Censorship Of OTT Platforms: What Does It Mean For Your Experience?

 

Introduction

A streaming video service known as over-the-top (OTT) is made available to users directly over the internet. This platform has surpassed television on cable, satellite, etc. in terms of functionality. In India, many OTT platforms are operating, including Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hotstar, Voot, and others. Contrary to film or television content, which is subject to regulation by the CBFC, BCCC, etc., OTT platforms are free to stream content without interference from any regulatory authority.

Even if the content on these sites violates numerous national laws, the Supreme Court continues to monitor it. A significant concern is whether the platform will be governed by a self-regulatory agency or by legitimate law that establishes a statutory entity to oversee and filter the content streaming on such platforms.

Government's Perspective on the Problems

These platforms are not subject to any kind of regulation by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Law and Justice, Electronics, Information and Technology, Telecom, or CBFC. The government views these platforms as middlemen over which they have no legal authority. However, by Rule 3(2)(b), (c), and (e) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidance) Rules, 2011, intermediaries must use caution when showing, hosting, or publishing any obscene, pornographic, or illegal information and must not endanger minors.

According to Rule 3(3), the intermediary is not permitted to knowingly host or start the transmission of such content. An NGO named Justice for Rights petitioned the Delhi High Court in 2016 stating that Hotstar's soft-pornographic, unethical, and insufficiently religious programming promoted disdain for the nation, objectified women, involved youngsters in criminal activity, and possibly even encouraged terrorism. They demanded that the platforms be governed, filtered, or licensed and that the offensive and illegal content be deleted. However, the Supreme Court is still considering the petition after it was dismissed.

Motive Behind This Needed Awakening

The John Oliver show on Hotstar, where he sharply insulted Narendra Modi and CAA, and the broadcast was subsequently blocked on Hotstar, was the most recent incident involving OTTs. On Hasan Minaj's program, which covered the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, a comparable occurrence took place and received harsh criticism later.

Netflix, though, resisted giving in to the pressure. The Bofors scam and some speculative lines concerning Rajeev Gandhi were mentioned in shows like Sacred Games, which received criticism. Leila received criticism for encouraging Hinduphobia, which wounded Hindus' feelings. Viewers harshly criticized it.

In addition to Netflix, Amazon Prime also removed the whole Indian season of the CBS political drama "Madam Secretary." Due to its themes of Hindu nationalism, India's occupation of Kashmir, violence against Muslims by majoritarian society, etc., the show has been accused of offending the feelings of many people.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed the issue in a PIL submitted by the NGO Maatr Foundation.

The plea was made in response to laws allegedly prohibiting the streaming of pornographic and sexually explicit material. These media content streamers, according to their accusations, are disseminating illegal, obscene, and unrestricted content. According to sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, the platforms' depictions of women are indecent and are punishable.

For openly displaying, disseminating, and presenting obscene acts, pamphlets, representations, figures, etc., the streamers shall also be penalized under Sections 292-294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Children under the age of 18 can also access the site, which exposes them to sexual actions, terrorism, and filthy material.

Censorship: The Views of Indians

According to a YouGov survey of 1005 people, 57% of respondents support some form of internet streaming censorship. They believe that these sites post a lot of objectionable stuff that is inappropriate for public consumption. Adults over the age of 40 make up the majority of those who favor censorship.

 The fact that content on OTT platforms is available via subscription on demand, where viewers may choose to pay and choose what to watch, is one of the greatest arguments against such restriction. In addition to this, movie piracy is another reason why filmmakers choose the OTT approach. OTT is a significant advancement for the many artists who lack the financial resources to film their imaginative ideas.

Maybe it offers a solid foundation on which to create compelling storylines. And for this reason, the majority of viewers are drawn to the content offered by such sites. They publish daring narratives and stories because they don't care if political parties are involved.

They depict a variety of sociopolitical concerns that, for one reason or another, are not shown in mainstream cinema.

And even after censorship in films, there have been significant arguments about several films, including Padmavat, PK, My Name is Khan, etc. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the content will not encounter any opposition following censorship on OTT platforms. Additionally, the content accessible on such platforms is reasonably priced, speaks the user's native language, covers regional topics, offers free trials to users, and—most importantly—is easy. There has been a significant increase in OTT platform watchers in the present pandemic-like condition.

According to a report by the Secretary of MIB, the number of people watching OTT media providers will expand by 21.8% annually.

Worldwide Perspectives

Regulating agencies are in place in nations like Singapore and the UK to keep an eye on OTT sites. In Singapore, service providers are required to include explicit content that includes aspects like violence, drugs, sex, and other explicit material.

The OTT platforms are examined just like any other public service broadcaster in the UK, though. The main law governing Australia's OTT industry is the BSA, 1992. While in Turkey, there is a licensing system in place that grants OTT platforms a 10-year license. There are stringent laws in nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Indonesia. They want the government to have unlimited authority.

They want the government to have unlimited authority. Netflix is among the OTT services that have been blocked.

Conclusions

In light of the current situation, a neutral regulating body is essential. A self-regulating body cannot regulate Internet content streaming. The body will identify content that needs to be regulated. Working together, the government and OTT platforms may put a stop to this problem once and for all. OTT platforms are currently in their infancy around the world. When creating legislation, India must be careful to address the requirements of the populace.

Whether a law is being created to protect the target audience or to close a regulatory gap, its fundamental goal should be obvious. The Intermediary Rules, 2011 must also be kept in mind because violations will result in the license being revoked. Total censorship on the platform will reduce it to the status of a television program or commercial movie. Additionally, it would result in a rise in incidents of piracy.

The general audience today is looking for information that exposes the social truth, addresses socio-political issues, offers geographical variety, and, most importantly, doesn't offend anyone group of people. These regulatory holes and ambiguities are thus concerning.

Written by Gungun Gupta