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




    



<channel rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/search_rss">
  <title>Centre for Internet and Society</title>
  <link>https://cis-india.org</link>
  
  <description>
    
            These are the search results for the query, showing results 61 to 61.
        
  </description>
  
  
  
  
  <image rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/logo.png"/>

  <items>
    <rdf:Seq>
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage"/>
        
    </rdf:Seq>
  </items>

</channel>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage">
    <title>Porn block in India sparks outrage</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;
India’s government has triggered a storm of protest after blocking 857 alleged pornography websites, with privacy and internet freedom campaigners, as well as consumers, condemning the move as arbitrary and unlawful.


&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;div&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The article by Amanda Hodge was published in the &lt;a class="external-link" href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage/story-e6frg6so-1227470074078"&gt;Australian&lt;/a&gt; on August 5, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The  order, enforced since Sunday by the country’s main internet service  providers, comes amid debate about the influence of pornography on sex  crime in India, and as the Supreme Court considers a petition by lawyer  Kamlesh Vaswani to ban pornographic websites that harm children.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The  government has been forced to defend the move, saying it was taken in  response to ­Supreme Court criticism at in­action against child  pornography websites, although the Supreme Court itself has refused to  impose any interim ban while it considers the petition. The websites — a  fraction of the world’s millions of internet pornography sites — will  remain blocked until the government figures out how to restrict access, a  spokesman said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Critics  have slammed the measure as unconstitutional and pointed out the list  includes adult humour sites that contain no pornographic content. Others  have suggested it is another intrusion into the private lives of  ordinary Indians by an administration intent on pushing a puritanical  Hindu agenda, citing the recent ban on beef in several states and an  alleged “Hindu-­isation” of school textbooks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;That  prompted outrage from Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. “I reject  with contempt the charge that it is a Talibani government. Our  government supports free media, respects communication on social media  and has respected freedom of communication always,” he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;While  India has no law preventing citizens accessing internet pornography,  regulations do restrict the publishing of “obscene information in  electronic form”. Centre for Internet and Society policy director  Pranesh Prakash told &lt;i&gt;The Australian &lt;/i&gt;yesterday that some elements  of that act were welcome — such as prohibition of child pornography and  the uploading of a person’s private parts without consent — but “the  provisions relating to ‘sexually explicit materials’ are far too broad,  with no exceptions made for art, architecture, education or literature”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr  Prakash said the pornography ban amounted to an “abdication of the  government’s duty”, given the list of sites blocked was provided on  request to the government by one of the Vaswani petitioners. “The  additional solicitor-­general essentially asked one of the petitioners  to provide a list of websites, which she passed on to the Department of  Information Technology, which in turn passed to Department of  Telecommunications asking for them to be blocked or disabled.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;“That  is not acceptable in a democracy where it is not the government which  has actually found any of these websites to be unlawful.” Mr Prakash  also criticised the secrecy surrounding the order, which he said  contravened Indian law requiring a public declaration of any intended  ban so that it might be challenged. The bans were made under “Rule 12”  of India’s IT Act, which empowers the government to force ISPs to block  sites when it is “necessary or expedient”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>pranesh</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

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

   <dc:date>2015-08-05T02:10:46Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>News Item</dc:type>
   </item>




</rdf:RDF>
