Unlike the 19th-century libel case, where the fight for free speech rested on the shoulders of individuals like Karsandas Mulji, today’s battles are often fought by multinational corporations like Netflix. These platforms, driven by commercial interests and legal obligations, may be hesitant to champion controversial content that could jeopardize their standing or attract legal challenges.
The case of Maharaj raises questions about the extent to which corporate entities can or should act as defenders of free speech. While platforms like Netflix have a vested interest in promoting diverse voices and perspectives, they are also bound by legal frameworks and market pressures. Indeed the very legal framework on which these platforms operate requires them to maintain their content neutrality stand and act or take down content only on the valid orders of the court or an authorized government agency. This tension is evident in the decisions made by these platforms, balancing creative freedom with the need to avoid legal battles and maintain a neutral stance.
In recent cases of censorship and free speech violations in India, a notable trend has emerged: affected parties have not sought damages for the infringement of their right to free speech, and courts have not utilized their authority to award costs or damages. Instead, these legal battles are viewed as an inherent part of conducting business in India by the platforms involved. This perspective has far-reaching consequences, as it diverts resources away from content creation and other essential aspects of the platforms’ operations, ultimately hindering the overall development of the content ecosystem.
Source: Barandbench
