India, Aug. 27 -- The Supreme Court's attempt at distinguishing between good and bad humour, and free speech for commercial purposes and non-commercial purposes is a fraught project. Hearing petitions linked to offensive remarks against persons with disabilities during an online show by comedians Samay Raina and others, the top court on Monday cautioned social media influencers and podcasters that they cannot press their free speech rights when their "commercial" content offends the dignity and sensitivities of others. The top court bench underlined that podcasters and YouTubers earn money from their shows and appeared to stress that as far as "commercial speech" is concerned, there is no freedom of speech. Not just that, it went one step further, and urged the Centre to come back by November with a proposed regulatory framework that not only demarcates the boundaries of free speech but also defines the obligations that accompany it. This is a disquieting proposition, on two counts. One, tailoring humour as per sensitivities is impossible: Hurt sentiment is a humourless tumour that has been gnawing at free speech (weaponised by governments of various ideological shades) for a long time. The court is right in pointing out that marginalised communities should not bear the brunt of tasteless humour, but to legislate against poor taste or vulgarity is risky in a country where the police are often zealous in booking ordinary citizens. Two, the distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech might be more hazy than what is being portrayed. The constitutional protections of free speech (subject to reasonable restrictions) is not contingent on the quality or intent of the speech (save violence). Across the world, free speech protections are the foundation on which news media is built - and this is an enterprise that is explicitly commercial in intent, albeit with a critical social function and value. All media is commercial in a broader sense of the term, but always screened and regulated by appropriate authorities or themselves. Besides, there are libel and contempt provisions in the law to warn about the red lines. More measures can only have a chilling effect on free speech. Since India's independence, free speech protections have been safeguarded by its judiciary, most notably the apex court. Wider discussions about harmful speech are welcome, as are social movements that have successfully moved the needle on a gamut of rights - such as that of women, disabled and queer people. But criminalisation of speech or creating a new category of "commercial" speech is a path that the courts must avoid....