Liberty seems an unlikely concept to be at the heart of a controversy. Yet it is the pivot of the debate concerning social networking sites. These sites, like the internet and the World Wide Web that make possible the access to these sites, were conceived as a realm of unrestricted freedom. On these sites netizens, a neologism indicative of the times, can post their views on any subject without fear of censorship. These sites have contributed in no small measure to empower movements against oppressive regimes. Witness the Arab Spring. The social networking sites are often seen as a new form of direct democracy since they enable members of a community to voice their opinions and their criticism of policies being implemented by the government. The sites are vehicles of circulating information as well as of promoting forms of activism. Whatever may have been the motives and intentions of the founders of these sites, they have come to acquire a defining role in the shaping of the contemporary world.

The success and the popularity of the social networking sites, not surprisingly, have their critics. For example, the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, no Luddite since he has his own Twitter account, complained in Singapore a few weeks ago that social media were making governance, investments and decision-making impossible since they enabled people to carry out a referendum on every single issue. There have been steps taken, most famously (or notoriously, depending on the point of view) in China, to restrict access to the internet and to social networking sites. While such moves may not be entirely unexpected in a non-democratic polity like China, what is often not noticed are the harsh provisions of the Information Technology Act in India. The act dates back to 2000 with subsequent amendments introduced in 2008 and notified in 2009 and 2011. The provisions of the act are indeed so wide-ranging, so carelessly worded, that they can be used to harass and intimidate anyone using the internet or posting views on social networking sites. For example, the act legislates against content considered “blasphemous”, “objectionable”, “disparaging”, “hateful” and so on. These terms can be (mis)used to stop anything from circulating on the web or the internet. Upholders of liberty and the freedom of expression are justified in demanding that the IT Act as it exists should be repealed.

In intellectual terms, the problem, however, runs deeper. Should freedom have restrictions imposed on it by the State? Is governance hindered by the kind of direct democracy that social media enable? And more profoundly, is direct democracy — always seen as the purer form — practicable? These are important and defining questions that should not be obscured by the silly use of the IT Act to harass ordinary citizens.