“Freedom of speech is the bulwark of democracy; it is the first condition of liberty.” — Justice Pralhad Balacharya Gajendragadkar, Former Chief Justice of India. The emergence of digital platforms has changed our relationship to communication, there is little to no distinction among the spaces of political propaganda, citizen expression, and journalism. The Karnataka Mis-Information and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025 is being proposed as a mechanism to combat the growing problem of false information on the internet as this transformation continues to develop. However, the Bill’s sweeping definitions, expansive powers, and absence of independent oversight raise considerable constitutional and ethical concerns. This paper evaluates the Bill from the perspective of Indian media law where, under Article 19(2), appropriate limits on speech and writing coexist with the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). According to the paper, this Bill decreases constitutional legitimacy in favor of censorship over regulation, pointing to important rulings, like Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. It appears that the Bill’s definition of “fake news” essentially gives the State the authority to determine what is “fake,” jeopardizing journalism’s Fourth Estate role and independence. More broadly, there are parallels with overseas media laws in Singapore (i.e., POFMA) and Germany (i.e., NetzDG) that demonstrate the precarious balance between restricting false information and denying opposing voices. Ultimately, the article advocates for a rights-based, open, and media-literate approach to disinformation as a problem of democratic accountability online.