Centre for Internet and Society

Is India’s website-blocking law constitutional? – I. Law & procedure

geetha — 2014-12-11T11:02:01Z

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with its corresponding Rules, set out the procedure for blocking of websites in India. Over two posts, Geetha Hariharan examines the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.

Introduction:

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) is no stranger to litigation or controversy. Since its enactment in 2000, the IT Act has come under stringent criticism, both for the alleged Constitutional infirmities of its provisions and Rules, as well as for the way it is implemented. In recent years, Sections 66A (re: criminal liability for offensive, annoying or inconveniencing online communications), 67A (re: obscene 69A (re: website-blocking) and 79 (re: intermediary liability) have all come under attack for these reasons.

Today, these Sections and several others have been challenged before the Supreme Court. A total of ten cases, challenging various Sections of the IT Act, are being heard together by the Supreme Court. This is a welcome occasion, for the IT Act desperately needs judicial review. Nikhil Pahwa over at Medianama provides an update and the list of cases.

Among the challenged provisions are Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A. Section 66A was and continues to be used wantonly by the State and police. A student was recently arrested for a Twitter comment regarding Cyclone Hudhud, while anti-Modi comments led to several arrests earlier in the year (see here, here and here). At CIS, we have previously subjected Section 66A to constitutional analyses. Pranesh Prakash traced the genealogy of the Section and its import in targeting offensive, annoying and inconveniencing communications and spam, while Gautam Bhatia examined the Section’s overbreadth and vagueness. The casual wording and potential for misuse of Section 79 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 led Ujwala Uppaluri to offer strong arguments regarding their violation of Part III of the Constitution.

Similar infirmities also handicap Section 69A and its Rules. This provision empowers the Central government and officers authorised by it to order the blocking of websites or webpages. Website-blocking is permissible for reasons enumerated in Section 69A, and in accordance with the process laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public (sic)) Rules, 2009 (“Blocking Rules”). In our view, Section 69A and the Blocking Rules are also unconstitutional, and liable to be declared as such by the Supreme Court. We provide our analysis in this post and the next.

Section 69A, IT Act:

Section 69A and the Blocking Rules provide for website-blocking in accordance with enumerated reasons and process. The Section reads as follows:

69A. Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.-

(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.

(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

As you will notice, the Central government may block any information that is “generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted” in any computer. This will extend, clearly, to any webpage available and/or hosted in India. The Government can order website-blocks if it is satisfied of the necessity or expedience for this on the basis of (any of) six reasons. These reasons are:

Sovereignty and integrity of India,
Defense of India,
Security of the State,
Friendly relations with foreign states,
Public order,
Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.

If the Central government is convinced it has a valid reason, then it must follow the blocking procedure set out in the Blocking Rules, which were notified on 27 October 2009. Before entering into an analysis of the Blocking Rules, let us understand the blocking procedure.

The Blocking Procedure:

I will explain the blocking procedure in 4 steps: (1) Relevant designations and committees; (2) Procedure to make and examine a blocking request, and issue blocking direction; (3) Blocking in special circumstances; and (4) Review of blocking directions.

(1) Relevant designations and committees:

Designated Officer (“DO”): The Central government notifies an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary as the Designated Officer, who will issue the blocking direction ot the relevant intermediary or agency [Rule 3]. By a notification dated 20 January 2010, the DO is the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division, Department of Information Technology (DIT). Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division on the website of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY, the name to which DIT was renamed in 2012). I am also unable to find a notification updating the designation of the DO. Presumably, Dr. Gulshan Rai, Director General (Cyberlaws & E-security), DeitY, continues to be the DO.

Nodal Officer (“NO”): Every organization designates one of its officers as a Nodal Officer, who will receive blocking requests and forward them to the DO [Rule 4]. ‘Organisation’ is defined in Rule 2(g) as Ministries or Departments of the Government of India, State governments and Union Territories, and any Agency of the Central government notified in the Official Gazette. I am unable to find on the DeitY website a notification explaining which government Agencies are ‘organisations’ under Rule 2(g).

Intermediary Contact: Every intermediary also designates one person to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO [Rule 13].

Committee for Examination of Request (“CER”): The 5-membered CER comprises the DO as Chairman, along with officers not below the rank of Joint Secretary from the Ministries of Law & Justice, Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and CERT-In [Rule 7]. The CER examines each blocking request, before issuing recommendations to the DO to block or not to block. Regrettably, I am unable to identify the current membership of the CER, as no document is available that gives this information. However, the CER’s composition in 2010 may be gleaned (see Annexure III).

Review Committee (“RC”): Rule 2(i) defines the RC as the body set up under Rule 419A, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. As per Rule 419A(16), the Central RC is constituted by the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom).

(2) Blocking procedure:

The Blocking Rules stipulate that the entire blocking procedure, from examining a blocking request to issuing a blocking direction, must be carried out within 7 days from the date on which the DO receives the blocking request from the NO [Rule 11].

(a) Making a blocking request: Any person may send a request for a website-block to an NO of any ‘organisation’ (“outside request”). Alternatively, the NO may himself raise a blocking request. The organization has to examine each outside request and be satisfied that it meets the requirements of Section 69A(1), IT Act. Once it is satisfied, the NO forwards the blocking request to the DO. Outside requests must be approved by the Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory, before they are sent to the DO. [See Rule 6 for this procedure]

(b) Examining a blocking request: Once the DO receives a blocking request, he/she places it before the CER. The DO tries to identify the person/intermediary hosting the troubling information, and if identified, issues a notice seeking their representation before the CER. Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed over fax/email. The person/intermediary has 48 hours from the date of receiving the DO’s notice to make its representation.

After this, the CER will examine the blocking request. It will “consider whether the request is covered within the scope of Section 69A(1)”, and whether it is justifiable to block [Rule 8(4)].

(c) Blocking direction: The DO then places the CER’s recommendation to block or not to block before the Secretary (DeitY) for his/her approval. If and once approval is granted, the DO directs the relevant Agency or intermediary to block the website/page.

(3) Blocking in special circumstances:

(a) Emergencies [Rule 9]: In an emergency “when no delay is acceptable”, the DO passes over the blocking procedure described above. With written recommendations, the DO directly approaches the Secretary (DeitY) for approval of blocking request. If satisfied, the Secretary (DeitY) issues the blocking direction as an interim measure. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the blocking request before the CER at the earliest opportunity (in any case, not later than 48 hours after blocking direction).

(b) Court orders [Rule 10]: If a court has ordered a website-block, the DO follows a procedure similar to an Emergency situation. He/she submits the certified copy of order to the Secretary (DeitY), and then initiates action as ordered by the court.

(4) Review of blocking directions:

The RC is to meet once in 2 months to evaluate whether blocking directions issued under the Blocking Rules are in compliance with Section 69A(1) [Rule 14]. No other review or appeal mechanism is provided under the Blocking Rules. Nor are aggrieved parties afforded any further opportunities to be heard. Also note that Rule 16 mandates that all requests and complaints received under the Blocking Rules are to the kept strictly confidential.

In the next post, I will subject Section 69A and the Blocking Rules to a constitutional analysis.

Blocking procedure poster:

CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (download PDF, 2.037MB).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure

Is India Ignoring its own Internet Protections?

praskrishna — 2012-01-17T05:33:40Z

India’s information technology law of 2008 limits the liability of Internet companies for material posted on their Web sites by users, including anything government regulators deem objectionable. The firms are supposed to be notified of offensive content — by users or the authorities — and then remove it when legally warranted.

If that’s how the system is supposed to work, then why did the Indian government just sanction a criminal lawsuit against Google, Facebook and 19 other companies that all but ignores those protections in the information technology law?

That is one of the most puzzling elements of the legal drama over free speech on the Web that is unfolding in New Delhi.

The case against the companies, brought by Urdu weekly journalist Vinay Rai, accuses them of violating various provisions of India’s criminal code by allowing material that is mocking or offensive to religious and political figures to stay on their social networking sites. There are charges of inciting communal passions and disturbing public order – catchall stuff normally meant to give police tools to rein in hooligans.

The punishments for these criminal offenses can include several years of jail time and stiff fines. That these elements of the criminal code are now being used to target Internet companies is somewhat bizarre, especially when one considers the apparently careful lawyering that went into drafting protections for Internet companies a few years ago.

As Google and others fight the charges – today they are continuing an appeal in Delhi High Court to quash the case – they will likely make the case that the courts cannot ignore India’s I.T. law. “It isn’t a trivial defense – the court cannot dismiss it,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, a civil liberties advocacy group. “The I.T. act provides immunity to (Internet companies) and that should be the default starting position.”

A spokesman for India’s telecom ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. We’ve described Mr. Rai’s rationale for filing the lawsuit in a separate post.

The crackdown on Web companies couldn’t come at a worse time for the emerging Internet sector in India, which many analysts believe has a potential to grow from about 100 million users to more than 300 million within a few years if nurtured. Facebook and Google representatives declined to comment on the case.

The protections for Internet firms are fairly clear in Section 79 of the 2008 law, known as India’s I.T. Act Amendments. An “intermediary,” or Internet firm, “shall not be liable for any third party information, data or communication link.” There are several caveats, of course – the company can’t initiate or solicit the harmful post and can’t coordinate with the offender. Under the rules that India put into place last April to implement the act, companies must remove material that is “grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory” as well as anything “ethnically objectionable, disparaging” or “otherwise unlawful in any manner.”

Internet companies and civil society advocates weren’t happy with those guidelines, finding them far too draconian and subjective. But at least the law required that the companies be notified of such content and be given a chance to remove it within 36 hours. (The punishments for not removing offensive content within 36 hours would depend on the underlying laws governing that content in India; in general, prison time and fines would both be possible.)

In the case of the Vinay Rai lawsuit, such procedures don’t appear to have been followed. Google has told the court it hasn’t seen the allegedly offensive material or been notified about it. Mr. Rai says he didn’t flag the content to Google or others, because he believed his duty as a citizen was to notify the government.

What was the point of passing the I.T. law if it’s being swept to the side?

The article by Amol Sharma was published in the Wall Street Journal on 16 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/is-india-ignoring-its-own-internet-protections

Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?

praskrishna — 2013-02-03T10:50:52Z

This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports

This post by Mahima Kaul was published in Index on Censorship on January 18, 2013.

Index on Censorship, in partnership with The Editors Guild of India, hosted a debate in New Delhi on Tuesday (15 January) asking, “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Discussing the topic were Ajit Balakrishnan (founder and Chief Executive of rediff.com), Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes, Sunil Abraham (Executive Director of the centre for Internet and Society), and Professor Timothy Garton Ash, Director of the Free Speech Debate project.

Sunil Abraham questioned the idea of technology specific “internet freedom” that has been advocated by many not least the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said there was for instance much greater freedom and diversity on Indian TV than in the US. He also argued that that this freedom does not seem to extend to a right of access to knowledge, as demonstrated by the charges brought against open access activist and developer Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide earlier this month. Swartz was facing charges for allegedly downloading 4.8 million academic articles from subscription-only digital library JSTOR.

Abraham said one unintentional effect of censorship by governments is that it teaches citizens how to protect themselves online. Finally, he questioned the Indian government’s draconian laws and arbitrary actions in the digital realm, wondering whether this is the authorities’ way of warning future netizens about “acceptable online behaviour”, to condition the public not to criticise the government and to create a chilling effect.

Digital

Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?

18 Jan 2013

This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports

Freedom of expression is always under threat and in need of defending, argued Timothy Garton Ash. However, he didn’t think the threat was particularly high today in the digital realm — rather the threats to privacy were what were particularly concerning online. With 76.8 per cent of India’s 1.2 billion population connected by mobile phone, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the prevalence of freedom of expression brought about by new technologies. But he said there are also a lot of challenges to free expression in India — and that “swing states” such as Brazil and India will be very important in determining where the global conversation goes on freedom of expression

Ajit Balakrishnan, founder of web portal Rediff.com, explained that many of the problems that have occurred in the digital realm in India have to do with poor drafting of legislation. He was particularly concerned about intermediary liability and explained why and how intermediaries roles needed protecting. He also explained that government officials have genuine problems with phrasing, and that when it comes to the application of these laws, understanding them and when they should be applied will take another 25 years. He added that the country is challenged by a legal system ill-equipped for coping with new technologies.

Kirsty Hughes said that freedom of expression is a universal right, meant to be applied across borders not just within countries. She said that while the digital domain allowed a big expansion in freedom of expression there were risks we are heading towards a more controlled net, a partially censored net, and a fragmented net (for instance with Iran attempting to build its own internet disconnected from the rest of the world). She said that some of the negative reactions by government to social media in India were seen to in the UK where there had been a trend towards criminalising supposedly offensive comment — although the new interim guidelines on social media prosecutions were a step in the right direction. Hughes emphasised three main concerns — state censorship, privatisation of censorship and the role of big companies, and mass surveillance. She pointed out that the British government had pushed for extensive surveillance with the Communications Data Bill, but this has now been shelved after a critical report from MPs.

Ramanjit Singh Chima, policy adviser for Google, said that the question is not about absolute freedom, but about what is appropriate and lawful. He emphasised that in the US, judges had strongly defended free expression online as they saw the digital world as a powerful space for free exprssion. He pointed out how effective social media tools, including Google’s own products, have become in helping during emergency situations like natural disasters and terrorist attacks. He also pointed out that the internet is not only about free expression but business as well. The internet contributes to 1.6 per cent of India’s GDP. Singh Chima said positive judgements by US and EU courts protect the users, adding that regulation for the net should be appropriate for its engineering.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-mahima-kaul-january-18-2013-is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-the-digital-age

Is freedom of expression under threat in digital age?

praskrishna — 2013-01-17T06:16:09Z

With social networking site Facebook boasting of 1 billion members globally and micro-blogging site Twitter claiming millions, opinion was divided on whether the freedom of expression was under threat in the digital age.

This article was originally published by Indo Asian News Service on January 16, 2013. It was also covered in Business Standard, Vancouver Desi, DNA, and Tech2. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

"Censorship of content should be the last resort as curbing a particular content online actually amplifies its spread over the internet," said Sunil Abraham from Centre for Internet and Society.

He was speaking at a panel discussion organised by London based Index on Censorship and the Editors Guild of India on the issue at the India International Centre Tuesday evening.

"The government has refused to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act which is used to curb free speech on the net," said Guild chief TN Ninan who moderated the debate. "The law treats digital media differently than the print media," he said.

Director of Free Speech Debate, Oxford University, Timothy Garton Ash said, "There was no threat to the freedom of speech as internet was actually an opportunity for spreading freedom of expression."

India with the large number of net users could act as swing state between two extremes of China which is trying to control the net and the US which champions free speech, he said.

"The question is what are the legitimate limits of free speech rather than asking for unlimited speech," said Ash.

Ajit Balakrishnan, CEO and founder of online portal rediff.com, said "there was a sense of powerlessness among nation states as only local laws applied to any such violations."

He said the internet was not so democratic as it sounded as the actual numbers of users who posted content on Facebook were just 8-9 million while the rest just watched. The same was with Twitter with just 7-8 percent users actually posting messages.

Kirsty Hughes, CEO, Index on Censorship, said "freedom of speech was universal" while noting a "worrying trend that increasingly governments were moving to control the internet."

"The risks of such controls are that we could have a much more controlled, censored and fragmented internet," she said.

Ramanjit Singh Chima of Google India stressed on the need to have laws to protect internet freedom as such curbs affected livelihood of many users and contributed to local economies.

He said the internet allowed people to instantly collaborate and publish critical information during emergency situations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ians-news-is-freedomexpression-under-threat-in-digital-age

Is free speech an Indian value?

praskrishna — 2013-04-30T07:18:10Z

Is freedom of speech and expression deeply accepted in Indian society? Or is it merely a European cultural import that made its way along with the English language and appeared in the Constitution because of the founding fathers' genius? Satarupa Sen Bhattacharya reviews Freedom Song, a film and connects the dots.

Satarupa Sen Bhattacharya's blog post was published in India Together on April 27, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh is quoted.

Debates on freedom of speech can be traced back to the earliest evolutions of human society, but if there is a time which could be considered most apposite for this debate to come to the fore and dominate public thought and discourse, this surely would be it for Indian society.

From the banishment of literary icons such as Salman Rushdie to repeated assaults on artists and cartoonists seeking to express their viewpoints through their art, and even the gag on the common man’s voice in traditional and new media, freedom of speech and expression has found itself under fire increasingly and in the most alarming of ways.

Is India as a nation becoming more intolerant of contrarian perspectives, or is it merely that voices seeking to stifle dissent are now amplified, thanks to a greater number, as well as newer forms, of media covering this debate?

Can India really achieve free speech in the way that its founding fathers conceived of and constitutionalized it?

These are the questions probed in Freedom Song – a 52-minute documentary from the Public Services Broadcasting Trust, co-directed by veteran journalist, author and academic Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Professor Subi Chaturvedi.

Freedom Song, the film

Interestingly, since the time Freedom Song was conceived of and filmed, the clamp-down or attacks on free speech in India have only become more frequent and flagrant. This was made much before the time that Salman Rushdie, in almost a repeat of the 2010 Jaipur Lit-fest incident, was stopped by the state from attending the screening of Midnight’s Children in Kolkata; or when two young girls from Palghar in Maharashtra were arrested by the police merely because one of them had questioned on Facebook the derailment of normal life in Mumbai following Balasaheb Thackeray’s death and the other had ‘liked’ it; or even before the long-awaited Kamal Hassan film Vishwaroopam was banned for purportedly offending the sensibilities of a religious community in a few scenes, which the director eventually had to agree to censor in order to ensure that his creation could reach the audience.

Freedom Song, the documentary, chronologically precedes all of these as well as the debate and outrage over sociologist Ashish Nandy’s remarks on corruption and backward castes; yet, when one sees it now, recalls the numerous incidents highlighted in the film, and hears the debates that rage on, the larger context and culture that has facilitated the perpetuation of suppression become clearer. It also drives home, disturbingly, the alarming regularity with which speech and expression have been muffled. It can thus be seen as a commentary on the gradual but consistent build-up to the current climate where there is an almost systematic and continuous crackdown on free speech whenever it inconveniences the powers-that-be.

Gags on expression - recent incidents

In July 2010, when T.J. Joseph, a professor of Malayalam at the Newman College in Thodupuzha (Ernakulam district) in Kerala was arrested by police following a controversial examination question set by him, allegedly containing disparaging remarks about the Prophet Mohammad. He was released on bail but suspended from his post following protests by Islamic organizations. But suspension wasn’t the last of Joseph’s tribulations: he was brutally attacked by a gang of men who chopped off his hand at the wrist with an axe. He was also stabbed in the arms and legs. While Joseph’s hand was stitched back in a 16-hour-long operation, even as he was recuperating, his college terminated his services on grounds that he had offended the religious sentiments of students. He was also stripped of all benefits and pension.

Curiously, Joseph himself distances the entire incident from the issue of freedom of expression. In his conversation with the film-makers he says that whatever happened could be interpreted as attempts to meddle with and dilute academic independence in the state. “The incident is not related to the issue of freedom of expression...external attempts to break down communication between students and their teacher was at the core of the entire episode,” says Joseph. Even Union Minister for Human Resource Development Shashi Tharoor, who hails from the state himself, attributes this incident to the act of some anti-social fringe elements who masquerade as representatives of a particular community. But these arguments from the victim himself, and an eminent authority, cannot resolve the question of his expulsion from service. Nor can they address the fact that the atmosphere of tolerance in the country is such that anti-socials can hijack as simple an academic exercise as question-setting to their advantage and perpetrate such atrocities.

A more recent incident highlighted in the documentary is the arrest and detention of Ambikesh Mahapatra, a professor of Chemistry in Jadavpur University of West Bengal for forwarding a set of cartoons that allegedly defamed Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Shortly after the dismissal of Union Railway Minister, Trinamool’s Dinesh Trivedi, and his replacement by Mukul Roy, the widely-circulated cartoon showed Roy and the CM having a conversation along the lines of one in a very popular Satyajit-Ray film, conspiring to get rid of Trivedi.

Ambikesh was not the creator of this cartoon – as he himself says, he received it on a forwarded email. Amused by it, he wanted to share it with his friends. Thus he forwarded it again to over 60 members of his housing co-operative society, some of whom happened to have affiliations to the party in power. This action led to the professor being arrested and charged under IPC Sections 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), Section 500 (defamation) and Section 66 A of the IT Act (causing offence using a computer). He had to spend a night in jail before he was released on bail the following afternoon.

However, charges against the professor have since been dropped and the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC) ruled that the state police were indeed guilty of harassing the professor (and one of his colleagues, who had also been arrested).

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, co-director of Freedom Song

Muffling creativity

One thing that stands out pretty sharply in Freedom Song is the deep angst shared by the creative fraternity in the country over the assault on free speech. Perhaps, by dint of being that section of society which is most inclined to spontaneous and non-conformist expression, they also constitute one of the most vulnerable groups when it comes to being restrained or gagged.

One of the darkest chapters of suppression of artistic expression in India relates to the forced exile of iconic painter M F Hussain during the last days of his life, after being targeted for his nudist depictions of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Sadly, as artist Arpana Caur points out, such waves of intolerance or fanaticism fail to factor in either subjective value judgments (how deeply Hussain must have loved Hindu culture and mythology to actually apply his creative instincts to bring it alive) or objective facts (that the nudist paintings were actually done in the ancient Khajuraho tradition of figurative depiction, it was not something Hussain had developed).

Often, the gag on works by artists and writers has transcended to direct discrimination against the person himself. The state of West Bengal banned exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen’s book “Dwikhandito” in 2003 on fears that it would stoke communal disharmony. When human rights activists challenged the decision in Court and managed to win rulings on her behalf, the writer herself was banished from public life in the state. She was unceremoniously asked to leave the state in 2007, after violent protests against her by fundamentalists. Much later in 2012, even after the political reins in the state had changed hands, the launch of her book at the Kolkata Book Fair was cancelled upon threats of protest.

One of the most heart-rending is the story of Pakistani singer Ali Haidar, who confesses to being almost brainwashed, in one of his weakest moments, by radical elements into believing that the loss of his child was in fact a retribution for him having taken up music as a profession.

The feeling of anger, frustration and even a sense of bewilderment among the artists, writers and performers interviewed in the documentary is almost palpable. As Rajiv Lochan, Director of the National Gallery of Modern Art, says, “Freedom of expression, creative freedom…in simple words, that is the only freedom you are born with...” The unuttered question of how anyone can take that away from you hangs heavy in the silence.

If artists are the most vulnerable, they are also perhaps the most resilient. In the context of the various cartoon controversies that this nation has seen and the proscriptions of cartoonists from Shankar to Aseem Trivedi, eminent political cartoonist Sudhir Tailang says, “We cartoonists know only one way of protest, which is the most peaceful, Gandhian way…you do what you want, we’ll draw a cartoon…and more cartoons… we’ll flood you with cartoons.”

The defiance and rejection of censorship is also strongly voiced by noted danseuse Mallika Sarabhai, who talks of the various forms of attack and insult that she has been subjected to for her unconventional presentations and activism, but asserts that despite all of it, she feels it is her “dharma to go on.”

The language barrier

Perhaps unwittingly, Freedom Song tends to favour the premise that freedom of speech as a principle in India is largely a preoccupation among the English-educated, intellectual and creative segments of the populace. Even the musical score that has played such a dominant part in invoking the spirit of freedom throughout the film seems to underline that - from the refrains of Bob Marley’s ‘Won't you help to sing these songs of freedom,’ to the remixed pop version of ‘Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram’ that one hears in parties and joints in India’s westernized urban landscape.

How attuned to the issue of free speech is the wide majority of India, the section that still follows vernacular media and are relatively distanced from the constructs of Anglo-Saxon influence? The verdict on the linguistic divide does not emerge with clear certainty when we talk to intellectuals or thought leaders from various parts of the country.

In the words of academic Subhoranjan Dasgupta, a professor at the Kolkata-based Institute of Development Studies, mainstream Bengali media has played a big role in highlighting transgressions of freedom of speech and expression every time it has occurred, irrespective of the political regime in power at the time.

"Whether in the case of the ban on Taslima Nasreen or the arrest of Professor Mahapatra, local media - and especially two widely-followed dailies, the Anandabazar Patrika and Ei Shomoy - have been audibly vocal and consistent in their coverage of these incidents," says Dasgupta. "Irrespective of political ideologies, the common man in Bengal knows that Taslima Nasreen got a raw deal or that what happened to the professor was not acceptable," he adds. Ostensibly, the role of local media in such public consciousness cannot be written off. In a way, it might not be an exaggeration to say that the voices of these publications have been instrumental, to a large extent, in ensuring that these issues grab the eyeballs of the largest number possible, and hence gain traction.

And yet, a completely different picture emerges as one reaches out to another part of the country. Badri Seshadri, Publisher, New Horizon Media - a Chennai-based company that publishes books in Tamil, and an active blogger, feels that notions of freedom, or free speech, are essentially offshoots of the modern era which have found a voice in our country primarily through English media.

Seshadri goes back to the freedom struggle in India when many among the noted thought leaders and freedom exponents wrote both in English and the local language. In those days, the discourse on freedom of thought and expression were perhaps more at par across spheres. But with the dying trend of bilingual writing, intellectual writing increasingly gravitated towards English. Today, the gulf between English writers and regional writers has become so huge in his state that even the most fundamental of issues are discussed in vocabularies that cannot bridge the schism. Issues pertaining to secularism and democracy are viewed with a completely different lens in vernacular media, and those pertaining to liberalism, not at all.

"Take the case of the most recent ban on Kamal Hassan's Vishwaroopam," points out Seshadri; "this was not a film made in Hindi or English that you could assume to be emotively disconnected from the Tamil mindspace. It was a film that had been made by one of the cult film personalities of the region, and yet even as the national English media followed this issue and consistently questioned the violation of an individual's right to creative freedom, deliberations in local channels and publications were strangely muted and focused only on whether or not the disputed scenes in the film could be considered to be offensive to the Islamic community. The larger debate on whether one has the right to offend, in an impersonal way, was completely missing." Those who want to toe the line of liberalism either through their writing or new media are dismissed as harbouring "fancy" ideals or pandering to Western sensibilities.

Guhathakurta, himself, disagrees with the claim that free expression is essentially a Western construct or that debates around it are restricted to the chattering classes in plush drawing rooms. “It is something that concerns every common man,” he says, referring to the case of Laxmi Oraon, the teenaged tribal girl who was stripped, beaten and molested in the streets of Guwahati, where she had been part of a peaceful protest rally, seeking the inclusion of 80 lakh Adivasis living in Assam in the ST category. Traumatised and deeply angered by the brutal injustice meted out to her and the lack of legal redress, Laxmi eventually even contested the Lok Sabha elections, points out the director in order to elucidate the struggle that even the most marginalized take part in to press for their fundamental rights.


A still from the documentary Freedom Song. Pic: PSBT India via Youtube

"Reasonable” restrictions

Despite the continuous infringements on artistic and even individual expression, what emerges from the film is not a blanket wave of intolerance that is engulfing society but rather certain powerful groups with vested interests who are driven either by fanaticism for their ideologies or by the lure of political mileage to raise voices against freedom. In the age of 24x7 channels, their voices gain in both volume and pitch and new media enables greater visibility and debate around it.

As Tharoor says, “The government has the lowest level of tolerance possible because it cannot be seen as offending anybody who is held precious by any segments of Indian society.”

Veteran journalist Saeed Naqvi points out, “You have a whole link between the politician, the vote bank and the proprietor. Therefore, the freedom of the press, while this trio exists, is under threat.”

But having said all of the above, it is also clear that defining freedom, especially in an absolute sense, is in itself a huge challenge that most of society acknowledges. More so, in the context of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution which itself allows the state to impose “reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right...in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

Senior journalists such as Rajdeep Sardesai are quoted in the documentary, expressing their support for such ‘reasonable restrictions’ to combat the spread of expression or opinion that fuels divisiveness or hatred in society. But the fact remains that such restrictions not only add a qualifier to freedom as enshrined in the founding principles, but also create the larger question of ‘who decides?’

Young India however would prefer to see Article 19 (2) as an enabler rather than as a veto. As Apar Gupta, an advocate of the Supreme Court says in the film, he would like to believe that the incorporation of “reasonable restrictions” was done with a view to ensuring that the Constitution does not remain a static document and does not apply only to fixed definitions of facts and circumstances. Certainly not with the objective of curbing any form of dissent or deviation from convention.

Fali S. Nariman, senior advocate to the Supreme Court and a constitutional jurist, also points out very pertinently that the range of restrictions in 19(2) does not include public interest.

Reality does not bear that out though; especially when one looks at the many recent instances of arbitrary impositions of Sec 66A of the IT Act in booking individuals for expression of their opinion and stances through channels offered by new media and Internet. The documentary in itself does not delve deep into the challenges and threats to freedom of expression that have emerged in the FB/Twitter era, perhaps because many of the most volatile and controversial cases surrounding freedom of speech on the Internet occurred after the film was made. But a new debate is brewing in India, especially after the Palghar incident or the arrest of a Puducherry businessman for allegedly posting 'offensive' text on the micro-blogging site Twitter about the son of an Union Minister.

Snehashish Ghosh, a lawyer and Policy Associate at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, says, “Essentially, there are eight restrictions on freedom of speech and expression as enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in many cases has held that these reasonable restrictions should be construed narrowly and with due regards to the value of freedom of speech in a democratic society. Section 66A in its current form goes well beyond the restrictions laid down under Article 19(2). Therefore, it is liable to be struck down for being in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

Snehashish also feels that technologically, in the present time, it would be near-impossible to 'monitor' the Internet. As far as regulations are concerned, there are laws already in place which ensure the implementation of reasonable restrictions. For example, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 already covers offenses such as incitement of violence, obscenity, criminal intimidation and outraging religious sentiments. The laws which are being applied offline are well equipped to deal with offenses committed online. There is no need to have extraordinary laws where ordinary laws suffice.

But in a country that appears to grow increasingly thin-skinned with time, the import of such logic could well be lost.

Access and freedom

Interestingly, Freedom Song begins with a series of frames capturing the widely different and divergent faces of Indian society, fast moving scenes juxtaposing the educated, affluent sections of urban India against the child who performs on sidewalks to earn his bread or the old emaciated man getting his night’s sleep on the pavement. The clear correlation between access – to basic needs, education and media – and the very consciousness of freedom is hard to ignore.

“Freedom to me is the ability to do what I want, where no one tells me to do anything” says one child on screen, evidently from an English-speaking, relatively privileged background; but one cannot help feeling that his coherence and articulation on freedom would be hard to come across in the children on the streets who are filmed in some of the previous shots.

The point that access to the very basic necessities of life is a necessary condition for freedom of expression is driven home by social activist Ram Bhat in the documentary, who says that despite the technologies aiding free expression, and the profusion of players in this debate, talk of freedom of speech will be pointless unless the problem of access is solved. In its absence, such freedom will remain the privilege of a few.

On balance, in all the voices that emerge from our conversations, and the many more episodes that Freedom Song, the documentary narrates, the only thing that can be concluded without doubt is the challenge of establishing freedom as a perennial or permanent concept in a country as complex and diverse as India. A truly effective and desirable state of free speech and expression can only evolve out of a continuous, fearless, rational dialogue between society and its stakeholders, in which all voices are expressed and heard.

Whether India, as a whole, can facilitate such a dialogue is going to be the moot question in the times to come.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-together-april-27-2013-satarupa-sen-bhattacharya-is-free-speech-an-indian-value

Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen

pranesh — 2012-01-04T08:59:14Z

The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.

Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression

The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.

Intermediary Guidelines Rules

In India, the new 'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies

We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.

Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors

Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.

'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship

Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.

Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act

Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.

The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship

Interview with Pranesh Prakash

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T06:58:39Z

Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society talks to Mint’s Surabhi Agarwal about the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act and the government’s decision to tweak it.

This video was published in LiveMint on November 30, 2012:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash

Internet, social media access should not be blocked: Ban

praskrishna — 2011-12-12T04:16:25Z

Amidst a raging controversy over the federal government’s proposal to monitor content in cyber space, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday said access to the Internet and various social media must not be blocked as a way to prevent criticism and public debate.

In his speech on the eve of the Human Rights Day which was released at the United Nations Information Centre, Ban said: “Today, within their existing obligation to respect the rights of freedom of assemble and expression, governments must not block access to the Internet and various forms of social media as a way to prevent criticism and public debate.”

His comments came a few days after Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal said the government will take steps to stop offensive and defamatory content on Internet sites.

Ban said: “Many of the people seeking their legitimate aspirations were linked through social media.”

Sibal’s comments provoked anger and derision among Internet users. Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said it would be “impractical on the level of scale and on the level of the objective test. What’s offensive for someone might be completely banal to somebody else,” he said. Any ham-fisted government crackdown would “have a high impact on our credibility as a democracy” and risk alienating India’s growing online community, Abraham said.

The story was published in the Oman Tribune on December 10, 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-social-media-access-should-not-be-blocked-ban

Internet users fume as govt blocks 32 sites

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T13:46:25Z

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has ordered Internet service providers to block 32 websites, in cluding popular video-sharing plat forms such as Dailymotion and Vimeo, reportedly over concerns that they are being misused by Islamic State jihadists.

The article by Jaison Lewis was published in Mumbai Mirror on January 1, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The ban has angered free-speech proponents who allege that the Narendra Modi government is using national security as a pretext to censor online content. On Wednesday, tweets criticising the restrictions were trending on #GOIBlocks. Senior lawyer Karuna Nandy said that she would challenge the DoT order in the Supreme Court.

Apart from Dailymotion and Vimeo, Internet service providers have also been ordered to block Github and Pastebin, which are popular among programmers; Weebly, a free website creator; and Archive.org, a non-profit digital library.

Some Internet users, however, were able to access some of the sites. This could be because their Internet service providers have not yet implemented the DoT order or because the government has lifted restrictions on some web addresses, according to activists monitoring the blockage of the websites.

The order was issued under Section 69A (procedure for blocking public access) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The section allows authorities to block websites without giving any formal reason or making any public announcement.

However, Arvind Gupta, BJP's national head for information and technology, tweeted that the sites had been blocked over security concerns. "The Web sites have been blocked based on an advisory by Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS.The sites that have removed objectionable content andor cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked," he wrote.

Gupta, however, did not explain how the sites were being misused by terrorists. Some of the sites are mostly frequented by programmers looking for open-source software and codes.

Nandy, a Supreme Court lawyer who specialises in human rights litigations, criticised the ban. "I will challenge the order in the Su preme Court this week. I will seek directions to lift the secrecy surrounding such bans and also request for a right to appeal," she said.

She added that censoring the Internet was against the idea of free expression guaranteed under the Constitution. "Such steps are not good for a healthy society," she said.

Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with the Centre for Internet and Society and one of the most vocal opponents of the blockage, said that the people had the right to know why the websites had been blocked.

"We still don't know why these blocks were issued: was it an overzealous copyright lawyer who found an indulgent judge to issue an overbroad and baseless order? Or was it a public servant who wrongly directed the Department of Electronics and IT to block the sites under the IT Act? We have no idea," said Prakash, who tweeted a picture of the DoT order on Wednesday.

He added that websites were frequently blocked without clear evidence of wrongdoing. "These laws must be changed," Prakash said.

Internet users also voiced their anger over the DoT order. "This only proves ATS is an idiot. If terrorists use buses, phones & Whatspp, you'll block whole system? #GOIBlocks," Poonam Sharma tweeted.

Some users retweeted a Modi post from August 2012: "As a common man, I join the protest against crackdown on freedom of speech!"

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/mumbai-mirror-jaison-lewis-jan-1-2015-internet-users-fume-as-govt-blocks-32-sites

Internet users flay Mumbai girls' arrest over Facebook post

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:35:04Z

The arrest of two girls over their Facebook post on shutdown in Mumbai for Bal Thackeray's funeral on Monday again opened a can of worms with netizens calling the move a "social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Social media was abuzz with tweets and posts about the arrest, with most referring to the arrest as yet another move to curb freedom of speech on the Internet.

This post was published by IBN Live on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Noted journalist Gautam Chikermane tweeted "First Pondicherry businessman, now 21 year old Palghar girl. Next: all of us. Social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Minister of State (Communications and IT) Milind Deora tweeted: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire".

Communication specialist Alyque Padamsee expressed shock at the arrest and the vandalism at the clinic of one of the girl's uncle. "I want to know how these girls have broken the law when all they said is that why should Mumbai come to a standstill. There is nothing derogatory against Thackeray. I do not see anything illegal in that," he said. Padamsee further said the Constitution provides everyone free speech and that "no one should be arrested on such flimsy grounds".

Pavan Duggal, Cyber law Expert and an advocate with Supreme Court also voiced similar views. "This is high time for the government for the review of the law. The government should amend the IT Act so as to narrow down its provisions as some of the these violate our constitutional right of free speech."

He added that it would be a bigger challenge for the prosecution to prove that the statement could incite communal disharmony and violence. "This should not be seen merely as "social media regulation", but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police," Centre for Internet and Society Policy Director Pranesh Prakash said.

The two girls--Shaheen Dhada and Renu--were sent to 14-day judicial custody by a court before which they were produced today but were granted bail within hours after they furnished personal bonds. There was also an attack on the clinic of an uncle of one of them by Sena activists.

The arrests also sparked an outrage with Press Council of India chief Markandey Katju today demanding "immediate" action against police personnel involved. While Dhada was arrested for the post, Dhada's friend Renu was arrested for 'liking' the post. "Police arrested both of them under section 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes). Today, they were granted bail," their advocate Sudhir Gupta said.

The duo was arrested following a police complaint lodged by a local Sena leader. After the comment was posted, a mob of nearly 40 Shiv Sainiks allegedly barged into Dhada's uncles's orthopaedic hospital at Palghar and vandalised the place on Sunday. However, no arrests were made in connection with the attack.

Some other tweets in support of the girls read: "Hatred of minorities, liberals is an epidemic on Twitter. Law shd be harsh on hatespeak not on democratic rights of 21 year olds!Cheerio" (@sagarikaghose) and "So the girl n frnd got arrested for posting stuff on FB did Shiv sainiks get arrested for destroying the doc's hospital?? #Mumbai #Balasaheb" (@SocoMumbai).

Last month, a businessman from Puducherry was arrested on the charge of posting "offensive" messages on social media targeting Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram.

The following image was also being circulated over the Internet and is said to be the Facebook post that led to the girls' arrest:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibnlive-news-nov-20-2012-netizens-flay-mumbai-girls-arrest-over-facebook-post

Internet Speech: Perspectives on Regulation and Policy

akriti — 2019-04-01T16:38:54Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and the University of Munich (LMU), Germany are jointly organizing an international symposium at India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on April 5, 2019

Click to download the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/internet-speech-perspectives-on-regulation-and-policy

Internet Rights and Wrongs

pranesh — 2016-09-22T23:36:14Z

With a rise in PIL's for unwarranted censorship, do we need to step back and inspect if it's about time unreasonable trends are checked?

The article was published in India Today on September 1, 2016. The original piece can be read here.

Over the last few weeks, there have been a number of cases of egregious censorship of websites in India. Many people started seeing notices that (incorrectly) gave an impression that they may end up in jail if they visited certain websites. However, these notices weren't an isolated phenomenon, nor one that is new. Worryingly, the higher judiciary has been drawn into these questionable moves to block websites as well.

Since 2011, numerous torrent search engines and communities have been blocked by Indian internet service providers (ISPs). Torrent search engines provide the same functionality for torrents that Google provides for websites. Are copyright infringing materials indexed and made searchable by Google? Yes. Do we shut down Google for this reason? No. However, that is precisely what private entertainment companies have done over the past five years in India. Companies hired by the producers of Tamil movies Singham and 3 managed to get video-sharing websites like Vimeo, Dailymotion and numerous torrent search engines blocked even before the movies released, without showing even a single case of copyright infringement existed on any of them. During the FIFA World Cup, Sony even managed to get Google Docs blocked. In some cases, these entertainment companies have abused 'John Doe' orders (generic orders that allow copyright enforcement against unnamed persons) and have asked ISPs to block websites. The ISPs, instead of ignoring such requests as instances of private censorship, have also complied. In other cases (like Sony's FIFA World Cup case), courts have ordered ISPs to block hundreds of websites without any copyright infringement proven against them. High court judges haven't even developed a coherent theory on whether or how Indian law allows them to block websites for alleged copyright infringement. Still they have gone ahead and blocked.

In 2012, hackers got into Reliance Communications servers and released a list of websites blocked by them. The list contained multiple links that sought to connect Satish Seth-a group MD in Reliance ADA Group-to the 2G scam: a clear case of secretive private censorship by RCom. Further, visiting some of the YouTube links which pertained to Satish Seth showed that they had been removed by YouTube due to dubious copyright infringement complaints filed by Reliance BIG Entertainment. Did the department of telecom, whose licences forbid ISPs from engaging in private censorship, take any action against RCom? No. Earlier this year, Tata Sky filed a complaint against YouTube in the Delhi High Court, noting that there were videos on it that taught people how to tweak their set-top boxes to get around the technological locks that Tata Sky had placed. The Delhi HC ordered YouTube "not to host content that violates any law for the time being in force", presuming that the videos in question did in fact violate Indian law. They cite two sections: Section 65A of the Copyright Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The first explicitly allows a user to break technological locks of the kind that Tata Sky has placed for dozens of reasons (and allows a person to teach others how to engage in such breaking), whereas the second requires finding of "dishonesty" or "fraud" along with "damage to a computer system, etc", and an intention to violate the law-none of which were found. The court effectively blocked videos on YouTube without any finding of illegality, thus once again siding with censorial corporations.

In 2013, Indore-based lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani filed a PIL in the Supreme Court calling for the government to undertake proactive blocking of all online pornography. Normally, a PIL is only admittable under Article 32 of the Constitution, on the basis of a violation of a fundamental right (which are listed in Part III of our Constitution). Vaswani's petition-which I have had the misfortune of having read carefully-does not at any point complain that the state is violating a fundamental right by not blocking pornography. Yet the petition wants to curb the fundamental right to freedom of expression, since the government is by no means in a position to determine what constitutes illegal pornography and what doesn't.

The larger problem extends to the now-discredited censor board (headed by the notorious Pahlaj Nihalani), as also the self-censorship practised on TV by the private Indian Broadcasters Federation (which even bleeps out words and phrases like 'Jesus', 'period', 'breast cancer' and 'beef'). 'Swachh Bharat' should not mean sanitising all media to be unobjectionable to the person with the lowest outrage threshold. So who will file a PIL against excessive censorship?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-today-september-1-2016-pranesh-prakash-internet-rights-and-wrongs

Internet Freedom press conference at the UN Fellows

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T06:03:54Z

Published in Weekly ING on June 22, 2012

A central goal of the program is to share experiences and promote understanding of the importance of a free Internet to freedom of expression and association as fundamental rights of the people studied. Fellows are in Geneva June 19 to 22 at the 20th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. Fellows this year on Internet freedom, all human rights activists and practitioners active in the digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan. . In Geneva, they will participate in a conversation, global webcast of the United Nations, to “global networks, individual freedom”, Wednesday, Juin 20-1000 EDT (14:00 UTC) The 2012 Fellows are: Dlshad Othman (Syria): Mr. Othman is a Syrian activist and software engineer with the Syrians, the digital resources and support for security features so that they can use online communication and advocacy work freely and safely, despite the increased repression of E-Government in the form of censorship, Cyber-attacks and sophisticated monitoring intense.Pranesh Prakash (India): Mr. Prakash is a program manager at the Center for Internet and Society at Bangalore. He works primarily in areas where policies intersect and technology, conduct research and policy advocacy on issues of online freedom of expression, access to knowledge, intellectual property and Internet governance reform Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso). Mr. Kambou is a newspaper reporter and a presenter at Lefaso.net blogs. He wooed and promotes human rights and the values of democracy and freedom of the press. He publishes articles and videos to educate and raise awareness on issues of human rights Sopheap Chak (Cambodia):. Ms Chak is the program director of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR) is a leading Cambodian human rights activist bloggers. It mobilizes youth activists around the country in civic engagement through the Youth Network of Cambodia to change. She is the author of the online Global Voice, UPI Asia Online, and calls Furutre.Andres Azpurua (Venezuela): Mr. Azpurua is committed to the creation of digital tools to allow Venezuelans to better exercise their rights. O He has to create a digital platform that promotes and defends the rights of voters helped. It is also the founder of a digital initiative to establish a voluntary civil society to the right of the Milli Venezuela.Emin (Azerbaijan) is to be promoted: Mr. Milli is a writer and dissident who has actively used online networking tools, to disseminate information on violations of human rights in Azerbaijan. He was in for 16 months for his critical views on the Government of Azerbaijan in prison. He was pardoned in 2010 and is currently writing his doctoral work in London, the “New Media and the Arab revolutions”. U.S. Mission Photo by Eric Bridiers.

Internet

Image the U.S. mission in Geneva

The Internet Freedom Fellows Program of the U.S. State funded Department and administered by the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, provides human rights activists around the world in Geneva, Washington, and Silicon Valley to work with other activists, U.S. and international to meet government and members of civil society and the private sector in technology and the human rights involved. A central goal of the program is to share experiences and promote understanding of the importance of a free Internet to freedom of expression and association as fundamental rights of the people studied. Fellows are in Geneva June 19 to 22 at the 20th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. Fellows this year on Internet freedom, all human rights activists and practitioners active in the digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan. . In Geneva, they will participate in a conversation, global webcast of the United Nations, to “global networks, individual freedom”, Wednesday, Juin 20-1000 EDT (14:00 UTC) The 2012 Fellows are: Dlshad Othman (Syria): Mr. Othman is a Syrian activist and software engineer with the Syrians, the digital resources and support for security features so that they can use online communication and advocacy work freely and safely, despite the increased repression of E-Government in the form of censorship, Cyber-attacks and sophisticated monitoring intense.Pranesh Prakash (India): Mr. Prakash is a program manager at the Center for Internet and Society at Bangalore. He works primarily in areas where policies intersect and technology, conduct research and policy advocacy on issues of online freedom of expression, access to knowledge, intellectual property and Internet governance reform Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso). Mr. Kambou is a newspaper reporter and a presenter at Lefaso.net blogs. He wooed and promotes human rights and the values of democracy and freedom of the press. He publishes articles and videos to educate and raise awareness on issues of human rights Sopheap Chak (Cambodia):. Ms Chak is the program director of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR) is a leading Cambodian human rights activist bloggers. It mobilizes youth activists around the country in civic engagement through the Youth Network of Cambodia to change. She is the author of the online Global Voice, UPI Asia Online, and calls Furutre.Andres Azpurua (Venezuela): Mr. Azpurua is committed to the creation of digital tools to allow Venezuelans to better exercise their rights. O He has to create a digital platform that promotes and defends the rights of voters helped. It is also the founder of a digital initiative to establish a voluntary civil society to the right of the Milli Venezuela.Emin (Azerbaijan) is to be promoted: Mr. Milli is a writer and dissident who has actively used online networking tools, to disseminate information on violations of human rights in Azerbaijan. He was in for 16 months for his critical views on the Government of Azerbaijan in prison. He was pardoned in 2010 and is currently writing his doctoral work in London, the “New Media and the Arab revolutions”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-freedom-press-conference-at-un-fellows

Internet Freedom in India – Open to Debate

praskrishna — 2013-01-25T10:45:56Z

In the aftermath of an Index on Censorship debate in New Delhi, Kirsty Hughes says India’s web users are standing at a crossroads

This article by Kirsty Hughes was published in Index on Censorship. CIS's research on censorship is quoted.

If debate is a sign of a positive environment for internet freedom, then India scores highly. From debates in parliament, and panel discussions (including Index’s own recent event) to newspaper editorials, blogs and tweets on the rights and wrongs of internet freedom, controls on the web, and India’s position in the international debate, there is no shortage of voices and views.

India has around 120 million web users — a large number but still only about 10 per cent of the country’s population. As cheaper smart phones enable millions more to access the net on their mobiles, India’s net savvy population is set to soar in the next few years. But what sort of online environment they will find is open to question — and to wide debate.

India has some very broad laws that could apply to a wide range of online speech, comment and criticism. These laws have been so far rather randomly applied. But the cases that have arisen — from individuals criticising politicians by email, Facebook or Twitter to some of the big web companies such as Google and Facebook (both facing numerous takedown requests and court cases in India) — show just why India needs to look at limiting both the range of some of its net laws, and to stop these laws criminalising a range of speech.

In 2012, there was widespread outcry in India when two women were arrested for complaining on Facebook about the disruption caused by the funeral of Bal Thackeray, leader of the right wing Hindu party, Shiv Sena. They were arrested under the infamous section 66A of India’s IT Act (2008) which criminalises “grossly offensive” and “menacing” messages sent by electronic means, but also “false” messages sent to cheat, deceive, mislead or annoy, taking online censorship beyond offline laws.

India’s telecom minister Kapil Sibal spoke out against the arrests. And as part of the fallout, guidelines were announced that in future any such charges could only be brought by senior police. But how effective such a restriction might be was challenged, with aTimes of India editorial suggesting “rampant political interference in law enforcement is itself a burning issue…so to argue that senior police officers will always resist mob pressure or political diktats isn’t persuasive.”

Other parts of the IT Act (2008) are also causing a chilling atmosphere in India’s cyber sphere — with new regulations introduced in 2011 obliging internet service providers to take down content within 36 of a complaint (whether an individual, organisation, government body or anyone else) or face prosecution. The law covers a sweeping range of grounds for complaint, including “grossly harmful”, “harassing, “blasphemous” and more. It also is confused on liability – holding intermediaries large and small responsible for content on websites and platforms.

One of India’s leading policy centres on digital issues, the Centre for Internet and Society, decided to test how this 36-hour takedown rule could result in censorship of innocuous and legal content on web sites. They sent complaints to four main search engines across a range of content — and as a result got thousands of innocuous posts removed; a censor’s dream outcome.

Despite a debate in parliament calling for repeal of the 2011 rules, for now they remain.

Some observers suggest the Indian government is catch-up mode, not fully understanding the reach or nature of social media or how to deal with the international range and speed of the web today — something plenty of other governments around the world are showing some confusion about. Some think the lively debate on net freedom in India reflects the voice and demands of the growing Indian middle class. But whether those demands remain pro-freedom is yet to be seen as internet penetration grows apace.

There are some other encouraging signs. While many in India are not keen at US dominance of key parts of internet regulation, there was concern from business and civil society ahead of the International Telecommunications Union summit in December 2012, when the Indian government looked like it might advocate some form of top down control of the web as an alternative. In the event, India, like the EU and US, did not go along with Russia, China and others keen to include net governance into the ITU’s remit.

India is going to be an increasingly influential voice in global internet debates — with its rapidly growing number of netizens and its increasing clout more widely in a multipolar world.

Its healthy and lively debate about digital freedom stands as a beacon of hope in the face of some of its more disturbing laws. But the laws will need to change, if India is to be a country that stands for internet freedom.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-kirsty-hughes-january-22-2013-internet-freedom-in-india

Internet Freedom Fellows Program Emphasizes Defense of Fundamental Freedoms Online

praskrishna — 2012-07-02T06:47:31Z

At the Human Rights Council (HRC), the United States has consistently placed special emphasis on the protection and promotion of the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association, because we understand that these fundamental freedoms are essential to facilitating the exercise of other universal rights.

Published on DipNote, the US Department of State Official Blog

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe serves as the U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council. His blog post was published on DipNote on June 25, 2012.

As activity in the economic, social, and the political realms gravitates from the offline world to the online world, we have an additional responsibility to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are not eroded simply because they are being exercised in the digital realm. The United States is committed to the principle that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected in the online world.

Last week, I had the chance to spend time with the Internet Freedom Fellows, six young human rights activists, each of whom is working in his or her own way to promote and defend freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and all other human rights on the Internet. The Internet Freedom Fellows (IFF) program is funded by the State Department's Innovation Fund and the U.S. Mission in Geneva, and was designed to follow up on Secretary Clinton's pledge to find innovative ways to promote the use of the Internet in support of human rights. The 2012 Fellows are: Dlshad Othman (Syria), Pranesh Prakash (India), Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso), Sopheap Chak (Cambodia), Andres Azpurua (Venezuela), and Emin Milli (Azerbaijan).

The fellows' visit to Geneva coincided with a moment when the Human Rights Council is seized with these issues: The United States and a cross regional group of countries consisting of Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Turkey have joined with Sweden to present a resolution on the Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet. If adopted later this session, this landmark text will mark the first time the Council has substantively addressed the issue of human rights online in a resolution.

As the global community has watched during the past 18 months, individuals across the Middle East, North Africa and beyond have taken to both physical town squares and virtual spaces to express their legitimate aspirations and demand democracy. The Internet has become an essential medium through which journalists, activists, and citizens connect and share information in ways that are changing their societies.

One of this year's fellows is Dlshad Othman, a Syrian activist and IT engineer who has put his own life in danger to assist his fellow Syrian citizen journalists. Sitting next to me at a UN press conference, Dlshad explained how he helps provide Syrians with digital security resources so that they can communicate online freely and securely despite Assad's "electronic army," with its active online censorship and surveillance. Although he cannot currently return to his country, Dlshad is focused on making it possible for the world to hear the voices of people inside Syria. "This is actually the only way that we have at this time, since there isn't any media on the ground."

As the Representative of the United States to the Human Rights Council, I am inspired by these fellows and the courage they've displayed in using the digital realm to advocate for the human rights of their fellow citizens. I will recall their stories and experiences as I work to promote these fundamental freedoms in the Human Rights Council.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/defense-of-fundamental-freedoms-online