1202-Article Text-2245-1-10-20231224

Journal of Liberty and International Affairs | Volume 9 · Number 3 · 2023 | eISSN 1857-9760
Published online by the Institute for Research and European Studies at www.e-jlia.com
Copyright © 2023 The author/s

This work is licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 license
(*) Corresponding author
Peer review method: Double-blind
Original scientific article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA2393246k
Received: 17.07.2023 · Revised: 22.09.2023 · Accepted: 24.09.2023 · Published: 26.12.2023
CREATIVE FREEDOM AND CENSORSHIP: A COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR OTT
CONTENTS IN THE UK, INDIA, AND CHINA
1*
Siddharth Kanojia
1
O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1479-5292  siddharth.kanojia@jgu.edu.in
Abstract: The emergence of over-the-top (OTT) services has lately revolutionized the way people consume media content. These services have
emerged as a significant disruptor in the media industry in recent years. With the advent of OTT platforms, various concerns have arisen over the
censorship and regulation of content on these platforms. Accordingly, this paper has examined the current trends in censorship and regulation of
OTT content through the perusal of various legal and regulatory frameworks in the United Kingdom, India, and China. It has probed into cases of
censorship and examined various aspects of civil and political liberties. The analysis has revealed a persuasive connection between the degree of
freedom of expression and creative freedom dispensed in each region. Lastly, the paper has provided recommendations for policymakers and other
stakeholders on balancing the need for freedom of expression and access to information with responsible content management and regulation.
Keywords: OTT Platforms; Censorship; Legal Framework; Regulatory Framework; Freedom of Expression
INTRODUCTION
The advent of over-the-top (OTT) platforms has impressively revolutionized the

entertainment industry in recent years. The term OTT refers to any service that provides audio-visual
content through the Internet without requiring an orthodox cable or satellite TV subscription
infrastructure. The list of renowned OTT platforms includes Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime
Video, MX Player, Sony Liv, and others. These platforms have attained immense popularity over the
past decade, and their success can be attributed to several factors. These platforms have provided
content creators with a never-before-seen canvas on which to craft complex narratives and explore
subjects that might be deemed unconventional in mainstream media. That being the case, the
foundation of artistic innovation is attained through creative freedom, which gives artists the ability to
push boundaries, interrogate social norms, and tell stories that appeal to a wide range of viewers.
Concurrently, this newfound freedom does come with its own set of challenges, as concerns about
the ethical obligations and possible social repercussions of unrestricted creative expression are
brought up by the global nature of the digital space.
Nonetheless, the threat of censorship persists, fueled by worries about political agendas,
cultural sensitivities, and the media’s possible ability to shape public opinion. Upholding the integrity
of society while enabling free thought to flourish is a difficult endeavor that calls for an intimate
understanding of the legal systems that control OTT content.
265
Accordingly, this paper examines the regulatory frameworks that oversee OTT content
platforms in three distinct yet powerful nations: the United Kingdom, India, and China. It also probes
the complex relationship between censorship and creative freedom in this context. The significance of
this study lies in the stark divergence in the cultural, political, and historical contexts that shape the
regulatory approaches of these nations. The United Kingdom, with its rich tradition of free speech and
artistic expression, stands in contrast to India, a nation with a multifaceted cultural fabric and a legacy
of stringent content regulation. Meanwhile, China, a global powerhouse with a unique political
structure, has implemented a distinct set of regulations that strictly control the narrative presented
through OTT platforms. The tensions between the perceived societal demand for content regulation
and creative freedom have become more evident. Subsequently, this paper aims to discover the
subtleties of how these nations administer the delicate equilibrium between protecting cultural and
societal values and promoting creative innovation through a comparative analysis. The paper also
aims to investigate the consequence of these policies on the content created and viewed on over-
the-top (OTT) platforms, as well as the wider ramifications for the global conversation about creative
expression, by closely examining the respective regulatory frameworks.
Proliferation of the Internet and Accessibility to OTT
The key driver of the OTT revolution is the growth and accessibility of high-speed internet
connectivity and the availability of smart devices. This proliferation of broadband internet has enabled
the masses to stream high-quality video content seamlessly without structural interruptions. In
reference to this, the Online Nation Report of 2020 revealed the staggering average time spent online
per day by adult internet and the total applications downloaded by users in the UK and India (Table 1)
(Hutchins and Rowe 2012). At the same time, the China Internet Network Information Centre observed
the study for Chinese Users. Accordingly, it is effortless for OTT providers to reach global audiences,
irrespective of their server’s location (Griffiths 2021).
Additionally, the emergence of OTT platforms results from the shift in end-user or consumer
behavior. Traditional TV broadcasting follows a fixed schedule and programming line-up, technically
limiting viewers to a specific set of shows or movies at any given time.
On the other hand, OTT platforms have begun to offer a vast library of on-demand content
that viewers can access as per their preferences and convenience (Gosztonyi 2021).
This flexibility has made OTT platforms increasingly tempting to end-users, specifically the
younger generation, who prefer to consume content on their terms. Consequentially, the advent of
OTT platforms has disrupted the traditional distribution model of the entertainment industry.
Formerly, the production studios used to sell their content to broadcasters, such as cable providers,
who would then eventually distribute it to viewers. Complex negotiations, exclusivity deals, and high
costs often characterized this model (Park 2019, 177-192).
Nonetheless, OTT platforms have cut out the intermediaries and established direct
relationships with content creators. This has lately allowed it to offer more diverse and niche content
to its viewers and create original programs customized and tailored to its specific audiences.
Furthermore, with the assistance of advanced algorithms and machine learning IoT, OTT providers
usually track the preferences and behavior of their users and use this information to offer
personalized recommendations and content suggestions. This formidable use of technology has
266
made it easier for viewers to discover new series, documentaries, and movies that align with their
interests and has thereby led to augmenting the engagement and loyalty of users.
Table 1: Average Time Spent Online and Total Application Downloads by Users in the UK, India, and China
(Source: Online Nation Report of 2020 and China Internet Network Information Center 2020)
Users Time Spent Online Applications Download (in Source

(in Hours) Billion)
United Kingdom 03:37 2.41 Online Nation Report of 2020
India 01:54 24.27 Online Nation Report of 2020
China 7.20 134 China Internet Network Information
Center 2020
According to the estimates released by Precedence research (Figure 1), the present decade
will witness tremendous growth in the number of citizens subscribing to OTT platforms as the market
size of OTT platforms is expected to grow by approximately 725% by the end of the year 2030. This
leads to an average increase of 72.5% every year, with a CAGR of 26.42%. One factor influencing the
OTT industry is the increased demand for subscription-based services. During the anticipated years,
the OTT market growth will likely be fueled by the increasing adoption of subscription-based services
in emerging regions. During the projected years, it is predicted that increasing internet use, smart TV,
smartphones, 5G infrastructure, original media content, and others would present profitable potential
for market expansion.
Besides, the growing use of internet-based applications is anticipated to fuel market
expansion. Meanwhile, throughout the anticipated period, the market expansion is predicted to be
aided by rising demand for online streaming content, such as live news, movies, sports, and other
entertainment (Ulin 2013). For instance, Firstlight Media and the top service provider Struum worked
together to launch a cloud-native streaming platform in January 2021. This partnership aimed to
provide content across several platforms via a single Struum membership.
Figure 1: OTT Market Size from 2021 to 2030 (in USD Billion) (Source: Precedence Research 2023)
267
The rise in popularity and usage of these platforms has led to an undebatable surge in
content creation in order to deliver an unparalleled variety of content to the audience. However, this
freedom related to content creation has also raised concerns about the applicability of censorship in
the OTT industry. While OTT platforms are not subject to the same regulatory frameworks as
traditional media, they have come under scrutiny from governments, societal groups, and viewers
over their content choices.
The primary concern around censorship in OTT platforms is the potential for objectionable
content, such as sexually explicit or violent material, to be made available to viewers, including
children and minors (Kaur 2022). Unlike traditional media, which is subject to ratings and guidelines
enforced by regulatory bodies, OTT platforms have largely been self-regulated. Most of these OTT
platforms have their content guidelines, which vary considerably. Accordingly, there is no uniform
standard that all platforms should adhere to. This has led to calls for greater regulation and oversight
of OTT content. As a result, sovereign governments worldwide have lately attempted to exert control
over OTT platforms by imposing regulations or censoring content that they deem politically sensitive
or objectionable. For instance, the Chinese government has imposed strict regulations on alien OTT
providers to prevent the distribution of content that they perceive to be harmful to their national
interests and security. Similarly, the Indian government recently introduced regulations requiring OTT
platforms to comply with a code of conduct and self-regulatory mechanisms. Considering the
scenario, the subsequent section will discuss contemporary trends in censoring and regulating OTT
platforms in the UK, India, and China while analyzing the various legal and regulatory frameworks that
govern its content and the nexus between freedom of expression and creative freedom in each
nation.
ILLICIT CONTENTS
There have been various instances wherein OTT platforms have featured violent or graphical
content depicting murder, assault, genocide, and self-harm. Such content proved to be distressing for
some viewers, particularly children. In addition, some of the published content was considered
offensive and harmful to the class of people, such as racial or ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals,
or religious groups. This content has been particularly damaging and hurtful to targeted people
(Kumar et al. 2021, 299-318). Likewise, some of the content on OTT has been alleged to spread false
or misleading information, such as conspiracy theories or fake news. This has caused severe
consequences, particularly in the context of public health information and political campaigns. At the
same time, some platforms have received sturdy objections to publishing content like pornography,
sexual violence, exploitation of minors, cyberbullying, and others (Henry, Flynn, and Powell 2020,
1828).
In 2018, a British national was imprisoned for 32 years for using an OTT platform to commit
multiple offenses, i.e., the production, distribution, and possession of child sexual abuse material. This
man had utilized the platform to communicate with other individuals and was found guilty of sharing
images and videos related to child abuse. Similarly, in the year 2019, an investigation initiated by the
BBC revealed that various popular OTT platforms were being used to harass and bully young people
(Lee and Darcy 2021, 563). It was found that users used the platforms to post abusive and threatening
messages, share private information, and encourage others to join in the harassment.
268
After that, an inquest in the UK discovered that a young woman had committed suicide after
being exposed to content containing self-harm on a renowned OTT platform. Later, her cyber
footprints further revealed that she had been exposed to significant harmful content. In 2020, Ofcom
released the result of a fieldwork survey that determined the attitude of adults and teenagers towards
online and on-demand content. In this report (Figure 2), it can be observed that foul language is
considered a concern among adults and teenagers, followed by bullying and victimization of others.
In addition, over 18 more concerns were pointed out by the respondents.
Consequently, almost 44% and 38 % of adult and teenage respondents have stopped
consuming OTT content, and only 9% have filed a complaint to the appropriate authorities. In 2021, a
report released by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CDH) conveyed that few OTT platforms
host highly racist content, such as white supremacist propaganda, Holocaust denial, and anti-Semitic
material. This report has established that these platforms have deliberately failed to take adequate
measures to remove this inappropriate content in spite of receiving repeated warnings from social
campaigners and other stakeholders (Sanfilippo and Strandburg 2021, 960).
Figure 2: Concerns of Online/On-Demand Content among Adults and Teenagers in the UK

(Source: Ofcom Research 2022)
The content published on OTT platforms in India has also come under the scanner and
received backlash from various stakeholders. For instance, a web series titled “Tandav” was released
on a renowned OTT platform in 2020. This series depicted fictional political scenarios criticized by a
few groups for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. Subsequently, the makers of the series were
charged with several offenses, including promoting enmity between different groups and insulting
religious beliefs (Devasundaram 2022). Similarly, a much-admired series, “Mirzapur,” was often
criticized for its fictional depiction of a town in India that is a hub of violence and lawlessness. A serial
titled “Gandi Baat” was also condemned for depicting infidelity and promoting voyeurism.
269
In the year 2021, an OTT platform received a strong retaliation for releasing the film, which
was accused of promoting violence and harming children’s mental health.
In this reference, the Chinese government has been proactively monitoring the publication
of illicit content on the OTTs. In 2020, the concerned government cracked down on several OTT
platforms promoting online gambling. As a matter of fact, online gambling is illegal in China. Hence,
the promotion and facilitation of online gambling on OTTs led to the imposition of criminal
punishments on several officials, including the content creators. Likewise, an investigation initiated by
the Chinese government in 2018 established that several popular OTT platforms were hosting violent
or inappropriate content, such as pornography and violent video games (Steckman 2020).
Consequently, they were ordered to remove this content and revamp the moderation
process. Additionally, as a part of their political ideology, the Chinese government closely monitors
online content for any political dissent or criticism of the government. Accordingly, Chinese OTT
platforms are often required to censor content that is critical of the government or dissenting from
government policies.
CENSORSHIP FRAMEWORK OF OTT CONTENTS
The censorship of OTT content has been a contentious issue in recent years, with numerous
nations adopting different approaches to regulate the content published on these platforms. For
instance, the UK government has recently proposed new legislation that would give the Office of
Communications, i.e., Ofcom, the authority to regulate the content available on OTT platforms. The
proposed legislation, known as the Online Safety Bill, would require OTT platforms to comply with
Ofcom’s broadcasting code of conduct, which includes rules related to offensive content, harmful
material, and the protection of children and minors. According to various provisions of the proposed
legislation, these OTT platforms would be compelled to adhere to a “duty of care”, which would
require them to take reasonable steps to protect their users from consuming illegal and harmful
content (Woods 2021, 77-98).
This would include content related to terrorism, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and
cyberbullying. Concerning the gravity, the Online Safety Bill also empowers Ofcom to issue pecuniary
fines of up to £18 million or 10% of a company’s global turnover, whichever is higher, for companies
that fail to comply with their duty of care obligations. Furthermore, Ofcom would also be empowered
to block access to websites that do not comply with the new regulations. Some provisions of the
legislation would also mandate OTT platforms to appoint a designated person responsible for
ensuring compliance with the new regulations and disclose the annual reports detailing their efforts to
protect their users from harmful content (Watney 2022, 194-201).
This bill has been widely appreciated and embraced by the sect of society, including child
protection campaigners who are concerned about online safety. In comparison, a few critics have also
opined their concerns about the potential impact of this bill on the right to free speech and artistic
expression. Responding to these acquisitions of the critics, the concerned government officials have
stated that the proposed legislation is not technically intended to stifle free speech; instead, it will
ensure that end-users are protected from consuming harmful content (Wu 2019, 15-61).
In India, the content curated on OTT platforms does not require any pre-screening or
certification before distribution, in contrast to conventional push media like cinema, where films must
270
have been pre-certified by the Central Board of Film Certification and the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act of 1995 which applies to satellite television in India, does not require any previous
authorization for OTT platforms to broadcast content or to follow its regulations. Hence, the content
available on OTT platforms is majorly regulated by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB)
under the provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics
Code) Rules, 2021. These rules establish a code of ethics and a complaint redressal mechanism for
digital media platforms, including OTT platforms. Under these rules, all the OTT platforms are
required to self-classify their content into various categories such as U (Universal), U/A 7+
(universal/adults above seven years), U/A 13+ (universal/adults above 13 years), U/A 16+
(universal/adults above 16 years), and A (adult). They are also expected to implement parental locks
for content classified as U/A 13+ or higher. According to the provisions, If a person has a complaint
against the specific content on a particular OTT platform, they can file a complaint through the
platform’s grievance redressal mechanism. The platforms must appoint a grievance officer to address
the complaints within a specified time frame. Suppose the complainant is not satisfied with the
response or resolution provided by the platform. In that case, they can escalate the complaint to the
self-regulatory body called the Digital Media Content Regulatory Council (DMCRC), an industry-led
body established to oversee adherence to the self-regulatory mechanism. It has the authority to
impose penalties and warnings and even suspend or revoke the registration of a platform in case of
non-compliance with the rules (Bhardwaj and Rana 2021).
Likewise, In China, the regulation of OTT content is carried out by various sovereign bodies
such as the National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA) and the Cyberspace Administration
of China (CAC). In reference to regulation, the Chinese government exercises direct and strict control
over media content to ensure that it aligns with the government’s policies, cultural values, and social
stability. Accordingly, the government maintains a comprehensive content censorship system that
monitors and controls what can be broadcast or streamed. Content deemed politically sensitive,
sexually explicit, violent, or violating social norms is subject to censorship. Moreover, the OTT
platforms are expected to obtain licenses from the NRTA to operate and distribute audio-visual
content in Chinese territory legally (Wang and Lobato 2021, 356-371). These licenses specify the scope
of operations and content categories and may impose specific restrictions. The licensing and
registration of platforms are instituted through real-name registration systems to verify the identities
of their users. This measure helps government authorities track and regulate online activities and hold
individuals accountable for violations. In addition, the platforms are responsible for self-censorship
and moderation of content as they must employ internal mechanisms to review and filter content
before making it available to users. Besides, the NRTA and CAC are empowered to conduct regular
inspections and audits of OTT platforms to ensure compliance with regulations. Any apparent
violations can result in penalties, fines, content takedowns, or even suspension or revocation of
licenses. Hence, various critics argue that the regulatory approach in China is highly centralized and
focused on maintaining social stability and adhering to the principles of the Communist Party of China
(Pieke 2012, 149-165).
271
CREATIVE FREEDOM AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS
The term “creative freedom” refers to the liberty and autonomy of individuals to express
themselves through the means of artistic, literary, or creativity. It generally encompasses the right to
explore, create, and share ideas, emotions, and perspectives through various forms of expression,
such as writing, painting, music, film, and theatre. It further recognizes the importance of individual
self-expression, cultural diversity, and the enrichment of society through artistic and creative works.
Meanwhile, it is closely interlinked with freedom of speech and expression as mutually reinforcing
concepts. Besides, they both involve the fundamental right of individuals to express themselves and
contribute to the exchange of ideas and the development of a vibrant society.
Furthermore, they enable individuals to challenge established norms, question authority, and
explore alternative viewpoints. The freedom to express diverse and dissenting opinions, artistically and
verbally, has often encouraged the growth of an inclusive and pluralistic society (Pless and Maak
2004, 129-147). Freedom of speech and expression generally provides the legal and societal
framework for exercising creative freedom; in turn, it also contributes to the vitality and scope of
public discourse. The interplay between these concepts is vital for fostering a thriving and democratic
society that values individual expression, diverse perspectives, and the transformative power of art
and ideas.
The UK does not have a specific constitutional document like the United States First
Amendment. However, freedom of speech and expression is protected and recognized through
various laws, conventions, and judicial decisions. The primary legislation governing freedom of speech
and expression in the UK is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Article 10 of the ECHR aims to protect the right to freedom of
expression. However, this is not an absolute right as it can be subjected to certain limitations.
As a consequence of the legal framework, creative freedom in the UK is valued and
protected by allowing individuals to express themselves through various artistic mediums and without
undue interference or rigid censorship. Moreover, the nation has a rich cultural heritage that fosters a
diverse and vibrant creative sector encompassing literature, visual arts, music, film, and theatre. It has
also benefitted from various institutions that promote and support creative freedom, such as the Arts
Council of England, Creative Scotland, Arts Council of Wales, and Arts Council of Northern Ireland.
Other bodies, such as the British Film Institute, the National Theatre, and the British Library, also play
an important role in nurturing creative expression and preserving cultural heritage. However, this
freedom is often subject to certain limitations and responsibilities as the country has stringent laws to
address sensitive issues such as hate speech, incitement to violence, and the promotion of terrorism,
which can restrict the scope of creative expression when it infringes upon the rights and safety of
other persons. In addition to this, the legal considerations related to defamation, privacy, and
intellectual property rights also impact creative pursuits (Neelands et al. 2015).
Likewise, the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that has been
guaranteed to the citizens of India under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This right is considered an
essential component of a democratic society and is crucial in promoting individual liberty, democratic
governance, and the free exchange of ideas. Nonetheless, just like any other right, this fundamental
right is also subjected to certain reasonable restrictions, which are mentioned in Article 19(2) of the
Constitution.
272
These restrictions include the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign countries, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and
incitement to an offense (Annappa 2021, 119-134). Over the years, India had a robust tradition of free
speech and a vibrant media landscape. Herein, citizens can express their opinions, criticize the
government, and debate various issues publicly (Kanojia et al. 2023). India also has a diverse and
active media sector, such as print, broadcast, and digital media, which largely contributes to the
pluralistic and democratic discourse in the country. However, there have been instances where the
country’s freedom of speech and expression has been challenged or restricted. For instance, specific
laws like the sedition law encompassed under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and laws
pertaining to defamation have been criticized for being misused to stifle dissent and curtail free
speech.
Moreover, online censorship and surveillance have also raised concerns about freedom of
expression on digital platforms. Meanwhile, the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and various certification
boards, such as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), are authorized to regulate the content
and presentation of film. There have been various circumstances where filmmakers have faced
difficulties in obtaining certification due to objections raised by the censor board regarding certain
scenes, dialogues, genres, or themes (Bhowmik 2013, 297-310). These instances have raised concerns
about the curtailment of creative freedom and the need for a more liberal and progressive approach.
On the other hand, the judiciary in India has played a decisive role in safeguarding creative
freedom through the various judgments upholding the importance of artistic freedom and the right
of artists to express themselves freely. In 2015, while deciding the matter between Shreya Singhal v.
Union of India, the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which had
been used to curb online speech. This judgment emphasized the importance of protecting freedom
of speech and expression in the digital age. Meanwhile, in the case of Prakash Jha Productions v.
Union of India, the court emphasized that films are an essential medium for expression and should be
allowed to portray reality, which may include sensitive and controversial subjects. The court also held
that the role of the censor board is to certify films, not to censor or cut scenes based on subjective
considerations (Suleman 2015, 170).
On the contrary, the ruling government has heavily restricted the Freedom of speech and
expression in China for many years. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains a tight grip on the
media, Internet, and public discourse to control information flow and suppress dissenting voices. The
Chinese government exercises extensive censorship over all forms of media, such as newspapers,
television, radio, and online portals. The state employs a vast apparatus of internet controls, referred
to as the “Great Firewall of China,” which blocks access to foreign websites and monitors domestic
online activity. Numerous websites and social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
and Google, are blocked in China. In this regard, the government employs sophisticated surveillance
systems to monitor and track its citizens’ online activities (Griffiths 2021).
Meanwhile, internet service providers and technology companies must comply with
government regulations. This surveillance apparatus identifies and punishes individuals who engage in
online dissent or share information deemed sensitive by the government. Furthermore, there are
explicit restrictions on the content that can be produced and consumed (Ruan et al. 2021, 133-157).
Specific sensitive topics, like criticism of the government, human rights issues, Tibet, Taiwan, the
Tiananmen Square protests, and religious or ethnic sensitivities, are susceptible and strictly censored.
273
At the same time, depictions of violence, explicit sexuality, or themes that challenge social
stability or traditional values may also face censorship or restrictions. Accordingly, the artists or
creators who produce works that violate government guidelines can face various consequences, such
as censorship, fines, professional bans, imprisonment, or even disappearance. Due to the pervasive
climate of censorship and fear of reprisals, individuals in China practice self-censorship to prevent
gruesome punishment. Consequently, people often refrain from expressing accurate opinions on
sensitive topics, both in public and online, to protect themselves and their families from potential
consequences.
FREEDOM INDEX AND DISCUSSION
The UK provides a relatively favorable environment for artistic and creative expression as it
has a long-standing tradition of valuing and protecting freedom of expression. Similarly, while creative
freedom exists in India, it is subject to certain limitations and occasional challenges as India’s legal
framework includes some restrictions on content that may be deemed offensive, defamatory, or
harmful to public order. Nonetheless, due to its diverse cultural landscape with a rich tradition of
artistic expression, the Indian constitution has guaranteed every citizen the right to freedom of speech
and expression. In contrast, creative freedom in China is subject to significant constraints and the risk
of punitive measures as the government exercises extensive censorship and control over all forms of
artistic expression. Subsequently, artists and creators must adhere to strict government guidelines and
self-censorship to avoid punishment. The UK generally offers a high level of artistic freedom with
limited legal restrictions. India provides a comparatively favorable environment for creative
expression, but there are instances of censorship and restrictions. Conversely, China has a highly
controlled environment with extensive censorship and limitations on artistic freedom.
The World Press Freedom Index is an annual report published by Reporters Without Borders
(RSF), an international non-governmental organization that promotes and defends freedom of
information and the press. This index evaluates the state of press freedom in countries worldwide and
provides rankings based on several criteria. According to this index, the United Kingdom generally
ranks high regarding press freedom and freedom of expression. While India has a mixed record
regarding censorship, China is known for its extensive censorship and control over media and artistic
expression (Table 2). Similarly, the Freedom House conducts research and advocacy on democracy,
political rights, and civil liberties worldwide. They produce an annual report called “Freedom in the
World”, which assesses the state of political rights and civil liberties in countries around the world.
According to its analysis, Freedom House has historically ranked the United Kingdom as a
free country. It has consistently scored well in terms of political rights, civil liberties, and freedom of
the press. Whereas, India has generally been assessed as a “partly free” country as it has faced
challenges related to freedom of expression, attacks on journalists, and occasional instances of
government interference in media and civil society.
Lastly, China has consistently been ranked as “not free”. The Chinese government exercises
strict control over political rights, civil liberties, and freedom of expression.
274
Table 2: Perception of Civil Liberties in the UK, India, and China (Source: Reporters Without Borders and
Freedom House 2022)
World Press Freedom Index – Freedom in the World -

Countries Reporters Without Borders (2022) Freedom House (2022)
Score Rank
United Kingdom 78.51 26 Free Country
India 36.62 161 Partly Free
China 22.97 179 Not Free
Recommendation for Balancing Freedom and Content
Balancing the need for freedom of expression and access to information with responsible
content management and regulation is a complex challenge. It requires careful consideration of
various factors to strike a reasonable and fair balance. In order to achieve this balance, it is imperative
to legislate a well-defined legal framework that can outline the boundaries of freedom of expression
and set guidelines for responsible content management, such as mechanisms for content takedown,
moderation, and appeals (Lemieux and Trapnell 2016). This framework should also consider
international human rights standards, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
while also considering local cultural and societal norms. Furthermore, in developing and
implementing these regulations, there should be an active involvement of various stakeholders such
as government representatives, civil society, industry experts, and academia. This participation would
ensure a diversity of perspectives and help avoid the concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Besides, the nations should try to avoid or repeal the overly broad or vague as they can lead to
arbitrary enforcement and unintended consequences. Meanwhile, from the perspective of end-users,
digital literacy programs can be promoted to teach individuals how to assess the reliability and
credibility of information sources.
This approach can encourage responsible consumption and reduce reliance on heavy-
handed content management measures (Ladley 2019).
Lastly, the respective nations can embrace technological innovations, such as artificial
intelligence and machine learning, to assist in content management and moderation processes by
collaborating with technology companies to develop tools and algorithms to efficiently identify and
mitigate harmful content while minimizing the risk of false positives and discriminatory practices
(Dwivedi et al. 2021).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the comparative analysis of creative freedom and censorship of OTT platforms
in the UK, India, and China reveals distinct approaches in each country. The UK embraces a liberal
approach to creative freedom, valuing freedom of expression and relying on self-regulation by the
industry. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) provides guidelines for content classification
and age ratings but does not impose extensive governmental control or interference. In comparison,
India recognizes creative freedom while also imposing certain limitations to respect religious and
cultural sensitivities. The Central Board of Film Certification regulates content across various media
275
platforms. The government has recently increased scrutiny and implemented stricter regulations for
OTT platforms to balance creative freedom with responsible content management.
In contrast, China operates under a framework of state control and censorship, with limited
creative freedom compared to the UK and India, as the Chinese government exercises significant
control over media and entertainment to promote ideological values and maintain social stability.
Hence, the approach of these countries is influenced by their socio-political and cultural context,
resulting in varying degrees of creative freedom and censorship on OTT platforms. Therefore, in order
to achieve objectivity in censorship and balance the need for creative freedom, these countries can
recognize the global nature of the Internet and the contemporary need for international cooperation
in addressing content management challenges by engaging in multilateral discussions to develop
shared principles and guidelines while respecting the diverse cultural, legal, and political contexts.
276
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS
Acknowledgments:
Not applicable.
Funding:
Not applicable.
Statement of Human Rights:

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any authors.
Statement on the Welfare of Animals:

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any authors.
Informed Consent:
Not applicable.
Disclosure statement:
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author/s.
277
PUBLISHER’S NOTE
The Institute for Research and European Studies remains neutral concerning jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
278
REFERENCES
1. Annappa, Nagarathna. 2021. “Ensuring Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression on Cyber
Space as Against State Intervention-Indian Experience”. Revista Direitos Fundamentals &
Democracia 26 (1):119-134, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25192/issn.1982-0496.rdfd.v26i12123
2. Bhardwaj, Vrinda, and Ankur Rana. 2021. “Netflix and Chill–Online Content Regulation in
India”.JURIST–Professional Commentary, available
at:https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/02/bhardwaj-rana-ott-regulation/ (July 08, 2023)
3. Bhowmik, Someswar. 2013. “Film Censorship in India: Deconstructing an incongruity”.
In Routledge Handbook of Indian Cinemas: Routledge.
4. Devasundaram, Ashvin Immanuel. 2022. “Indian Indies: A guide to new independent Indian
cinema”. Routledge.
5. Dwivedi, Yogesh K., Laurie Hughes, Elvira Ismagilova, Gert Aarts, Crispin Coombs, Tom Crick,
Yanqing Duan. 2021. “Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging
challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy”. International Journal of
Information Management 57:101994, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002
6. Gosztonyi, Gergely. 2021. “Some Human and Technical Aspects of Online Content
Regulation”. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs 7 (November):149-59.
https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA21371149g.
7. Griffiths, James. 2021. “The great firewall of China: How to build and control an alternative
version of the internet”. Bloomsbury Publishing.
8. Henry, Nicola, Asher Flynn, and Anastasia Powell. 2020. “Technology-facilitated domestic and
sexual violence: A review”. Violence against women 26 (15-16):1828-1854,
DOI: https://10.1177/1077801219875821
9. Hutchins, Brett, and David Rowe. 2012. “Sport beyond television: The internet, digital media and
the rise of networked media sport.” Routledge.
10. Kumar, Deepak, Patrick Gage Kelley, Sunny Consolvo, Joshua Mason, Elie Bursztein, Zakir
Durumeric, Kurt Thomas, and Michael Bailey. 2021. “Designing toxic content classification for a
diversity of perspectives”. In Seventeenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, 299-318,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.04511
11. Ladley, John. 2019. “Data governance: How to design, deploy, and sustain an effective data
governance program”. Academic Press.
12. Lee, JinRee, and Kathleen M. Darcy. 2021. “Sexting: What’s law got to do with it?”. Archives of
sexual behavior 50:563-573, DOI: https://10.1007/s10508-020-01727-6
13. Lemieux, Victoria L., and Stephanie E. Trapnell. 2021. “Public access to information for
development: A guide to the effective implementation of the right to information laws”. World
Bank Publications.
14. Kanojia, Siddharth, Shashi Bhushan Ojha, and Muzaffar Hussain Mir. 2023. “Scrutinizing Anti-
Corruption Initiatives In Europe: Lessons To Learn For India?”. Journal of Liberty and
International Affairs 9 (2):469-94. https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA2392629k.
15. Kaur, Gurmeet. 2022. “Internet Crimes Against Minors and Legal Framework in India”. Indian
Journal of Public Administration 68 (4): 705-718, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00195561221091381
279
16. Neelands, Jonothan, Eleonora Belfiore, Catriona Firth, Natalie Hart, Liese Perrin, Susan Brock,
Dominic Holdaway, and Jane Woddis. 2015. “Enriching Britain: culture, creativity and growth.”
University of Warwick. available at:
https://warwick.ac.uk/research/warwickcommission/futureculture/finalreport/warwick_commissio
n_final_report.pdf
17. Park, Eun-A. 2019. “Prevalence of business models in global OTT video services: A cluster
analysis”. International Journal on Media Management 21 (3-4): 177-192, DOI:
https://10.1080/14241277.2019.1695257
18. Pless, Nicola, and Thomas Maak. 2004. “Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles,
processes and practice”. Journal of Business Ethics 54: 129-147, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8
19. Pieke, Frank N. 2012. “The Communist Party and Social Management in China”. China
Information 26 (2): 149-165., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X12442864
20. Reporters Without Borders. (2022). World press freedom index. Available at:
https://rsf.org/en/index
21. Ruan, Lotus, Jeffrey Knockel, and Masashi Crete-Nishihata. 2021. “Information control by public
punishment: The logic of signaling repression in China”. China Information 35 (2): 133-157, DOI:
https://10.1177/0920203X20963010
22. Sanfilippo, Madelyn Rose, and Katherine J. Strandburg. 2021. “Privacy governing knowledge in
public Facebook groups for political activism”. Information, Communication & Society 24 (7):
960-977, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1668458
23. Steckman, Laura M., ed. 2020. Examining Internet and Technology Around the World. USA:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
24. Suleman, Saadiya. 2015. “Freedom of Expression and Maintenance of Public Order:
Contemporary Issues and State Response”. III JCLC 170, available
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2876247
25. Ulin, Jeff, and C. Simpson. 2013. “The business of media distribution: Monetizing film, TV and
video content an online world.” CRC Press.
26. Wang, Wilfred Yang, and Ramon Lobato. 2019. “Chinese video streaming services in the context
of global platform studies”. Chinese Journal of Communication 12 (3): 356-371, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2019.1584119
27. Watney, Murdoch. 2022. “Regulation of social media intermediary liability for illegal and harmful
content”. European Conference on Social Media 9, (1): 194-201,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34190/ecsm.9.1.104
28. Woods, Lorna. 2021. “Introducing the Systems Approach and the Statutory Duty of
Care”. Perspectives on Platform Regulation, 77-98, available at: https://www.nomos-
elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748929789-77.pdf
29. Wu, Tim. 2019. “Is the First Amendment obsolete?”. In The Perilous Public Square:
StructuralThreats to Free Expression Today. Columbia University Press.
280

1202-Article Text-2245-1-10-20231224

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1202-Article Text-2245-1-10-20231224

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1202-Article Text-2245-1-10-20231224

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Liberty and International Affairs | Volume 9 · Number 3 · 2023 | eISSN 1857-9760

Copyright © 2023 The author/s

CREATIVE FREEDOM AND CENSORSHIP: A COMPARATIVE

The advent of over-the-top (OTT) platforms has impressively revolutionized the

Proliferation of the Internet and Accessibility to OTT

Users Time Spent Online Applications Download (in Source

Figure 2: Concerns of Online/On-Demand Content among Adults and Teenagers in the UK

CENSORSHIP FRAMEWORK OF OTT CONTENTS

CREATIVE FREEDOM AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS

FREEDOM INDEX AND DISCUSSION

World Press Freedom Index – Freedom in the World -

Recommendation for Balancing Freedom and Content

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

Statement of Human Rights:

Statement on the Welfare of Animals:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.