The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
Indian government orders ISPs to block 857 porn websites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-august-2-2015-indian-govt-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites
<b>The Indian government has ordered a large number of porn websites to be blocked, creating an uproar among users and civil rights groups in the country.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span>The blog post by John Ribeiro was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2955832/indian-government-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites.html">originally published by IDG News Service and mirrored on PC World website</a> on August 2, 2015.</p>
<p><section class="page">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Telecommunications has issued orders for the blocking of 857 websites serving pornography, said two persons familiar with the matter, who declined to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69 (A) of India’s Information Technology Act allows the government to order blocking of public access to websites and other information through computer resources, though this section appears to be designed to be invoked when a threat is perceived to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The government cannot on its own block private access to pornography under current statutes,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore. “Parliament has not authorized the government to ban porn on its own.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“However, courts have in the past ordered specific websites to be blocked for specific offences such as defamation, though as far as I know not for obscenity,” Prakash added.</p>
<p>Viewing pornography privately is not a crime in the country, though its sale and distribution is an offense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some porn websites were still accessible through certain Internet service providers on Monday, as some ISPs took some time to implement the order. “All the 857 websites will be blocked by all ISPs today,” said a source in the ISP industry, who requested anonymity. “As licensees we have to follow the orders.”</p>
<p>The government could not be immediately reached for comment.</p>
<aside class="desktop tablet smartphone nativo-promo"> </aside>
<p>Reports of the blocks created a furore among Internet users in the country, who criticized the move on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3fdwhm/are_porn_sites_getting_blocked/">Reddit,</a> Twitter and other social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s Supreme Court struck down in March as unconstitutional an Internet law that provided for the arrest of people sending online messages considered offensive or menacing. But it upheld Section 69 (A) in that same ruling, which it described as a “narrowly drawn provision” limited to a few subjects.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a public interest lawsuit <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cant-stop-an-adult-from-watching-porn-in-his-room-says-sc/article7400690.ece">on the blocking of pornography</a>, the Supreme Court last month declined to issue an interim order that would block porn websites at the request of the private litigant, according to a report.</p>
</section></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-august-2-2015-indian-govt-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/idg-news-service-august-2-2015-indian-govt-orders-isps-to-block-857-porn-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-09-13T08:18:33ZNews ItemIndian Court Strikes Down Section of Law Punishing Offensive Posts
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-nida-najar-and-suhasini-raj-march-25-2015-indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts
<b>The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a section of a law that allowed the authorities to jail people for offensive online posts, in a judgment that was regarded as a landmark ruling on free speech in India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Nida Najar and Suhasini Raj was published on the website of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts-749401">NDTV</a> on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The law stipulated that a person could be jailed for up to three years for any communication online that was, among other things, "grossly offensive," "menacing" or "false," and for the purpose of causing "annoyance," "inconvenience" or "injury." The provisions, which led to highly publicized arrests in recent years, had been roundly criticised by legal experts who called them vague and argued that they had been used in some cases to stifle dissent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Calling the wording so vague that "virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it," the court said "if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet & Society, which is based in Bangalore, called the decision "amazing."<br /> "It is in continuation of a great tradition in India: that of apex courts consistently, over the years, protecting the citizens of India from violations of human rights," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is considered by some to be one of the world's most freewheeling democracies, but the law reflected the ambivalence with which Indian officials have sometimes treated freedom of expression, occasionally citing the Constitution's allowance of "reasonable restrictions" on free speech in order to ban books, movies and other material about subjects like sex, politics and religion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government recently blocked the screening in India of the BBC documentary "India's Daughter," about the Delhi gang rape in 2012 that made international news.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The law, the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, was passed by parliament shortly after the three-day terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008. It granted the authorities more expansive powers to monitor electronic communications for reasons of national security. That section was not a part of the court case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the past, critics have been particularly worried that the section of the law that was struck down was ripe for misuse at the hands of police officials often beholden to political parties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, a young man in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh became one of the latest people to be arrested under the law when the police said he incorrectly attributed a polarizing statement to the lawmaker Azam Khan on Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other highly publicized cases include the arrest in 2012 of a professor accused of sharing cartoons mocking the chief minister of West Bengal state on Facebook and the arrest of two young women after one shared a Facebook post criticizing the virtual shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a revered right-wing political leader there. The professor is still contesting his case in court, while the case against the two young women was dropped in 2013, according to the Press Trust of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a separate part of the Supreme Court judgment, the justices made it harder to force websites to take down content, although a legal expert said it remained to be seen how much of an impediment the ruling would be to blocking content.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-nida-najar-and-suhasini-raj-march-25-2015-indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-nida-najar-and-suhasini-raj-march-25-2015-indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T15:40:06ZNews ItemIndia’s Supreme Court strikes down law that led to Facebook arrests
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-march-24-2015-indias-sc-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-fb-arrests
<b>India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a provision of a law that made it illegal to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-facebook-arrests/2015/03/24/9ca54e3c-608f-46d7-a32a-57918fdd9c35_story.html">Washington Post</a> on March 24, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a decision hailed as a victory for free speech, Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman ruled that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional, writing that the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India passed the Information Technology Act in 2000, and an amendment that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-new-internet-rules-criticized/2011/07/27/gIQA1zS2mI_story.html">went into effect in 2009</a> gave authorities broad powers to arrest those who post content deemed “grossly offensive” or false. The offense was punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said that the provision was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam but that it was used much more broadly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The section has resulted in more than 20 high-profile arrests, including that of a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and an artist who drew cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that said Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend who merely “liked” the post also was arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, joined by other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/01/when-and-where-posting-the-wrong-thing-to-facebook-can-get-you-arrested/">When — and where — posting the wrong thing to Facebook can get you arrested</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition, Singhal and other petitioners had argued that a section of the Information Technology Act that allowed the government to block Web sites containing questionable material also was unconstitutional. The court disagreed, however, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free speech is enshrined in the Indian constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often banned or censored out of consideration for the sentiments of religious and minority groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last year, a conservative Hindu group <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-ban-man-indias-self-appointed-book-censor-wields-real-clout/2014/06/23/6f71eca2-b73f-4102-96e0-21d5a52e59a7_story.html">persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book</a> on Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And, more recently, the government halted the planned television debut of a documentary on a 2012 gang rape called “India’s Daughter.”</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indian-government-blocks-film-about-2012-new-delhi-rape-case/2015/03/04/caa166cc-c28a-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html">India blocks film about 2012 New Delhi rape case</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government, whose attorney had argued in court that the legislature was in the best position to understand the needs of the people, also welcomed the decision.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The government is committed to free speech. India is a democratic country, and free flow of ideas should be respected. We do not seek to curtail any rights,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad, the minister of communications and information technology. He cautioned, however, that social media users and platforms should show self-restraint.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In recent years, other nations also have sharply increased monitoring of and crackdowns on Web posts perceived as insulting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Across the Persian Gulf Arab states, dozens of activists have been arrested for social media posts considered insulting to the countries’ rulers or damaging to the national image. In January 2014, an American national was allowed to leave the United Arab Emirates after serving more than eight months in prison for posting a YouTube video spoofing the UAE’s youth culture.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report. Picture: <span class="pb-caption">(Indranil Mukherjee/AFP/Getty Images)</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-march-24-2015-indias-sc-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-fb-arrests'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-march-24-2015-indias-sc-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-fb-arrests</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-27T00:29:08ZNews ItemIndia’s Supreme Court strikes down law that led to arrests over Facebook posts
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts
<b>Judge rules that section of the information technology law was unconstitutional, had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a ‘chilling’ effect on free speech.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/24/indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts.html">'The Star.com' </a>on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court in India struck down a section of its country’s information technology act Tuesday that had made it illegal to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman wrote in the ruling that the section of the law, known as 66A, was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India had first passed its Information Technology Act in 2000, but stricter provisions were added in 2008 and ratified in 2009 that gave police sweeping authority to arrest citizens for their personal posts on social media, a crime punishable for up to three years in jail and a fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam, but it <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/02/06/google_india_facebook_remove_offensive_content.html">did not turn out that way</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and another artist who drew a set of cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that argued the city of Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend, who merely “liked” the post, was also arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the government’s law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that another section of India’s technology act that allowed the government to block websites containing questionable material were also unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free speech in India is enshrined in the country’s constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often <a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/02/16/dark_days_for_the_creative_class_in_india_siddiqui.html">banned or censored</a> out of consideration for religious and minority groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2014, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/13/hindu_history_book_yanked_from_shelves_under_pressure_from_india_nationalists.html">withdraw a book</a> about Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And more recently, the government of India blocked a planned television debut of a <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/06/bbc-doc-examines-2012-fatal-gang-rape-of-student-in-new-delhi.html">documentary film</a> on a 2012 gang rape case, <i>India’s Daughter</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T01:49:54ZNews ItemIndia's Supreme Court Axes Online Censorship Law, But Challenges Remain
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-march-25-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain
<b>The Supreme Court of India took a remarkable step to protect free expression on March 24, 2015, striking down controversial section 66A of the IT Act that criminalized “grossly offensive” content online. In response to a public interest litigation filed by Indian law student Shreya Singhal, the court made this landmark judgement calling the section “vague”, “broad” and “unconstitutional”. Since Tuesday's announcement, the news has trended nationally on Twitter, with more than 50,000 tweets bearing the hashtags #Sec66A and #66A.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog entry by Subhashish Panigrahi was originally published by <a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/03/25/indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain/">Global Voices Online</a> on March 25, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A allowed police to arrest any person who sent online communications deemed “grossly offensive” or known to be false. This has enabled the government <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx" target="_blank">take down many websites</a> with allegedly objectionable content. Among various cases since the law was updated in 2008, two people were arrested for making comments on Facebook regarding India's prime minister Narendra Modi and one man was arrested for commenting on public service closures following the death of political leader Bal Thakrey.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The now-defunct Section 66A reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">66-A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.<br /> —Any person who sends, by means of a computer<br /> resource or a communication device,—<br /> (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or<br /> (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal<br /> intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or<br /> (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or<br /> recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet rights advocate and lawyer Pranesh Prakash, who works with the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, has been one of the law's <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act" target="_blank">most outspoken critics</a> in recent years. Immediately following the ruling, he tweeted:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Tweet.png" alt="Tweet" class="image-inline" title="Tweet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nikhil Pahwa, independent journalist and founder of the MeddiaNama blog, <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritutional/">offered his take</a> on the ruling:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">This is a great decision for freedom of speech in India…66A is far too vague, and lends itself to arbitrary implementation by the police, especially phrases like “grossly offensive”, annoyance, inconvenience, ill will. Remember that even the right to offend is an integral part of free speech.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Journalist and author Sagarika Ghose sarcastically wondered if the government of India would retroactively offer recompense for all of the actions taken against citizens for violating 66A.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/sagarika.png" alt="Sagarika" class="image-inline" title="Sagarika" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some were playful in their response to the decision. Siddharth Sing set out to “test” the efficacy of the ruling with a tweet mocking prominent public figures in Indian politics:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_Siddharth.png" alt="Siddharth" class="image-inline" title="Siddharth" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69, which provides authorities with the power to censor websites that “create communal disturbance, social disorder, or affect India's relationship with other countries” was upheld however. The Court has yet to clarify this decision. CIS India's Pranesh Prakash tweeted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately 69A (website blocking) has been upheld despite many issues, incl lack of transparency. Need to read full judgment to see why.</p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash/status/580239299641135105">March 24, 2015</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tuesday's decision comes after the government of India was <a href="http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2015/01/06/indian-netizens-criticize-online-censorship-of-jihadi-content/" target="_blank">heavily criticized</a> in January 2015 for blocking 32 websites in the country.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-march-25-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-march-25-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-indias-supreme-court-axes-online-censorship-law-but-challenges-remain</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-27T02:38:20ZBlog EntryIndia's section 66A scrapped: Win for free speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-march-24-2015-indias-section-66-a-scrapped
<b>India's Supreme Court court has struck down a law that made posting "offensive" comments on the internet a crime punishable by a jail term of up to three years. But, for the free speech campaigners, there is more work to do, writes technology writer Prasanto K Roy.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Prasanto K. Roy was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32029374">published by BBC</a> on March 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A, inserted in 2009 into India's Information Technology [IT] Act of 2000, was sweeping and draconian, and was repeatedly abused across the country, say free speech campaigners.<br /><br />It was challenged in 2012 by a law student, Shreya Singhal, then 21.<br /><br />She filed a public-interest litigation in the Supreme Court, shortly after the arrest of two girls in Mumbai for a Facebook post criticising the shutdown of the city after a political leader's death.<br /><br />One of the two girls had merely "liked" the post.<br /><br />Earlier in the same year, a businessman in south India was arrested for tweeting that a politician had amassed much wealth.<br /><br />A professor at Jadavpur University in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) was arrested for forwarding a cartoon about West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Both were charged under Section 66A, among others.<br /><br />In May 2013, the Supreme Court made arrests under Section 66A tougher - it said an arrest would require the permission of senior law-enforcement officials.</p>
<h3>'A victory'</h3>
<p>The judgement on Tuesday was read out by Justice RF Nariman, who said Section 66A was unconstitutional and directly affected the public's right to know.</p>
<p>"We have no hesitation in striking it down in its entirety," he said.</p>
<p>The order notes that Section 66A violates an article of the Indian constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This judgement is a victory for anyone and everyone who uses the internet.<br /><br />"I am ecstatic. It's a complete victory for us, because the Supreme Court struck it down and held it unconstitutional," Ms Singhal told BBC Hindi moments after the court scrapped the law.<br /><br />Section 66A provided for up to three years in jail for anyone who sent an electronic message that was considered "grossly offensive" or caused "annoyance or inconvenience".<br /><br />Justice Nariman said such terms were vague, and created a sweeping law that was open to abuse.<br /><br />The apex court judgement notes that 66A was based substantially on section 66 of the UK Post Office Act of 1953, which made sending offensive or annoying messages by telephone or telegram an offence punishable by up to a month in jail.<br /><br />That law, last updated in 2003, still retains the terms "annoyance" and "inconvenience".<br /><br />Section 66A's creation, and much of its implementation, happened on the watch of the Congress party-led political regime that lost to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP government in last year's general election.<br /><br />Arun Jaitley of the BJP - the current finance minister and former opposition leader - had criticised the law in the upper house of parliament, after it was reported that the government had blocked nearly 300 websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Once in power, however, the BJP swung around to defending 66A in the Supreme Court, the government represented by additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta.<br /><br />Arrests under Section 66A continued into 2015 - last week, a 19-year-old student in Uttar Pradesh was arrested for a Facebook post on a political leader, and spent two days in jail.</p>
<h3>Next target</h3>
<p>The petitioners and their many supporters, including multiple virtual support groups, are celebrating the order striking down 66A.<br /><br />But there are concerns about another section - 69A - introduced in the same amendment of 2009, which has been retained.<br /><br />Section 69A, which was also challenged in Ms Singhal's and others' petitions, allows the government to block online content that "threatens the security of the state" or fulfils other conditions.<br /><br />Hundreds of websites and web pages have been blocked under 69A, including a government website in 2013.</p>
<p>The apex court's order notes that 69A is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards", and has allowed the section to remain.<br /><br />Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society says: "The Supreme Court judgement is at its best on 66A, but weaker on 69A."</p>
<p>The free speech campaigners say their work is not yet finished.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-march-24-2015-indias-section-66-a-scrapped'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-march-24-2015-indias-section-66-a-scrapped</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T16:19:42ZNews ItemIndia's Online Freedom Advocates Hail Court Ruling on Free Speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-march-24-2015-anjana-pascricha-indias-online-freedom-advocates-hail-court-ruling-on-free-speech
<b>Online freedom advocates in India are hailing a court ruling that struck down a controversial law seen as infringing free speech on the Internet. But in a country expected to have the world’s largest number of web users by 2018, some concerns about net censorship remain.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Anjana Pasricha was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.voanews.com/content/online-freedom-advocates-in-india-welcome-court-ruling-on-free-speech/2693941.html">Voice of America</a> on March 24, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 24-year old law student, Shreya Singhal, who spearheaded the legal battle for overturning the harsh law, said it was the arrest of two young women in 2012 for a seemingly innocuous Facebook post that prompted her to petition the Supreme Court. One woman had criticized a shutdown in Mumbai after the death of a Hindu nationalist leader Bal Thackeray, the other “liked” her post.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Like millions of others, Singhal was alarmed at their detention because she says she could have been the one to post the innocuous comment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It [the law] was punishing people for expressing their views on the Internet, whereas if they did it or they did it on TV or they did nit in newspapers, they would not get arrested for the same views,” she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Scrapping the law on Tuesday, India's Supreme Court said the Information Technology Act was vaguely worded, and did not explain what could be “inconvenient" or “grossly offensive.” The judgment said the law was liable to have a chilling effect on free speech as it strikes at the root of liberty and freedom of expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The law had raised alarm bells after several people were arrested in recent years for posting “objectionable content.” In the latest instance, a 16-year-old boy in Uttar Pradesh state was arrested and released on bail for posting an “insulting” remark about regional party leader, Azam Khan. Among others who were picked up under the law were a professor in Kolkata and a cartoonist in Mumbai.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The previous government, which passed the law, said it was necessary to combat abuse and defamation on the Internet, but critics said it was used by political parties to suppress dissent and criticism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court ruling also made it tougher for the government to order Internet companies to remove online content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham of Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society says local and foreign Internet companies have faced growing pressure for putting up content deemed offensive in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“According to Facebook's latest transparency report, takedown requests and information requests from the Indian government continue to grow, and that is worrying. But that part of the law has been read down. Now when the government sends the takedown notice, it has to be accompany the takedown notice with a court order,” said Abraham.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But free speech campaigners say concerns about online censorship have not completely gone away. The Supreme Court has upheld a law that allows the government to block websites, saying there are sufficient safeguards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Campaigners like Sunil Abraham think otherwise. “Lack of transparency makes it impossible for anybody to tell whether the government is censoring the Internet in a proportionate manner, whether it is working to truly address the real harms that emerge from bad content online. When the court in India bans books or movies, the judgments of these courts are made available to the public."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"But if when it comes to website blocking, this transparency requirement is missing. In fact, the law has secrecy provisions, which prevents ISP’s that receive these block orders from making them available in the public domain,” said Abraham.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The young student, Singhal, who led the legal battle, said she was “overwhelmed” at the victory for online freedom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We are such a diverse society in India with so many diverse and different opinions. It is inherent in us, it is part of us, this democracy, this debate we have,” she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Her views were echoed on Twitter and Facebook by people in India, a country of 1.2 billion people where Internet access is growing rapidly.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-march-24-2015-anjana-pascricha-indias-online-freedom-advocates-hail-court-ruling-on-free-speech'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-march-24-2015-anjana-pascricha-indias-online-freedom-advocates-hail-court-ruling-on-free-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-27T01:43:22ZNews ItemIndia's landmark online speech ruling is step toward greater press freedom
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cpj-march-28-2015-sumit-galhotra-indias-landmark-online-speech-ruling-is-step-toward-greater-press-freedom
<b>In an historic decision, India's Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down part of a law used to silence criticism and free expression. While this marks a pivotal victory that has been welcomed in many quarters, many challenges remain for press freedom in the country.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Sumit Galhotra was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://cpj.org/blog/2015/03/landmark-judgment-for-online-speech-in-india-is-st.php">CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists)</a> on March 28, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act--the vaguely worded provision struck down by the court--criminalized online speech deemed "grossly offensive" or "menacing," along with information for the purpose of causing "annoyance" or "inconvenience." Individuals convicted under the provision could face up to three years in prison. This law, along with others that remain on the books, has allowed India to become a <a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2015/02/in-india-laws-that-back-the-offended-force-editor-.php">paradise for the offended</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The law was challenged by a public interest litigation mounted by Shreya Singhal, in 2012. Singhal, who had just returned to Delhi from her studies in the U.K., was infuriated at how the law was being used to stifle debate and criticism in her home country, according to reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 arrest of cartoonist <a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2012/10/sedition-dropped-but-indian-cartoonist-faces-other.php">Aseem Trivedi</a>, on a range of charges including one under Section 66A, over his cartoons on politics and corruption, caught Singhal's attention. A few weeks later, she learned of the <a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2012/11/arrests-over-facebook-comments-fan-debate-in-india.php">arrest</a> of 21-year-old Shaheen Dhada, who questioned on Facebook the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a politician, Singhal said. Dhada's friend, Renu Srinivasan, who had merely "liked" the comment, was arrested under the law. According to <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-20490823" target="_blank">news reports</a>, both were charged. These cases sparked a national debate on the space for free expression in the world's largest democracy, and led Singhal to challenge the law, she told reporters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It's a big victory," Singhal, who is currently studying law in Delhi, told the media following Tuesday's decision. "The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it's very important for us to protect this right."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is expected to overtake the U.S. as the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-set-to-become-secondlargest-internet-market-by-decemberend-report/article6614417.ece" target="_blank">second largest</a> population of Internet users in the world, behind only China, according to the Internet and Mobile Association of India, a nonprofit group representing the Web and mobile industry. As Internet usage accelerates in India, thanks in large part to the widespread use of mobile devices, there has been an ongoing debate on how best to <a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2011/12/policing-the-internet-in-india.php">police</a>it in a country that has to contend with frequent episodes of violence, civil unrest, and terrorist attacks.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Karuna.png" alt="Karuna Nandy" class="image-inline" title="Karuna Nandy" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Karuna Nundy, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India who helped the legal challenge, <br />says the country has several laws that are a threat to press freedom. (Geoffrey King) <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang, a lawyer and researcher at the Bangalore-based Alternative Law Forum, an Indian legal research organization, shared in Singhal's welcoming of the decision. "It is important to note that this is the first judgment in decades in which the Supreme Court has struck down a legal provision for violating freedom of speech, and in doing so, it simultaneously builds upon a rich body of free speech cases in India and paves the way for a jurisprudence of free speech in the 21st century, the era of the Internet and social media," he told CPJ.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, an organization that focuses on issues of digital pluralism, called the judgment "a moral victory." He said the decision "furthers free speech jurisprudence in India, but also in all those other countries where an Indian precedent would be important," including many countries in Asia, and places such as South Africa.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As part of the judgment, the court narrowed its reading of Section 79 of the IT Act, under which private parties could submit notice-and-takedown orders directly to Internet intermediaries. The court held that intermediary liability can be pursued only through a court order or other government order, reports said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Liang told CPJ the judgment falls short in some areas.<b> </b>The Supreme Court's <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf" target="_blank">123-page judgment</a> kept in place Section 69A of the IT Act and Information Technology Rules 2009 that allows the government to block websites if the content in question has the potential to create communal discord, social disorder, or impact India's relations with other countries, according to news reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"I would say that if there is missed opportunity in the judgment, it is the clarification of the process of blocking websites. If Section 66A was found to be arbitrary in that its scope covered protected and unprotected speech, then the procedure for blocking websites as laid out in Section 69A is also beset with similar problems," Liang said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to Chinmayi Arun, research director at the Centre for Communications Governance at the National Law University in Delhi, the 2009 rules require blocking requests and implementation to be kept confidential. "This means that speakers will have no way of finding out that the government has ordered intermediaries to block their content. Speakers will therefore not be able to question unconstitutional blocking orders before the judiciary--this is a clear interference with their constitutional rights," she told CPJ via email, referring to online users who could fall foul of the law.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p>Academic in me: As a matter of legal & constitutional analysis, the SC judgment is at its best on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/66A?src=hash" target="_blank">#66A</a>, but weaker on 69A & weakest on 79.</p>
-- Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash/status/580315458923982849" target="_blank">March 24, 2015</a></blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For some journalists, the decision highlights how virtually no national party in India, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is a champion of these rights. In a <a href="http://scroll.in/article/715920/Modi-government-lost-a-political-opportunity-by-leaving-66A-to-the-Supreme-Court" target="_blank">piece</a> for independent news website <i>Scroll</i>, journalist Shivam Vij criticizes the current Narendra Modi-led government for missing an opportunity by not acting decisively to address the problematic law. "It has become routine for India's politicians to avoid taking tough political decisions if they can be left to the courts," he said. "When in power, the BJP is as happy as the Congress to have at its disposal laws that can muzzle voices of dissent."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trivedi told CPJ he agreed that the previous and current government did little to address abuses of the law. Trivedi, who up until the court decision, faced charges under Section 66A, and had joined Singhal as a petitioner in the case, added: "This decision marks a strong first step." The cartoonist's lawyer, Vijay Hiremath, told CPJ that the Section 66A charge has now been removed, but Trivedi still faces charges under the National Emblem Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the striking down of Section 66A is a step in the right direction, many challenges remain for press freedom in India. Karuna Nundy, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India, who was at the forefront of the legal challenge, told CPJ numerous colonial-era laws, particularly in India's penal code, continue to pose threats to free speech and press freedom in India. CPJ has long documented cases of Indian journalists being threatened with <a href="https://cpj.org/2012/12/indian-government-should-repeal-sedition-law.php">sedition</a>, <a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2014/10/big-businesses-attempt-to-muzzle-critical-reportin.php">defamation</a>, and laws that criminalize "<a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2015/02/in-india-laws-that-back-the-offended-force-editor-.php">outraging religious sentiment</a>."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p>Actually, next step(s): a review of the constitutionality of sedition, challenge criminal defamation, constitutionalise civil defamation.</p>
-- Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88) <a href="https://twitter.com/gautambhatia88/status/580241374739476480" target="_blank">March 24, 2015</a></blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But Nundy expressed optimism for the challenges ahead for press freedom in India and elsewhere. She said the judgment shows, "If you do the work, you take the trouble, you make the challenge, you can achieve the kinds of values that you stand for. That is the work that is the duty of all us as national citizens and citizens of the world."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>[Geoffrey King, CPJ Internet Advocacy Coordinator, contributed to this report from Manila]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i><br /></i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cpj-march-28-2015-sumit-galhotra-indias-landmark-online-speech-ruling-is-step-toward-greater-press-freedom'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cpj-march-28-2015-sumit-galhotra-indias-landmark-online-speech-ruling-is-step-toward-greater-press-freedom</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-29T00:55:35ZNews ItemIndia tops list of content restrictions requests, says Facebook
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-17-2015-neha-alawadhi-india-tops-list-of-content-restrictions-requests-says-facebook
<b>India has again topped the list of content restriction requests in the second half of 2014 with over 5,800 requests recorded in Facebook's Government Requests Report released on Sunday.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Neha Alawadhi was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-03-17/news/60211797_1_data-requests-government-requests-chris-sonderby">Economic Times</a> on March 17, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Overall, we continue to see an increase in government requests for data and content restrictions. The amount of content restricted for violating local law increased by 11% over the previous half, to 9,707 pieces of content restricted, up from 8,774," said Monika Bickert, Facebook's head of global policy management, and Chris Sonderby, deputy general counsel, in a statement on the social networking website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Facebook">Facebook</a> saw a rise in content restriction requests from countries like Turkey and Russia, while requests from countries like Pakistan came down. The number of content restriction requests from Pakistan came down to 54 in the second half of 2014 from 1,773 in the first half. The number of content restriction requests from India rose to 5,832 from 4,960 in the first half.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has been the top requestor for content restrictions in the past one and a half years, and the number of these requests and for user account data from the country have consistently been on the rise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook said that while the number of government requests for user account data remained relatively flat in the six-month period, there was an increase in data requests from "governments such as India, and decline in requests from countries such as the United States and Germany".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India made 5,473 requests for user account data in the six months ending December 2014, second only to the United States, which made 14,274 requests in the same period. About 45% of the requests made by India led to Facebook producing some data, according to the report, while 79% of the requests made by the US were complied with.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Of course, the figures are alarming... But it would have been better if Facebook had also given us more information on the kind of data that was being asked for. Now we only have consolidated figures. So what kind of data was asked for, that would have been more useful," said counsel for the Software Freedom Law Centre.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is the second largest market for Facebook, with 112 million users until last year, second only to the United States. According to Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, "the number of content restriction requests are not only high on an absolute number, but even on a per-user basis".</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-17-2015-neha-alawadhi-india-tops-list-of-content-restrictions-requests-says-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-17-2015-neha-alawadhi-india-tops-list-of-content-restrictions-requests-says-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-04-03T17:01:53ZNews ItemIndia High Court: No Takedown Requests On Social Sites Without Court, Gov't Order
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order
<b>Indian police will no longer be able to threaten Internet users and online intermediaries with jail merely on the basis of a complaint that they have posted “offensive” posts online.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Madhur Singh was published in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Bloomberg.pdf" class="internal-link">Bloomberg BNA</a> on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan gave her inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India March 24, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action in such cases only after an order has been obtained from a court or the government (Singhal v.Union of India, India Sup. Ct., 3/24/15).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court struck down in its entirety Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which authorized criminal penalties for sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication services. Opponents of the measure said the section defined “offensive” very vaguely and broadly, and that cases of arrest under the section frequently made headlines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of speech activists and Internet-based businesses welcomed the judgment as a boost for civil liberties, freedom of speech and a conducive business environment for an entire gamut of online businesses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment is good news for intermediaries such as Facebook Inc. and the India-based review site MouthShut.com, both of which have been repeatedly inundated with takedown notices based on complaints against “offensive” posts.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Offensive Posts Were Actionable Under Section 66A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A, added to the Information Technology Act of 2000 through an amendment in February 2009, prescribed imprisonment of up to three years and a fine for anyone who sends via a computer resource or communication device:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;<br />(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or<br />(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A supporting Section 79(3)(b) stated that “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,” the intermediary would have to “expeditiously remove or disable access to that material or that resource.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Together, these sections put ordinary Internet users at risk for arrest for simply posting online and obligated intermediaries such as Twitter Inc., Facebook, MouthShut.com and others to take down content simply pursuant to a complaint.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this month, Facebook revealed statistics indicating that India is second on its global list of governments demanding takedowns.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Court Removes Intermediaries' Discretion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shwetasree Majumder, partner at Fidus Law Chambers, told Bloomberg BNA March 25 that after this decision, any blocking of content can now only take place via a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards, including a hearing to the originator and intermediary either by the designated<br />officer or pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“So intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. are no longer required to judge as to whether the take down notices received by them contain legitimate requests or not,” she wrote in an e-mail. “As an acknowledgement that a true intermediary should not concern itself with the merits of the content posted by third parties, the court takes away the intermediary's discretion as to what content must remain and what must go.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan, program officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that after “reading down” Section 79, the Supreme Court “has relieved the intermediary of its responsibility to judge the lawfulness of content. Now, the intermediary will lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b) (and be liable<br />to prosecution or penalty) only if it does not take content down after receiving ‘actual knowledge of a court order or government notification' requiring takedown of content.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prior to the judgment, an intermediary was required to judge whether a takedown notice concerned unlawful content on its website, which would constitute “actual knowledge” under the section. If the intermediary made an affirmative determination, it was required to take the content down or lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court Strikes Down 66A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Momentum against Section 66A built up over the last three years, particularly after law student Shreya Singhal filed a challenge in the Supreme Court after two Mumbai women were arrested and put in jail for 10 days in 2012 for Facebook posts against a shutdown of Mumbai city following a politician's death.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman heard ten such cases together, and ruled March 24 that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it directly affected the right of the public to know. Holding that Section 66A was “open ended, undefined, and vague” so that “virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net,” the court struck it down in its entirety.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court said that Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries (Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which pertains to an intermediary disabling access to material that is “known” to be violative of Rule 3(2), needed to be read down in the same manner as Section 79(3)(b).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The court, however, upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which gives the government the power to block web content if doing so is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Impact on Intermediary Liability</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Overall, Majumder said that intermediary liability now stands significantly watered down. One particular case this might impact is the currently pending Super Cassettes India Ltd. v MySpace Inc. case before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is considering the validity of the high threshold of intermediary liability prescribed by a single judge in copyright infringement cases.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hariharan wrote in an e-mail that while intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or content hosts may “choose” to take down content when they receive a private takedown notice, they don't “need” to do so to remain immune under Section 79(3)(b) or Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This reduces uncertainty in intermediary liability in India. It will also hopefully keep intermediaries from taking down content in an overbroad manner to escape liability,” Hariharan said, adding that the government nevertheless continues to have the ability to criminalize online acts. For instance, Sections 66B<br />to 67B of the IT Act define and criminalize different online conduct. Additionally, sections of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize speech acts (e.g., Sections 295A and 153A for incitement; Section 292 for obscenity) have also been applied to online acts in the past.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet & Mobile Association of India said in a statement on its website March 24 that the judgment will mark a new phase for the growth and evolution of the Internet in India. While Internet users will no longer fear illegal censorship or harassment, it said that “online businesses, ranging from established international companies to small Indian startups, will be able to take advantage of a more conducive business environment.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IAMAI added that the judgment will be especially helpful to smaller companies such as Mouthshut.com that will “now not be harassed by the frivolous and mal-intentioned notices of take down.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-04-03T06:18:52ZNews ItemIndia blocks access to 857 porn sites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-news-august-3-2015-india-blocks-access-to-857-porn-sites
<b>India has blocked free access to 857 porn sites in what it says is a move to prevent children from accessing them. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The story was published by BBC on August 3, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Adults will still be able to access the sites using virtual private networks (VPNs) or proxy servers. In July, the Supreme Court expressed its unhappiness over the government's inability to block sites, especially those featuring child pornography.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Telecom companies have said they will not be able to enforce the "ban" immediately.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We have to block each site one by one and it will take a few days for all service providers to block all the sites," an unnamed telecom company executive told The Times of India newspaper.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A senior official, who preferred to remained unnamed, told the BBC Hindi that India's department of telecommunications had "advised" telecom operators and Internet service providers to "control free and open access" to <a class="story-body__link-external">857 porn sites</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"There is no total ban. This was done in the backdrop of Supreme Court's observation on children having free access to porn sites. The idea is also to protect India's cultural fabric. This will not prevent adults from visiting porn sites," the official said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In July, the top court had observed that it was not for the court to order a ban on porn sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It is an issue for the government to deal with. Can we pass an interim order directing blocking of all adult websites? And let us keep in mind the possible contention of a person who could ask what crime have I committed by browsing adult websites in private within the four walls of my house. Could he not argue about his right to freedom to do something within the four walls of his house without violating any law?," the court said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.pornhub.com/insights/2014-year-in-review">statistics released</a> by adult site Pornhub, India was its fourth largest source of traffic in 2014, behind the US, UK and Canada. Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society said the directive to block the 857 sites was "the largest single order of its kind" in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The government's reasoning that it is not a ban because adults can still access the porn sites is ridiculous," he told the BBC. The move has caused a great deal of comment on Indian social media networks, with many prominent personalities coming forward to condemn it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Popular author Chetan Bhagat, writer and commentator Nilanjana Roy, politician Milind Deora and director Ram Gopal Varma have all added their voices to the debate.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-news-august-3-2015-india-blocks-access-to-857-porn-sites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-news-august-3-2015-india-blocks-access-to-857-porn-sites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceDigital MediaChilling Effect2015-08-05T01:31:32ZNews ItemIndia 'jihadi' web blocking causes anger
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger
<b>A government block on more than 30 high-profile websites has caused anger across India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The story was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30656298">published in BBC</a> on January 2, 2015. It was also <a class="external-link" href="http://thepuffington.com/anger-at-india-website-blocking/">mirrored in the Puffington Post</a> the same day. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India's Department of Telecoms ordered the blocking of the sites in order to prevent the publicising of "jihadi activities".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After considerable pressure, four of the sites - Weebly, Vimeo, Daily Motion and Github - were unblocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Officials said the other sites would have their blocks lifted if they complied with the "law of the land".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian Ministry for Communication and Information Technology said in a statement: "It was stated that Anti National group are using social media for mentoring Indian youths to join the Jihadi activities."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It went on to say that the primary concern was that users posting material on the sites did not require any authentication, and that identities could be hidden.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The four websites that have been unblocked were said to have worked with the Indian government to address concerns - although it is unclear what changes, if any, have been made.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some users were reporting that they were still unable to reach the apparently unblocked sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, from the India-based Centre for Internet and Society, said: "Any intelligent person can see these sites don't incite terrorism."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="cross-head">'Many complaints'</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ahead of the ban lifting, a Vimeo spokeswoman said: "It is Vimeo's longstanding policy not to allow videos that promote terrorism, and we remove such videos whenever we become aware of them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/blocked.png" alt="blocked" class="image-inline" title="blocked" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We have not received notice from the Indian government concerning such videos and have contacted them requesting the blocking order to identify, and evaluate the video in question."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many internet users in the country are angry that other sites remain blocked, in particular Pastebin - a site used for "dumping" text online anonymously - and The Internet Archive, a US organisation that offers a database of old websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/550202081349353472">The Internet Archive said on Twitter</a> that it had received "many complaints" from users who were unable to access the service.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has a history of sporadically blocking websites, or issuing warnings about online content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In August 2012, <a href="http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19343887">245 sites were blocked by the government</a> in an attempt, it said, to quell violence.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectPress Freedoms2015-01-03T02:48:48ZNews ItemI dare you, I double dare you: Social media celebrates Sec 66A verdict
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-25-2015-vishakha-saxena-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you
<b>Users across social media platforms on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's scrapping of the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, hailing it as a measure that will strengthen freedom of expression online.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Vishakha Saxena published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you-social-media-celebrates-sec-66a-verdict/article1-1330012.aspx">Hindustan Times</a> on March 25, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This is the first SC judgment since the 60s to plainly strike down a law for free expression violation! #66A," tweeted Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash, who tweeted "I AM ECSTATIC!!" minutes after the judgement, was one of the most vocal critics of Section 66A - which made offensive comments online punishable with jail terms - and played a key role in creating awareness about freedom of expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apar Gupta, a representative of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (one of the parties that petitioned the Supreme Court against section 66A), also took to Twitter to jubilantly declare victory.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"My TL is a little crazy right now…This decision means a lot to me. Thank you. I am smiling." he posted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supreme Court advocate Karuna Nundy, who too represents PUCL, expressed her happiness on Facebook.</p>
<p>The top court struck down the provision, described as draconian by many internet rights activists, describing it as "unconstitutional" and a "restriction on free speech".</p>
<p>Section 66A, incorporated through an amendment of the IT Act in 2009, prohibited the sending of information of a "grossly offensive" or "menacing" nature through communication devices. It was used by several states to arrest people over posts on social media that officials claimed were "seditious" or "communally sensitive".</p>
<p>Discussions on social media against the provision had gained pace hours ahead of the court's ruling. Twitter, in fact, was abuzz as thousands used the hashtag #No66A to voice their opinions.</p>
<p>Reddit, known for being unabashed with opinion and language, wasn’t far behind. The first post announcing the verdict was upvoted 96% and garnered 460 points within four hours.</p>
<p>"Supreme Court zindabad! Now can we abuse Azam Khan without any fear?" commented user Apunebolatumerilaila.</p>
<p>Another user, Indian_galileo, wrote, "FINALLY, SOME SENSE HAS PREVAILED PRAISE THE OVERLORDS AT SC THANK YOU SC THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-25-2015-vishakha-saxena-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-25-2015-vishakha-saxena-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T16:33:55ZNews ItemHistoric day for freedom of speech and expression in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india
<b>In a petition that finds its origin in a simple status message on Facebook, Shreya Singhal vs Union of India marks a historic reinforcement of the freedom of speech and expression in India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Vidushi Marda was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/views/Historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-India/articleshow/46681364.cms">Bangalore Mirror</a> on March 25, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">Hearing a batch of writ petitions, the bench comprising Justices Rohinton F Nariman and J Chelameswar considered the constitutionality of three provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provisions under consideration were Section 66A, dealing with punishment of sending offensive messages through communication services, Section 69A which discusses website blocking and Section 79, dealing with intermediary liability.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">The intent behind Section 66A was originally to regulate spam and cyber stalking, but in the last seven years not a single spammer has been imprisoned.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Instead, innocent academics have been arrested for circulating caricatures. The Court struck down the section in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">It held that the language of the section was "nebulous" and "imprecise" and did not satisfy reasonable restrictions under A. 19(2) of the Constitution of India.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Section 79 was meant to result in the blossoming of free speech since it stated that intermediaries will not be held liable for content created by their users unless they refused to act on take-down notices. Unfortunately, intermediaries were unable to decide whether content was legal or illegal, and when the Centre for Internet and Society in 2011 sent flawed take-down notices to seven prominent national and international intermediaries, they erred on the side of caution and over-complied, often deleting legitimate content. By insisting on a court order, the Supreme Court has eliminated the chilling effect of this Section.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">Block orders issued by the Indian government to telecom operators and ISPs were shrouded in opacity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">The process through which such orders were developed and implemented was not within public scrutiny. When a film is banned, it becomes part of public discourse, but website blocking does not enjoy the same level of transparency. The person whose speech has been censored is not notified or given an opportunity to be heard as part of the executive process. Unfortunately, in dealing with Section 69A, the Court chose to leave it intact, stating that it is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards."</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span id="advenueINTEXT">On balance, this is a truly a landmark judgment as it is the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court has struck down any law in its entirety for a violation of free speech.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T02:19:17ZBlog EntryGovt cracks down on cyber jehad network, blocks access to 32 websites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-january-1-2015-govt-cracks-down-on-cyber-jehad-network-blocks-access-to-32-websites
<b>The Modi government is starting the New Year with the resolve to wipe out terror and it has cracked down on websites that have been carrying anti-India views and spreading the propaganda of the Islamic State (IS). </b>
<p>The article <a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/cyber-jehad-network-dot-vimeo-git-hub-daily-motion-source-forge-paste-bin--islamic-state-mehdi-masroor-biswas/1/410787.html">published in India Today</a> on January 1, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reacting to an alert from the antiterror squad of a state police department, the Department of Telecom (DoT) has blocked access to 32 websites. The DoT order that was tweeted by Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Bangalore-based research organisation, said that 32 URLs have been blocked under section 69 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order was reportedly issued on December 16 and it was shared on Twitter on Wednesday. GitHub, Archive.org, Imgur, Vimeo, Daily Motion, Pastebin, sourceforge, justpaste, cryptbin were among the sites that were blocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As reports emerged on the ban of these sites, there was outrage on Twitter on the issue of internet censorship. However, most of the websites mentioned in the list that were to be blocked were accessible. Pastebin and Internet Archive, two websites that have reportedly been blocked, tweeted their views.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If you are from India and unable to visit Pastebin, please email us," Pastebin tweeted on December 19. Internet Archive tweeted on December 31 that they too received complaints from users in India who can't access its website.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reacting to the outrage, Arvind Gupta, national head of the BJP IT Cell took to Twitter and said that these sites have been blocked after an alert from an anti-terrorism squad that most of them were carrying anti-India content from the Islamic State (IS).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We should congratulate the government for taking a preventive and precautionary step in a proactive manner based on an advisory," Gupta told Mail Today.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He added that he does not have any details of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) order and only reacted to the Twitter debate on the subject.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intelligence agencies have been struggling to monitor terror activities on cyber space. There have been reports of terror groups using social media to attract young minds to jehadi ideology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recent arrest of Bangalore-based executive Mehdi Masroor Biswas, who was operating a Twitter handle under the the name @ShamiWitness and promoting the views of the Islamic State, has come as a wake-up call for security agencies. Biswas, an engineer working as a "manufacturing executive" with ITC Foods, was nabbed from his rented oneroom apartment after a news report stated that his was the most popular IS Twitter account with close to 17,000 followers, and his tweets were getting viewed over two lakh times a month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sources said there are close to 30,000 such Twitter handles and other social media forums along with websites that are spewing venom, and little can be done to monitor all of them and act on time. With cyber threat becoming a clear and present danger, the Centre has decided to set up a highlevel committee to only monitor social media and cyber space. Counter-terror officials believe that the jehadi nexus has a huge bearing on India as youth active on social media are vulnerable to the propaganda being carried out online.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other than @ShamiWitness, there are Twitter handles such as @MagnetGas with radical views and pro-IS tone that are now under the lens. What is disturbing is that many such sites are India-specific and some are believed to be handled by Indians.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If there is misuse of Internet and social media, it needs to be dealt with legally. The Internet is like a public place, so if there are extreme views, the state needs to exercise its powers," says D.C. Pathak, former chief of the Intelligence Bureau.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is not the first time that the DoT has clamped down on websites for promoting "objectionable" content. In June 2013, 39 websites that allowed users to share pornographic content were reportedly blocked.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-january-1-2015-govt-cracks-down-on-cyber-jehad-network-blocks-access-to-32-websites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-january-1-2015-govt-cracks-down-on-cyber-jehad-network-blocks-access-to-32-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-01-03T03:29:21ZNews Item