Internet Neutrality: A Battle Between Law and Ethics

  • Reena Cheruvalath


In 2016, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India issued the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations. It favours the principle of internet neutrality. This principle suggests that all data on the internet should be treated equally without discrimination by user, content, site, etc. The objective of this paper is to justify the idea that internet neutrality cannot ensure equality in the ethical sense. Net neutrality can only maintain technological equality. The author proposes the argument that technological equality is not the same as ethical equality. Treating all content, which is not homogenous, equally leads to unethical activities. It hampers an individual’s relationship with his or her society and, thereby, blocks the foundation for social justice. Accordingly, the neutrality principle ignores the idea of social justice and fails to protect human rights. Hence, it cannot be ethically justifiable in its present form.


Internet neutrality Equivocation Technical equality Non-discrimination Right 


  1. 1.
    Abbot, J. 2012. Revisited: analysing the socio-political impact of the internet and new social media in East Asia. Third World Quarterly 33(2): 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anand, U. 2015. Background and legal aspects of the ban on internet pornography. The Indian Express.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, C.R. 1999. An analysis of fraud on the internet. Internet Research 9 (5): 348–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beckett, D. 2000. Internet technology. In Internet Ethics, ed. D. Langford, 73–75. London: Palgrave Publication.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belly, L., and P.D. Filippi. 2016. General introduction: Towards a multistakeholder approach to net neutrality. In Net Neutrality Compendium, ed. L. Belly, and P.D. Filippi, 1–4. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boatright, J.R. 2007. Ethics and the Conduct of Business. India: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkell, J., and I.R. Kerr. 2000. Electronic miscommunication and the defamatory sense. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 15(1): 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen-Almagor, R. 2012. Content net neutrality—A critique. In Luciano Floridi’s Philosophy of Technology, ed. H. Demir, 151–156. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook, D. 2006. Criminal and Social Justice, 60–72. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Copy, I.M., C. Cohen, P. Jetli, and M. Prabhakar. 2006. Introduction to Logic, 386–387. New Delhi: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Craven, A. 2012. Social justice and higher education. Perspectives 16(1): 23–28.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaete, R. 1991. Postmodernism and human rights: Some insidious questions. Law and Critique 2(2): 149–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoynck, T. 1996. Public reason-making law reasonable to the public. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 9(2): 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kshetri, N. 2010. Diffusion and effects of cybercrime in developing economies. Third World Quarterly 31(7): 1057–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuruvilla, C. 2015. Why 12 Top Religious Leaders Are Proud To Support Net Neutrality. The Huffington Post, Retrieved from (
  16. 16.
    Linden, H.V.D. 1988. Kantian Ethics and Socialism, 15. Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma, H.K. 2011. Internet addiction and antisocial internet behavior of adolescents. Scientific World Journal 11: 2187–2196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray, A.D. 2003. Regulation and rights in networked space. Journal of Law and Society 30(2): 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Narayan, V. 2013. Most online criminals are educated youths: report. The Times of India, Retrieved from
  20. 20.
    Nussabaum, M.C. 2011. Creating Capabilities—The Human Development Approach, 7–120. Cambridge: Harward University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oman, N. 1996. On the universalizability of human rights. The European Legacy 1(2): 526–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pendleton, M.D. 2016. Computer programs, internet copyright and trips border control. Asia Pacific Law Review 7(1): 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenberg, R.S. 2001. Controlling access to the internet: The role of filtering. Ethics and Information Technology 3: 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh, P.J. 2016. What free basics did not intend to do. The Hindu 11.
  25. 25.
    Thomas, D.S., K.A. Forcht, and P. Counts. 1991. Legal considerations of internet use- issues to be addressed. Internet Research 8(1): 70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Travis, A. 2015. Crime rates to rise by 40% after inclusion of cyber offences. The Guardian.
  27. 27.
    The Economic Times. 2015. Cyber crimes in India likely to double to 3 lakh in 2015: Report.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    TRAI, Gazette of India, February 08, 2016. (Accessed from
  29. 29.
    Upham, A.R. 2016. Interfacing with pornography: An examination of Hong Kong’s approach to pornography on the internet. Asia Pacific Law Review 9(2): 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vedder, A. 2001. Accountability of internet access and service providers—Strict liability entering ethics? Ethics and Information Technology 3: 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vedder, A., and R. Wachbroit. 2003. Reliability of information on the internet: Some distinctions. Ethics and Information Technology 5: 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weckert, J. 2000. What is new or unique about internet activities. In Internet Ethics, ed. D. Langford, 61–62. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Winston, M. 2007. Human rights as moral rebellion and social construction. Journal of Human Rights 6(3): 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wood, H. 2013. Internet pornography and paedophilia. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 27(4): 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Young, G. 2005. Ethics of access: Globalization, feminism and information society. Journal of Global Ethics 1(1): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesBITS Pilani- K.K. Birla Goa CampusSancoaleIndia

Personalised recommendations