KEMBAR78
Problem Question | PDF | Policy | Social Media
Scribd
Upload
6 views1 page

Problem Question

A new policy in a democratic nation aims to regulate digital platforms and public spaces to promote civic harmony and urban innovation. It imposes restrictions on public gatherings and moderates online content to curb misinformation, but faces criticism for potentially undermining democratic principles and disproportionately affecting marginalized voices. The situation escalates with unapproved protests leading to arrests, prompting a judicial challenge on the balance between maintaining order and upholding free expression.

Uploaded by

ahsanmohd2260
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views1 page

Problem Question

A new policy in a democratic nation aims to regulate digital platforms and public spaces to promote civic harmony and urban innovation. It imposes restrictions on public gatherings and moderates online content to curb misinformation, but faces criticism for potentially undermining democratic principles and disproportionately affecting marginalized voices. The situation escalates with unapproved protests leading to arrests, prompting a judicial challenge on the balance between maintaining order and upholding free expression.

Uploaded by

ahsanmohd2260
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Problem Question

In a democratic nation, a new policy directive aims to regulate digital platforms and public
spaces under a unified "civic harmony and urban innovation framework." The policy
introduces measures to control the dissemination of information on social media and imposes
spatial restrictions on public areas for gatherings, rallies, and protests. It requires that public
assemblies and demonstrations in metropolitan areas be held only in predefined zones, with a
mandatory digital application for permission, evaluated based on criteria such as the potential
for public disturbance, noise levels, and the relevance of the cause to "community interests."
Simultaneously, the government partners with major tech companies to moderate online
content, claiming it is essential to curb misinformation and hate speech. Automated
algorithms are employed to flag and restrict content deemed "inflammatory," including posts
mobilizing citizens for offline protests. These measures are presented to create a more
organized urban environment and foster a responsible digital ecosystem.
Opposition groups and civil society organizations argue that these rules subtly erode
fundamental democratic principles. They highlight incidents where permission for assemblies
was denied, citing vague reasons such as "disruptive potential," even for protests on pressing
social issues like labor rights and environmental conservation. Critics claim that the
regulation disproportionately affects marginalized voices, as they lack the resources to meet
the procedural and logistical requirements for securing permits or navigating complex online
restrictions.
Concerns are raised about the digital platform moderation strategy, with activists arguing that
the algorithms inadvertently suppress legitimate dissent and stifle creativity while
maintaining harmony. They contend that the vagueness of "inflammatory" content leads to
over-censorship, where dissenting opinions against government policies or corporate
practices are systematically de-amplified.
As tensions rise, an influential activist group organizes an unapproved flash protest against a
corporate housing project that displaced hundreds of low-income families. The authorities
disperse the gathering using force, and several participants are arrested. Simultaneously, the
protest's digital footprint is erased as flagged posts are removed from social platforms. These
events trigger national outrage, with opposing camps debating whether the policy is a
necessary adaptation for modern governance or a covert strategy to suppress dissent.
The case reaches the judiciary, challenging the balance between the state's obligation to
ensure order and its commitment to preserving the democratic ethos of free expression and
assembly. Imagine yourself to be the Governments lawyer. Defend the case from the side of
the government by citing relevant precedence and reasonings in 600 words.

You might also like