<\/span><\/h2>\nJournalists like Tanmay Tyagi<\/strong> have promoted human-centered reporting rooted in lived experience. He emphasizes the journalist’s oath: First, do no harm.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/span>Regulatory and Legislative Landscape<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>Policy Responses to Social Media Mental Health Concerns<\/span><\/h3>\n\n- Information Technology (IT) Act<\/strong>\n
\n- Section 2(nb):<\/strong> Protection of information on communication devices from unauthorized access.<\/li>\n
- Section 66(e):<\/strong> Protection from publishing private images of others.<\/li>\n
- Section 67(a):<\/strong> Protection from publishing sexually explicit content.<\/li>\n
- Section 67(b):<\/strong> Protection from publishing child pornography or inducing online sexual explicitness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>Case Laws<\/span><\/h3>\n\n- Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India<\/strong> (24 March 2015)
\nThis landmark case struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional for violating the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The court also considered the legality of Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act with associated rules.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n- Digital Personal Data Protection Act<\/strong>
\nStrengthens privacy but does not classify mental health data as special or impose strict requirements for mental health apps.<\/li>\n- The Cable Television Networks Act (1995)<\/strong>
\nContains provisions to prevent the transmission of harmful, indecent, or misleading content. Bans programs that incite violence or promote harmful products like alcohol, cigarettes, or dangerous weapons.<\/li>\n- Prasar Bharati Act (1990)<\/strong>
\nCreated India’s national broadcaster, granting autonomy to Doordarshan and All India Radio. Ensures media coverage is fair and aligns with democratic and social principles.<\/li>\n- Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act (1986)<\/strong>
\nProhibits offensive depictions of women in media, maintaining a balance between free speech and public morality.<\/li>\n- Cinematography Act (1952)<\/strong>
\nRestricts content containing profanity, contempt of court, extreme violence, insult to national symbols, or misrepresentation of religion or personal identity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/span>Regulatory and Legislative Landscape Across Global Countries<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/span>America: Media Law<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/span>Constitutional Base<\/span><\/h4>\nFirst Amendment:<\/strong>
\n\u201cCongress shall make no law curtailing the freedom of speech, or of the press.\u201d
\nProtects both traditional media and online speech, though platform moderation remains debated.<\/p>\n<\/span>Key Federal Acts<\/span><\/h4>\n\n- Communications Decency Act (CDA), Section 230 (1996):<\/strong> Shields platforms from liability for user-posted content.<\/li>\n
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act \/ Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA):<\/strong> Used in Gonzalez v. Google<\/em> alleging YouTube recommendations supported terrorism (Supreme Court remanded in 2023).<\/li>\n
- Guarding Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (FACA) (2024):<\/strong> Targets TikTok\u2019s Chinese ownership for national security reasons.
\nTikTok v. Garland<\/em> (Jan 17, 2025) upheld FACA as constitutional under the First Amendment.<\/li>\n- Stop Hiding Hate Act (New York, 2025):<\/strong> Requires platforms to report on moderation of hate speech and misinformation. Being challenged by X (formerly Twitter) for violating the First Amendment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>Recent Major Cases Involving Social Media<\/span><\/h2>\n\n- \n\n
<\/span>Murthy v. Missouri (2024)<\/h3 ><\/span><\/h3>\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether government dispatches obliging platforms to remove misinformation violates the First Amendment.<\/p>\nRuling (June 26, 2024):<\/strong> Supreme Court dismissed on standing grounds \u2014 no decision on compulsion. Government may continue flagging content to platforms.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/li>\n- \n\n
<\/span>NetChoice v. Paxton & Moody v. NetChoice (2024 remand)<\/h3 ><\/span><\/h3>\nInvolves Florida\/Texas laws confining platform temperance and allowing user suits for disposals.<\/p>\n
Supreme Court remanded the cases for retrospection, suggesting complex First Amendment implications.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/li>\n
- \n\n
<\/span>TikTok v. Garland (2025)<\/h3 ><\/span><\/h3>\nIssue:<\/strong> Can Congress ban apps from foreign adversaries on free speech grounds?<\/p>\nRuling:<\/strong> SCOTUS ruled FACA constitutional, allowing for TikTok’s divestiture accreditation.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/li>\n- \n
<\/span>X Corp.<\/h3 ><\/span><\/h3>\nIssue:<\/strong> Suits on temperance laws.<\/p>\nX has sued Minnesota over its deepfake political content ban (Minnesota Deepfake Law, 2023) and New York\u2019s Stop Hiding Hate Act. It claims these laws infringe Section 230 and First Amendment protections.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n<\/h2>\n<\/section>\n\n<\/span>Canada Media Law<\/span><\/h2>\n\n- Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), Section 2(b), protects freedom for study and belief as well as opinion with expression and includes press and media freedoms.<\/li>\n
- Bill C-11 (Online Streaming Act, April 2022) authorizes CRTC to oversee platforms like Netflix and YouTube.<\/li>\n
- Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) proposed in February 2024 but failed in January 2025. It aimed to establish a Digital Safety Commission for dangerous content.<\/li>\n
- Senate Bill S-231 (Journalistic Source Protection Act) proposes amendments to protect nonpublic sources unless justice requires disclosure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>Key Cases:<\/span><\/h3>\n\n- Thomson Journals v. Attorney General (1998):<\/strong> Court struck down prohibition for publishing election slates during campaign final days \u2014 violated Section 2(b).<\/li>\n
- R v. Zundel (1992):<\/strong> Criminal Code provision against \u201cspreading false news\u201d struck down as unconstitutional.<\/li>\n
- R v. Lucas (1998):<\/strong> Upheld vilification laws as justified limits under Section 1 of the Charter.<\/li>\n
- Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Attorney General (2021):<\/strong> Section 91 of the Canada Choices Act ruled unconstitutional due to overbreadth and inadequate fault conditions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span>Recent Legal Developments:<\/span><\/h3>\n