong.
• Invest in programs that teach people how to be smart about the media they consume. Educated viewers help make the media environment healthier and reduce the need for strict rules.
• Learn from other countries' experiences and use the best ways they regulate broadcasting. Take into account India's unique culture and society when making these rules.

What Is Defamation?

 About Defamation: 

• Defamation means saying things about someone that are not true and hurt their reputation to regular people.
• When someone says or writes something false and harmful about a person on purpose, it is called defamation.
• Long ago, in Roman and German laws, people could be killed for saying mean things about others.

Defamation Laws in India: 

• India's Constitution gives people the right to speak freely, but there are some exceptions like contempt of court, defamation, and provoking crimes.
• In India, defamation can be a civil wrong or a criminal offense, depending on what people want to achieve.
• In a civil case, a wrong can be fixed by paying money, but in a criminal case, the wrongdoer can be punished with jail time to show others not to do the same.
• In a criminal case, defamation must be proven without any doubt, while in a civil case, damages can be given based on possibilities.

Free Speech vs. Defamation Laws: 

• Some people think that defamation laws go against the basic rights in Article 19 of the constitution.
• The Supreme Court says that the parts of defamation that are criminal are okay and do not stop free speech rights.
• The Court believes that it is fair to see defamation as a public wrong and that punishing it with criminal charges is not too much because protecting reputation is an important human right.
• By looking at how different rights balance each other, the Court says that free speech rights cannot ignore the reputation of a person, which is also part of the right to life.

What are the Previous Defamation Judgements?

• Mahendra Ram Vs. Harnandan Prasad (1958): A letter written in Urdu was sent to the plaintiff. As the plaintiff couldn't read Urdu, he needed someone else to read it to him. The defendant, knowing this, was held responsible for defamation because he intentionally sent the letter, knowing the plaintiff's limitations.
• Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramanian Swamy (2006): The Delhi High Court found Dr. Swamy guilty of defaming Ram Jethmalani. Dr. Swamy had accused Jethmalani of taking money from a prohibited organization to protect the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
• Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (2015): This case is significant in the realm of internet defamation. The judgment declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional. This section penalized individuals for sending offensive messages using communication services.

What Happens if a Lawmaker/MP is Convicted?

• The belief might lead to a Member of Parliament being disqualified if the crime they are found guilty of is mentioned in Section 8(1) of the Representation of the People (RPA) Act of 1951. This part covers offenses like section 153A (committing acts to stir up hatred between different groups based on religion, race, birthplace, residence, language, etc., and engaging in actions harmful to maintaining peace) or section 171E (engaging in bribery) or section 171F (participating in undue influence or impersonation during an election) and a few more.
• Section 8(3) of the RPA requires that a Member of Parliament can lose their position if found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of 2 years in prison. Nevertheless, it also specifies that the disqualification only becomes effective "after three months have passed" since the conviction date. During this timeframe, the convicted MP can challenge the sentence in the High Court.