{"id":4424,"date":"2025-01-12T14:42:42","date_gmt":"2025-01-12T09:12:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=4424"},"modified":"2025-01-12T14:47:07","modified_gmt":"2025-01-12T09:17:07","slug":"media-censorship-and-intellectual-property-implications-for-freedom-of-information","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2025\/01\/12\/media-censorship-and-intellectual-property-implications-for-freedom-of-information\/","title":{"rendered":"Media Censorship and Intellectual Property: Implications for Freedom of Information"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n \t<\/i> Read Time:<\/span>11 Minute, 4 Second <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author: Anshika Agarwal 3rd Semester- BBALLB Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Introduction\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Free access to information and expression are both independently important for a healthy digital\u00a0 economy. In addition, both these types of access are interdependent. Without free access to\u00a0 information, the right to freedom of expression is ineffectual. Article 19 of the UN Declaration\u00a0 of Human Rights states, \u201cEveryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right\u00a0 includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart\u00a0 information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.\u201d This right contains the\u00a0 right to seek and receive information regardless of frontiers as part of the right to freedom of\u00a0 expression. Freedom of access to information is impeded by both state and non-state actors,\u00a0 including through restrictive intellectual property regimes, vigilante-led intimidation, the\u00a0 prevalence of illiteracy, and overt state censorship.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Intellectual Property\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The notion of intellectual property (IP) has its roots in censorship. Scott (2001) has shown that\u00a0 the early examples of patents include patents granted to printing presses that would print only\u00a0 approved books. Copyright law, along with the custom to have the printer\u2019s and author\u2019s name\u00a0 included in a book, was developed to assign accountability per laws against heresy, tradition and\u00a0 treason. Mainstream economic analysis too recognises that IP rights often create inefficiency.\u00a0 Boldrin and Levine\u2019s (2002) seminal work shows how current IP regimes confuse the property\u00a0 rights over objects embedded with ideas, with the property rights over ideas themselves. That is,\u00a0 current IP regimes allow for control over the use of ideas after the sale of an object, creating an\u00a0 information monopoly ostensibly to reward innovation. This strand of enquiry recognises that IP\u00a0 rights are a government-enforced monopoly on the use and spread of ideas.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

IP regimes in their implementation exhibit a clear Global North and Global South divide. Global\u00a0 South countries, particularly BRICS countries, have been at the forefront of defending public\u00a0 healthcare against IP rights. The most recent example of such action has been the demand by\u00a0 India, South Africa and other southern countries for a temporary waiver on patents for Covid-19\u00a0 vaccines, so as to increase access. There was a clean divide between North and South countries\u00a0 at the WTO over this issue, with northern countries <\/span>1<\/span>arguing for the continuation of patents. The\u00a0 same divide was evident in the debate on IP rights on genetic resources, with corporations and\u00a0 research institutions from northern countries patenting biological and traditional knowledge from\u00a0 southern countries on the basis of the claim that they discovered this knowledge. In general,\u00a0 empirical work demonstrates that the adoption of IPRs in developing countries is due to external\u00a0 pressure rather than domestic needs, or that developing countries are policy takers in the domain\u00a0 of IPR.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Freedom of Information Act\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another significant impediment to access to digital information is the lack of accessibility for\u00a0 persons with disabilities. The right to freedom of expression can also be restricted by itself,\u00a0 including through liability on intermediaries like social media companies. Intermediary liability\u00a0 describes the extent to which intermediaries are liable for content created by their users. An\u00a0 unreasonably high level of intermediary liability incentivises intermediaries to delete or disallow\u00a0 content that could potentially be illegal, hampering free speech. An unreasonably low level of\u00a0 intermediary liability can allow harassment and hate speech to flourish, chilling free speech.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Freedom of Information Act, 2002, or RTI, is a law in India that gives citizens the right to\u00a0 access information from public authorities. The law’s objectives include empowering citizens as\u00a0 citizens are better able to hold the government accountable when they are informed about its\u00a0 activities. They also aim at promoting transparency because the law aims to make the\u00a0 government more transparent and accountable. The law also aims at containing corruption. The\u00a0 RTI is a fundamental right in India, protected by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Article\u00a0 19 protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 21 protects the right to life.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The RTI law includes the following provisions regarding public authorities’ obligations as public\u00a0 authorities must maintain records and publish manuals, rules, and regulations. They must also\u00a0 ensure that records are catalogued and indexed in a way that facilitates the right to information.\u00a0 Citizens can request information from public authorities without providing reasons. Authorities\u00a0 can ask for more information about the request. Public authorities must respond to requests\u00a0 within a specified time limit. If they don’t, they must inform the requester of the delay and\u00a0 provide an expected date for a decision.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Indian Scenario on Censorship\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although the history of censorship has been a story of repression and persecution, it has also\u00a0 been a chronicle of tolerance and freedom. Some of the basic premises relating to intellectual\u00a0 freedom have been variously expressed by different people and groups. One of the first\u00a0 philosophers to express a rational defense of freedom of speech was Socrates, who asserted the\u00a0 supremacy of his conscience over the decision of the jury and declared that he was a public\u00a0 benefactor when he exercised freedom of inquiry. Another classic principled argument for\u00a0 freedom from censorship was that of John Milton in Areopagitica. Milton believed the first\u00a0 freedom was the liberty to know and to argue freely according to conscience. Censorship has\u00a0 been present in India since the colonial era when the British imposed various restrictions on\u00a0 Indian newspapers and journals through laws such as the Registration Act, 1876 and the\u00a0 Vernacular Press Act, 1878. These legislations were aimed at curbing sedition. Even after\u00a0 independence, censorship laws continued to exist in forms such as the Cinematograph Act 1953,\u00a0 Article 124A (sedition) in the Constitution of India, Section 499 (defamation) in the Indian Penal\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Code, 1860, and the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. The most recent addition to these\u00a0 laws is the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with censorship of online content. In\u00a0 recent years, there have been numerous protests by citizens who fear that the censorship laws in\u00a0 India are becoming increasingly harsh, similar to those in China. These laws raise concerns about\u00a0 the violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a)\u00a0 of the Constitution of India<\/span>2<\/span>. However, it’s important to note that the right to freedom is not\u00a0 absolute. Article 19 (2) outlines reasonable restrictions on this freedom to protect national\u00a0 interest and public order. Furthermore, Section 69 of the IT Act extensively addresses various\u00a0 reasons for censorship and the procedure for interception, monitoring, and decryption of online\u00a0 content, highlighting the necessity of censorship in today’s world. Therefore, it is essential to\u00a0 strike a balance between internet censorship laws and the right to freedom of speech and\u00a0 expression granted to every citizen by the Indian Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Intersection of Media and Intellectual Property\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the current digital era, the relationship between media and intellectual property (IP) is\u00a0 essential in determining who owns, protects, and markets creative works. IP laws\u2014more\u00a0 especially, copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets\u2014are crucial to the protection of the\u00a0 people and organizations who produce media, which ranges from movies, music, and television\u00a0 series to digital content and social media. However, protecting intellectual property has grown\u00a0 more difficult with the introduction of digital platforms, streaming services, and user-generated\u00a0 material. Rapid media content creation, sharing, and delivery to audiences around the world are\u00a0 made possible by the digital revolution, but it also brings with it problems including widespread\u00a0 copyright infringement, unauthorized content use, and complications with cross-border rights\u00a0 enforcement. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram encourage remixing and sharing\u00a0 content, blurring the lines between creative expression and IP infringement, while international\u00a0 treaties like the Berne Convention and TRIPS aim to standardize IP protection worldwide. The\u00a0 media landscape, therefore, is in constant negotiation between fostering creativity and innovation\u00a0 while ensuring fair compensation and ownership rights for content creators and companies.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The future of media and intellectual property will be shaped by rapidly evolving technologies,\u00a0 globalization, and shifting cultural expectations. As blockchain technology emerges, it promises\u00a0 to revolutionize IP protection by offering transparent, decentralized systems to track ownership,\u00a0 licensing, and royalties, potentially reducing issues like piracy and unauthorized use. Meanwhile,\u00a0 the rise of streaming platforms has introduced a subscription-driven economy that offers new\u00a0 revenue models but also sparks debates over fair compensation, as creators increasingly push for\u00a0 better terms in their royalty agreements. AI\u2019s growing role in media creation is another frontier,\u00a0 raising fundamental questions about authorship, ownership, and rights over machine-generated\u00a0 content. Additionally, deepfakes highlight the ethical and legal challenges of using someone’s\u00a0 likeness without consent, threatening both individual privacy and intellectual property rights. As\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>2 <\/span>Modi Ramps up Online Censorship in India, Reporters Sans Frontiers <\/span>, 6 March 2024\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

media continues to become more globalized, harmonizing intellectual property laws across\u00a0 borders will be essential to ensure a fair, functioning global media ecosystem. Navigating these\u00a0 complex issues requires a careful balance between fostering innovation, protecting creators, and\u00a0 ensuring equitable access to content for consumers. In this evolving landscape, intellectual\u00a0 property frameworks will need to adapt, offering flexible, future-proof solutions to meet the\u00a0 challenges of the digital and technological age.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Censorship as an Impediment to Freedom to Information\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As it inhibits public discourse, stifles different points of view, and restricts access to knowledge,\u00a0 censorship is a serious obstacle to the freedom of information. Censorship is the practice of\u00a0 limiting or censoring what people can read, hear, or see. This limits the free exchange of ideas\u00a0 and makes it more difficult for the general public to make educated judgments. Censorship,\u00a0 whether practiced by governments, businesses, or other organizations, inhibits the flow of\u00a0 information that is essential to democracy, personal development, and the advancement of\u00a0 society. Because people are frequently left with partial or skewed viewpoints that only represent\u00a0 the narratives that are accepted by those in positions of authority, it can also result in the\u00a0 propagation of false information. Censorship is frequently employed as a tactic to keep power by\u00a0 stifling opposing viewpoints, political critiques, or contentious topics. Transparency and\u00a0 accountability are compromised by this manipulation, especially when it restricts access to news,\u00a0 social media, or creative expression. Internet censorship, whether by firewalls, content banning,\u00a0 or filtering algorithms, further restricts people’s capacity to investigate a variety of sources or\u00a0 opposing viewpoints in a time when information is increasingly shared online. In the end,\u00a0 censorship not only limits individual freedom but also impedes the advancement of society by\u00a0 stifling free speech and intellectual interchange.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

By regulating and limiting what may be accessed, shared, or expressed, censorship essentially\u00a0 undercuts the freedom of knowledge, which in turn restricts personal freedom and the\u00a0 advancement of society. By controlling narratives and influencing public opinion, governments\u00a0 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,\u00a0 critical analysis, or factual information that is essential for making well-informed decisions\u2014 especially when it comes to political, social, and cultural matters\u2014this selective filtering of\u00a0 information distorts reality. Internet firewalls, algorithmic filtering, and state-run media that\u00a0 restrict access to objective or alternative content are examples of more covert forms of\u00a0 censorship than overt ones like the outright banning of books, media, or websites.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As a result, it produces a limited, frequently biased narrative that hinders intellectual\u00a0 development and innovation and leaves the people ignorant. Furthermore, because there is no\u00a0 free exchange of ideas, censorship creates an atmosphere that is conducive to the spread of\u00a0 propaganda and incorrect information. Free access to and exchange of information is crucial in\u00a0 democracies in order to promote civic engagement, guarantee openness, and hold governments\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

responsible. Without it, people lack the knowledge necessary to confront injustices, have\u00a0 meaningful conversations, or push for change, which eventually impedes both individual\u00a0 liberties and society’s overall progress.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In summary, media censorship has significant consequences for individual liberties and the\u00a0 overall health of society. When information access is limited, people are left with partial, biased,\u00a0 or distorted narratives, which diminishes their capacity to make informed decisions, engage in\u00a0 meaningful discussions, or question authority. Censorship not only suppresses dissenting\u00a0 viewpoints but also prevents the revelation of injustices and critical matters that warrant public\u00a0 attention. This silencing of diverse voices undermines democratic institutions, stifles cultural and\u00a0 intellectual creativity, and obstructs social advancement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, where digital platforms serve as main\u00a0 sources of information, censorship has grown more widespread, particularly concerning online\u00a0 content control. As governments and private organizations create advanced tools to filter and\u00a0 limit access, individuals\u2019 abilities to freely share ideas are further compromised. The effects\u00a0 extend beyond local situations, as censorship in a single nation or platform can affect global\u00a0 information distribution, thus influencing freedom of expression, education, and access to\u00a0 knowledge around the world.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To address these challenges, it is crucial to advocate for transparency, uphold the right to access\u00a0 uncensored media, and establish environments conducive to open dialogue and critical thinking.\u00a0 By guaranteeing that information is free and readily available, societies can empower their\u00a0 citizens, encourage innovation, and uphold the democratic principles essential for long-term\u00a0 progress. Ultimately, a free and uncensored media is not only fundamental to personal freedom\u00a0 but also an essential catalyst for societal advancement and justice.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n
\n \n
\n \n \"Happy\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Happy <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n \n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Sad\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Sad <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Excited\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Excited <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Sleepy\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Sleepy <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n \n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Angry\"\n <\/a>\n
Angry<\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Surprise\"\n <\/a>\n
Surprise<\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Author: Anshika Agarwal 3rd Semester- BBALLB Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies Introduction\u00a0\u00a0 Free access to information and expression are both independently important for a healthy digital\u00a0 economy. In addition, both these types of access are interdependent. Without free access to\u00a0 information, the right to freedom of expression is ineffectual. Article 19 of the UN Declaration\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4374,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[128,163,166,165],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4424"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4424"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4424\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4428,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4424\/revisions\/4428"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4374"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}