Media Censorship and Intellectual Property: Implications for Freedom of Information

Introduction  

Free access to information and expression are both independently important for a healthy digital  economy. In addition, both these types of access are interdependent. Without free access to  information, the right to freedom of expression is ineffectual. Article 19 of the UN Declaration  of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right  includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart  information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” This right contains the  right to seek and receive information regardless of frontiers as part of the right to freedom of  expression. Freedom of access to information is impeded by both state and non-state actors,  including through restrictive intellectual property regimes, vigilante-led intimidation, the  prevalence of illiteracy, and overt state censorship. 

Intellectual Property  

The notion of intellectual property (IP) has its roots in censorship. Scott (2001) has shown that  the early examples of patents include patents granted to printing presses that would print only  approved books. Copyright law, along with the custom to have the printer’s and author’s name  included in a book, was developed to assign accountability per laws against heresy, tradition and  treason. Mainstream economic analysis too recognises that IP rights often create inefficiency.  Boldrin and Levine’s (2002) seminal work shows how current IP regimes confuse the property  rights over objects embedded with ideas, with the property rights over ideas themselves. That is,  current IP regimes allow for control over the use of ideas after the sale of an object, creating an  information monopoly ostensibly to reward innovation. This strand of enquiry recognises that IP  rights are a government-enforced monopoly on the use and spread of ideas. 

IP regimes in their implementation exhibit a clear Global North and Global South divide. Global  South countries, particularly BRICS countries, have been at the forefront of defending public  healthcare against IP rights. The most recent example of such action has been the demand by  India, South Africa and other southern countries for a temporary waiver on patents for Covid-19  vaccines, so as to increase access. There was a clean divide between North and South countries  at the WTO over this issue, with northern countries 1arguing for the continuation of patents. The  same divide was evident in the debate on IP rights on genetic resources, with corporations and  research institutions from northern countries patenting biological and traditional knowledge from  southern countries on the basis of the claim that they discovered this knowledge. In general,  empirical work demonstrates that the adoption of IPRs in developing countries is due to external  pressure rather than domestic needs, or that developing countries are policy takers in the domain  of IPR. The Freedom of Information Act  

Another significant impediment to access to digital information is the lack of accessibility for  persons with disabilities. The right to freedom of expression can also be restricted by itself,  including through liability on intermediaries like social media companies. Intermediary liability  describes the extent to which intermediaries are liable for content created by their users. An  unreasonably high level of intermediary liability incentivises intermediaries to delete or disallow  content that could potentially be illegal, hampering free speech. An unreasonably low level of  intermediary liability can allow harassment and hate speech to flourish, chilling free speech.  

The Freedom of Information Act, 2002, or RTI, is a law in India that gives citizens the right to  access information from public authorities. The law’s objectives include empowering citizens as  citizens are better able to hold the government accountable when they are informed about its  activities. They also aim at promoting transparency because the law aims to make the  government more transparent and accountable. The law also aims at containing corruption. The  RTI is a fundamental right in India, protected by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Article  19 protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 21 protects the right to life.  

The RTI law includes the following provisions regarding public authorities’ obligations as public  authorities must maintain records and publish manuals, rules, and regulations. They must also  ensure that records are catalogued and indexed in a way that facilitates the right to information.  Citizens can request information from public authorities without providing reasons. Authorities  can ask for more information about the request. Public authorities must respond to requests  within a specified time limit. If they don’t, they must inform the requester of the delay and  provide an expected date for a decision. 

Indian Scenario on Censorship  

Although the history of censorship has been a story of repression and persecution, it has also  been a chronicle of tolerance and freedom. Some of the basic premises relating to intellectual  freedom have been variously expressed by different people and groups. One of the first  philosophers to express a rational defense of freedom of speech was Socrates, who asserted the  supremacy of his conscience over the decision of the jury and declared that he was a public  benefactor when he exercised freedom of inquiry. Another classic principled argument for  freedom from censorship was that of John Milton in Areopagitica. Milton believed the first  freedom was the liberty to know and to argue freely according to conscience. Censorship has  been present in India since the colonial era when the British imposed various restrictions on  Indian newspapers and journals through laws such as the Registration Act, 1876 and the  Vernacular Press Act, 1878. These legislations were aimed at curbing sedition. Even after  independence, censorship laws continued to exist in forms such as the Cinematograph Act 1953,  Article 124A (sedition) in the Constitution of India, Section 499 (defamation) in the Indian Penal 

Code, 1860, and the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. The most recent addition to these  laws is the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with censorship of online content. In  recent years, there have been numerous protests by citizens who fear that the censorship laws in  India are becoming increasingly harsh, similar to those in China. These laws raise concerns about  the violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a)  of the Constitution of India2. However, it’s important to note that the right to freedom is not  absolute. Article 19 (2) outlines reasonable restrictions on this freedom to protect national  interest and public order. Furthermore, Section 69 of the IT Act extensively addresses various  reasons for censorship and the procedure for interception, monitoring, and decryption of online  content, highlighting the necessity of censorship in today’s world. Therefore, it is essential to  strike a balance between internet censorship laws and the right to freedom of speech and  expression granted to every citizen by the Indian Constitution. 

Intersection of Media and Intellectual Property  

In the current digital era, the relationship between media and intellectual property (IP) is  essential in determining who owns, protects, and markets creative works. IP laws—more  especially, copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets—are crucial to the protection of the  people and organizations who produce media, which ranges from movies, music, and television  series to digital content and social media. However, protecting intellectual property has grown  more difficult with the introduction of digital platforms, streaming services, and user-generated  material. Rapid media content creation, sharing, and delivery to audiences around the world are  made possible by the digital revolution, but it also brings with it problems including widespread  copyright infringement, unauthorized content use, and complications with cross-border rights  enforcement. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram encourage remixing and sharing  content, blurring the lines between creative expression and IP infringement, while international  treaties like the Berne Convention and TRIPS aim to standardize IP protection worldwide. The  media landscape, therefore, is in constant negotiation between fostering creativity and innovation  while ensuring fair compensation and ownership rights for content creators and companies. 

The future of media and intellectual property will be shaped by rapidly evolving technologies,  globalization, and shifting cultural expectations. As blockchain technology emerges, it promises  to revolutionize IP protection by offering transparent, decentralized systems to track ownership,  licensing, and royalties, potentially reducing issues like piracy and unauthorized use. Meanwhile,  the rise of streaming platforms has introduced a subscription-driven economy that offers new  revenue models but also sparks debates over fair compensation, as creators increasingly push for  better terms in their royalty agreements. AI’s growing role in media creation is another frontier,  raising fundamental questions about authorship, ownership, and rights over machine-generated  content. Additionally, deepfakes highlight the ethical and legal challenges of using someone’s  likeness without consent, threatening both individual privacy and intellectual property rights. As  

Modi Ramps up Online Censorship in India, Reporters Sans Frontiers , 6 March 2024, media continues to become more globalized, harmonizing intellectual property laws across  borders will be essential to ensure a fair, functioning global media ecosystem. Navigating these  complex issues requires a careful balance between fostering innovation, protecting creators, and  ensuring equitable access to content for consumers. In this evolving landscape, intellectual  property frameworks will need to adapt, offering flexible, future-proof solutions to meet the  challenges of the digital and technological age. 

Censorship as an Impediment to Freedom to Information 

As it inhibits public discourse, stifles different points of view, and restricts access to knowledge,  censorship is a serious obstacle to the freedom of information. Censorship is the practice of  limiting or censoring what people can read, hear, or see. This limits the free exchange of ideas  and makes it more difficult for the general public to make educated judgments. Censorship,  whether practiced by governments, businesses, or other organizations, inhibits the flow of  information that is essential to democracy, personal development, and the advancement of  society. Because people are frequently left with partial or skewed viewpoints that only represent  the narratives that are accepted by those in positions of authority, it can also result in the  propagation of false information. Censorship is frequently employed as a tactic to keep power by  stifling opposing viewpoints, political critiques, or contentious topics. Transparency and  accountability are compromised by this manipulation, especially when it restricts access to news,  social media, or creative expression. Internet censorship, whether by firewalls, content banning,  or filtering algorithms, further restricts people’s capacity to investigate a variety of sources or  opposing viewpoints in a time when information is increasingly shared online. In the end,  censorship not only limits individual freedom but also impedes the advancement of society by  stifling free speech and intellectual interchange. 

By regulating and limiting what may be accessed, shared, or expressed, censorship essentially  undercuts the freedom of knowledge, which in turn restricts personal freedom and the  advancement of society. By controlling narratives and influencing public opinion, governments  and institutions frequently employ censorship to stifle dissent, stop criticism, or defend long standing power systems. Because citizens are frequently denied access to a range of opinions,  critical analysis, or factual information that is essential for making well-informed decisions— especially when it comes to political, social, and cultural matters—this selective filtering of  information distorts reality. Internet firewalls, algorithmic filtering, and state-run media that  restrict access to objective or alternative content are examples of more covert forms of  censorship than overt ones like the outright banning of books, media, or websites.  

As a result, it produces a limited, frequently biased narrative that hinders intellectual  development and innovation and leaves the people ignorant. Furthermore, because there is no  free exchange of ideas, censorship creates an atmosphere that is conducive to the spread of  propaganda and incorrect information. Free access to and exchange of information is crucial in  democracies in order to promote civic engagement, guarantee openness, and hold governments 

responsible. Without it, people lack the knowledge necessary to confront injustices, have  meaningful conversations, or push for change, which eventually impedes both individual  liberties and society’s overall progress. 

Conclusion  

In summary, media censorship has significant consequences for individual liberties and the  overall health of society. When information access is limited, people are left with partial, biased,  or distorted narratives, which diminishes their capacity to make informed decisions, engage in  meaningful discussions, or question authority. Censorship not only suppresses dissenting  viewpoints but also prevents the revelation of injustices and critical matters that warrant public  attention. This silencing of diverse voices undermines democratic institutions, stifles cultural and  intellectual creativity, and obstructs social advancement. 

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, where digital platforms serve as main  sources of information, censorship has grown more widespread, particularly concerning online  content control. As governments and private organizations create advanced tools to filter and  limit access, individuals’ abilities to freely share ideas are further compromised. The effects  extend beyond local situations, as censorship in a single nation or platform can affect global  information distribution, thus influencing freedom of expression, education, and access to  knowledge around the world. 

To address these challenges, it is crucial to advocate for transparency, uphold the right to access  uncensored media, and establish environments conducive to open dialogue and critical thinking.  By guaranteeing that information is free and readily available, societies can empower their  citizens, encourage innovation, and uphold the democratic principles essential for long-term  progress. Ultimately, a free and uncensored media is not only fundamental to personal freedom  but also an essential catalyst for societal advancement and justice.

References

1. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2002). The Case Against Intellectual Property. American Economic Review.2.
2. Scott, M. (2001). The Origins of Intellectual Property. Journal of Cultural Economy.
3. Reporters Sans Frontières. (2024). Modi Ramps up Online Censorship in India. Retrieved from Reporters Without Borders.
4. United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from UN Official Document.
5. World Trade Organization. (2020). TRIPS and Public Health: Compulsory Licensing and the COVID-19 Vaccine Debate. Retrieved from WTO Resources.