Today, On 9th May, The Madras High Court expressed concerns about YouTube channels posing a threat to society. This highlights growing worries about misinformation and harmful content online. The court’s observation highlights the need for stricter regulation and responsible content creation on digital platforms. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining a healthy and informed digital environment.
Tamil Nadu: Justice K. Kumaresh Babu of the Madras High Court recently highlighted a concerning trend where certain YouTube channels prioritizing sensational and derogatory content solely to boost their subscriber count. He emphasized that these actions, not just detrimental but also pose a threat to societal well-being.
Justice Babu stressed the urgent need for regulatory measures from the government to curb such harmful activities. This statement reflects growing concerns about the impact of online content on public discourse and the responsibility of digital platforms in ensuring responsible content creation.
Read Also: Madras High Court Denies Bail to YouTube Vlogger TTF Vasan in Rash Riding Case
During the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea by G. Felix Gerald from the RedPix YouTube channel, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu made oral remarks regarding the situation. This case involves charges filed against Gerald and ‘Savukku’ Shankar under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act of 1988. The Justice’s comments highlight the seriousness of the allegations and the legal context surrounding them.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) E. Raj Thilak informed the court that the petitioner had conducted an interview with ‘Savukku’ Shankar, also known as A. Shankar, which in turn enabled him to make derogatory remarks against women police officers. This act, as per Thilak, had a demoralizing effect on the entire police force.
Consequently, the Coimbatore cyber crime cell took legal action against both individuals and apprehended Shankar, identifying him as the primary accused on May 4th. Despite being summoned for questioning, the petitioner has not yet cooperated with the investigating officer, as noted by the APP’s complaint.
In response to the petitioner’s counsel asserting their client’s 25-year tenure as a journalist, the judge pointed out that the petitioner should have been listed as the primary accused. This is because, the petitioner who encouraged the interviewee to make disparaging remarks about women, leading to legal repercussions.
The judge contemplated the matter,
“Is this even considered an interview?”
He remarked that the petitioner must have either asked a question with the expectation of a specific response or allowed and even encouraged the interviewee to make derogatory statement.
When the judge inquired about the possibility of directing the anticipatory bail petitioner to appear for questioning before the investigating officer, with the condition that no coercive actions would be taken against him, the APP responded that such a move would essentially equate to indirectly granting anticipatory bail.
In response to this explanation, the judge granted the request and postponed the hearing on the advance bail application for a week.