Should the content on streaming platforms be regulated? What would censorship of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hotstar and other platforms look like? How could such a code be enforced? Or, should shows like Sacred Games (Netflix), Family Man (Prime), etc just be left alone?
As online content gains attention across the country and across age groups, its unfettered streaming across platforms have attracted renewed attention from the government, political critics, legal advisors and others.
In a scathing attack on Manoj Bajpai-starrer Family Man, Panchjanya, an RSS-affiliated publication, wrote on its website, “The web series not only attacks national security but also our family and social structures.”
Platforms, however, at a recent roundtable spoke in near chorus on the need to tread lightly on the issue of regulating content. Suggestions ranged from no regulation at all to careful and nuanced age-specific labels.
“There should ideally be no regulation,” said Abhishek Soni, General Manager at Reliance Jio. Platforms, on the other hand, raised caution about the chilling effect on creativity and advocated for consensual self-regulation.
The discussion with platforms and other stakeholders took place at a roundtable organised by Medianama on online content regulation to debate regulation of streaming services, user-generated content, implications of a self-regulatory code, censorship and self-censorship.
The Quint was present and participated in the discussions.
What the Current Voluntary Code of Regulation Prohibits
In January, most of the leading platforms (excluding Amazon Prime) signed on to the ‘Code of Best Practices for Online Curated Content Providers’. Developed by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), the code, intended to act as “guiding principles”, prescribes a form of “industry best practices” that OTT platforms are expected to adhere to.
This code, among other things, prescribes a set of “prohibited content” that a platform like Netflix or Hotstar is expected to voluntarily remove from its shows. Hence, scenes that the platform may deem to potentially cause hurt to religious sentiments, disrespect national symbols or promote terrorism will be snipped.
IAMAI had sought the endorsement of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as well as the Ministry of Electronics and IT for this code. A number platforms like Netflix, Hotstar, Voot, Zee5, Arre, SonyLIV, ALT Balaji and Eros have signed on and ratified the code.
So, what kind of prohibited content does this code advocate?
- Disrespecting the national emblem or national flag
- Children in real or simulated sexual activities
- Outraging religious sentiments
- Promoting terrorism
- Content banned from distribution or exhibition
An example of vagueness can be illustrated through Maheshinte Prathikaram (Netflix). A Malayalam film starring Fahadh Faasil, it has a scene which shows two fighting individuals abruptly halt their scuffle to stand in attention when children start singing the national anthem in a school nearby. Two points arise:
- While the Code does not mention the national anthem along with the emblem and flag, there is no clarity on how platforms will treat the anthem.
- How does regulation work for content that has not been created or produced by the platform?
Netflix on Content Regulation
Regarding the Code of Best Practices, The Quint asked the roundtable gathering how provocation of terrorism or disrespect to the country can be objectively decided as the Code is characterised by vagueness.
Ambika Khurana, Director, Public Policy at Netflix, responded by saying there are various laws, such as the IT Act and the Indian Penal Code, which all streaming companies uphold.
“The section in the [self-regulatory code] on prohibited content also mentions that none of these companies would ‘deliberately’ or ‘maliciously’ want to focus on any content which can upset anybody’s sentiments. I think it’s a very very subjective question. There’s no straight answer that I have. But yes there is no deliberate or malicious intent to hurt anybody,” Khurana said.
Standardising Age Ratings
Standardising age ratings is a good way to ensure a broad framework for maturity rating for content, according to Khurana.
“Age classification needs to be done with a lot of sensitivity, with a lot of maturity, not just left to tech tools but aided by tech tools and driven by a lot of human intelligence. It’s an art, it’s a science and it should be upheld. ” Khurana said at the roundtable.
“That would settle a lot of skepticism that people have. Creators can continue creating what they feel is right, and yet we protect the most vulnerable sections who are spending a lot of time online,” Khurana added.
Jio’s Vision of Regulation
Having said that, the ideal condition is for there to be no regulation, Soni added “The existing regulatory regime is sufficient and a self regulatory regime which we’re trying to evolve further should be the way to go. We feel that if it’s successfully done, the government will probably not need come out with such a regulation.”
In response to The Quint’s question on imposing vague prohibitory practices, Soni said, the purpose behind the code was just to adhere to the law of the land.
“And this is a voluntary code that we have adopted just to observe all the rules and regulations of the land and we’re just doing that. It’s just a volunteered option. We don’t want to go beyond that and we don’t want to offend anybody. That’s the idea.”Abhishek Soni, General Manager at Reliance Jio
Is the Content Industry Mature Enough To Be Regulated?
A point that was raised multiple occassions throug the two-hour conference was whether the streaming sector was mature enough to warrant strict regulation of content.
While some pointed to the nascent stage of the sector’s growth, others described attempts at regulation as a “knee-jerk reaction.” “There are so many newer, smaller OTT players who are trying to enter along with these giant tech moguls,” said Gauri Bansal, Associate at 9dot9 Insights.
“There’s a sudden rush to regulate every single thing, its a knee-jerk reaction as opposed to a well-thought strategy, that can help the growth of an industry,” she added.
The same argument about nascency of the sector was offered also to the question of whether the platforms should indeed be left to regulate themselves. “Self-regulation [for content platforms] is not going to happen because their business model is subscription,” said Rajesh Lalwani, Director at Scenario Consulting.
According to Lalwani, “OTT platforms are going to push the boundaries to get people on board, and they will have slightly edgy content, or a lot more edgy content. This space is too nascent right now to self-regulate.”
Creators Are Becoming Risk Averse: Gursimran Khamba
“Most content creators have resigned to the fact that it’s having to choose the lesser evil. I think of self regulation as a broad, vague, [and] open to interpretation code of conduct,” said Gursimran Khamba.
“As it exists right now, it is marginally better because I think it provides you slight flexibility in terms of how much you can push the platform, how much you can push the conversation, how much you can push content without obviously breaking the law of the land,” Khamba added.
Artistic Freedom Strangulated
During the discussion, Ambika Khurana, Director (Public Policy) for Netflix asked Khamba, “How worried are you as an artistic guy in terms of how this entire environment of regulation will oppress or strangulate artistic freedom?,”
“That is already happening”, Khamba responded, adding that “If I use the word Army in a platform office, it’s ‘okay thank you very much, nice knowing you.’ Everybody is really scared in terms of even experimenting…everyone’s inherently become extremely risk-averse.”
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)