That the influencer Ranveer Allahbadia’s mother, who is a doctor, is inviting taunts (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/sc-slams-youtuber-but-shields-him-from-arrestseeks-help-to-regulate-social-media-content/articleshow/118366643.cms ) for no fault of hers, but thanks to the crude remark of her son, shows the need for restraint before making effusively vulgar remarks publicly. The Apex Court, on February 18, condemned him for his offensive remarks on the ‘India's Got Latent' YouTube show but gave him protection against arrest in FIRs lodged in various states. The court sought the assistance of top law officers to devise something to stop “anything and everything” from being broadcast on social media in the name of free speech. The SC had explained what obscenity was in the Apoorva Arora case and had said anything inviting revulsion or disgust need not necessarily warrant criminal prosecution. Profanity is not obscenity. This, I am afraid, is rather wishy-washy. Which is why the Apex Court has sought assistance from the top law officers of the country, hinting at the possibility of Vishaka-like guidelines.

In the US, talk shows are punctuated by, and replete with, the four-letter expletive so much so that it passes as the American grammar to enliven proceedings. In India, bawdy utterances invoking incestuous relationships with females of the interlocutor’s family  is commonplace. They smack of misogynism and machoism. But such utterances are seldom made publicly. So, the line must be drawn -- any private joke or bawdy utterance is alright as long as it is not meant for public consumption, but if made publicly, it must be deemed to have hurt public sensibilities and, hence, ought to invite legal action. One hopes this is the ultimate denouement.

Meanwhile, the apologists for such machismo acts rationalise unbridled vulgarity on the internet, be it YouTube or other social media, as follows:

·       The Internet knows no borders. It is an unruly beast. So, willy-nilly, it has to be left alone.

·       If you don’t like it, don’t see it. Don’t stop others.

·       If you stop online vulgarity within your country, like the so-called nanny states China and North Korea do, people would vote with their feet and migrate to countries like Germany, from where most of the shock and awe news and performances are already being uploaded.

·       If OTT platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime can allow onboarding by wannabe filmmakers or established filmmakers without being hobbled by pre censorship, there is no reason why YouTube should be singled out.

To YouTube’s credit, it removed the offending Allahabadia content at the request of the Indian government. A few years ago, it also removed content showing the Congress leader and renowned lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, in a compromising position with a woman at his instance. But then the social medium taking down an offensive post or content always proves to be a little too late in this day and age where sensationalism on the social media travels like wildfire. At the same time, it must be conceded that though prevention is better than cure, the cure in the form of taking down offensive content seems to be the only ready weapon in the hands of the governments. Facebook uses algorithms to scout for obscene and offensive content. YouTube, too, perhaps should.

YouTube, like WhatsApp, is a free communication medium. Open an account and upload, period. YouTube makes money hand over fist through ads. This encourages influencers, publicity-seekers and freeloaders to board its juggernaut. YouTube channel owners, therefore, are growing at a rapid rate, with even news channels seeing merit in migrating to it rather than operating their channels at considerable expense in the mainstream electronic media.

While data in India is still considered relatively cheap compared to many other countries, it is gradually becoming more expensive due to factors like increasing network infrastructure costs, the need for operators to maintain profitability, government regulations like spectrum fees, and the growing demand for higher data usage, particularly with the rollout of 5G technology, forcing providers to raise prices to cover their investments and maintain adequate service quality. In a way, if this trend continues, people will think twice before watching movies on their cell phones. But this rather fortuitous development is not what the Supreme Court wants to rein in on social media, especially the OTT platforms. It wants direct measures, for example, replicating on a broader front the already prevalent ban on child pornography.

In the short and medium run, the nanny state approach, how-so-ever detestable, has to be willy-nilly adopted by either, mandating pre censorship for domestic uploading at the pain of heavy penalty. The long-run solution, of course, lies in the world order coming together. If the OECD countries can close ranks and try to find a solution to the menace posed by the tax havens, the menace posed by unruly social media, too, can perhaps be attempted to be reined in similarly. But then, the western nations have greater tolerance for vulgarity or obscenity than the more prudish nations like India, where family is still a sobering influence.

In the ultimate analysis, a wannabe Ranveer Allahbadia perhaps may sober down by the grim and unpalatable prospect of having to look sheepish before his near and dear ones at the dining table. Indeed, family and parental influence work better at parental control on electronic devices, including television sets. It is equally true that we as a nation, by and large, revel in voyeurism. Many of us are couch potatoes refusing to stir out for direct action like jogging, brisk walking or playing indoor games. It is the voyeurs who fall prey to and patronise idle and ribald talk shows.

S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues.