Is the growing demand for stricter regulation of online content justified, or does it pose a threat to the right of freedom of speech and expression? Examine in light of recent judicial pronouncements.

With the recent controversy of comedian shows (Samay Raina, Kumar Karuna) there has been debate on extent of regulation and free speech. Need for strict regulation: 1) Uphold qualified liberty under article 19(1)A and 19(2). 19(3) demands morality and decency. 2) Harm principle: content for profit making must not come at cost of liberty of others. 3) Enculturation: decency in humor should be maintained for good values in next generation. Regulations as enablers and not Obstructers: principles when defined will determine functioning. 4) Right to privacy must be maintained along with bodily autonomy. 5) Defamation in the name of comedy can hurt image of joles on shiv sena (?). 6) Unregulated content can have psychological impact on viewers. 7) Abusive words in video available to children on youtube. 8) Regulations as enablers and not Obstructers: principles when defined will determine functioning. 9) In time with consumer protection act as influencers advertise product with checking the integrity of product.

Yet, there are allegations on State that over regulation would curtail free speech. 1) Face hand for government to intervene and stop the show (Munawar Faruqui Case). 2) Impact creative freedom of artists. 3) Prevent constructive criticism of ruling leaders. 4) Uncensored arbitrariness will lead to police state, impact genuine free speech. 5) Impact economy of internet based community. 6) Prevent ironing of foreign companies of over regulatory (?) alleged government of over demanding removal of content. There must be balanced regulation in line with KN Seethanna Committee, DDPT Act and Sheerya Singhal Case.