INTRODUCTION:

Mass Media is accessed by millions of people across the world. The type of Mass Media accessed by people in different areas of the world depends on the socio-economic factors. Hence, the number of TV households will reach to 196 million by 2019 along with 175 million Cable & Satellite (C&S) subscriber base, indicating a 90% penetration in TV households. India had 168 million TV households in 2014, which makes it the third largest market of subscribers for TVs in the world. There are some features about Indian mass media which are very striking.

It is almost equally divided between urban and rural viewership. In fact, in absolute numbers, rural viewership is slightly higher at 343 million, while there are 331million urban viewers. Television also attracts an equal viewership between men and women with 348 million male viewers as compared to 327 million female viewers. Unlike other mediums such as Internet or radio, the reach of Television is very balanced among different social groups and genders.

In the early 20th century, it was easier for the state to regulate the content due to most of the broadcasts being transmitted by publically owned corporations. Many nations had opened their doors for private investment in broadcast towards the end of the 20th century. This is when there was a divide between the countries which opted for government regulated broadcast of Mass media and the countries which did not subscribe to this.

The research delves into a comparative analysis of Switzerland, India, United States of America and United Kingdom to study the changing roles of private and public broadcasters and the role of state in trying to curb potentially harmful content and regulate the broadcast of such a powerful medium.

The US constitution assured them freedom of speech. The same freedom extends to broadcast as well. Yet, there are some exceptions to that right when a public platform is discussed. Firstly, the government condemns hate speech. Most nations tend to blur the lines between freedom of speech to voice discontent with hate speech. Secondly, Sexual content is also a restricted topic. Though pornography is debarred but it is not defined. Definition of Obscenity is ever changing: obscene material has no first amendment protection. From Heckling's Rule to the present day Roth Test, people had always had a vague idea but no proper definition of what should be censored.

The European Union paper on "Illegal and harmful content on the Internet" sums up the concerns that government has with the internet. The same concerns are shared with broadcast as well. The paper states that internet should not put national security at a threat internally or externally through instructions on bomb-making, illegal drug production, terrorist activities; should protect minors from abusive forms of marketing, violence, pornography; protection of human dignity and not incite racial hatred or racial discrimination like that noticeable in the Rwanda case of Radio television libre des mille collines (RTLM) radio station inciting Hutus to kill Tuhis; protect the individuals and organisations from slander or libel; intellectual property (unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works, software or music) and this is how regulation of broadcast in every nation is justified Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the broadcast. The first amendment, as well as section 36 of Communications Act, prohibits the commission from censoring broadcast material and interfere in expression of speech. Though, it makes sure that Criticism, ridicule and humor concerning any individual group or institution is banned. The FCC does not review anyone's qualifications to gather, edit, announce or comment on the news and these are all the station licensee's responsibility. Though, news Distortion is not delved into much by the FCC, The FCC has states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against public interesting"

India is a bit different from the other countries described here in two respects. First, regulation of broadcasting is undertaken directly by the government, through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, rather than through an independent regulatory body. Second, private television broadcasting is limited to cable and satellite distribution systems, and the airwaves are dominated by public television. Cable and satellite broadcasting appeared in India in the early 1990s and was subject to regulation first through the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (Cable Rules) and then the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (Cable Act).

This was stressed in the 2003 Joint Declaration by the (then) three specialized mandates for the protection of freedom of expression – the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media and the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression – which stated:

"All public authorities which exercise formal regulatory powers over the media should be protected against interference, particularly of a political or economic nature, including by an appointments process for members which is transparent, allows for public input and is not controlled by any particular political party."

In these times, public broadcast in decreasing in numbers and private partners are coming into power. Freedom of speech is an protected right in the international forum too. Freedom of expression is also protected in all three regional human rights treaties, specifically at Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, at Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and at Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). Hence, nations ratifying to such treaties have to assure that this right amongst its own citizens is maintained while a transition from a publically owned to a privately owned broadcast sector is being maintained.

India ranks 136th out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index of Journalists without Border. Broadcasting rules have stipulated multiple rules which curtail much of press freedom. Press Council of India's report on journalists said about 25 journalists were killed from 1992-2012 while discharging their duties. Several journalists suffered grievous injuries attacks of the extremists and at the hands of the Para-military personnel.

Representative of a journalists' body said that there were about 50 cases of attacks on journalists from 2001-2012 and no action was taken against the culprits. "Newspapers publish reports of attacks and police register cases but nothing happens later", she lamented. A specific complaint in the Maoist affected area was that police were asking journalists to act as a special Police Officers thereby making them vulnerable Self Regulation Guidelines (Guidelines) set out principles, guidelines and ethical practices, which shall guide the Broadcasting Service Provider (BSP) in offering their programming services in India so as to conform to the Certification Rules prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (regulations) Act 1995, irrespective of the medium/platform used for broadcasting of the programme.

Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. According to the Death Watch List of Vienna based International Press Institute, India ranks as the ninth deadliest country for the journalists in the world in the last two decades. Regulation of media should not be government's top priority. Instead. The research attempts at understanding till what extent are laws to be exercised on broadcasters so that the freedom of the private players and citizens are not curtailed. A proper balance is to be maintained between the need for independence of broadcast regulators finds strong support in international decisions and statements.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Regulatory commission that come under the government's control have published guidelines on their websites regarding broadcasts. Hence, such websites are referred to for accurate information. Office of Communications (OfCom) in the UK has published guidelines for the broadcasters under different stages of the production process. All the details the broadcasters have to give "due care to", "avoid" & "follow" are provided in the under guidance notes 2015.Similarly, Federal Communications Commission of USA has also written the guidelines which the broadcasters had adopted in the telecommunications Act of 1996, the regulation laws of 1969 and other sources. Office of Communications (Of Com)

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is the world’s biggest NGO specializing in the defense of media freedom, which we regard as the basic human right to be informed and to inform others. They analyze the and rank the freedom of different nations' media on the basis of Pluralism, Media independence, Environment and self-censorship, Transparency, Infrastructure and abuse of journalists and whistleblowers. The nations' rankings are moved on the basis of legislations adopted and whatever changes the nations have faced. United Kingdom adopted a new law dubbed the "Snoopers' Charter" which lacks sufficient protection mechanisms for journalists and their sources. Additionally, it put forward a proposal for a new Espionage Act which could possibly grant courts the power to imprison journalists and others for up to 14 years for obtaining leaked information. European nations are following the same suit like Luxembourg refusing to acquit French whistleblowers over the LuxLeaks revelations. United Kingdom has been falling in its Press Freedom rate. It was also in late 2016 that the United Kingdom (down 2 places at 40th) adopted a new law extending the surveillance powers of the British intelligence agencies. Dubbed the “Snoopers’ Charter,” the Investigatory Powers Act put the UK in the unenviable position of having adopted “the most extreme surveillance legislation in UK history”, with a law that lacks sufficient protection mechanisms for journalists and their sources. Even more alarming, in early 2017, the Law Commission put forward a proposal for a new ‘Espionage Act’ that would allow the courts to imprison journalists and others for up to 14 years for obtaining leaked information. Facts like these have been taken into consideration making the analysis up to date and convenient to understand.

Additionally, Robert Trager, Joseph Russomanno, Susan Dente & Rossand Amy Reynold - Law of Journalism and Communication (2014) and Freedom of Expression and Television Regulation: A Comparative Analysis of Brazil and other countries. (March 2012). The former discusses the international treaties and declarations. Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, the corporations and their local subsidiaries act as link between the association and the audience. Parliament sets the legal conditions, the government grants the license but they have no say in editorial decisions. The treaties and such implications are delivered in the paper. The second paper deals with an in-depth analysis of Brazil and India as well. It serves really well for comparison of the broadcast sectors of the nations and their repercussions in the commercial space. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation released a debate on Freedom of Expression and Broadcasting Regulation. This paper discusses the different democracies in the political arenas of 10 democracies (namely- Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Jamaica, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom and United States). After discussion at length of different broadcasters, it makes recommendations in the case of Brazil.

Ministry of Information and Broadcast released Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector in 2008. These self regulation guidelines are to be followed, irrespective of the type of ownership they have. These regulations are subject to change. For example, the change of rules under the Modi Government following the Pathankot attack for news agencies while broadcasting sensitive information to the public of India. Just like the rules of Central Board of Film Certification. Violations of cinematograph act and penalties - Offences of this nature are cognizable. Furthermore, they are non-bailable. Section 7 of Cinematograph Act provides penalties for violation of censorship provisions. Penalty to Film-making is in particular covered by the principles of freedom of expression and of information (Article 16, Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (Federal Constitution)) and freedom of artistic expression (Article 21, Federal Constitution). However, freedom of artistic expression is limited by, in particular:

Central Board for film certification presents guidelines for films and Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI). It has released self-regulatory guidelines to minimise the scope for subjective decision by regulatory authorities or the broadcasting service providers. The regulation of Indian television is two tiered. While self regulation under specific guidelines forms the basis for it, Central government nominates industry level representative bodies which have set up Consumers' complain committees.

Ofcom or Office of Communication in United Kingdom was required to draft guidelines for self regulation and give standards for broadcast for United Kingdom. This need arose following the Communications Act 2003 and the Broadcasting Act 1996. The standards in programmes, sponsorship and product placement in television programmes were called the Office of Communications Broadcasting Code. The official document of Office of Communications has been drafted keeping in mind the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights i.e. Freedom of expression. The code protects individuals under the age of eighteen. European convention on human rights is discussed at length in the Broadcast Code. The convention was adopted by the Council of Europe for the European nations party to the treaty.

METHODOLOGY:

The aim of this thesis is to ascertain whether freedom of speech is curtailed to an extreme degree by some of the laws adopted. It even tries to ascertain exactly how laws should be drawn in contemporary times in different cultures to give a society enough freedom for the rule to not be autocratic but also protect the public from possible hate speech or threats.

The first part is to identify laws which are applied in each nation. The second part analyses when were the laws not followed and on what grounds. The third part is to check second hand data to see how people feel about the laws in their country.

This part is important for us to understand what is important is to gather the concerned laws. This part is a qualitative analysis of rules adopted in the different nations. The laws are to be gathered from the official websites and official documents provided by the authorities. This further helps us in deciding what is considered as obscene, indecent or profane in the concerned societies which have been taken up for research. The information would be taken up to ascertain what each country considers indecent, profane or even slanderous. Additionally, what may seem harmless but needs to be properly checked for potential content which may hurt other people's sentiments or may even instigate violence if turns out to be too violent. The first part deals with restrictions broadcast laws puts on various broadcasters. Each country provides with regards to freedom of speech under their concerned constitutions. Their fundamental right is compared with their restrictions.

For the case of United States, the paper for Research Congressional Research Service is taken. As it is the public policy think tank for the congress, there is an obvious inclination towards them explicitly mentioning what is allowed and what isn't under different headings. The headings under non-permitted are given with specific details under which such a right can't be taken away.

United Kingdom has different acts limiting freedom of speech of each of the nations. These acts are under different headings such as Hate Speech, Treason/encouragement of terrorism, Obscene publication, Obscene or malicious communications, Insider trading, reporting of elections, parliamentary proceedings are restricted from publication. Even after the adoption of European convention on human rights being adopted in 1998, there are large number of exceptions. This part also deals with ascertaining whether the laws which are mentioned differ from the other nations in what way.

Second part covers the vague terms of laws which becomes the sole reason for dispute amongst different parties when it comes to legal disagreements. This shall serve to be a secondary part of the analysis in the first part. Specifically, it covers the terms which potentially make the laws vague in different nations due to which different repercussions arise. It also states the cases where vagueness of the data becomes a problem when it comes to discerning what the demarcation line when it comes to showcasing our content after self-regulation. The examples are taken to better understand in what ways has confusion surfaced in different nations due to ambiguous laws and what the repercussions of the actions of the government or regulatory bodies were.

The third and the last part deals with a quantitative analysis of what the public of the nations feel about the restrictions imposed upon them. The data collected is secondary in nature. The data which helps to ascertain about what the public feel about laws of freedom of speech in their countries. While Switzerland doesn't have much too much data available for the same, United States and United Kingdom have very detailed surveys by respected organizations which states how many people are satisfied with their laws and makes inferences about where such an understanding stems from. Most of the data would be taken from secondhand data online depending on their credibility.

While in India some feel that they should be allowed more freedom of speech, United Kingdom has some surveys which states that the broadcasters should be allowed less of it. Facts like these is important to ascertain whether the hypothesis, void or valid, is in the interest of the public.

Laws for Broadcasting in Countries:

Broadcast laws are different in different nations and covered under different guidelines or acts of the government. The broadcasting code/ rules and regulations for broadcasters under the Indian government is provided under the Programme Code as per the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994. Broadcasters can telecast any programme or news keeping in mind the following restrictions-

· Content should not offend against good taste or decency.

· The content should not contains criticism of friendly countries.

· the content should not contain attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of other religions.

· The content should not contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths

· The content should not be likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order which promotes anti national attitude

· The content which contains anything amounting to contempt of court is not allowed

· The content contains aspersion against integrity of President and Judiciary.

· The content contains aspersion against integrity of the Nation.

· The content should not criticize, malign or slander any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social public and moral life of the country

· Shouldn't Encourage superstition or blind belief

· Content should not denigrate women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a women,

· Broadcast should not contain content which denigrates any females' body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being

· No indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals;

· Content should not denigrate children

· Content should not contain visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups.

· Content should suitable for "unrestricted public exhibition". Unrestricted public exhibition has the same meaning as assigned to it in the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

It is evident from the restrictions happen to be applied to each and every programme very subjectively under the discretion of the authorities concerned.

Furthermore, United Kingdom and Switzerland, other countries taken in our research, happen to be party to the European Convention on Human Rights: Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 pertain directly to rights offered to all European citizens of European nations part of the Council of Europe. Article 8 gives everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Article 9 assures "every citizen the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. Additionally, freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". And lastly, how free is the Press? It is also critical for giving the disadvantaged a voice in the formulation of local decisions that affect their lives (Anil Kumar Pathlavath, 2016).

Article 10 states that "everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".

Article 14 holds that "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

The laws in both the countries are reflective of the above mentioned articles. Switzerland, on the other hand, has a very concise list of exceptions under the Federal Act on Radio and Television (RTVA). It required the broadcasters to respect humans, be objective and provide and security of nations. Minimum requirements of any particular programme is

· Respecting fundamental rights. In particular, programmes must respect human dignity, must be neither discriminatory nor contribute to racial hatred, nor endanger public morals nor glorify or trivialize violence.

· Editorial programmes with information content must present facts and events fairly, so that the audience can form its own opinion. Personal views and commentaries must be identifiable as such.

· The programmes must not jeopardize the internal or external security of the Confederation or cantons, their constitutional order or the observance of Switzerland’s obligations under international law.

· Licensed programme services must appropriately express the variety of events and opinions in the totality of their editorial programmes. If a coverage area is served by. In 2005, Article 27 of the Swiss Penal Code defined the protection of sources. Federal Office of Communication (OfCom), not to be confused with Office of Communications, UK, has jurisdiction and to prosecute and adjudicate on offences on the administrative Criminal Law. Switzerland under Federal Act on Radio and Television.

For the most cases, the fines don't exceed CHF 100,000. This is so, only if it is proven that the defaulter had willfully violated the laws. This other minor cases, penalties may not be imposed. Hence, it becomes evident that the restrictions in Switzerland are limited.

United Kingdom's broadcasting code is a little well organized. Released by Office of Communications, It has ten sections under its code. Protection of the under eighteens, harm and offence, Crime, disorder, hatred and abuse, Religion, Due impartiality and due accuracy, elections and referendums, fairness, privacy, Commercial references on TV, Commercial communications on radio - all come under its purview.

Protection of children are aged under fifteen. The second section gives details about

· Broadcast of offence related to children - justification is require before broadcast of name, address, identity of school or any still or moving picture of the minor on television.

· Programmes for children needs to not show use of illegal drugs, abuse of drugs,smoking, solvent abuse and misuse of alcohol to not beshown in programmes made primarily for children. "Exception to this exception" is if shown then should such use should not be condoned, glamorised or encourages or in other words - "editorial Justification is required"

· Violence is easily imitable by children in a manner harmful or dangerous. It is not to be featured in programmes made for children and must not be broadcast before the watershed in case of television or on radio when children are likely to be listening

· Dangerous or antisocial behavior, unless there is editorial justification,

· Methods of suicide and self harm must not be included in programmes except where they are editorially justified and are also justified by context

· The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed (in the case of television), when children are particularly likely to be listening (in the case of radio), or when content is likely to be accessed by children (in the case of BBC ODPS). Ideally, Offensive language must not or should not be used in programmes made for younger children

· Due to the laws trying not to involve any abusive treatment of religious views or beliefs of those belonging to a particular region. Hence, the laws ask broadcasters to exercise proper degree of responsibility with respect to such a broadcast.

Live broadcasting calls in for more exceptional circumstances. Another section is dedicated to just broadcasters broadcasting news generally accepted standard must be applied to contents of television and radio services. News is regulated under Section five of the Broadcast Code. The rules for the same being-

· to provide adequate protection for members from inclusion of such service.

· Factual programmes must be objective and the aim of the broadcaster should be to not must not mislead the audience.

· The content should be justified by context - offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language

· demonstration of exorcism, occult, paranormal, divination or practices related must be treated with due objectivity.

· Violence, dangerous behavior and suicide must not include material condoning or glamorizing seriously antisocial behavior.

In the name of internal national security, legislation were carried out keeping in mind specifically the laws which required for lesser protection to "free speech". For example the Investigatory Powers Act provided for insufficient protection mechanisms for whistleblowers and Espionage Act also came into the picture which potentially termed journalists and spies and can jail them for 14 years to simply obtain leaked info. Crimes and Courts Act 2013 refers to the laws adopted levying a punitive cost shifting measure that could hold the publishers liable for costs of all claims made against them. As for United Kingdom, abolished laws "come from back door". Blasphemy law abolished but lives, as was evident from the conviction of Harry Taylor in 2016.

United States broadcast laws came in parallel to the Hays Code after. The code ascertained at first whether the content broadcast was any of the following

· Obscene - For the content to be rules obscene, it must meet a three pronged test established by the Supreme Court:

1. it must appeal to an average persons prurient interest;

2. depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive' way: and ,

3. taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

· Indecent content - portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that does not meet the three prong test for obscenity. Profane content includes "grossly offensive" language that is considered public nuisance.

Public broadcasting is democratically accountable to the people. Commercial broadcasting is accountable to the owners, investors or clients. They have grounds rules- Grounds rules are essentially restrictive and proscriptive. Additionally, nudity is not allowed during the watershed timings.

Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters was adopted by National authority of Broadcasters (NAB) and later replaced later by the convention of self regulation in the 1980s. Agela J. Campbell talks about how self regulation might not be possible in these times. The concerned broadcasters choose their target audience and further

TV-Y-appropriate for young children TV-Y7- over the age of six TV-G - general audience TV- PG - parental guidance is suggested because of inappropriate sexual or violent content.

The above mentioned rating becomes necessary as different channels have different demographics to cater to.

In the recent past, US ranking has gone down from 41 in 2016 to 43 in 2016. As Reporters without Borders reports it, this is owing to the verbal attacks by the President towards the press and the subsequent blocking of white house access to multiple media houses. Additionally, an "impetus" of downfall had already given way into the Obama administration when the administration had unilaterally tried to crack down on whistleblowers under its administration. In the 8 years of the Obama administration, whistleblowers were arrested for 31 times the jail times than all other US president's combined. news being politicised or censored and what could be the possible solution for such matters. Dialogue process of various stakeholders in the process makes more evident (Anil Kumar Pathlavath, 2018).

Obscene indecent or profane programming - Federal Communications Commission's regulation of obscene and indecent programming is constitutional, because of compelling societal interests of protecting children and supporting parents' ability to manage what kids watch.

The Supreme Court of United States may curtail speech only if it comes under one the following when it comes to protection of minorities-

1) Content intended to incite or produce "imminent lawless action"

2) Likely to incite or produce such action.

In comparison to United Kingdom, United States is a lot more open to other content which does not come under the following headings- Obscene material - the 3 pronged test, or the Hicklin's test, had been adopted 1868 by the Supreme Court which helped distinguish normal content with obscene content. For any content to be considered obscene, it needs to have one of multiple of the following characteristics –

· Appeals to the prurient interest,

· Sexual conduct specifically defines by applicable law, material, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Also, Child pornography is not allowed for broadcast. if convicted of Broadcasting, possessing, sharing or selling child pornography of any type, the accused is
Gradually, FCC reviews the same under the appropriate criminal law enforcement authorities.

Federal Communications Commission doesn't allow Fighting Words and True Threats against any individual, group of individuals, minorities, cliques etc. Complaints regarding the same, the Federal Communications Commission website clearly states that complaints from the public about the broadcasting objectionable after Federal Communications Commission checks into it personally. This is what was set as a precedent in the Supreme Court's 1964 landmark case on obscenity and pornography where Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote: "I know it when I see it." This is the principle they give while trying to enforce their rules on the broadcasters. Essentially, when you report, you ask the Federal Communications Commission to look into it.

The Grey Area (Vagueness of Laws):

The reasons as to why every nation has a different set of rules and restrictions, even though they happen to be sharing the same set of fundamental similarities (that is the universal declaration of Human Rights by United Nations) is due to the nature of societies each country has and the type of government it has. While some laws by these countries were adopted as early as 1953, the others were adopted in years as recent as 2007 and 2008. This also affects the kind of rules each of these nations adopt.

Each nation possessed a different set of laws but ideally carrying mostly the same rules. It can be noticed that there are some terms which serve to make the laws of all of these countries vague. First of such a term is "Editorial Justification". For instance, in the Broadcast code for United Kingdom, it is stated as

"1.10 The use of illegal drugs, the abuse of drugs, smoking, solvent abuse and the misuse of alcohol:

· must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children unless there is strong editorial justification."

Additionally, the word has been mentioned 13 times in the code. The broadcasters are to decide for themselves whether their content editorially justified or not. If judged wrongly, the broadcasters are to be held responsible for the same.

Ignorance of law cannot be considered to be the grounds of forgiveness and these terms make sure that the broadcasters are held responsible whenever possible. The same code also noted that the broadcasters of any potentially instigating content are to possess "proper degree of responsibility" before going forward with the same. The words being used as per the following

"4.1 Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to

the content of programmes which are religious programmes."

Alcohol and other intoxicating beverages advertisements were prohibited in the United States in which it was "glamorized". Seasgram, second largest distilled water, disregarded it and aired its ads twice. Distilled Spirits Council of the United States went after Seasgram and held it responsible for violating the rule. It argues that with the advent of technology, internet was already serving as a source of advertisements of alcohol and other intoxicating beverages. Distilled Spirits Council of the United States went forward to try to remove voluntary prohibition but was unsuccessful.

Only the Indian Code goes a step further to try to define the vagueness of such a term with "Editorial content of a programme, series or programmes" being defined by the service on which the material is being broadcasted, time at which the broadcast is taking place, other programmes scheduled before and after the programme, degree of harms or offence that material is likely to cause the viewer, degree of offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular material, likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience and the effect such a material would have on the viewer or the listener. it is worthwhile to examine various components of its interface with payment systems, technology, security, regulatory aspects and functionality (Anil Kumar Pathlavath, 2013).

Another criteria for the content to fulfill is to have "artistic value". Potential objective content should possess artistic value, political and scientific value. When a film like Siberian film gets allowed in United States and Siberia. A real debate gets catapulted into the mainstream where some viewers get to debate what the artistic value of such a film actually is. Being banned in most nations, the only nation not to ban the movie, out of those which were taken into consideration into this research, is United States and United Kingdom. While the latter gave the movies the most cuts in the film history of that nation.

Self regulation becomes necessary if the rules adopted by broadcasting agencies are voluntary but the organizations are held responsible legally in court. There was a refusal by broadcasters to go along the regulations voluntarily. Once the document by the National Authority of Broadcasting (NAB) was largely ignored, National Authority of Broadcasting submitted a radio code under the Roosevelt government but was supposed to be mandatorily followed by the broadcasters. No impetus was given to such an initiative as it was declared unconstitutional under Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. United States. Thereafter, only in 1939 did they enforce the code with an enforcement group called Compliance Committee. While CARU has worked to encourage websites to adhere to its privacy guidelines with respect to the collection of personal information from children online, to ate it has not achieved the same widespread adherence it has achieved in other media.

National Association of Broadcasters removed in 1982 and Children's Advertising Review Unit guidelines were adopted as the only industry wide policy for children's advertising. These rulings were completely voluntary and had no sanctions imposed on anyone or any enforcement power. In case an advertiser was non cooperative, Children's advertising Review Unit was referred to as the regulatory agencies under the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission. Yet, the review unit turned out to be too small for any significant. The number of cases by Children's Advertising Review Unit was too small-approximately 15 per year. Hence, the rules under this could not be enforced affectively as less people came for approval or less cases could be set as precedents for other broadcasters to follow suit.

There is no universally accepted list of restrictions. Universities to ban free speech due to it being offensive to students and would interfere with their education. As Angela Campbell notes in her paper. National Association of Broadcast's Code efforts at self regulation date back to 1923. It asked radio stations to voluntarily operate on frequencies assigned to them. Specifically, CARU staff monitors network, independent, and cable television programming at “child viewing times,” as well as child-directed advertisements at "non-child" or the watershed viewing times. It also monitors children’s magazines and comic books.

National News Council was adopted under the Nixon administration in 1971, particularly at a time when the press was attacked a lot. It took just over a decade for one of the reasons. National News Council shut down after a little over a year because of "no support of press or public".

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." A survey was taken in universities of United States where they came out with astoundingly surprising results. More than one-third of young people said they believe the government should approve newspaper stories before they are published. 34% of the same sample said the press has too much freedom.

Reasons for such a response can be attributed to the recent controversies surrounding public speakers in American colleges. Auburn University, in Alabama, United States, had released a statement that had prevented white supremacist Richard Spencer from speaking in the university due to their contrary views, a federal court ruled against the university. The lawsuit stated:

“Various minority advocacy groups of Jews, Blacks and immigrants and left-wing/liberal groups demanded that no forum be afforded for the expression of views that contradict their own and which they find unhelpful for their identity group agendas and political agendas.”

University of California, Berkeley had previously in the same year had protestors against the appearance of Milo Yiannopulos which had caused $100,000 worth of damage. The universities have states that their displeasure and prevention of various figures is for the safety of the students and the public at large.

Universities have been restricting speeches. More than 90% of universities in UK have not given absolute freedom for speech to its students.

Commenting in a recent research paper, UKIP parliamentary researcher Simon Gordon said that the restriction of free speech was "endemic" in universities and students’ unions, adding that safe space policies ensured the "emotional well being of some only at the expense of others."

Additionally, sometimes there is a blurring of lines between actual jurisdiction to government bodies getting more autonomy and indirectly more power. For films, film songs or film promos or trailers or music videos or albums or their promos produced in India or abroad, shall be carried. Before any trailer, film promo, film song or music video from a film or an album gets broadcasted on television, it needs prior permission from the Central Board of Film Certification. The Central Board of Film Certification is the body which gives certificates for passing a film under certain viewer ratings. Yet, Central Board of Film Certification ends up calling for some cuts to get a movie to pass under a particular rating. This has ended up in the body making certain cuts mandatory which is outside of its jurisdiction but producers have to comply because they either have financial or timely obligations to pass their films. Such a power granted was never essentially granted but through convention and regular use has sort of indirectly derived this power.

CONCLUSION:

All of the countries which were taken for research in this thesis was a signatory of the declaration of human rights of the United States convention. Though, there is a universal definition of most human rights, there seems to be no universal definition of restrictions on the same. While Switzerland has the least restrictions with the most unrestrictive of terms, United Kingdom has the most descriptive code out of all the four nations.

India's ranking in Freedom of Press, according to Reporters without Borders, India's drop from a 133 in 2016 to 136 in 2017. Reasons cited for this by the organization is the current leader Modi's nationalists trying to purge all manifestations of "anti national" thought from national debate. Following which, self censorship or self regulation is growing. Additionally, there are some sensitive areas like Kashmir which has no protective mechanism for journalists and they subjected to work unofficially for the army too sometimes.

In India, there seems to be restrictions not based on one code but under different acts of the government. For example, Section 124a of penal code "sedition" punishable by life imprisonment. Though, no journalist in India has ever been convicted under this sedition law. Additionally, the freedom of speech debate was brought into the public sphere when Section 66A under the IT Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court first discussed three fundamental concepts in understanding the freedom of expression: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. According to the Court, under Justice Vyas v. Gujarat, “[m]ere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart” of the right. [para. 13] And, the law may curtail the freedom only when a discussion or advocacy amounts to incitement. [para. 13]. Here, it should be noted that speech which instigates in some way for the masses to jump into action and rebel violently against the state is when such a law should try to curtail the freedom. If there is an opinion which goes against the government but happens to give rise to fruitful public discourse, curtailment of such a right should not be given way to.

Even though in a normal public sphere, the most ideal situation would be argued to be the one in which no restriction comes in the way of the population to try to show displeasure of inconvenience or even outrage at anything and everything. Some surveys taken in European Nations states what the public wants. When you compare the stats to countries such as Italy with a 62%, Poland with a 50% or even Germany with a 70%, United States is a lot more closed when it comes to getting the government to intervene in their speech. United States has a 28% approval rate of people wanting government to prevent people from exercising complete freedom. 67% of the people state that they want that people should be able to say these things publicly. Alas, European nations have citizens which want lesser freedom rights for the people of their nations, their families and even themselves. For many of them believe that this is to protect the interests of the minorities, a lot of other factors so happen to play a role in it. A 2015 survey by the Pew Research Institute said that four in 10 college students believe the government should be able to prevent people from publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups. Hence, to avoid cases such as the aforementioned Rwanda case, there should be strict laws against speech which catalyses violent behavior against a particular grouping or minority.

Sometime minorities want such restrictions to be placed in their countries to protect them too. The Padmavat case is one such example where the Rajput community had sought to ask the government to block a movie which had asked the Film certification body of India to completely ban the film. The repercussions of such a huge violation of freedom of expression was completely ignored by a large population of the country. Even though the Judiciary stepped in to protect the people from the same, public opinion most definitely doesn't always have to be the ideal stance to take in any civil, political, social or economic dilemma. Yet, artistic liberty should be given highest priority and only art which claims to be "non-fictitious" should be taken into consideration locus standi by groups for appropriation or misrepresentation of the concerned groups.

According to a Spring 2015 Global Attitude Survey by Pew Research Center, Millennials are most likely to support censoring of statements. 40% of those who were surveyed stated that they believe government should be able to prevent certain elements of our speech. While the Silent generation (70-87) had the most non satisfactory response to such government intervention with 12% of those who surveyed in this age bracket stating that they believed in it.

The number of internet shut downs under United Progressive Alliance - and under National Democratic Alliance - Software Freedom Law Centre’s (SFLC) which has been tracking the number of internet shutdowns in India on recorded at least 52 instances of shutdowns since 2016. The number is as high as 80, if accounted for since 2012.

This implied consent of central government, vague laws and exceeding one's jurisdiction, is just gradually showing how the arc of freedom of our speech in going downhill. In recent times, Media is taking the biggest ever year-on-year hit when it comes to amount of trust the public places on it with 82% of the countries we surveyed showing displeasure at the way that it works.

REFERECES:

1. Anil Kumar Pathlavath, (2018). Video for Change: Adolescent Video Active Girls (VAG) Project. Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(1): 100-106. DOI No: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00018.9

2. Ann Ruane, K. (2014) Congressional Research Centre retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

3. Available at: http://www.mib.nic.in/writereaddata%5Chtml_en_files%5Cactsrules/Cable%20Television%20Networks%

4. Dasgupta, Partho: The Economic Times Blog (2016) - https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/media-penetration-a-sneak-into-households/

5. Davis, H https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/switzerland/

6. Development of Mobile phone technology in Kenya and India. Anil Kumar Pathlavath.2013 .3,s.l.: CASIRJ,2013, International Research Journal of Commerce , Arts and Science ,Vol.4 www.CASIRJ.com

7. Freedom of Expression and Broadcast Regulation (UNESCO 2011) by Toby Mendel and Eve Salomon

8. Freedom of Expression and Television Regulation: A comparative Analysis of Brazil and other countries (March 2012)

9. Harrington, M.: Survey on People's trust on NGOs, Government, Media & Business (2017) https://hbr.org/2017/01/survey-peoples-trust-has-declined-in-business-media-government-and-ngos

10. http://www.indiaip.com/india/copyrights/acts/cable1995/cableact1995.html Adopted 18 December 2003.

11. Kumar, A. (2019). Service-Learning: A Curriculum for Deliberations and Demonstrations. International Journal of Research and Analytical, 28.

12. Mian R. US Press Freedom Rating Drops 29 Spots since ’10 February 2015 https://www.longislandpress.com/2015/02/16/us-press-freedom-rating-drops-29-spots-since-10/

13. Mondini A. and Menn A., Wittmer S. September 2011

14. Of com Guidance Noted (2015) - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__ data/assets/pdf_file/0017/24704/section1.pdf

15. Pathlavath, A. K. (2010). girls amplify their voices in hyderabad. 10 tactics.

16. Pathlavath, A. K. (2010). Homebody to video maker. Http://Www.thehoot.org.

17. Pathlavath, A. K. (2010). Speaking for themselves. Http://Www.thehoot.org.

18. Pathlavath, A. K. (2013). Development of Mobile Phone Technology in Kenya and India. Shri Paramhans Education & Research Foundation Trust, 4(3), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.32804/CASIRJ

19. Pathlavath, A. K. (2016). Children as Media Producers (CAMP). FACE.

20. Pathlavath, A. K. (2018). Video for Change: Adolescent Video Active Girls (VAG) Project. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(1), 100-106. DOI No: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00018.9

21. Pathlavath, Anil Kumar. (2013). “Development of Mobile Phone Technology in Kenya and India” International Research Journal of Commerce, Arts and Science, 4(3), 55-68.

22. Pathlavath, Anil Kumar. (2017). "Participatory Video Practice: Amplifying Adolescent Girls’ Voice Through Video." Organising Committee: 34. ISBN No. 978-93-5267-935-5

23. Press Council of India(2014) Sub Committee Report on Safety (http://www.presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/pdf/SubCommitteereportonsafety.pdf)

24. Press Council of India (2015) Sub Committee Report on Safety (http://www

25. Retrieved (2010, March). Atheist guilty over cartoons left at Liverpool airport. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/ merseyside/8549613.stm

26. Retrieved from https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-507-8768?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

27. retrieved from https://www.wan-ifra.org/sites/default/files/field_ article_file/WAN_IFRA_UK_Press_Freedom_Rpt_March_2014.pdf

28. Retrieved from (http://cablequest.org/pdfs/i_b/PROGRAMME-ADVT-CODE.pdf

29. See generally center for media education, alcohol and tobacco on the web: new threats to youth (mar. 1997)

30. Trager, R. Russomanno, J. Dente Rossand S.; Reynold A. (2014) - Law of Journalism and Communication (2014) Press Freedom in the United Kingdom by World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers March 2014

31. WashingtonBlog May,2015 Obama Has Sentenced Whistleblowers to 31 Times the Jail Time of All Prior U.S. Presidents Combined http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/ obama-has-sentenced-whistleblowers-to-31-times-the-jail-time-of-all-prior-u-s-presidents-combined.html

Received on 09.08.2020 Modified on 28.08.2020

Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2020; 8(4):288-298.

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2020.00014.3