-
No more 66A!
-
by
Geetha Hariharan
—
published
Mar 24, 2015
—
last modified
Mar 26, 2015 02:01 AM
—
filed under:
Censorship,
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Homepage,
Intermediary Liability,
Featured,
Chilling Effect,
Section 66A,
Article 19(1)(a),
Blocking
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A. Today was a great day for freedom of speech on the Internet! When Section 66A was in operation, if you made a statement that led to offence, you could be prosecuted. We are an offence-friendly nation, judging by media reports in the last year. It was a year of book-bans, website blocking and takedown requests. Facebook’s Transparency Report showed that next to the US, India made the most requests for information about user accounts. A complaint under Section 66A would be a ground for such requests.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
-
On the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
-
by
Torsha Sarkar, Gurshabad Grover, Raghav Ahooja, Pallavi Bedi and Divyank Katira
—
published
Jun 21, 2021
—
last modified
Jun 21, 2021 11:52 AM
—
filed under:
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Internet Governance,
Intermediary Liability,
Internet Freedom,
Information Technology
This note examines the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The analysis is consistent with previous work carried out by CIS on issues of intermediary liability and freedom of expression.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
-
Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Dec 07, 2011
—
last modified
Dec 12, 2011 05:00 PM
—
filed under:
IT Act,
Obscenity,
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Public Accountability,
YouTube,
Social media,
Internet Governance,
Featured,
Intermediary Liability,
Censorship,
Social Networking
The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.
Located in
Internet Governance
-
Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Dec 15, 2014
—
last modified
Dec 19, 2014 09:01 AM
—
filed under:
IT Act,
Court Case,
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Intermediary Liability,
Constitutional Law,
Censorship,
Section 66A,
Article 19(1)(a),
Blocking
There are currently ten cases before the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Information Technology Act, the rules made under that, and other laws, that are being heard jointly. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who's arguing Anoop M.K. v. Union of India has put together this chart that helps you track what's being challenged in each case.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
-
Panel Discussion on Internet Intermediaries, Law and Innovation
-
by
Jyoti Panday
—
published
Jun 14, 2015
—
filed under:
Internet Governance,
Intermediary Liability
CII, Google and Centre For Communications Governance, NLU Delhi hosted a panel discussion on June 2 in New Delhi. Jyoti Panday attended.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
News & Media
-
Press Coverage of Online Censorship Row
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Dec 08, 2011
—
last modified
Dec 08, 2011 11:31 AM
—
filed under:
IT Act,
Links,
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Internet Governance,
Facebook,
Intermediary Liability,
Censorship
We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
-
Primer on the New IT Act
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Jul 29, 2009
—
last modified
Aug 02, 2011 07:41 AM
—
filed under:
IT Act,
Digital Governance,
Public Accountability,
Intermediary Liability,
Censorship
With this draft information bulletin, we briefly discuss some of the problems with the Information Technology Act, and invite your comments.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
-
Problems Remain with Standing Committee's Report on Copyright Amendments
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Dec 16, 2010
—
last modified
Sep 06, 2011 07:50 AM
—
filed under:
Access to Knowledge,
Copyright,
Intellectual Property Rights,
Intermediary Liability,
Technological Protection Measures
The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (under which ministry copyright falls) recently tabled their report on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 before Parliament. There is much to be applauded in the report, including the progressive stand that the Committee has taken on the issue of providing access by persons with disabilities. This post, however, will concern itself with highlighting some of the problems with that report, along with some very important considerations that got missed out of the entire amendment debate.
Located in
Access to Knowledge
/
Blogs
-
Reading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights
-
by
Jyoti Panday
—
published
Jul 02, 2014
—
last modified
Jul 04, 2014 06:31 AM
—
filed under:
Social Media,
Consumer Rights,
Google,
internet and society,
Privacy,
Transparency and Accountability,
Intermediary Liability,
Accountability,
Facebook,
Data Protection,
Policies,
Safety
This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
-
Rebuttal of DIT's Misleading Statements on New Internet Rules
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
May 13, 2011
—
last modified
Jul 11, 2012 01:18 PM
—
filed under:
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
IT Act,
Featured,
Intermediary Liability
The press statement issued on May 11 by the Department of Information Technology (DIT) on the furore over the newly-issued rules on 'intermediary due diligence' is misleading and is, in places, plainly false. We are presenting a point-by-point rebuttal of the DIT's claims.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
