<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">




    



<channel rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/search_rss">
  <title>Centre for Internet and Society</title>
  <link>https://cis-india.org</link>
  
  <description>
    
            These are the search results for the query, showing results 2554 to 2568.
        
  </description>
  
  
  
  
  <image rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/logo.png"/>

  <items>
    <rdf:Seq>
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-april-10-2014-varuni-khosla-lok-sabha-polls"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/home-images/p9.jpg"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-logos"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-october-15-2013-danish-raza-location-tracking"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/locating-mobile"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/workshop"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/events/locating-gender-politics"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/openness/local-researchers-methodology-guide.pdf"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/home-images/LocalResearchers.jpg"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_LocalResearchers.jpg"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-july-16-2014-living-in-a-fish-bowl"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/news/suspended-in-web"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-webinar-on-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-webinar-rcep"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech"/>
        
    </rdf:Seq>
  </items>

</channel>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-april-10-2014-varuni-khosla-lok-sabha-polls">
    <title>Lok sabha polls: Social media companies launch special pages for polls</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-april-10-2014-varuni-khosla-lok-sabha-polls</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Internet and social media giants such as Google and Facebook have launched special campaigns, pages and services around the Indian Lok Sabha elections to make the most of the world's largest democratic exercise that kicked off on Monday.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;The article by Varuni Khosla was &lt;a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-04-10/news/49031894_1_social-media-companies-election-tracker-simplify360"&gt;published in the Economic Times&lt;/a&gt; on April 10, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Big and small social media companies are looking to use the poll fever to augment their businesses by wooing new users and generating more traffic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Google, for example, recently launched an election page along with a Google Hangout series and a 'Pledge to Vote' and 'Know Your Candidates' campaign that featured 97-year-old Shyam Saran Negi from Himachal Pradesh who has voted in every election in Independent India. Twitter has come up with a 'Discover' section of curated tweets while Facebook has launched an election trackers as well as a 'Facebook Talks' page.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Indian social platform Vebbler has unveiled 'Ungli' campaign while telecom operator MTS has tied up with Social Samosa for an election tracker.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;"While in the short run it may just be a branding exercise, in the long run it could result in more sign-ups and convert into a wider user base for these companies," said Bhupendra Khanal, CEO and co-founder at social business intelligence company Simplify360.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;"But it also shows how important India is as a market for these companies — that they are looking at generating information beyond short-term revenues," he added. Khanal said the most popular hashtags with mentions in last 30 days are #Elections2014, which got 46,000 mentions, and #Election2014:, with 36,000 mentions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;This shows that social media users are following and discussing the elections and candidates constantly. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, said election candidates across political parties are using Twitter platform to break news, answer questions and post 'selfies'.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;"This page lets voters see all the official Twitter feeds from political parties and candidates and will let voters make an informed choice before they go and vote," he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Sunil Abraham, executive director at non-profit charitable organisation Centre for Internet and Society, said social media companies are looking at earning close to 10% of the entire media spend by political parties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;"When they have election related features on their site, they can tell their advertisers (political parties) that they are a serious platform that talks politics," he said. "Also, when a user clicks on these ads that are being put up by parties, social media companies are able to gain granular information about the user's likes and dislikes and therefore figure out how to advertise to them in the future," Abraham added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;These make it doubly attractive for social media companies to have such services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Also, experts say that it doesn't cost much at all to set up these special pages and launch campaigns. "Spends on these campaigns could cost social media companies just about Rs 10-20 lakh - including making videos and setting up pages," a social media agency head said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;This person said that about 60 million people have been discussing Indian Elections on social media, even though there are just about 40 million Twitter users in India. "So, a lot of interest has been taken in the elections from other countries," the person added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Close to 65% of India's population is under the age of 35 and more and more young people in the country are using social media.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IMAI) estimates that a well-executed social media campaign can swing 3%–4% of votes. "Digital advertising in India has increased by 30% this year and around Rs 3402 crore is expected to be spent in 2014. Of this, social media spend is close to Rs 300 crore according to IMRB," says James Drake-Brockman, head of digital marketing division, DMG :: events.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-april-10-2014-varuni-khosla-lok-sabha-polls'&gt;https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-april-10-2014-varuni-khosla-lok-sabha-polls&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Social Media</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2014-04-14T11:28:54Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/home-images/p9.jpg">
    <title>Logos</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/home-images/p9.jpg</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/home-images/p9.jpg'&gt;https://cis-india.org/home-images/p9.jpg&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2012-07-10T10:38:28Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Image</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-logos">
    <title>Logo</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-logos</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;The Centre for Internet and Society has published its logo under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Click on the links below to download the logo in the format of your choice:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-logo.svg" class="internal-link"&gt;SVG &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-jpg-logo" class="internal-link"&gt;JPEG&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-png-logo" class="internal-link"&gt;PNG&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-logos'&gt;https://cis-india.org/about/logos/cis-logos&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2016-10-24T08:06:21Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Page</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-october-15-2013-danish-raza-location-tracking">
    <title>Location Tracking: Why the Govt-Mobile Manufacturer War Won’t End Soon</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-october-15-2013-danish-raza-location-tracking</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;The Union government and mobile operators are at loggerheads on location based services (LBS) – the service through which mobile companies can provide real time location of mobile users to the government.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The article by Danish Raza was &lt;a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/location-tracking-why-govt-mobile-manufacturer-war-wont-end-soon-1173551.html?utm_source=hp-footer"&gt;published in FirstPost on October 15, 2013&lt;/a&gt;. Sunil Abraham is quoted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In the aftermath of  Nirbhaya gangrape case in December, Delhi Police approached mobile  operators to implement LBS, but the operators refused citing the costs  involved in the process, said M M Oberoi, joint commissioner of Delhi  police. Oberoi was talking at the India Conference on Cyber Security and  Cyber Governance, conducted by FICCI in New Delhi on Tuesday. “Often  the person in distress dials 100 but does not know his or her location.  Therefore, it becomes difficult for the PCR vans to track the victim. A  lot of time is spent trying to figure out the victim’s location, as it  happened in the 16 December gangrape case,” said Oberoi.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class="invisible"&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;th&gt;&lt;img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_mobile.png" alt="mobile" class="image-inline" title="mobile" /&gt;&lt;/th&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Representational image. Agencies.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;As reported by  Firstpost, the government has already directed all telecom service  providers to make location details a mandatory part of call data records  (CDR) of all mobile users in the country starting mid- 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;India is the second-largest mobile phone user with over 900 million  users, as per the union government data. However, mobile companies are  not complying with the government order, Oberoi told Firstpost. “In our  attempt to develop a better response mechanism, we are also exploring  ways through which we can bypass mobile companies to track the person.  We can do it through software,” he added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The mobile companies have maintained that they can help the government  in tracking people in distress, but the kind of accuracy the law  enforcement forces are demanding involves huge costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The DoT directive says that while detecting the location of the mobile  users in urban centres, the telecom operator should achieve 80 percent  accuracy in the first year of implementing the technology followed by 95  percent accuracy in the second year. However, it is not clear from the  DoT note which year will be taken into account while determining the  degree of accuracy of the company’s technology – 2011 (when the order  was issued) or 2014 (when location details shall be part of CDR for all  mobile calls).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;“For such accuracy, we need to put enhanced cell tracking software on  cell towers which is a very expensive process,” Rajan S Mathews,  director, Cellular Operators Associations of India, told Firstpost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In the last meeting with the representatives of DoT, Cellular Operators  Associations of India told the former that it was against the idea of  LBS for all mobile users, but can cooperate in the case of targeted  tracking, said Mathews.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;He suggested two alternatives which can work to track a person in  distress. It should be mandated by the government, he said, that people  use only high end phones which send signals to cell towers when they  make a call. “It is not easy to make everyone use such devices though.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Another possibility, according to him, is that a person gets registered  with the mobile operator for such service. “When this person is in  distress and dials 100, he avails the service through which police can  track his or her location,” said Mathews.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;According to Sunil Abraham, director of Bangalore based Centre for  Internet &amp;amp; Society, it is unethical implement LBS as a blanket order  and the government, along with mobile operators, should find a way out  to introduce targeted surveillance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;“There is an initial increase in security that accompanies increase in  surveillance – after which increased surveillance actually undermines  the security imperative and could make the security worse than when  surveillance was initiated. Therefore surveillance should always be  targeted, blanket surveillance is almost always a terrible idea,” he  said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-october-15-2013-danish-raza-location-tracking'&gt;https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-october-15-2013-danish-raza-location-tracking&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2013-10-25T06:32:56Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/locating-mobile">
    <title>Locating the Mobile</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/locating-mobile</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;The project examines questions of inter personal relationships, intimacies, community formations and belonging to examine processes of internal migration and dislocation as a result of growing mobile and internet usage in urban India and China.&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/locating-mobile'&gt;https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/locating-mobile&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2015-10-05T15:02:24Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Folder</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/workshop">
    <title>Locating Internets: Histories of the Internet(s) in India — Research Training and Curriculum Workshop: Call for Participation</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/workshop</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Deadline for submission: 26th July 2011-06-08;
When: 19th - 22nd August, 2011;
Where: Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT) University, Ahmedabad;
Organised by: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
Please Note: Travel support is only available for domestic travel within India.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;LOCATING INTERNETS is an innovative, multi-disciplinary, workshop that engages with some of the most crucial debates around Internet and Society within academic scholarship, discourse and practice in India. It explores Where, When, How and What has changed with the emergence of Internet and Digital Technologies in the country. The Internet is not a singular monolithic entity but is articulated in various forms – sometimes materially, through accessing the web; at others, through our experiences; and yet others through imaginations of policy and law. Internets have become a part of our everyday practice, from museums and archives, to school and university programmes, living rooms and public spaces, relationships and our bodily lived realities. It becomes necessary to reconfigure our existing concepts, frameworks and ideas to make sense of the rapidly digitising world around us. The Internet is no longer contained in niche disciplines or specialised everyday practices. LOCATING INTERNETS invites scholars, teachers, researchers, advanced research students and educationalists from any discipline to learn and discuss how to ask new questions and design innovative curricula in their discipline by introducing concepts and ideas from path-breaking research in India.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Comprised of training, public lectures, open discussion spaces, and hands-on curriculum building exercises, this workshop will introduce the participants to contemporary debates, help them articulate concerns and problems from their own research and practice, and build knowledge clusters to develop innovative and open curricula which can be implemented in interdisciplinary undergraduate spaces in the country. It showcases the research outputs produced by the Centre for Internet and Society’s Researchers @ Work Programme, and brings together nine researchers to talk about alternative histories, processes, and bodies of the Internets, and how they can be integrated into mainstream pedagogic practices and teaching environments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Knowledge Clusters for the Workshop&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;LOCATING INTERNETS is designed innovatively to accommodate for various intellectual and practice based needs of the participants. While the aim is to introduce the participants to a wide interdisciplinary range of scholarship, we also hope to address particular disciplinary and scholarly concerns of the participants. The workshop is further divided into three knowledge clusters which help the participants to focus their energies and ideas in the course of the four days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bridging the Gap&lt;/strong&gt;: This workshop seeks to break away from the utopian public discourse of the Internets as a-historical and completely dis-attached from existing technology ecologies in the country. This knowledge cluster intends to produce frameworks that help us contextualize the contemporary internet policy, discourse and practice within larger geo-political and socio-historical flows and continuities in Modern India. The first cluster chartsdifferent pre-histories of the Internets, mapping the continuities and ruptures through philosophy of techno-science, archiving practices, and electronifcation of governments,to develop new technology-society perspectives.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paradigms of Practice&lt;/strong&gt;:One of the biggest concerns about Internet studies in India and other similar developed contexts is the object oriented approach that looks largely at specific usages, access, infrastructure, etc. However, it is necessary to understand that the Internet is not merely a tool or a gadget. The growth of Internets produces systemic changes at the level of process and thought. The technologies often get appropriated for governance both by the state and the civil society, producing new processes and dissonances which need to be charted. The second cluster looks at certain contemporary processes that the digital and Internet technologies change drastically in order to recalibrate the relationship between the state, the market and the citizen.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Feet on the Ground&lt;/strong&gt;: The third cluster looks at contemporary practices of the Internet to understand the recent histories of movements, activism and cultural practices online. It offers an innovative way of understanding the physical objects and bodies that undergo dramatic transitions as digital technologies become pervasive, persuasive and ubiquitous. It draws upon historical discourse, everyday practices and cultural performances to form new ways of formulating and articulating the shapes and forms of social and cultural structures.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Workshop Outcomes&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The participants are expected to engage with issue of Internet and it various systemic processes through their own disciplinary interests. Apart from lectures and orientation sessions, the participants will actively work on their own project ideas during the period in groups and will be guided by experts. The final outcome of the workshops would be curriculum for undergraduate and graduate teaching space of various disciplines in the country.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;Participation Guidelines&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;LOCATING INTERNETS is now accepting submissions from interested participants in the following format:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;Name:&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Institutional affiliation and title:&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Address:&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Email address:&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Phone number:&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;A brief resume of work experience (max. 350 words)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Statement of interest (max. 350 words)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Key concerns you want to address in the Internet and Society field (max. 350 words)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Identification with one Knowledge-cluster of the workshop and a proposal for integrating it in your research/teaching practice (max. 500 words)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Current interface with technologies in your pedagogic practices (max. 350 words)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Additional information or relevant hyperlinks you might want to add (Max. 10 lines)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;pre&gt;Notes:&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Submissions will be accepted only from participants in India, as attachments in .doc, .docx or .odt formats at &lt;a class="external-link" href="mailto:locatinginternets@cis-india.org"&gt;locatingInternets@cis-india.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Submissions made beyond 26th July 2011 may not be considered for participation. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Submissions will be scrutinized by the organisers and selected participants will be informed by the 30th July 2011, about their participation.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Selected participants will be required to make their own travel arrangements to the workshop. A 2nd A.C. train return fare will be reimbursed to the participants.&amp;nbsp; Shared accommodation and selected meals will be provided at the workshop.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;A limited number of air-fare reimbursements will be available to participants in extraordinary circumstances. All travel support is only available for domestic travel in the country.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Chairs&lt;/strong&gt;: Nishant Shah, Director-Research, Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pratyush Shankar, Associate Professor &amp;amp; Head of Undergraduate Program, Faculty of Architecture, CEPT University&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Supported by&lt;/strong&gt;: Kusuma Foundation, Hyderabad&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Experts&lt;/strong&gt;:Anja Kovacs, Arun Menon, Asha Achuthan, Ashish Rajadhykasha, Aparna Balachandran, Namita Malhotra, Nithin Manayath, Nithya Vasudevan, Pratyush Shankar, Rochelle Pinto and Zainab Bawa&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/workshop'&gt;https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/workshop&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Development</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Gaming</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Digital Activism</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Digital Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Research</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>CISRAW</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Featured</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Cybercultures</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>archives</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>New Pedagogies</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Workshop</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>IT Cities</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2011-07-21T06:00:39Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/events/locating-gender-politics">
    <title>Locating Gender Politics in the New Techno-Industrial Complex: A Lecture by Dr. Lisa McLaughlin</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/events/locating-gender-politics</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;The Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), IT for Change and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) are hosting a lecture by Dr. Lisa McLaughlin, Associate Professor in Media Studies and Women's Studies, Miami University, Ohio, USA at CIS, Bangalore on 23 July, 2010.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img class="image-inline" src="../research/lisa/image_preview" alt="Lisa McLaughlin" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. McLaughlin will address the gendered ties that bind the 'new global governance' to the 'new information economy', with a focus on women, work, and information and communication technology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. McLaughlin is spending two months in India (June and July) to work on a joint research project with IT for Change titled, “Women’s Enterprise and Information Technology”. The study explores ICT policies and practices that seek to integrate women entrepreneurs, especially from the informal and small business sectors, into formal and global markets. She is also part of the Advisory Group of the research program “Gender and Citizenship in the Information Society”, coordinated by IT for Change. This initiative aims to explore the the concept of citizenship, and use citizenship as a framework&amp;nbsp; to understand gender issues implicit in the 'Information Society'.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;About Dr. Lisa McLaughlin&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dr. McLaughlin is an Associate Professor in Media Studies and Women's Studies at Miami University-Ohio, USA. She teaches undergraduate courses in media and society, global media, and gender and media. She also teaches graduate seminars in feminist media theory, global media, technology and culture, and media governance. Her research has been published in scholarly journals including as Media, Culture and Society, Journal of Communication Inquiry, Critical Studies in Media Communications, and Sociological Review. She is the author of two forthcoming books, one titled Global Communications and the Public Sphere and the other titled Keywords in International Communications. She also has worked as an academic journal editor and is founding editor, and current co-editor, of an international journal titled Feminist Media Studies. Her research interests include feminist studies, critical theory, gender and information work in the knowledge economy, and global communications governance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Video&lt;/strong&gt;

&lt;iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLR5EAA.html" frameborder="0" height="250" width="250"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;embed style="display:none" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLR5EAA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/events/locating-gender-politics'&gt;https://cis-india.org/events/locating-gender-politics&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Research</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2011-10-21T08:44:37Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Event</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/openness/local-researchers-methodology-guide.pdf">
    <title>Local Researcher's Methodology Guide</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/openness/local-researchers-methodology-guide.pdf</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;This Methodology Guide was developed collaboratively by the project members of “Free Access to Law – Is it Here to Stay?”&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/local-researchers-methodology-guide.pdf'&gt;https://cis-india.org/openness/local-researchers-methodology-guide.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2011-11-23T09:25:27Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/home-images/LocalResearchers.jpg">
    <title>Local Researcher's Methodology Guide</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/home-images/LocalResearchers.jpg</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/home-images/LocalResearchers.jpg'&gt;https://cis-india.org/home-images/LocalResearchers.jpg&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2012-06-21T10:17:20Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Image</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_LocalResearchers.jpg">
    <title>Local Researcher's Methodology Guide</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_LocalResearchers.jpg</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_LocalResearchers.jpg'&gt;https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_LocalResearchers.jpg&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2012-06-21T10:19:00Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Image</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-july-16-2014-living-in-a-fish-bowl">
    <title>Living in a Fish Bowl</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-july-16-2014-living-in-a-fish-bowl</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Though India needs a comprehensive law on the right to privacy, it may not be ready for something as avant garde as the “right to be forgotten” on the Internet, argues Shuma Raha&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The article by Shuma Raha was &lt;a class="external-link" href="http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140716/jsp/opinion/story_18619655.jsp#.U8YcmY2Sz6I"&gt;published in the Telegraph&lt;/a&gt; on July 16, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;If you do a Google search for journalist and television personality Barkha Dutt, a raft of scurrilous information about her pops up. It isn’t tucked away somewhere on the 10th page either — it’s all up front, right there in “autosuggest”, almost prompting you to go and check it out. And thanks to Google’s search algorithm, the more people click on that link, it further strengthens the score for that “hit”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Dutt says she has brought the matter to the attention of Google, but to no avail. “I have lost interest in the whole struggle,” she says. “But Google definitely needs to do something about the slanderous, inaccurate, fictional information out there that creates a narrative of its own.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Well, in Europe at least, the tech giant has taken a step in that direction. Late last month, it started erasing search results that threw up information deemed to be “irrelevant”, “outdated” or “excessive”. The move came after the European Court of Justice ruled that Internet search engines would have to allow people the “right to be forgotten” in specific cases and accordingly, take down information about them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The European Court ruling has triggered a huge debate since an individual’s right to be forgotten seems to be at complete loggerheads with people’s right to know. Nevertheless, it’s a landmark decision when it comes to right to privacy on the Internet. After all, the online space has perma-memory and inaccurate or irrelevant or outdated information about a person can be embedded there forever, damaging him or her in manifold ways.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;So how far are we in India from securing the right to be forgotten on the Internet?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The short answer to that is, very far. That is because India does not have a well-defined privacy regime wherein one could envisage a court of law handing out a similar — and some would say a somewhat radical — order on a Google or a Bing. “The right to be forgotten is a bit too advanced for us,” says Sunil Abraham, director, Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit organisation that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression and privacy. “After all, we are yet to come up with a privacy and data protection regime that implements the best practices of European countries.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Adds Apar Gupta, a Delhi-based lawyer, who has written extensively on privacy issues, “Sector specific privacy legislation do exist, but they do not provide substantive rights or efficient remedy in case of violations.”&lt;br /&gt;No one disputes that India should get a right to privacy law, especially one that relates to the collection, processing and use of personal data. Right now the government’s surveillance mechanisms like the Central Monitoring System and the Lawful Interception and Monitoring Systems allow security agencies and income tax authorities to intercept communication, snoop on phone conversations, read emails and SMSes with little or no safeguards for privacy protection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;A right to privacy bill has, in fact, been in the works since as early as 2011. But the government has been dragging its feet over it. Early this year, a new version of the draft bill was “leaked” to the press. But few are happy with it. On the positive side, it raises the penalty for unlawful interception of communication (from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 2 crore) and increases penalties for other offences such as obtaining personal data under false pretexts. But crucially, it almost wholly exempts intelligence agencies from the purview of the law, thereby allowing them unbridled access to personal information. Of course, no one knows if this “leaked” draft is indeed the official one.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Experts say that the government should really formulate a right to privacy law based on the recommendations of a committee chaired by Justice A.P. Shah. The report, which was published in 2012, proposes that the right to privacy be statutorily extended to all Indians. It recommends, among other things, the appointment of privacy commissioners and the formulation of certain “national privacy principles” such as taking the consent of the individual prior to the collection of data, allowing him the choice to withdraw such consent, limiting the use of personal information to the stated purpose and so on. The privacy principles would apply to all data collectors in both private and public sectors.&lt;br /&gt;There are, of course, a number of provisions in existing laws that relate to privacy. For example, Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, sets down certain privacy safeguards such as maintaining details about the officer ordering an intercept of telecommunication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Moreover, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, prescribes “punishment for the violation of privacy” (in the context of capturing “private” images of a person without his or her consent); Section 43A lays down that a “body corporate” will be liable to pay compensation in case it fails to protect personal data gathered in the course of its operation; and Section 79 stipulates that “intermediaries” — entities such as Google, Facebook, Twitter — would have to take down any information stored or transmitted by them that is found to be grossly harassing, defamatory, blasphemous, obscene, pornographic and so on, within 36 hours of being notified.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Of course, this section of the IT Act has been roundly criticised as arbitrary and Draconian, but that is another story.&lt;br /&gt;The point is that despite the fair number of privacy provisions, in the absence of a comprehensive law, the untrammelled and unauthorised use of personal data cannot be ruled out. “Every country in the world collects personal data. But once the data are collected for a particular purpose they should not be used for any other purpose. The law has to be in a position to catch the violators,” says Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO of Data Security Council of India, an organisation that works to promote data protection and privacy best practices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;As always, the key issue is that an individual’s right to privacy has to be balanced with public interest. And it is in that context that experts feel that even if India were to have a privacy law, it is probably not ready for something akin to the European Court ruling on the right to be forgotten. As Gupta says, “It raises a real danger of public personalities blocking legitimate journalism on grounds of privacy. This is specially true in a country like India which permits a high degree of illegality in the name of secrecy and confidentiality.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Abraham agrees with that view. “I’m not sure if the right to be forgotten will enhance privacy or usher in a level of censorship,” he says.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;As Europe grapples with that debate, India’s privacy warriors are asking for something far more fundamental — a comprehensive law that guarantees the right to privacy to all.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-july-16-2014-living-in-a-fish-bowl'&gt;https://cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-july-16-2014-living-in-a-fish-bowl&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2014-07-16T07:15:22Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/news/suspended-in-web">
    <title>Lives suspended in the Web</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/news/suspended-in-web</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;When 14-year-old Manish sits behind his laptop, punching away at keys, his facial expressions reflecting his various online interactions, his parents stand in the doorway, watching curiously. Their son is physically at home, but to all purposes, lost in the limbo of the Internet. By all standards, Manish is a good, responsible young adult but his parents worry because they don’t seem to have any control over Manish’s online life. They find it difficult to understand the digital realms that he seamlessly integrates into his life.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;As young people across the country are creating these new hybrid physical-digital spaces of work, leisure and lifestyle, the “analogue generations” remain outside, concerned about how they can ensure that their children are safe online, and not abusing the power of this largely unregulated space.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Their paranoia is amplified by the stories of uncontrolled access to pornography, of children falling prey to sexual predators, fears of intellectual property theft, and subversive and violent mobilisations that the young orchestrate through these online networks. The need to regulate, control and design this digital environment that so many of these young people inhabit is countered by their own ignorance and lack of control over these spaces. Technological solutions, like cyber-nannies and filtering software that prevent access to websites that can have questionable content, have eventually proven to be futile preventatives.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Attempts at technology-based censorship are useless because these young people, digital natives, find ways to circumvent the attempts at controlling their access. It is clear that the solutions are outside of technology, and not very different from ways in which parents have always dealt with these questions.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here are the top five ways to do so, which do not require a parent to become a netizen overnight, but can get them involved and make sure young users of technology remain responsible, safe and canny in their interactions online.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Monitored access: Instead of figuring out censorship software, parents need to learn that as with the TV, monitored access for younger users of the Internet is completely valid. Web 2.0 rhetoric promotes a strong sense of individualism and privacy and parents often feel like they are intruding on a child’s “private” time online. However, it is completely valid for parents to be in the same room and keeping an eye on what their child is up to while surfing.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Limited time: Instead of trying to control the content, try and help the young person to efficiently manage time and digital resources. We live in a world where the impulse to stay constantly connected is very strong. However, there is no reason why the young user has to be online in all their free time. If they are given a specified number of hours a week to spend online, they learn to use their time more efficiently. Password-protect the computers, take limited expenditure accounts for their mobile phones and have strict rules (which everybody in the family has to follow) about interface access during family time.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shared computers: As computing becomes more personal, young users access the Internet from many computing devices like cellphones, personal laptops, etc. Studies have shown that young users who use shared machines kept in common areas of the house are less prone to accessing undesirable material online. Do not keep the computing devices in bedrooms. Use shared studies or quiet corners of the living room.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Get digital and involved: One of the reasons why young people often do not communicate with parents about their technological forays is because the older generation professes a digital disconnect. Take this opportunity to initiate a two-way learning. Get your children to teach you on how to use certain platforms and websites, and in conversations, you might be able to educate them about responsible behaviour online. This peer-to-peer connection helps establish trust and a safe space to discuss problematic areas. Parents of teenagers who join social networks like Facebook and Tumblr, and get to be a part of the child’s life, often find new channels of communication opening up for them.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Storytelling: Digital storytelling has huge potential for voicing concerns and problems. For these young people, the spaces provided online are safe spaces. They write freely, tell stories, create digital content, providing a gateway into what is happening in their lives. Recognise the creative potential of young users, appreciate their ability to tell these stories — through blogs, micro-blogs, audio and video podcasts, commentary on other content, etc. Getting them to tell stories and sharing your own with them makes for greater insight. Many cross-generational storytelling projects, where younger children tell the stories of the older people in the house, or write a combined blog have proven to be quite successful online.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day, it is good to remember that the problems that new technologies throw up are not necessarily new. The solutions need to be found in our everyday interactions and practices, and dependence on technological application is often counter-productive. Technology can only be a way by which solutions are implemented.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;The article by Nishant Shah was published in the Indian Express on March 11, 2011. The original can be read &lt;/em&gt;&lt;a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/lives-suspended-in-the-web/760976/1"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/news/suspended-in-web'&gt;https://cis-india.org/news/suspended-in-web&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Digital Natives</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2011-04-01T15:45:39Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-webinar-on-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership">
    <title>Live Webinar on Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership </title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-webinar-on-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Anubha Sinha participated in this event organized by RCEP on July 27, 2016 in New Delhi.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;h3&gt;Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) and the six states with which ASEAN has existing FTAs (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-webinar-rcep" class="internal-link"&gt;Live Webinar RCEP Invite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-webinar-on-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership'&gt;https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-webinar-on-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Access to Knowledge</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2016-08-04T15:07:25Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-webinar-rcep">
    <title>Live Webinar - RCEP</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-webinar-rcep</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-webinar-rcep'&gt;https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-webinar-rcep&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>


   <dc:date>2016-08-04T14:59:23Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech">
    <title>Live Chat: Win for Free Speech </title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Join us for a live chat at 5.30 pm on SC striking down the Section 66A of the IT Act which had permitted the arrest of people for posting "offensive content" on the internet. &lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The &lt;a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/live-chat-hope-for-free-speech/article7028037.ece"&gt;live chat transcript&lt;/a&gt; was published in the Hindu on March 24, 2015. Geetha Hariharan participated in the live chat.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr style="text-align: justify; " /&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In a victory for proponents of free speech, the Supreme Court today  struck down Section 66 A of the IT Act, which had permitted the arrest  of people for posting “offensive content” on the internet. However, the  Court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites  based on a set of rules.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;What are your views on this ruling? Join us for a live chat today at 5.30 pm with:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or  disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and  Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;and G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Hi all, welcome to the live chat on the Supreme Court's  much-celebrated decision to strike down Section 66 A of the IT Act.  There are caveats of course: For instance, the Court has upheld Section  69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of  rules.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:30&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Welcome to Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of  "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution"  forthcoming in OUP.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:31&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet  and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:31&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:33&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From shraddha&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;This is landmark judgement,though.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:34&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Mystiquethinker&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;I would like to ask you one thing was that necessary to abolish Sec66 A completely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: Yes, in my opinion it was. The terms of S. 66A - such as  "grossly offensive" - went beyond what is constitutionally permitted by  Article 19(2). It was impossible to "sever" these terms from the rest of  the section. In such cases, the Court has no alternative but to strike  down the section in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:34&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Rohan&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;I'm particularly interested in the relevance of Sec 66 A in West Bengal.  Over the last few years the TMC government has massively curbed freedom  of speech. Do you think this will deter the ruling party?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:35&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Gautam, Geetha and Lawrence would you like to respond?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:35&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: typing&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:37&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From kc&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;so does this mean its okay for anyone to say anything over the internet?  Does the internet need separate rules? Anything that cant be said over a  microphone or using any media shouldn't be said over the internet  either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: No, the standard penal laws - against defamation, hate  speech (S. 153A), religious incitement (S. 295A) continue to apply. Yes,  the argument that the internet needs separate rules when it comes to  the *content* of speech was precisely what was rejected by the Court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:38&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Jai&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;I would like to ask what when people cross the boundary of decency when they post comments on social network?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:38&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: So the court goes into this question of whether 66A  needed to go in its entirely or could it be saved. The ASG suggested  that it could be read down by the courts, and offered a range of ways it  coudl have been done. But the court responded to say that the  restrictions in 19(2) are clear, and if the impugned law does not fall  within it, then to ask for a reading that incorporates other principles  only in order to save it would be to do violence to the language of Sec.  66A&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In para 49 they say&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;What the learned Additional Solicitor General is asking us to do is not  to read down Section 66A – he is asking for a wholesale substitution of  the provision which is obviously not possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:38&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan: @Mystiquethinker: Section 66A makes it a criminal  offense to make any post on the Internet, that might “grossly offend” or  be “menacing”. If you happen to post false information (like a spoof),  with the purpose of annoying, inconveniencing, criminally intimidating  or causing hatred, you can be criminalized for that, too. However, the  terms "annoyance, inconvenience, hatred, ill-will", etc. are vague.  Section 66A does not define them. Applying the law to misuse it becomes  extremely easy then - and this has happened.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:38&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Guest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Supreme Court has struck a delicate balance&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:39&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From neerulal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;It's a great step on part of judiciary. Infact it's the judicial  activism that washed much of the waste created by legislature. Hope it  was as experienced and sensible as judiciary..&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:39&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From shraddha&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;according to me it's imp to important to amend it completely... coz it  directly infringes the article19(a) right to freedom of speech and  expression.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:40&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Danish Sheikh&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;why do you think the Court is so sparse in its analysis of the website blocking rules as opposed to 66A?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:40&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Jai - The boundaries of decency will be determined by  our existing penal laws - Sections 295A, 153A and the rest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:40&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: @gananth would you like to respond to the last one?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:41&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: on 69A&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Guest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Despite striking down Section 66A, Article 19(2) provides sufficient  grounds for the government to protect public peace. It is comprehensive  and is applicable to all media. Therefore, in a way, Section 66A was not  required at all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:42&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: Danish, you are right. One wishes that the court had  paid as much attention to the Blocking orders as they did 66A. I feel  they have gone on a technical reading of the procedures established to  conclude that it is at least not as arbitrary as 66A, but fail to  acknowledge that the ways the orders have been operationalised  completely lack transparency and are hence arbitrary&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:42&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Eric&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;I would say yes. The best and most practical control of social media  comes from the maturity of its users. We can make a useful presumption  that useless content will simply not be shared substantially. Instead of  making laws, we need to make mature citizens and users of social media.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:42&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From saurav&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;what are the others instruments available with govt. to curb cyber crimes ???&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:42&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest - True, but you still need a *law* that would  authorise the police and other agencies to implement the restrictions  under Article 19(2) in specific situations. That is why we have speech  regulating provisions in the Indian Penal Code.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:43&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From shashi&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;I think sec 66A should be amended and specific definition of "offence"  must be brought in, because there needs to reasonable restrictions under  article 19(2). But having such vague clauses shows how it can be  misused by people in power.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:44&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan: @saurav: As Gautam said, the IPC's provisions such as  Sections 153A and 295A are available to the government as limitations on  speech. In addition, there are other offences in the IT Act (Sections  66B to 67B).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:44&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Mystiquethinker&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In my point of view there should be few limitation . You cannot say  anything to anybody. I am afraid what will be its result in future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:45&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Shashi The Supreme Court has held before - in S.  Rangarajan's case - that causing offence doe not fall within Article  19(2). In fact, quoting the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme  Court said that the freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom to  "offend, shock or disturb." That's actually why 19(2) is so specifically  worded, and restricts itself to "public order", "decency or morality",  "incitement to an offence", "defamation" etc.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:45&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: @Mystiquethinker To add to the previous point, the court  also did consider whether they could apply the doctrine of severability  but concluded that because "The present is a case where, as has been  held above, Section 66A does not fall within any of the subject matters  contained in Article 19(2) and the possibility of its being applied for  purposes outside those subject matters is clear. We therefore hold that  no part of Section 66A is severable and the provision as a whole must be  declared unconstitutional."&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:47&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Ashish&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;is it means??Now morphed girls photo posting ,revealing individual secret to harm him/her physcologicaly is allowed publicly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: Not at all. There are still other laws including  obscenity laws and privacy laws under the IT act that deal with this&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:47&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: What happens to all the cases already booked? Is the verdict retrospective?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:48&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Ashish No. There is the Indecent Representation of  Women Act, which prohibits that. There are also laws against blackmail  and criminal intimidation under the IPC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:48&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Cherry&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;A remarkable judgement to free their speeches n voices&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: absolutely, an important first step towards a free jurisprudence of the 21st century&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Sarpanch&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;66A declared unconstitutional - good. But, a religious hate-filled reaction will it still attract 295 IPC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: yes and 153A of the IPC amongst others&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Geek&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;If this is all about facebook, remove it and everyhing is fine!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: sorry, but thats no longer an option after this judgment :)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:49&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ TheHindu: to the best of my knowledge, no. A judgment is not ordinarily retrospective. Subject to correction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:49&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Neel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Doesn't the line of reasoning adopted by the SC throw open the possibility of other restrictive laws being questioned too?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Eric&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;There is plenty of scope for an independent regulator including  representatives of social media and internet users to regulate the  restrictions under Art 19(2). Giving the police or any other  governmental agency the power to prosecute potential offenders involves  the unnecessary risk of political bias which underlies the SC's  judgment. Clearly, severing the provision would have been messy.  Moreover, the judgment is an unapologetic thrust in the direction of  protecting fundamental rights.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From shashi&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;@Gautam one must not forget how social media can be used to incite  violence against a perticular community and force exodus (as happened in  Bangalore few years back). So, there has to be reasonable restrictions.  Else the government would look helpless in such incidents&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:50&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Cherry&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;i agree with the comment of mystiquethinker&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:50&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Panky&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Excellent decision from Court!!!!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:51&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Gautam, a question for you from Shashi&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:51&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Neel Yes, it does. For instance, crucial to the Supreme  Court's reasoning is a distinction between incitement and advocacy, and  a need for proximity between speech and the 19(2) restrictions. Now if  you look at the cases where the Supreme Court upheld 295A (1957) and  sedition (1962), it did so on the specific understanding that there was  no need for proximity - a mere "tendency" was enough. But in this case,  the Supreme Court specifically says that the tendency must be to  *imminent public disorder*. Now that severely undermines the foundation  of 295A and especially sedition, because it's really hard to argue that  spreading disaffection against the government has an imminent  relationship with public disorder. So yes - I think it might just be  time to try and have some of those old judgments reviewed!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:51&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Shanmukh&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;@ Eric. Social censorship works in a society where everybody is educated  and mature. India isn't quite there yet. But this 66A was abused and  it's good that it is going away.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: We perhaos need to be careful about the argument of  whether India is ready. That was the same logic that colonial  authorities use to introduce a number of speech regulating laws. Worth  having a look at Lala Lajpat Rai's reply to the Indian Cinematograph  Committee&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:52&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Shashi Yes, I agree. But 66A went far beyond those  reasonable restrictions. The Constitution allows for reasonable  restrictions in the interests of public order, and we have a long series  of cases interpreting what that means. I think that would speak to your  concern.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:53&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Shanmukh: See also the arguments that Raja Rammohun Roy  made as fas back as 1823 about the freedom of the press, when the  colonial authorities were using the same argument about Indians not  being ready.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:53&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Guest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The government has Section 69A to prevent mass exodus type situations. Am I right?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: Yes, and that is an important concern but you must note  that even during the NE exodus, the government exceeded its brief and  even blocked websites that were trying to quell rumous&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Sam&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Yesterday's column from readers editor had some suggestions on stopping  rumors being spread via SM. I think, those kind of methods will go a  long way in stopping falsehoods being spread than banning content and  sections like 66A&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:54&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Eric&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;@Lawrence Liang. Precisely. One has to be cautious of underestimating or  belittling the input from regular users of the subject. Giving more  deliberative platforms can only encourage participation and education of  its users.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:54&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Guest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;A case will be governed by the law applicable on the date the offence  was committed, unless otherwise stated. Therefore, I think the ruling  will be prospective only&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:55&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Neel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;What is the weight that precedent has in our legal system? For instance  what will it take for a judge to say the previous judgements on sedition  are too restrictive?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: We are totally a precedent based system, but preedents  can be enabling and restrictive, so the way it develops is through slow  processes of comparing and distinguishing&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:55&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Neel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;What is the weight that precedent has in our legal system? For instance  what will it take for a judge to say the previous judgements on sedition  are too restrictive?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:55&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest Yes, I think that's correct.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:55&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Shiva&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;What does the judgement imply for posting adult/sexually explicit/pornographic content online?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: It does not affect that: We have obscenity laws under  the IPC as well as special obscenity provisions within the IT act that  deal with it&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:56&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Utkarsh&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;SC proves how powerful our democracy is. It is good that citizens are  free to post anything they want now, but shouldn't we try to teach the  people their responsibilty with this freedom?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:56&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Geetha your thoughts on that?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:56&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Vikas&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Rather debating we should demand action on such people who in real sense  do the offending act via speech and social media, arresting some body  who has just shared some views is not right.....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:56&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @Neel It's a hard question. I don't think a Supreme Court  bench will be able to directly overrule the sedition case. That was  decided by a five-judge bench, and so you;d need a seven-judge bench to  actually overturn it. I think what we can try and argue is that in the  50 years since the Court upheld sedition, the foundations of that  decision have been so greatly undermined by succeeding cases, that at  least in 2015, sedition is unconstitutional. It's a hard argument to  pull off, but I think it's worth a shot.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:57&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Guest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The population has moral responsibility to not spread rumours over SM  &amp;amp; the citizens need to be mature enough to not take everything too  personally. You have the choice of ignoring what you deem offensive. If  any of the above fail, it is because the society has failed, not the  legal system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From zenmist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;what if i get cyber bullied ! Do I have any recourse now ?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5:59&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From kkamal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;implementation still a matter of concern&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: Certainly, and esp for the intermediary guidelines.  Often when a court reads down a provision, rather than striking it down,  there is a gap between the law and enforcement&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Zeminist yes - for instance, under criminal intimidation provisions in the IPC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:00&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Guest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Can we not issue guidelines for social sites like facebook twitter and  others to filters such content from being posted(I think it'll show some  pop-up in general.?)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:00&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan: @Utkarsh: Perhaps. However, the freedoms enshrined in  out Constitution say our freedom of speech and expression can be  restricted by the government only under specific circumstances: see  http://indiankanoon.org/doc.... The _government's_ restrictions on  speech must abide by these - whether they teach citizens what is  (morally) right to speak or not is different from what we have a right  to say. As Gautam has mentioned before, Article 19(1)(a) gives us the  right to "offend, shock or disturb".&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:00&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest - the problem with filters are that they are *invariably* over-inclusive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:01&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Vibhu&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;This decision once again upheld citizen's belief in the constitution and  the Supreme Court. But this power also comes with an added  responsibility to the citizens to be sensitive towards the emotions of  communities and other sections of the country.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @Vibhu Absolutely. This is why it's important to make a  distinction between two important ideas - the fact that it is your  *right* to do or speak in a certain manner doesn't always mean that you  *ought* to speak in that manner.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:02&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Negi Gaurav&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Striking down 66A is good for democratic values and citizenry  expression. It will enhance the power of common mass and will affect  political procedure. Free speech is fundamental right of Indian citizen ,  However judicious use of right is necessary to check hate crime.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:03&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Guest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We appreciate the verdict... It was much needed but there still is a  question still unanswered, why do we need judicial activism to strike  all those laws that are pushing us back by several decades. If such laws  are always have to be decided by Supreme court, what do we have  legislature for?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:03&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Pankaj&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;A welcome judgement by SC today. Section 66(A) was indeed an  uncontitutional provision which accounted for few arrests considering  the arbitrary and vague terminologies. But, certainly regulation of  speech over internet should be regulated in a more robust and  comprehensive manner&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:04&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest To be fair to our parliaments, legislatures all  over the world restrict speech, and it falls to the Court to correct  them. Legislatures are composed of human beings like us, and often,  because of the position they are in, they tend to overestimate the  dangers of free speech, and underestimate its importance. But that's why  we have a constitutional court. :)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: If taken to its logical extreme, does the SC verdict mean that anything goes on the internet?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:07&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Serendipity&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;@The Hindu: Free Speech is not absolute. There are always restrictions. It depends on how the law is drafted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Vibhu&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;@Hindu. No not anything goes on the internet. All elements like  pornography, abuse, etc which are illegal in general sense also applies  to the internet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:08&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: @TheHindu No. The SC expressly says that speech which  bears a proximate relationship to any of the 19(2) categories may  legitimately be restricted. Many of the speech-regulating provisions of  the IPC do just that. These provisions are agnostic towards the medium -  for instance, defamation will be punishable whether it happens offline,  or over the internet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:08&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From charan malhotra&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;our Sc lifted great barricade in the freedom of speech.. but even if any  one explicit n posts the images of others n morphing ? then what could  be the next step to take an action on those convicts?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan: @charan: Other provisions are still in operation under  the IT Act and IPC that can be used. For example: Section 66D (cheating  by personation), 66E , etc. I would urge you to look at Section 67, 67A  and 67B of IT Act as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From manoharan&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;right to experss includes right to go online in thought&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:11&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan: @TheHindu: No. Restrictions placed under one or more  of the conditions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are legitimate  (online and offline). Also, offences under the IPC (Sections 153A,  295A, 292) continue to apply. As also the offences under the IT Act,  which target online speech (Sections 66E, 67, 67A and 67B, for  instance).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:11&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: By the way, as an aside, I'd like to add - this judgment  is extremely lucid and accessible, and really eloquent at times. Do read  it. 123 pages sounds like a lot, but it's easy reading - shouldn't take  more than an hour.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:09&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Lawrence Liang: @The Hindu Not at all, we still have all of the good old  speech restrictive laws including in the IPC, it is important to  remember that even in the past 66A cases, they have rarely been filed in  islation, and are usually accompanied by 124A, 153A or 295A of the IPC&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:09&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Comment From Dhruv&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;A Great Decision to uphold Free Speech. We do not want to be Police  State like CHINA but our Indian legislators are slowly taking the  country far from Democracy and denying civil rights to civilians. Great  decision from Supreme Court. This is a lesson for the indian politicians  who think they can play with our fundamental rights and impose their  narrow mindset on us.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: Thank you all so much for joining the chat.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:14&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: The panellists and readers!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:15&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan: Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:15&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Gautam Bhatia: Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6:15&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The Hindu: And for making this a lively and informative debate. Watch this space for more live chats on emerging issues.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>praskrishna</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>IT Act</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Censorship</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Freedom of Speech and Expression</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Chilling Effect</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-03-26T16:07:06Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>




</rdf:RDF>
