Who Writes the Obscenity Law — the Court or the Hashtag?

The hashtag screams a question. When will obscenity be reined in?

It sounds like law. It is theatre.

Morning feeds fill with outrage. Screenshots. Blurred thumbnails. Moral panic dressed as patriotism. Free-speech panic dressed as courage. Same stage. Different costumes.

Ruling voices play the guardian. Block the platform. Shame the creator. Wave the IT Act like a flag, not a statute. Fifty OTT apps cut off under Sections 67 and 67A. Indecent Representation Act cited in a press line. The crowd cheers the cut. Few ask who decided, under what evidence, with what appeal.

Opposition voices play the martyr. Censorship! Fascism! Democracy dying in 280 characters! They weep for “expression” while skipping Article 19(2) — the Constitution’s own reasonable restrictions on speech for decency, morality, public order. Law is a scalpel. They sell a hammer.

Both sides hire emotion. Both sides bury the text.

Obscenity is not a vibes test. It is a legal test. Courts have wrestled with it for decades — from Hicklin’s old shadow to community standards, context, and redeeming social value. CBFC guidelines tighten language on sexual violence and exploitation. That is regulation. Hashtag fury is not a hearing. A notification is not a judgment.

Watch the trick. A clip goes viral. Party workers stamp it with their colour. Influencers monetize the rage. Students share before they search. By noon the country has two camps and zero statutes open on any screen.

Critical thinking checklist — keep these four questions before the share button:

1. Which exact section is being invoked — IT Act, BNS, Indecent Representation Act, or just a slogan?
2. Who has the power to block or certify, and what is the appeal path?
3. Is this protecting a victim, or manufacturing a mob for the next election cycle?
4. Would the same outrage apply if the “obscene” clip embarrassed the other party’s favourite?

Law without procedure is a weapon. Procedure without courage is a shrug. Democracy needs both.

Young people: do not rent a brain to a timeline. Open the Act. Read the judgment. Then decide.

Awakening question:

When the next moral storm hits the feed, will the first click be a hashtag — or the bare text of the law?