Regulations of Online OTT Content

References

[1] Madhavi Goradia Divan, Facets of Media Law (Eastern Book Company 2006) 20

[2] Report of Second Press Comm.,Vol 1, 34-35

[3] M.P Jain, Indian constitutional law,986(5th edition, Lexis Nexis)986

[4] Ibid

[5] M.R.F Ltd v. Inspector Kerala Govt. AIR 1999 SC 188,191

[6] Channing Arnold v. Emperor, AIR 1914 PC 116

[7] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain , AIR 1975 SC 865,884 Also Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. V. Indian Express, AIR 1989 SC 190

[8] Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124; Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896; Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305

[9] Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305

[10] LIC v. Manubhai Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637

[11] Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124

[12] Anand Chintamani v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 Mah LJ 14

[13] Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161

[14] S.8(1)(a) Right to Information Act

[15] Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 687

[16] Peng Hwa Ang, “Censorship and the Internet,” Encyclopaedia of Library and Information Science, (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003) 480

[17] Peng Hwa Ang, “How Countries are Regulating Internet Content,” (lecture, Internet Society Annual Conference, KualaLumpur, Malaysia, June1997). <http://www.isoc.org/isoc/whatis/conferences/inet/97/proceedings/B1/B1_3.HTM1997> accessed 1 September 2001

[18] Canada Eyes Internet Regulation,” Ottawa Citizen, ( 15 November 1996)

[19] Attorney General of the United States of America v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al. 117 S. Ct. 2329 138. L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997). <http://www.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html> accessed 24 September 2019

[20] Andrew L. Shapiro, The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know, (New York: Public Affairs/The Century Foundation, 1999)38

[21] David R. Johnson and David Post, “Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace,” Stanford Law Review 48 (1996): 1367, 1378.

[22] John Perry Barlow, “A Cyberspace Independence Declaration,”Electronic Frontier Foundation“Publications —John Perry Barlow” Archive, <http://www.eff.org/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/barlow_0296.declaration> accessed 01 October 2019

[23] Michael McCartney, “Computer Crime Issues,” New York State Attorney General's Office, <http://www.oft.state.ny.us/security/electronic%20presentations/ag%20new.pdf> accessed 15 September 2019

[24] International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network,“International Internet Sweep Days,” 2004. <http://www.icpen.org/imsn/activities.htm > accessed 05 September 2019

[25] Federal Trade Commission, “New Rule will Protect Privacy of Children Online,” October 20, 1999. <http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/9910/childfinal.htm > accessed 30 September 2019

[26] Stewart Taggart, “Down Under Smut Goes Up Over,” Wired News, February 2, 2000. <http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34043,00.html> accessed 18 September 2019

[27] US Constitution, First Amendment, Article 1

[28] C. S. Yoo, 'The Rise and Demise of the Technology-Specific Approach to the First Amendment' (2003) Georgetown Law Journal 91

[29] Terminiello v. Chicago, (1948) 93 L Ed 1131.; also referred in Secy. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn., Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161

[30] Andrew Ulmer, Media Advertising, & Entertainment Law throughout the world (South Asian Edition, Multilaw International Contributors, 2012) 713

[31] Andrew Ulmer, Media Advertising, & Entertainment Law throughout the world (South Asian Edition, Multilaw International Contributors, 2012) 748

[32] Eldridge, J., Kitzinger, J. and Williams, K., The Mass Media and Power in Modern Britain. (1st edition, Oxford University Press, 1997) 145

[33] Andrew Ulmer, Media Advertising, & Entertainment Law throughout the world (South Asian Edition, Multilaw International Contributors, 2012) 455

[34] Andrew Ulmer, Media Advertising, & Entertainment Law throughout the world (South Asian Edition, Multilaw International Contributors, 2012) 579

[35] Andrew Ulmer, Media Advertising, & Entertainment Law throughout the world (South Asian Edition, Multilaw International Contributors, 2012) 945

[36] Mike Feintuck, Mike Varney’s Media Regulation, Public Interest and the Law, (2nd edition, Edinburgh University Press 2006)76

[37] Ibid

[38] Baldwin, R., Scott, C. and Hood, C.., A Reader on Regulation(2nd edition Oxford University Press, 1998) 149

[39] Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet: Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,” (1996) <http://www2echolu/legal/en/internet/content/communichtm> accessed 28 September 2019

[40] Ibid

[41] J. Balkin,'Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Information Society' (2004) 79 New York University

[42] Baldwin, R., Scott, C. and Hood, C.., A Reader on Regulation(2nd edition Oxford University Press, 1998) 153

[43] Peng Hwa Ang and B. Nadarajan, “Censorship and the Internet: A Singapore Perspective,” Communications of the ACM 39(6) (1996): 72-78

[44] Birkinshaw, P. , Grievances, Remedies and the State (2nd edition , Sweet & Maxwell , 1994)130

[45] Ibid

[46] “Censuring the Censors: Azeem Azhar Looks at Hardening Attempts to Control the Internet,” The Guardian, (February 8 1996)

[47] Ibid

[48] Ming Chien Tong, “Device to Block Out Blacklisted Web Sites,” The Straits Times, (20 July 20 1996)

[49] Peter Lewis, “Censors Become a Force on Cyberspace Frontier,” New York Times (29 June 1994)

[50] Ibid

[51] Richard Barbrook., Media Freedom: The Contradictions of Communications in the Age of Modernity. (1st edition London Pluto Press, 1995) 142

[52] Dryzek, J., Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics,Contestations. ( 1st edition, Oxford University Press, 2000) 45

[53] Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161

[54] Black, J. M. (1996) ‘Constitutionalizing Self-Regulation’, Modern Law Review 24

[55] BIBLIOGRAPHY

[56] LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

[57] &

[58] And

[59] AIR

[60] All India Reporter

[61] Anr.

[62] Another

[63] Approx.

[64] Approximately

[65] Art.

[66] Article

[67] Assn.

[68] Association

[69] Bom.

[70] Bombay

[71] Co.

[72] Company

[73] Const.

[74] Constitution

[75] EDN

[76] EDITION

[77] Eg.

[78] Example

[79] HC

[80] High Court

[81] Hon’ble

[82] Honourable

[83] i.e

[84] That is.

[85] Inc.

[86] Incorporation

[87] J.

[88] Justice

[89] L.J

[90] Law Journal

[91] LJ

[92] Law Journal

[93] Ltd.

[94] Limited

[95] Ors.

[96] Others

[97] Para

[98] Paragraph

[99] SC

[100] Supreme court

[101] SCC

[102] Supreme Court Cases

[103] Articles

[104] Black, J. M. (1996) ‘Constitutionalizing Self-Regulation’, Modern Law Review

[105] Canada Eyes Internet Regulation,” Ottawa Citizen, ( 15 November 1996)

[106] Federal Trade CommissIon, “New Rule will Protect Privacy of Children Online,” October 20, 1999.

[107] Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet: Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,” (1996)

[108] International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network,“International Internet days

[109] Lewis P, “Censors Become a Force on Cyberspace Frontier,” New York Times (29 June 1994)

[110] McCartney M, “Computer Crime Issues,” New York State Attorney General's Office,

[111] Ming Chien Tong, “Device to Block Out Blacklisted Web Sites,” The Straits Times, (20 July 20 1996)

[112] Peng Hwa Ang, “How Countries are Regulating Internet Content,” (lecture, Internet Society Annual Conference, KualaLumpur, Malaysia, June1997)

[113] Perry J.B., “A Cyberspace Independence Declaration,”Electronic Frontier Foundation“Publications —John Perry Barlow” Archive,

[114] Taggart S, “Down Under Smut Goes Up Over,” Wired News, February 2, 2000.

[115] Yoo C.S. , 'The Rise and Demise of the Technology-Specific Approach to the First Amendment' (2003) Georgetown Law Journal 91

[116] Books

[117] Baldwin, R., Scott, C. and Hood, C., A Reader on Regulation(2nd edition Oxford University Press, 1998) 149

[118] Balkin J., Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Information Society (2004) 79 New York University

[119] Barbrook R., Media Freedom: The Contradictions of Communications in the Age of Modernity (1st edition London Pluto Press, 1995)

[120] Birkinshaw, P., Grievances, Remedies and the State (2nd edition , Sweet & Maxwell , 1994)

[121] Dryzek, J., Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. (1st edition, Oxford University Press, 2000)

[122] Feintuck M, Varney M, Media Regulation, Public Interest and the Law, (2nd edition, Edinburgh University Press 2006)

[123] Goradia M, Facets of Media Law (Eastern Book Company 2006)

[124] Jain M.P, Indian constitutional law,986(5th edition, Lexis Nexis)

[125] Johnson D, Post D, Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, Stanford Law Review 48 (1996): 1367, 1378.

[126] Peng Hwa Ang, Censorship and the Internet,” Encyclopaedia of Library and Information Science, (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003) 480

[127] Shapiro A, The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know, (New York: Public Affairs/The Century Foundation, 1999)38

[128] Ulmer A, Media Advertising, & Entertainment Law throughout the world (South Asian Edition, Multilaw International Contributors, 2012)

[129] Cases

[130] Anand Chintamani v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 Mah LJ 14

[131] Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161

[132] Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 687

[133] Channing Arnold v. Emperor, AIR 1914 PC 116

[134] LIC v. Manubhai Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637

[135] M.R.F Ltd v. Inspector Kerala Govt. AIR 1999 SC 188,191

[136] Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. V. Indian Express, AIR 1989 SC 190

[137] Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124

[138] Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124; Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896; Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305

[139] Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305

[140] Secy. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn., Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161

[141] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain , AIR 1975 SC 865,884

[142] Terminiello v. Chicago, (1948) 93 L Ed 1131

@article{1704291,
      author = {Prof. Varalakshmi, Nirmeet Jain, Tanisha Mehta, Mehul Jain},
      title = {Regulations of Online OTT Content},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2023},
      volume = {6},
      number = {10},
      pages = {278-292},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1704291.pdf},
      abstract = {The Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of thought, expression of ideas and creativity in a free manner. Article 19(1)(a) gives the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to publication of content. However, there are times when this right is not absolute and is subject to restrictions. The paper aims to propagate that when the State strives to control and regulate such content, it should show to be thoughtful in this approach. The State draws the authority from the Constitution of India, the Information Technology Act, The Data Protection Rules and regulations made there under. It also seeks to understand censorship on the grounds of public policy with respect to online content and the working of the relevant provisions across major jurisdictions of the world.},
      month = {April},
  }