Freedom of Speech, Digital Culture, and the Commercialisation of Abuse
Author: MD Nasiur Rahaman Khan
College: St. Joseph’s College of Law, Bengaluru, Karnataka
LinkedIn Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/md-nasiur-rahaman-khan-3930b5264
1. Abstract:
Words have always had the power to inspire, persuade, and challenge society. Today, they have something else: commercial value. In the age of digital platforms, attention has become currency, and outrage has become one of its most profitable Commodity. Humiliation is repackaged as entertainment, abuse is sold as humour, and hostility is rewarded with likes, views, sponsorships, and engagement.
This transformation raises a constitutional question that traditional free speech jurisprudence was never designed to answer. The Constitution protects freedom of speech to promote democracy, the exchange of ideas, and individual liberty. But what happens when speech is no longer used to transfer information in the public domain, but to maximise algorithms, monetise controversy, and manufacture engagement? This article examines the growing normalisation of abuse in the public discoursethrough roasting culture, dark humour, rage-bait, and digital content creation. It argues that the greatest challenge is not freedom of speech itself, but the emergence of an economic model that rewards outrage over reason. In the race for attention, the marketplace of ideas is increasingly changing into the marketplace of anger, where the loudest voice is often the most profitable rather than the most meaningful.
2. To the Point
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
-John Stuart Mill
A generation ago, words changed minds.
Today, words generate revenue. Likes. Views. Shares.Subscribers. Advertising. Sponsorships.
The economics of the internet has quietly changed attention into currency. The louder the controversy, the greater the engagement. The greater the engagement, the higher the profit. Somewhere between freedom of speech and freedom of reach, public discourse stopped being merely a conversation and became a business model. This transformation did not occur overnight. It arrived disguised as entertainment. Roasting became content. Dark humour became personality. Dank culture became relatability. Public humiliation became “just a joke.” Abuse became “free speech.” Every controversy was defended as expression, every backlash became publicity, and every apology became another opportunity for engagement.
This raises uncomfortable questions. When did insults become content? When did humiliation become humour? When did cruelty become creativity? More importantly, when did public outrage become one of the most profitable industries in the digital world?
The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech because ideas strengthen democracy. It was never intended to create an economy where provocation is rewarded more than reason or where algorithms determine the value of expression through the clicks rather than conscience. Yet the digital attention economy increasingly favours exactly that. Speech is no longer competing only in the marketplace of ideas it is competing in the marketplace of attention. This is the Business of Outrage that this article points out, a culture in which engagement is monetised, controversy is incentivised, and the line between constitutional freedom and commercial exploitation becomes increasingly difficult to recognise. The challenge before the law is therefore no longer confined to protecting speech from censorship. It is to ask whether a society can preserve meaningful public discourse when outrage itself has become a profitable enterprise.
3. Use of Legal Jargon
3.1 Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, is one of the cornerstones of democratic governance. It protects an individual’s right to express opinions, criticise public institutions, engage in political discourse, and exchange ideas without arbitrary interference. The constitutional objective of free speech is not merely to protect popular opinions but to ensure an open marketplace of ideas where truth may emerge through discussion, disagreement, and debate. Its purpose is to strengthen democracy, not simply to maximise visibility.
3.2 Reasonable Restrictions
Like every constitutional freedom, the right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute. Article 19(2) authorises the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. The constitutional challenge in the digital age lies in balancing robust public discourse with the prevention of speech that causes tangible legal harm. The law therefore protects expression, but not every consequence coming out of it.
3.3 Digital Intermediaries and Platform Responsibility
The Information Technology Act, 2000, together with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, establishes the legal framework governing digital intermediaries such as social media platforms. These intermediaries enjoy conditional safe-harbour protection, provided they exercise due diligence and comply with statutory obligations. While platforms are not ordinarily liable for every piece of user-generated content, they increasingly bear legal responsibilities relating to unlawful content, grievance redressal, and regulatory compliance. The modern debate has therefore shifted from whether platforms publish speech to whether they actively shape its visibility.
3.4 Defamation in the Digital Age
Indian law recognises both civil and criminal defamation as mechanisms for protecting an individual’s reputation. In the digital environment, defamatory statements can spread globally within minutes, often causing irreversible reputational harm before judicial remedies become effective. Online abuse, targeted campaigns, and viral misinformation demonstrate that reputational injury today is amplified not merely by speech itself but by the unprecedented speed and scale of digital dissemination.
3.5 Hate Speech
Indian law does not contain a single comprehensive statutory definition of hate speech. Instead, its regulation emerges through various provisions of criminal law and judicial interpretation, particularly where speech incites violence, promotes enmity, or threatens public order. Courts have consistently distinguished between offensive expression which may remain constitutionally protectedand speech that intentionally provokes discrimination or violence against protected groups. The absence of a precise legislative definition continues to generate complex questions regarding the limits of lawful expression in an increasingly polarised digital environment.
3.6 Platform Algorithms and the Attention Economy
Perhaps the most significant legal challenge of the digital era is not speech itself, but the invisible systems that determine which speech is amplified. Social media platforms rely upon recommendation algorithms designed to maximise user engagement by prioritising content likely to attract clicks, comments, shares, and prolonged attention. These systems do not evaluate constitutional values, journalistic ethics, or social responsibility.
This distinction carries profound legal implications. Freedom of speech protects an individual’s right to express ideas, but algorithms possess the practical power to decide which ideas become viral and which disappear unnoticed. Consequently, the constitutional debate is no longer confined to censorship by the State. It increasingly extends to whether privately designed recommendation systems are quietly reshaping public discourse by commercially rewarding outrage over reason, provocation over dialogue, and virality over truth
4. The Proof
4.1 The Economics of Outrage
The internet promised to democratise expression. Instead, it commercialised attention. In today’s digital economy, every click, share, comment, and view has measurable economic value. Platforms compete for user attention, creators compete for visibility, and algorithms reward whatever keeps audiences engaged for the longest period. In such a system, outrage is no longer merely an emotional reaction, it is a marketable asset.
This phenomenon is commonly described as the attention economy, were attention functions as currency. The longer users remain engaged, the greater the advertising revenue generated by platforms and content creators alike. Unfortunately, outrage consistently outperforms moderation. Controversy attracts more clicks than consensus, confrontation generates more comments than conversation, and anger travels faster than reason.
This raises an uncomfortable question: Why are the most outrageous creators so often the most successful? The answer may not lie entirely in society’s appetite for conflict, but in an economic system that increasingly rewards visibility over value.
4.2 The Normalisation of Abuse
Abuse rarely enters society announcing itself as abuse. It arrives dressed as humour. What begins as roasting gradually becomes public humiliation. Dark humour evolves into personal attacks. Dank culture transforms hostility into entertainment. Reaction videos increasingly rely upon ridicule rather than criticism, while rage-bait deliberately provokes anger because anger guarantees engagement. The familiar defence “it’s just a joke “oftenbecomes the final escape of conduct.
Humour has historically challenged authority, exposed hypocrisy, and questioned injustice. That is its democratic value. The difficulty arises when comedy stops to challenge power and instead begins to target dignity itself. There is a profound difference between laughing with society and building an audience by repeatedly laughing at individuals.
This leads to difficult questions. At what point does comedy become cruelty? At what point does satire become targeted harassment? When does entertainment stop provoking thought and begin normalising abuse? These questions are no longer matters of etiquette alone; they increasingly concern the quality of public discourse itself.
4.3 Freedom of Speech or Freedom to Profit?
The Constitution guarantees the freedom to express ideas. It does not guarantee the commercial success of those ideas, nor does it promise immunity from legal or ethical scrutiny simply because expression generates revenue.
Yet the digital economy has created a subtle but significant shift. Speech is no longer valued solely for what it contributes to democratic dialogue. It is increasingly evaluated by how effectively it attracts attention. Controversy becomes a marketing strategy, outrage becomes audience retention, and repeated provocation becomes a sustainable business model.
The Constitution protects liberty because democracy depends upon free expression. It was never designed to transform constitutional freedoms into commercial incentives for increasingly toxic public discourse.
4.4 The Invisible Editor: Algorithms
Every public square has historically possessed editors. Today, those editors are algorithms.
Unlike human editors, algorithms do not ask whether content is truthful, responsible, or ethically defensible. Their primary question is remarkably simple: Will people engage with it?
Recommendation systems are designed to maximise watch time, comments, shares, and user retention. Content that provokes strong emotional reactions is therefore more likely to be amplified, irrespective of whether that reaction arises from admiration, anger, fear, or outrage. Over time, this creates echo chambers where individuals encounter increasingly similar viewpoints while emotionally charged content receives disproportionate visibility.
The consequence is subtle but profound. Algorithms do not compel people to become polarised; they merely create environments where polarising content is consistently rewarded. In doing so, they become invisible participants in shaping public conversation, not by deciding what may be said, but by deciding what is most likely to be heard.
4.5 The Cost to Democracy
The consequences of outrage extend beyond individual creators or social media platforms. They reshape the very culture of democratic conversation.
Public debate becomes increasingly polarised. Nuance struggles to survive in spaces that reward certainty. Citizens hesitate before expressing moderate opinions because moderation rarely attracts attention. Journalists, educators, comedians, and ordinary individuals often find themselves navigating an environment where visibility depends upon provocation rather than substance.
The cost is measured not only in damaged reputations or online harassment but also in the gradual erosion of constitutional culture. Democracies flourish through disagreement conducted with reason, not through hostility sustained for profit. When abuse becomes entertainment, empathy becomes weakness, and outrage becomes the preferred language of public, society risks confusing popularity with legitimacy.
The greatest danger is therefore not that offensive speech exists. Free societies have always tolerated uncomfortable expression. The greater danger is that digital economies increasingly reward the most divisive voices while making thoughtful dialogue commercially invisible.
Outrage is no longer merely an emotion. It has become an economic model.
5. Case Laws
5.1 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for violating Article 19(1)(a), reaffirming that free speech on the internet enjoys the same constitutional protection as speech in the physical world. The judgment remains the foundation of India’s digital free speech jurisprudence.
5.2 Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014)
The Court recognised the growing danger of hate speech while observing that existing legal provisions should be effectively enforced, leaving legislative reform to Parliament. The case highlights the constitutional challenge of balancing free expression with social harmony.
5.3 Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court distinguished offensive speech from hate speech, holding that mere offensiveness does not automatically lose constitutional protection. Speech becomes unlawful when it intentionally promotes hatred, discrimination, or violence against protected groups.
5.4 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
While upholding criminal defamation, the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be balanced against an individual’s right to reputation under Article 21. The judgment reinforces that constitutional liberty carries corresponding responsibilities.
6. Conclusion
The Constitution gave us freedom of speech because ideas build democracies. The digital economy discovered that outrage builds profits. Between these two realities lies one of the defining constitutional challenges of our time.
The question is no longer whether speech should remain free. It must. The real question is whether freedom of speech can continue to be moral and fulfil its democratic purpose when algorithms reward outrage more than reason, and attention becomes more valuable than truth.
When speech becomes a commodity, silence is no longer the greatest danger. The greater danger is that we forget the difference between expression that enlightens society and expression that merely performs for an algorithm. A democracy does not decline when people speak freely, it begins to decline when the speech loses its Morale.
7. FAQs
Q1. Is abusive online speech protected under Article 19?
Not always. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech, but Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions where speech amounts to defamation, incitement, hate speech, or threatens public order, decency, or morality.
Q2. Can social media platforms regulate offensive content?
Yes. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, platforms have a legal responsibility to exercise due diligence and remove unlawful content while balancing users’ right to free expression.
Q3. What is the attention economy?
The attention economy is a digital business model in which user attention is treated as a commercial asset. Platforms maximise engagement through likes, shares, comments, and watch time because greater attention generates higher advertising revenue.
Q4. Where should the law draw the line between humour and harm?
The law should not regulate humour merely because it is offensive or unpopular. However, where expression crosses into defamation, targeted harassment, hate speech, incitement to violence, or causes legally recognised harm, constitutional protection may give way to legal accountability.
