Sravasti Dasgupta 
New Delhi: Amid the ongoing row over vulgar content on YouTube and over the top (OTT) platforms in the wake of the backlash against YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, Biju Janata Dal (BJD) MP in the Rajya Sabha Sasmit Patra has called for a specific code, not legislation, for YouTube content.
Patra who is a member of the parliamentary standing committee on communications and information technology, which also discussed the matter in their deliberations last week, told The Wire that all members of the committee were “unanimous in their view that any form of vulgarity, obscenity, inappropriate comments should not be tolerated.”
On Thursday, the Union government issued an advisory to OTT platforms to abide by laws while publishing content. The advisory came two days after the Supreme Court flagged a “vacuum in law” while dealing with content on YouTube. The apex court also made severe remarks against YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia calling his comments “dirty”, “obscene” and “insulting parents” while granting him protection from arrest in cases registered against him in three cities over comments made by him on a comedy show.
With Allahbadia facing a litany of FIRs against his comments, Patra when asked if such conduct should be criminalised, said that, “if there is a provision in law, that provides for criminalisation of conduct, any conduct, then appropriate process of law should follow.” “But as far as exercise of law, process of law, implementation of law and how the law is viewed is up to the courts.”
Read the full interview here:
The members of the parliamentary standing committee have raised the issue of vulgarity on social media in their deliberations last week. What has been the stand of the members of the committee?
The members of the committee have been unanimous in their view that any form of vulgarity, obscenity, inappropriate comments should not be tolerated and we should find ways to ensure that such things do not recur.
Also read: The Supreme Court Is Policing Morality, Justice Remains Elusive
The criticism of such regulation is that it robs viewers of choice and freedom. How do you respond and does this impinge on freedom of speech?
Well if watching their parents engage in sex and also to say would you like to jump in and do it, is considered freedom of expression in our society then I have nothing more to say.
Broadening out of the specific issue of the India’s Got Latent show, inappropriate jokes have been made on such platforms. Jokes that are casteist, communal or against women, or LGBTQI communities, have been made but they have escaped scrutiny. Why has this particular case evoked such a reaction that even parliamentarians are seized of it?
I would not say that all of it has escaped scrutiny. And if they have escaped scrutiny then scrutiny should be tightened.
As far as only this issue is concerned, I am not talking only about this issue. I am talking about any issue which affects the basic fundamental ethos of society.
I am not talking about cultural policing but reasonable restrictions which are given in Article 19(2) which provides within the fundamental rights certain reasonable restrictions.
So do we say that the constitution is also wrong in imposing restrictions? Have people ready Article 19(2)? Doesn’t it specify the restrictions?
Therefore one has to make a compelling case and not a sweeping judgement. Forget about any law or guideline that itself is enough to ensure adequate scrutiny.
We have seen an all round backlash over the comments made on the India’s Got Latent show, including multiple FIRs being lodged. Is the criminalisation of such conduct necessary?
No one can criminalise such conduct. If there is a provision in law, that provides for criminalisation of conduct, any conduct, then appropriate process of law should follow. Should law then become specifically subject to or on whom it should apply, and whom it should not apply? Should it be preferential?
I am not one to say whether FIRs should be filed. How can I decide for someone else? Who am I to say whether one should file an FIR or not? But as far as exercise of law, process of law, implementation of law and how the law is viewed is up to the courts.
In November, Union minister of information & broadcasting, railways, and electronics & IT, Ashwini Vaishnaw, spoke of further tightening existing laws governing social media and OTT platforms in a reply to the Lok Sabha and said the parliamentary standing committee should take this up as a priority. Will such regulation, if it were to come in, allow the government to control what is shown on OTT?
Presently before the standing committee we do not have a regulation to discuss. The parliamentary standing committee for instance for education we had the NEP [National Education Policy] before us and we discussed. We don’t have any such document before us in the committee on communications and IT. Unless such a document comes, or the committee itself comes up with a document, it would then be appropriate to discuss it rather than theorising in thin air.
You have spoken to us earlier and said “probably a need to look at a YouTuber or Influencer code of engagement”. Why do you think that is necessary?
First, when it comes to various statutory bodies under information and broadcasting they usually vet the content before it gets aired. You vet a primary document and after that it goes on air. When YouTuber influencers are concerned, they are aired and then it is vetted. So the model is different. For movies there are statutory bodies, as well as for newspapers and print media but here the onus is on YouTubers to put things on air based on their own understanding and then government intent comes in whether it is right or wrong.
I am not talking about a law or a restrictive practice. I am talking about a specific code because YouTube itself works on a very different platform. It works on a different engagement model than television.
Also read: Centre Issues Advisory to OTT Platforms Amid Vulgarity on Social Media Row
Once it is done only then the government comes in. There is probably a need for a code, not a legislation, which is specific for YouTube influencers.
Many influencers are there who do daredevil stunts, putting oneself into danger of death. Is that right to life? While that can be a right of choice would the state then say you can jump off a cliff and would that not influence minds?
Movies also influence young minds. These elements are there in both. YouTubers are driven by passion and need to get more eyeballs or clicks. There needs to be a code which analyses all this [and] puts it before them. There are some guidelines already but I am talking about a code for YouTube particularly.