INTERMEDIARY MATTERS

Trump’s order to prevent censorship by social media platforms has highlighted the fault line that always existed. Is it time for India to strengthen its legal provisions as well?

- SHUBHENDU PARTH

The Executive Order by the US President, late last month, on preventing online censorship has its genesis in Donald Trump’s long-standing disagreement with the way social media platforms operate. Trump has repeatedly argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which confers immunity to internet companies for the content they host, but is generated by their users, allows platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter to censor content based on their political leanings.

The section mandates that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. That is exactly where the problem lies, and it is, in a way similar to the situation in India where the online platforms tend to hide behind Section 79 of the IT Act which states that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information or data made available by it or hosted by it.

However, the triggers for Trump’s action and the recent campaign and PIL filed at the Supreme Court of India is different. While Trump’s order is aimed to curb “selective” censorship by the social media platforms, the PIL filed by CRIS governing council member Vinit Goenka seeks a writ, order or direction by the court to the government to put in place a mechanism to check contents and advertisements that spread hatred, are seditious, instigative, separatist, hate-filled, and divisive, as also against the spirit of the Union of India.