Censorship in any degree or form will always be antagonistic to freedom of expression and a threat to personal liberty. It is also considered a totalitarian tool to repress the so-called ‘dissenting’ voice or a voice that makes too much noise and cannot be stopped from rising a few from slumber. And when it’s about censoring the media   or its content, the attack is not only limited to the surface but attempts to break down the very fibre of an institution that is sustained by the act of voicing.So when Mr. Kapil Sibal expressed his indignation over some user-generated content on Internet giants such as Google, Facebook and Youtube and suggested screening of content before it found a place on people’s screens, it was time to unleash some ire (on the Internet or elsewhere). Kapil Sibal who is now vehemently denying his proposal of pre-screening or prepublication moderation of user-generated offensive and objectionable content and is quoting misrepresentation of his concerns in the New York Times article that sparked off the fireworks.Calling on representative from Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, the minister asked them to be more proactive in evaluating content before it is shared online. Peeved over the indignant and satirical portrayal of Congress President, Sonia Gandhi on Facebook, Sibal is reported to have demanded removal and better regulation of content before it id uploaded. Unreasonable as it may sound, but the demand was made and perhaps too strongly before it was met with a discouraging yet logical rationale by the companies executives. Obviously, on one is the deciding authority on what is acceptable and what is defamatory?A dialogue from the movie, The Great Debators goes, “My opponent is the voice of dissent and I speak for the truth”and quite describes the situation Sibal is finding himself in. you can protect the image of your allies only to an extent but if there’s going to be fire, the smoke will spread far and wide.India comes after United States and Brazil for requesting the removal of certain content which the government terms incendiary or defamatory. As per Google’s Transparency Report for India, our country had forwarded about 358 items of content. These included hate speeches threat to national security and a major chunk were listed under the government criticizing tab.

We all know how disheartening t is to be not ‘likeable’ enough on the social media but we all have to live with it, don’t we? And when there are cyber laws, available legal assistance in case of defamation then do we really need to resort to undemocratic measure of prescreening and Big-brotherly tactics? The IT Amendment Act of December 2008 made Cyber Law more effective and comprehensively made it more panoptic vis-à-vis the variety of crime committed in cyber space.

And it’s not only the harmless Facebook-using or gmail-accessing user who has been asked to come under the radar, there have been much stricter practices being amployed in China and United States to curb what is perceived by respective governments as excessively “liberal” or intellectually threatening.

A lot of time authoritative governments cite reasons such as pornography, terrorism, communal vulnerability to tighten the claw on the content but when most of the web companies are already implementing a certain degree of check on the content and giving user the power to “report abuse” or mark as “offensive” whatever is suitable and also offering filters to exclude particular results in their searches then intervention by government is uncalled for and instead reflective of baser objectives. Also, if there are individuals ‘brazen’ enough to lampoon/satirize or denigrate those in power, then there are others who are sane enough to sift the grain from the chaff and discard the latter as fluff. Netizens are not averse to either self-policing and many are conscious of what follow or share so as not to tarnish their online persona.

Nonetheless, the policing continues! Whether it was the print media that came under the scanner during the emergency, the more recent closing down of Google in China or the Indian government’s attempt to sabotage research in motion blackberry services, hegemonic control seems to be the way out when an unusual confidence is seen brimming on the horizon. There’s a need to regularize content on websites but not control or pre-screen it. Instead of the government intervening, the let the web giants be independent in deciding the measure or the legal bodies in conjecturing on the derogatory nature of content on the Internet. Coming of age, internet has proved itself to be more of a scepter of empowerment than a red flag of danger. There are countries which have obtained independence, people who have realized their revolutions and thoughts that have been acted out, all because the internet and the social media gave them a platform to actualize their democratic rights application of which has rarely been beyond speeches and intellectual write-ups.

Let’s also not forget how the direct of constraints create the most overpowering of human curiosity. So may #liberty & #freedom of expression should be left as such.