Editorial: Strangling free speech one post at a time

Journalists and activists are up in arms against the draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, warning that it poses a serious threat to media freedom in particular, and free speech in general, that will undermine democracy.

The government, on the other hand, is claiming that it is to curb fake news, hate speech, and deep fakes.

The BJP-led NDA government has the tendency of giving a positive spin to its actions that restrict fundamental rights. However, the stakeholders are increasingly seeing through the government’s motives and are therefore not buying the justification.

It is the support base of the ruling party that is widely perceived to be indulging in such acts with impunity. Naturally, the inference is that the government wants to weaponise the rules against dissenting voices.

Already there is a framework for regulation and experts fear that if the proposed changes come into force, there is a grave danger of mass censorship. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is a road to hell, and this one is definitely not paved with good intentions.

The proposed rules enable arbitrary takedowns and shutdowns, and consequently result in stifling dissent, criticism, or simply disagreeing with the government.

There is a widespread belief and perception that the government has managed to either tame or co-opt large sections of mainstream media, especially television media, and has gained a stranglehold on social media through its dedicated army of trolls guided by the notorious IT Cell.

The ruling dispensation has been obsessed with headline management and control of narrative, and reports have shown how ingenious methods, bordering on illegality, are deployed to manipulate public opinion.

The latest ammunition is the proposed rules, which are allegedly aimed at reining in independent creators and freelancers, who have emerged as the last bastion of free speech exposing the wrongdoings of the State, speaking truth to powers, and holding them accountable.

Interestingly, even some of those from the ruling party’s own stable have opposed the rules, noting that it could be used against it by a government run by a political rival.

There are three main concerns, namely ambiguous and all-encompassing definition of content for censorship, sweeping powers to multiple agencies to arm-twist social media platforms into complying with government demands, and perilously longer duration of data storage which weakens privacy rights.

The most worrying aspect is the centralisation of the process through the dreaded Sahyog portal, and the decentralisation and dispersal of censorship powers across agencies.

The bureaucracy’s claim that the proposed amendments are merely “clarificatory” and procedural, and in no way should be construed as expansion of powers and authority of the government, comes across as a specious claim at best and sleight of hand at worst.

Social media platforms such as Google, Meta, WhatsApp, ShareChat, and Snapchat are unlikely to muster courage to resist the government as they want to profit from access to the humungous market.

Going by their past responses, it is unlikely that industry organisations representing IT and software services, and internet and mobile sectors would lobby hard to make the government change its mind.

The mounting resistance is mainly coming from some civil society organisations, including digital freedom advocacy groups, an assorted group of activists, stand-up comedians like Kunal Kamra, and several independent journalists and content creators who are ready to fight the good fight.