The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 171 to 185.
Mapping Web Censorship & Net Neutrality Violations
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations
<b></b>
<p> </p>
<p>For over a year, researchers at the Centre
for Internet and Society have been studying website blocking by internet
service providers (ISPs) in India. We have learned that major ISPs
don’t always block the same websites, and also use different blocking
techniques. <strong>To take this study further, and map net neutrality violations by ISPs, we need your help.</strong>
We have developed CensorWatch, a research tool to collect empirical
evidence about what websites are blocked by Indian ISPs, and which
blocking methods are being used to do so. Read more about this project (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/qxKoDnnG4cR8mPZaiOr8immlHKFilRoRSYOvX_26BcZRtiN_hoo5VrFfQHbDqaES1OV6jUM0RbWCZs1ODSHr_Pf9yeJFesRxxQvyUrZm4Tlcvdjmh232QQV3fOkmrj9wiVh5LQiW1LQAprvYWmHp_s-TW5ZdNXZY07QvlFR01dKzIxnv7TorEfkyazo" target="_blank">link</a>), <strong>download CensorWatch</strong> (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/F9Wsq5zbx6VJKZxrsjYFy3Q5-jSkk0-3nr5hBfuyQiDUEKyEm_fLY6kh4W9MB7GOLoPZbowqsXDT17DEmFgMoFY4IIOEjxq0rNCtFeEc7b-0GSnRPeLDi9VmYX5WE1vGlwMvM7BPtyfmXD6lNdIWzAdjq_MpSqWRACk3JJNPhzqieJXoEoOnY8WH1rxR4HnJwDjyJHSkHgMTmWcm0POB_kDOtt2fk_GnXkkjv5LK7MxRZe8f" target="_blank">link</a>), and help determine if ISPs are complying with India’s net neutrality regulations.</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.censorwatch.netprobesapp"><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/censorwatch/" alt="null" width="75%" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>Learn more about website blocking in India, through our recent work on the issue —</div>
<ol><li>Using information from court orders,
user reports, and government orders, and running network tests from six
ISPs, Kushagra Singh, Gurshabad Grover and Varun Bansal presented the <strong>largest study of web blocking</strong>
in India. Through their work, they demonstrated that major ISPs in
India use different techniques to block websites, and that they don’t
block the same websites (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/mgmW9wuVo0QjRGqm9DnDQiVT4lYy3lgY5maOgjAk05baH_NWtRSfznWooMtcTgQ2a059mWk91p_lMZqJAqaRHXZOLSEQQOAMeM5RowiyfY3giKQm3aDJoYnWw7VhAHeBjdkObBFF0PYWjoC1NJi21fSZyifOWm_CvlC3gq7nxbHtejEy" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Gurshabad Grover and Kushagra Singh
collaborated with Simone Basso of the Open Observatory of Network
Interference (OONI) to study <strong>HTTPS traffic blocking in India</strong> by running experiments on the networks of three popular Indian ISPs: ACT Fibernet, Bharti Airtel, and Reliance Jio (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/oP_eOysGeBOsgRW-5k8V-ReWU_DMUhykR2wN9ZAqndgHev3bxY1c8kSSviR3jjOMqzOJhP05AfK2CtHAH8-Zv21mU7uAW2ainkl5tmS-uZx3LG15MjZXbRQyE71871AouDuXY0hLTVEVG3ovaEvb8BSFOhJz7NpnTZdsY5vIOeBqSsaB31HJdMT8bNELQJ8VjhUoNw" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>For <em>The Leaflet</em>, Torsha Sarkar and Gurshabad Grover wrote about the <strong>legal framework of blocking in India</strong>
— Section 69A of the IT Act and its rules. They considered commentator
opinions questioning the constitutionality of the regime, whether
originators of content are entitled to a hearing, and whether Rule 16,
which mandates confidentiality of content takedown requests received by
intermediaries from the Government, continues to be operative (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/WggQUDysA9mWPEzvGTRc43aPpKNmNjDcdEzj1ALhrbXgQWqnZRY9L9J45XXbJ3yCnX9-XIuYyRTQ588cBiYNQIs2KsfB0Dydz2QY4Z5VdMTdJ-RMr2M5uDqJ8Amr5gT3APy01bg8gNTyoEvdIcKryjrWnUFlTdxFAtohQ_AwVRjTbzC5FcAFhO9DdHOQV0Xp9X65At3tR17epGvo" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>In the <em>Hindustan Times</em>, Gurshabad Grover critically analysed <strong>the confidentiality requirement embedded within Section 69A of the IT Act</strong> and argued how this leads to internet users in India experiencing arbitrary censorship (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/j75HVdd7j4huKQd0kP9lusNpz1ZL0CxXMEWeySOhsQZbcKECrEKfaq52LlB-QjnT1TIB1mjqhB0TyweA7rLCq41Rd_6uyBUo8-Uc4iHiHSXYxC06rhW7o7ZFtCt7bKdNldDWkoMhSD7x0daAhzcSdLSPbNBRSy1HkGEGZ7Z_11tovlleodez9gm60zyvkGNM1YMQSLZ4NZ0k8RD2zncGPoWXjsytI4YwnQyy_QZNSKOSdY2_X6GoVSugRZhmyWwWCpHpk-yDM7XJ0OF4GZlTUSgfhcfftJEGBlQlkQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Torsha Sarkar, along with Sarvjeet Singh of the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), spoke to <em>Medianama</em> delineating the <strong>procedural aspects of section 69A of the IT Act </strong>(<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/QAWrguo8Vx6X1PsmbTvCTYQ6U6nycGdSRg9gfDYFTRxUAa82nB6gYpuPyEE3VztSJzG2888ua224upBlg-k9Tu29TZdhl3ET71WwsKUfKxdyUPkLiY1A4jSD1p59sH0KXlQBqU10H38gDFHZ5WVsMCwZXLTISv9SvXIRx7Vu59U4HBV-hhB3BSpe_SApQnHQgPN0BIl0g852jSINvTI6Bh5HGNTWZ3nQWRn5H1vShoG4Q3VcZBWfewbc" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Arindrajit Basu spoke to the <em>Times of India</em> about the <strong>geopolitical and regulatory implications</strong> of the Indian government’s move to ban fifty-nine Chinese applications from India (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/lICwdbQnezwqQKZHQ_Xso6Qp7735jleiJJJI88DgKZx348ewlSRWU1uFyEbtMwZOoJRS5MjHbX9KgklFrlc-jKTXKL2S4K5aCXEU2isCuFhwORAz_DnnBai7nr2pyiK0HmM0Eb3AD_JyTUwWtg9O6c0jV0Nf8cbTuT3FD7WypVO_NWUJ_GZVo7er10LMUXE_1EP_d2nh2uziuXXmM1JV-9NN6klSATsLa_tprf0bDNbNa_U4DHMm6oQvXFfVHj74jRhq3nKDkCzQeQZ_SRMxNNqIUIN5aMLGbQfBAziZ_E3hIYp-ptOQ7Y2cqF_4eiYdY20tBm5ltySmFBQQi5_nFQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li></ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations</a>
</p>
No publisherpranavFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governanceinternet governanceCensorship2020-10-05T07:59:47ZBlog EntryMaking the Powerful Accountable
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-january-29-2014-chinmayi-arun-making-the-powerful-accountable
<b>If powerful figures are not subjected to transparent court proceedings, the opacity in the face of a critical issue is likely to undermine public faith in the judiciary.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chinmayi Arun's Op-ed was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/making-the-powerful-accountable/article5627494.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on January 29, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is odd indeed that the Delhi High Court seems to believe that sensational media coverage can sway the Supreme Court into prejudice against one of its own retired judges. Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court has said in <i>Swatanter Kumar v. Indian Express and others</i> that the pervasive sensational media coverage of the sexual harassment allegations against the retired Supreme Court judge 'may also result in creating an atmosphere in the form of public opinion wherein a person may not be able to put forward his defence properly and his likelihood of getting fair trial would be seriously impaired.' This Delhi High court judgment has drawn upon the controversial 2011 Supreme Court judgment in <i>Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd v. SEBI</i> (referred to as the Gag Order case here) to prohibit the media from publishing headlines connecting retired Justice Swatanter Kumar with the intern's allegations, and from publishing his photograph in connection with the allegations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although the Gag Order judgment was criticised at the time that it was delivered <i>Swatanter Kumar v. Indian Express</i> illustrates its detractors' argument more vividly that anyone could have imagined.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sukumar Muralidharan wrote of Gag Order case that the postponement (of media coverage) order remedy that it created, could become an "instrument in the hands of wealthy and influential litigants, to subvert the course of open justice".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here we find that although a former Supreme Court judge is pitted against a very young former intern within a system over which he once presided, Justice Manmohan Singh seems to think that it is the judge who is danger of being victimised.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Swatanter Kumar judgment was enabled by both the Gag Order case as well as the 1966 Supreme Court judgment in <i>Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra</i>, which in combination created a process for veiling court proceedings. Naresh Mirajkar stated that courts' inherent powers extend to barring media reports and comments on ongoing trials in the interests of justice, and that such powers do not violate the right to freedom of speech; and the Gag Order case created an instrument - the 'postponement order' - for litigants, such that they can have media reports of a pending case restricted. The manner in which this is used in the Swatanter Kumar judgment raises very worrying questions about how the judiciary views the boundaries of the right to freedom of expression, particularly in the context of reporting court proceedings.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Broad power to restrict reporting</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Gag Order case was problematic: it used arguments for legitimate restraints on media reporting in exceptional circumstances, to permit restrictions on media reporting of court proceedings under circumstances 'where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to proper administration of justice'. The Supreme Court refused to narrow this or clarify what publications would fall within this category. It merely stated that this would depend on the content and context of the offending publication, and that no 'straightjacket formula' could be created to enumerate these categories. This leaves higher judiciary with a broad discretionary power to decide what amounts to<br />legitimate restraints on media reporting, using an ambiguous standard. Exercise of this power to veil proceedings involving powerful public figures whose actions have public implications, imperils openness and transparency when they are most critical.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Court proceedings are usually open to the public. This openness serves as a check on the judiciary, and ensures public faith in the judiciary. In countries as large as ours, media coverage of important cases ensures actual openness of court proceedings - we are able to follow the arguments made by petitioners who ask that homosexuality be decriminalised, the trial of suspected terrorists and alleged murderers, and the manner in which our legal system handles sexual harassment complaints filed by young women.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When court proceedings are closed to the public (known as 'in-camera' trials) or when media dissemination of information about them is restricted, the openness and transparency of court proceedings is compromised. Such compromise of transparency does take place in many countries, to protect the rights of the parties involved, or prevent miscarriage of justice. For example, child-participants are protected by holding trials in-camera; names of parties to court proceedings are withheld to protect their privacy sometimes; and in countries where juries determine guilt, news coverage that may prejudice the jury is also restricted.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The damage done</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although the Supreme Court stated in principle that the openness of court proceedings should only be restricted where strictly necessary, this appears to lend itself to very varied interpretation. For example, it is very difficult for some of us to understand why it was strictly necessary to restrict media coverage of sexual harassment proceedings in the Swatanter Kumar case. J. Manmohan Singh on the other hand seems to believe that the adverse public opinion will affect the retired judge's chance of getting a fair trial. His judgment also seems to indicate his concern that the sensational headlines will impact the public confidence in the Supreme Court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Delhi High Court's apprehension about the effects of the newspaper coverage on the reputation of the judge did not need to translate into a prior restraint on media coverage. They may better have been addressed later, by evaluating a defamation claim pertaining to published material. The larger concerns about the reputation of the judiciary are better addressed by openness: if powerful public figures, especially those with as much influence as a former Supreme Court judge are not subjected to transparent court proceedings, the opacity in the face of such a critical issue is likely to undermine public faith in the judiciary as an institution.Such opacity undermines the purpose of open courts. It is much worse for the reputation of the judiciary than publicised complaints about individual judges.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the Delhi High Court ruling, there has been little media coverage of the sexual harassment case. Suppression of media coverage leaves the young woman comparatively isolated. Wide coverage of the harassment complaint involving Justice Ganguly, helped the intern in that case find support. The circulation of information enabled other former interns as well as a larger network of lawyers and activists, reach out to her. This is apart from the general pressure to be fair that arises when a case is being followed closely by the public. Media coverage is often critical to whether someone relatively powerless is able to assert her rights against a very powerful person. This is why media freedom is sacred to democracies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the Supreme Court was confident that the high courts in India would use their broad discretionary power under the Gag Order case sparingly and only in the interests of justice, the Swatanter Kumar case should offer it grounds to reconsider. Openness and freedom of expression are not meant to be diluted to protect the powerful - they exist precisely to ensure that even the powerful are held accountable by state systems that they might otherwise be able to sway.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(Chinmayi Arun is research director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, and fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.)</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-january-29-2014-chinmayi-arun-making-the-powerful-accountable'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-january-29-2014-chinmayi-arun-making-the-powerful-accountable</a>
</p>
No publisherchinmayiPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTransparency and AccountabilityInternet GovernanceOpenness2014-01-30T06:43:41ZBlog EntryLos internautas indios se oponen a la censura a través de la Red
https://cis-india.org/news/internautas-indios-se-oponen
<b>La idea del Gobierno indio de censurar los contenidos de internet ha chocado con el rechazo de la empresas del sector y de los internautas, que están usando las redes sociales para ridiculizar al ministro</b>
<p>La idea del Gobierno de la India de censurar los contenidos de internet ha chocado con el rechazo de la empresas del sector y, sobre todo, de los internautas, que están usando las redes sociales para ridiculizar al ministro del ramo.</p>
<p>Esta semana, el titular de Comunicaciones, Kapil Sibal, reveló que ha contactado con los gestores de la más importantes redes sociales y buscadores para plantear la eliminación de contenidos "objetables", lo cual ha sublevado a los internautas.</p>
<p>Los foros de la red hierven de opiniones en contra de la simple posibilidad de que se censure internet y en el Twitter indio las cadenas de "tuiteos" más seguidas llevan por título el nombre del ministro; la más exitosa es de hecho "IdiotKapilSibal".</p>
<p>Los medios locales afirman que la iniciativa del Ejecutivo indio surgió a raíz de la publicación en algunos portales de fotos deformadas del primer ministro, Manmohan Singh, y de la líder del gobernante Partido del Congreso, Sonia Gandhi.</p>
<p>Esto último ha motivado que muchos de los mensajes que corren por la red bromeen con que la nueva normativa de control debería llamarse SONIA, acrónimo de Social Networking Inspection Act (Norma de inspección de las redes sociales).</p>
<p>La idea del ministro Kapil también ha topado con la más moderada oposición de portales como Facebook o Google, que se han negado a aplicar nuevos sistemas de control más allá de los previstos por las mismas páginas de internet.</p>
<p>Aunque dijeron "reconocer el interés del Gobierno en minimizar el contenido abusivo" en la red, los responsables de Facebook en India recalcaron en un comunicado que su portal ya tiene mecanismos para eliminar textos o imágenes contrarias a su propia normativa interna.</p>
<p>Según datos de Facebook, la India es, con 34 millones, el tercer país del mundo con más usuarios de esta red social, solo por detrás de Estados Unidos e Indonesia.</p>
<p>Google India recalcó en un comunicado, citado por la agencia local IANS, que "hay que diferenciar lo que es controvertido de lo que es ilegal" y también se remitió a los mecanismos de control de contenidos del propio buscador.</p>
<p>La oposición de los operadores y los internautas no ha hecho desistir, de momento, al ministro, que advirtió en una rueda de prensa convocada por sorpresa de que el Gobierno seguirá adelante con la cooperación de las empresas o sin ella.</p>
<p>"Les pediremos información (a los portales web), déjennos tiempo para gestionarlo. Pero una cosa es segura: no permitiremos ese tipo de contenido objetable", dijo Kapil a los medios. El plan del ministro choca, sin embargo, con problemas de diversa índole.</p>
<p>"En el control de internet hay una dificultad técnica, ya que es imposible que una máquina discrimine lo que es 'objetable' de lo que no, por lo se producen multitud de falsos positivos", dijo el responsable de una organización india de estudios sobre la red.</p>
<p>Pero el director del Centro Internet y Sociedad, Sunil Abraham, cree que el problema es más ético que tecnológico, ya que "solo un juez está facultado para eliminar contenidos y debe haber evidencia del daño cometido, algo casi imposible cuando hay censura previa".</p>
<p>This article appeared in the Spanish newspaper Diario de Navarra on 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read the original <a class="external-link" href="http://www.diariodenavarra.es/noticias/mas_actualidad/sociedad/los_internautas_indios_oponen_censura_traves_red_57115_1035.html">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/internautas-indios-se-oponen'>https://cis-india.org/news/internautas-indios-se-oponen</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2011-12-09T00:25:11ZNews ItemLive Chat: Win for Free Speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech
<b>Join us for a live chat at 5.30 pm on SC striking down the Section 66A of the IT Act which had permitted the arrest of people for posting "offensive content" on the internet. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/live-chat-hope-for-free-speech/article7028037.ece">live chat transcript</a> was published in the Hindu on March 24, 2015. Geetha Hariharan participated in the live chat.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In a victory for proponents of free speech, the Supreme Court today struck down Section 66 A of the IT Act, which had permitted the arrest of people for posting “offensive content” on the internet. However, the Court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What are your views on this ruling? Join us for a live chat today at 5.30 pm with:</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">and G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Hi all, welcome to the live chat on the Supreme Court's much-celebrated decision to strike down Section 66 A of the IT Act. There are caveats of course: For instance, the Court has upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:30</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Welcome to Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:31</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:31</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">and</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:33</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shraddha</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">This is landmark judgement,though.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:34</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Mystiquethinker</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I would like to ask you one thing was that necessary to abolish Sec66 A completely.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: Yes, in my opinion it was. The terms of S. 66A - such as "grossly offensive" - went beyond what is constitutionally permitted by Article 19(2). It was impossible to "sever" these terms from the rest of the section. In such cases, the Court has no alternative but to strike down the section in its entirety.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:34</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Rohan</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I'm particularly interested in the relevance of Sec 66 A in West Bengal. Over the last few years the TMC government has massively curbed freedom of speech. Do you think this will deter the ruling party?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:35</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Gautam, Geetha and Lawrence would you like to respond?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:35</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: typing</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:37</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From kc</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">so does this mean its okay for anyone to say anything over the internet? Does the internet need separate rules? Anything that cant be said over a microphone or using any media shouldn't be said over the internet either.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: No, the standard penal laws - against defamation, hate speech (S. 153A), religious incitement (S. 295A) continue to apply. Yes, the argument that the internet needs separate rules when it comes to the *content* of speech was precisely what was rejected by the Court.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Jai</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I would like to ask what when people cross the boundary of decency when they post comments on social network?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: So the court goes into this question of whether 66A needed to go in its entirely or could it be saved. The ASG suggested that it could be read down by the courts, and offered a range of ways it coudl have been done. But the court responded to say that the restrictions in 19(2) are clear, and if the impugned law does not fall within it, then to ask for a reading that incorporates other principles only in order to save it would be to do violence to the language of Sec. 66A</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In para 49 they say</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What the learned Additional Solicitor General is asking us to do is not to read down Section 66A – he is asking for a wholesale substitution of the provision which is obviously not possible.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @Mystiquethinker: Section 66A makes it a criminal offense to make any post on the Internet, that might “grossly offend” or be “menacing”. If you happen to post false information (like a spoof), with the purpose of annoying, inconveniencing, criminally intimidating or causing hatred, you can be criminalized for that, too. However, the terms "annoyance, inconvenience, hatred, ill-will", etc. are vague. Section 66A does not define them. Applying the law to misuse it becomes extremely easy then - and this has happened.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:38</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Supreme Court has struck a delicate balance</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:39</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From neerulal</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">It's a great step on part of judiciary. Infact it's the judicial activism that washed much of the waste created by legislature. Hope it was as experienced and sensible as judiciary..</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:39</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shraddha</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">according to me it's imp to important to amend it completely... coz it directly infringes the article19(a) right to freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:40</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Danish Sheikh</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">why do you think the Court is so sparse in its analysis of the website blocking rules as opposed to 66A?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:40</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Jai - The boundaries of decency will be determined by our existing penal laws - Sections 295A, 153A and the rest.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:40</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: @gananth would you like to respond to the last one?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:41</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: on 69A</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Despite striking down Section 66A, Article 19(2) provides sufficient grounds for the government to protect public peace. It is comprehensive and is applicable to all media. Therefore, in a way, Section 66A was not required at all.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Danish, you are right. One wishes that the court had paid as much attention to the Blocking orders as they did 66A. I feel they have gone on a technical reading of the procedures established to conclude that it is at least not as arbitrary as 66A, but fail to acknowledge that the ways the orders have been operationalised completely lack transparency and are hence arbitrary</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Eric</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I would say yes. The best and most practical control of social media comes from the maturity of its users. We can make a useful presumption that useless content will simply not be shared substantially. Instead of making laws, we need to make mature citizens and users of social media.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From saurav</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">what are the others instruments available with govt. to curb cyber crimes ???</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:42</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest - True, but you still need a *law* that would authorise the police and other agencies to implement the restrictions under Article 19(2) in specific situations. That is why we have speech regulating provisions in the Indian Penal Code.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:43</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shashi</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">I think sec 66A should be amended and specific definition of "offence" must be brought in, because there needs to reasonable restrictions under article 19(2). But having such vague clauses shows how it can be misused by people in power.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:44</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @saurav: As Gautam said, the IPC's provisions such as Sections 153A and 295A are available to the government as limitations on speech. In addition, there are other offences in the IT Act (Sections 66B to 67B).</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:44</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Mystiquethinker</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In my point of view there should be few limitation . You cannot say anything to anybody. I am afraid what will be its result in future.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:45</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Shashi The Supreme Court has held before - in S. Rangarajan's case - that causing offence doe not fall within Article 19(2). In fact, quoting the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court said that the freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom to "offend, shock or disturb." That's actually why 19(2) is so specifically worded, and restricts itself to "public order", "decency or morality", "incitement to an offence", "defamation" etc.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:45</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: @Mystiquethinker To add to the previous point, the court also did consider whether they could apply the doctrine of severability but concluded that because "The present is a case where, as has been held above, Section 66A does not fall within any of the subject matters contained in Article 19(2) and the possibility of its being applied for purposes outside those subject matters is clear. We therefore hold that no part of Section 66A is severable and the provision as a whole must be declared unconstitutional."</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:47</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Ashish</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">is it means??Now morphed girls photo posting ,revealing individual secret to harm him/her physcologicaly is allowed publicly.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Not at all. There are still other laws including obscenity laws and privacy laws under the IT act that deal with this</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:47</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: What happens to all the cases already booked? Is the verdict retrospective?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:48</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Ashish No. There is the Indecent Representation of Women Act, which prohibits that. There are also laws against blackmail and criminal intimidation under the IPC.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:48</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Cherry</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A remarkable judgement to free their speeches n voices</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: absolutely, an important first step towards a free jurisprudence of the 21st century</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Sarpanch</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">66A declared unconstitutional - good. But, a religious hate-filled reaction will it still attract 295 IPC.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: yes and 153A of the IPC amongst others</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Geek</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">If this is all about facebook, remove it and everyhing is fine!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: sorry, but thats no longer an option after this judgment :)</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:49</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ TheHindu: to the best of my knowledge, no. A judgment is not ordinarily retrospective. Subject to correction.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:49</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Neel</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Doesn't the line of reasoning adopted by the SC throw open the possibility of other restrictive laws being questioned too?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Eric</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">There is plenty of scope for an independent regulator including representatives of social media and internet users to regulate the restrictions under Art 19(2). Giving the police or any other governmental agency the power to prosecute potential offenders involves the unnecessary risk of political bias which underlies the SC's judgment. Clearly, severing the provision would have been messy. Moreover, the judgment is an unapologetic thrust in the direction of protecting fundamental rights.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From shashi</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@Gautam one must not forget how social media can be used to incite violence against a perticular community and force exodus (as happened in Bangalore few years back). So, there has to be reasonable restrictions. Else the government would look helpless in such incidents</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:50</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Cherry</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">i agree with the comment of mystiquethinker</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:50</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Panky</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Excellent decision from Court!!!!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:51</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Gautam, a question for you from Shashi</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:51</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Neel Yes, it does. For instance, crucial to the Supreme Court's reasoning is a distinction between incitement and advocacy, and a need for proximity between speech and the 19(2) restrictions. Now if you look at the cases where the Supreme Court upheld 295A (1957) and sedition (1962), it did so on the specific understanding that there was no need for proximity - a mere "tendency" was enough. But in this case, the Supreme Court specifically says that the tendency must be to *imminent public disorder*. Now that severely undermines the foundation of 295A and especially sedition, because it's really hard to argue that spreading disaffection against the government has an imminent relationship with public disorder. So yes - I think it might just be time to try and have some of those old judgments reviewed!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:51</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Shanmukh</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@ Eric. Social censorship works in a society where everybody is educated and mature. India isn't quite there yet. But this 66A was abused and it's good that it is going away.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: We perhaos need to be careful about the argument of whether India is ready. That was the same logic that colonial authorities use to introduce a number of speech regulating laws. Worth having a look at Lala Lajpat Rai's reply to the Indian Cinematograph Committee</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:52</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Shashi Yes, I agree. But 66A went far beyond those reasonable restrictions. The Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, and we have a long series of cases interpreting what that means. I think that would speak to your concern.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:53</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Shanmukh: See also the arguments that Raja Rammohun Roy made as fas back as 1823 about the freedom of the press, when the colonial authorities were using the same argument about Indians not being ready.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:53</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The government has Section 69A to prevent mass exodus type situations. Am I right?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Yes, and that is an important concern but you must note that even during the NE exodus, the government exceeded its brief and even blocked websites that were trying to quell rumous</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Sam</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Yesterday's column from readers editor had some suggestions on stopping rumors being spread via SM. I think, those kind of methods will go a long way in stopping falsehoods being spread than banning content and sections like 66A</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:54</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Eric</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@Lawrence Liang. Precisely. One has to be cautious of underestimating or belittling the input from regular users of the subject. Giving more deliberative platforms can only encourage participation and education of its users.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:54</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A case will be governed by the law applicable on the date the offence was committed, unless otherwise stated. Therefore, I think the ruling will be prospective only</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Neel</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What is the weight that precedent has in our legal system? For instance what will it take for a judge to say the previous judgements on sedition are too restrictive?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: We are totally a precedent based system, but preedents can be enabling and restrictive, so the way it develops is through slow processes of comparing and distinguishing</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Neel</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What is the weight that precedent has in our legal system? For instance what will it take for a judge to say the previous judgements on sedition are too restrictive?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest Yes, I think that's correct.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:55</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Shiva</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">What does the judgement imply for posting adult/sexually explicit/pornographic content online?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: It does not affect that: We have obscenity laws under the IPC as well as special obscenity provisions within the IT act that deal with it</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Utkarsh</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">SC proves how powerful our democracy is. It is good that citizens are free to post anything they want now, but shouldn't we try to teach the people their responsibilty with this freedom?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Geetha your thoughts on that?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Vikas</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Rather debating we should demand action on such people who in real sense do the offending act via speech and social media, arresting some body who has just shared some views is not right.....</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:56</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @Neel It's a hard question. I don't think a Supreme Court bench will be able to directly overrule the sedition case. That was decided by a five-judge bench, and so you;d need a seven-judge bench to actually overturn it. I think what we can try and argue is that in the 50 years since the Court upheld sedition, the foundations of that decision have been so greatly undermined by succeeding cases, that at least in 2015, sedition is unconstitutional. It's a hard argument to pull off, but I think it's worth a shot.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:57</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The population has moral responsibility to not spread rumours over SM & the citizens need to be mature enough to not take everything too personally. You have the choice of ignoring what you deem offensive. If any of the above fail, it is because the society has failed, not the legal system.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From zenmist</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">what if i get cyber bullied ! Do I have any recourse now ?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">5:59</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From kkamal</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">implementation still a matter of concern</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: Certainly, and esp for the intermediary guidelines. Often when a court reads down a provision, rather than striking it down, there is a gap between the law and enforcement</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Zeminist yes - for instance, under criminal intimidation provisions in the IPC.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:00</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Can we not issue guidelines for social sites like facebook twitter and others to filters such content from being posted(I think it'll show some pop-up in general.?)</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:00</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @Utkarsh: Perhaps. However, the freedoms enshrined in out Constitution say our freedom of speech and expression can be restricted by the government only under specific circumstances: see http://indiankanoon.org/doc.... The _government's_ restrictions on speech must abide by these - whether they teach citizens what is (morally) right to speak or not is different from what we have a right to say. As Gautam has mentioned before, Article 19(1)(a) gives us the right to "offend, shock or disturb".</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:00</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest - the problem with filters are that they are *invariably* over-inclusive.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:01</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Vibhu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">This decision once again upheld citizen's belief in the constitution and the Supreme Court. But this power also comes with an added responsibility to the citizens to be sensitive towards the emotions of communities and other sections of the country.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @Vibhu Absolutely. This is why it's important to make a distinction between two important ideas - the fact that it is your *right* to do or speak in a certain manner doesn't always mean that you *ought* to speak in that manner.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:02</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Negi Gaurav</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Striking down 66A is good for democratic values and citizenry expression. It will enhance the power of common mass and will affect political procedure. Free speech is fundamental right of Indian citizen , However judicious use of right is necessary to check hate crime.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:03</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Guest</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">We appreciate the verdict... It was much needed but there still is a question still unanswered, why do we need judicial activism to strike all those laws that are pushing us back by several decades. If such laws are always have to be decided by Supreme court, what do we have legislature for?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:03</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Pankaj</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A welcome judgement by SC today. Section 66(A) was indeed an uncontitutional provision which accounted for few arrests considering the arbitrary and vague terminologies. But, certainly regulation of speech over internet should be regulated in a more robust and comprehensive manner</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:04</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @ Guest To be fair to our parliaments, legislatures all over the world restrict speech, and it falls to the Court to correct them. Legislatures are composed of human beings like us, and often, because of the position they are in, they tend to overestimate the dangers of free speech, and underestimate its importance. But that's why we have a constitutional court. :)</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: If taken to its logical extreme, does the SC verdict mean that anything goes on the internet?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:07</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Serendipity</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@The Hindu: Free Speech is not absolute. There are always restrictions. It depends on how the law is drafted.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Vibhu</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">@Hindu. No not anything goes on the internet. All elements like pornography, abuse, etc which are illegal in general sense also applies to the internet.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:08</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: @TheHindu No. The SC expressly says that speech which bears a proximate relationship to any of the 19(2) categories may legitimately be restricted. Many of the speech-regulating provisions of the IPC do just that. These provisions are agnostic towards the medium - for instance, defamation will be punishable whether it happens offline, or over the internet.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:08</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From charan malhotra</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">our Sc lifted great barricade in the freedom of speech.. but even if any one explicit n posts the images of others n morphing ? then what could be the next step to take an action on those convicts?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @charan: Other provisions are still in operation under the IT Act and IPC that can be used. For example: Section 66D (cheating by personation), 66E , etc. I would urge you to look at Section 67, 67A and 67B of IT Act as well.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From manoharan</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">right to experss includes right to go online in thought</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:11</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: @TheHindu: No. Restrictions placed under one or more of the conditions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are legitimate (online and offline). Also, offences under the IPC (Sections 153A, 295A, 292) continue to apply. As also the offences under the IT Act, which target online speech (Sections 66E, 67, 67A and 67B, for instance).</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:11</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: By the way, as an aside, I'd like to add - this judgment is extremely lucid and accessible, and really eloquent at times. Do read it. 123 pages sounds like a lot, but it's easy reading - shouldn't take more than an hour.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:09</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Lawrence Liang: @The Hindu Not at all, we still have all of the good old speech restrictive laws including in the IPC, it is important to remember that even in the past 66A cases, they have rarely been filed in islation, and are usually accompanied by 124A, 153A or 295A of the IPC</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:09</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Comment From Dhruv</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A Great Decision to uphold Free Speech. We do not want to be Police State like CHINA but our Indian legislators are slowly taking the country far from Democracy and denying civil rights to civilians. Great decision from Supreme Court. This is a lesson for the indian politicians who think they can play with our fundamental rights and impose their narrow mindset on us.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: Thank you all so much for joining the chat.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:14</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: The panellists and readers!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:15</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan: Thanks!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:15</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia: Thank you!</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">6:15</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Hindu: And for making this a lively and informative debate. Watch this space for more live chats on emerging issues.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-24-2015-live-chat-win-for-free-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T16:07:06ZNews ItemList of Blocked 'Escort Service' Websites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-blocked-escort-service-websites
<b>Here is the full list of URLs that Indian ISPs were asked to block on Monday, June 13, 2016.</b>
<p>On April 20, 2016, DNA carried a report on <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-pil-seeks-police-action-against-website-ads-on-escort-services-2204362">a PIL seeking action against advertisements for prostitution in newspapers and on websites</a>. That report noted that the Mumbai Police had obtained an order from a magistrates court to block 174 objectionable websites, and had sent a list to the "Group Coordinator (Cyber Laws)" within the Department of Electronics and IT. On June 13, 2016, some news agencies carried reports about <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/govt-bans-240-websites-offering-escort-services-116061400561_1.html">the Ministry of Communications and IT having ordered ISPs to block 240 websites</a>.</p>
<p>As far as we know, the Mumbai Police has not proceeded against any of the people who run these websites, whose phone numbers are available, and whose names and addresses are also available in many cases through WHOIS queries on the domain names.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the government does not make available publicly the list of websites they have ordered ISPs to block. Given that knowledge of what is censored by the government is crucial in a democracy, we are publishing the entire list of blocked websites.</p>
<p>Those of these websites that use TLS (i.e., those with 'https'), still appear to be available on multiple Indian ISPs, and others can be accessed by using a proxy VPN from outside India or by using Tor.</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<ul>
<li>The list circulated to ISPs has two sub-lists, numbered from 1-174 (but containing 175 entries, with a numbering mistake), and 1-64, for a total of 239 URLs.</li>
<li>4 URLs are repeated in the list ("www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php", "exmumbai.in", "www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal", "www.mumbaifunclubs.com")</li>
<li>For one website, both the domain name and a specific web page within it are listed (""www.mumbaiwali.in" and "www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php")</li>
<li>One URL is incomplete (No. 214: "www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..")</li>
<li>There are thus 235 unique URLs, targetting 234 websites and web pages.</li>
</ul>
<p><br />
<br />
<hr /></p>
<h2>Full List of Blocked URLs</h2>
<ol>
<li>www.sterlingbioscience.com</li>
<li>rawpoint.biz</li>
<li>www.onemillionbabes.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaihotcollection.in</li>
<li>simranoberoi.in</li>
<li>rubinakapoor.biz</li>
<li>talita.biz</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescortsagency.net</li>
<li>www.mumbaifunclubs.com</li>
<li>www.alishajain.co.in</li>
<li>www.ankitatalwar.co.in</li>
<li>https://www.jennyarora.ind.in</li>
<li>www.riya-kapoor.com</li>
<li>shneha.in</li>
<li>missinimi.in</li>
<li>www.mumbaiglamour.in</li>
<li>kalyn.in</li>
<li>www.saumyagiri.co.in/city/mumbai/</li>
<li>bookerotic.com</li>
<li>www.divyamalik.in</li>
<li>www.suhanisharma.co.in</li>
<li>www.ruhi.biz</li>
<li>umbaiqueens.in</li>
<li>www.aliyaghosh.com</li>
<li>priyasen.in</li>
<li>www.highprofilemumbaiescorts.co.in</li>
<li>charmingmumbai.com</li>
<li>www.poojamehata.in</li>
<li>kiiran.in/</li>
<li>mansikher.in</li>
<li>www.newmumbaiescorts.in</li>
<li>www.mumbaifunclubs.com</li>
<li>www.punarbas.in</li>
<li>www.discreetbabes.in</li>
<li>www.alisharoy.in</li>
<li>www.arpitarai.in</li>
<li>www.nidhipatel.in</li>
<li>navimumbailescort.com</li>
<li>www.zoyaescorts.com</li>
<li>www.juhioberoi.in</li>
<li>shoniya.in</li>
<li>panchibora.in</li>
<li>rehu.in</li>
<li>www.nehaanand.com</li>
<li>www.aditiray.co.in</li>
<li>www.rakhibajaj.in</li>
<li>www.alianoidaescorts.in</li>
<li>www.sobiya.in</li>
<li>www.alishaparul.in</li>
<li>mumbai-escorts.leathercurrency.com</li>
<li>ankita-ahuja.in</li>
<li>www.yamika.in</li>
<li>mumbailescort.co</li>
<li>www.ranjika.in</li>
<li>www.aditiray.com</li>
<li>www.alinamumbailescort.in</li>
<li>www.sonikaa.com/services/</li>
<li>riyamodel.in</li>
<li>mumbai-escorts.info</li>
<li>soonam.in</li>
<li>www.sejalthakkar.com</li>
<li>www.yomika-tandon.in</li>
<li>www.asika.in</li>
<li>www.siyasharma.org/</li>
<li>www.rubikamathur.in</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescortslady.com</li>
<li>www.sexyshe.in</li>
<li>www.indepandentescorts.com</li>
<li>www.saanvichopra.co.in</li>
<li>www.goswamipatel.in</li>
<li>ojaloberoi.in</li>
<li>www.naincy.in</li>
<li>www.sonyamehra.com</li>
<li>www.pinkgrapes.in</li>
<li>anjalitomar.in/</li>
<li>www.nishakohli.com/</li>
<li>sagentia.co.in</li>
<li>mumbai.vivastreet.co.in/escort+mumbai</li>
<li>www.deseescortgirls.in</li>
<li>guides.wonobo.com/mumbai/mumbai-escorts-service/.4299</li>
<li>jasmineescorts.com</li>
<li>www.shalinisethi.com</li>
<li>www.highclassmumbailescort.com</li>
<li>www.vipescortsinmumbai.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescorts69.co.in</li>
<li>monikabas.co.in</li>
<li>www.riyasehgal.com</li>
<li>onlycelebrity.in</li>
<li>www.greatmumbaiescorts.com/escort-service-mumbai.html</li>
<li>www.aishamumbailescort.com</li>
<li>www.jennydsouzaescort.com</li>
<li>www.desifun.in</li>
<li>www.siyaescort.co.in</li>
<li>masti—escort.in</li>
<li>www.sofya.in</li>
<li>www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php</li>
<li>www.mumbaiwali.in</li>
<li>www.calldaina.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescortsservice.co.in</li>
<li>www.escortsgirlsinmumbai.com</li>
<li>www.passionmumbai.escorts.com</li>
<li>www.nehakapoor.in</li>
<li>meerakapoor.com</li>
<li>www.dianamumbaiescorts.net .in</li>
<li>www.allmumbailescort.in</li>
<li>www.rakhiarora.in</li>
<li>www.ritikasingh.com</li>
<li>www.rekhapatil.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaidolls.com</li>
<li>www.piapandey.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaicuteescorts.in</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescortssevice.com</li>
<li>www.onlycelebrity.com</li>
<li>www.meetescortservice.com</li>
<li>onlyoneescorts.com</li>
<li>simirai.org</li>
<li>www.riyamumbaiescorts.in</li>
<li>www.neharana.in</li>
<li>www.tanyaroy.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaihiprofilegirls.in</li>
<li>www.sexyescortsmumbai.in</li>
<li>www.sexymumbai.escorts.com</li>
<li>www.four-seasons—escort.in</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescortsgirl.com</li>
<li>www.vdreamescorts.com</li>
<li>www.passionatemumbaiescorts.in</li>
<li>www.payalmalhotra.in</li>
<li>www.shrutisinha.com</li>
<li>www.juliemumbaiescorts.com</li>
<li>www.indiasexservices.com/mumbai.html</li>
<li>www.mumbai-escorts.co.in</li>
<li>www.aliyamumbaiescorts.net.in</li>
<li>shivaniarora.co.in/escort–service-mumbai.html</li>
<li>www.pinkisingh.com</li>
<li>soyam.in</li>
<li>www.arpitaray.com</li>
<li>www.localescorts.in</li>
<li>www.jennifermumbaiescorts.com</li>
<li>www.yanaroy.com</li>
<li>escorts18.in/mumbai—escorts.html</li>
<li>www.tinamumbaiescorts.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaijannatescorts.com</li>
<li>www.deepikaroy.com</li>
<li>www.nancy.co.in</li>
<li>www.pearlpatel.in</li>
<li>30minsmumbaiescorts.in</li>
<li>www.datinghopes.com</li>
<li>https://www.riyaroy.com/services.html</li>
<li>www.sonalikajain.com</li>
<li>www.zainakapoor.co.in</li>
<li>kavyajain.in</li>
<li>www.kinnu.co.in</li>
<li>exmumbai.in/</li>
<li>www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal</li>
<li>exmumbai.in</li>
<li>www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal</li>
<li>www.devikabatra.in</li>
<li>katlin.in</li>
<li>riyaverma.in</li>
<li>escortsinindia.co/</li>
<li>www.snehamumbaiescorts.in</li>
<li>shimi.in</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescortsforu.com/about</li>
<li>www.chetnagaur.co.in/chetna-gaur.html</li>
<li>www.escortspoint.in</li>
<li>www.rupalikakkar.in</li>
<li>www.hemangisinha.co.in</li>
<li>1escorts.in/location/mumbai.html</li>
<li>www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent—escort-service.php</li>
<li>www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php</li>
<li>www.mumbaibella.in</li>
<li>mohitescortservicesmumbai.com</li>
<li>www.anchu.in</li>
<li>www.aliyaroy.co.in</li>
<li>jaanu.co.in/mumbai-escorts-service-call-girls.html</li>
<li>www.andyverma.com</li>
<li>dreams-come-true.biz</li>
<li>feel–better.biz</li>
<li>jellyroll.biz</li>
<li>dreamgirlmumbai.com</li>
<li>role-play.biz</li>
<li>mansi—mathur.com</li>
<li>www.zarinmumbaiescorts.com</li>
<li>mymumbai.escortss.com</li>
<li>www.goldentouchescorts.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaipassion.biz</li>
<li>ishitamalhotra.com</li>
<li>happy-ending.biz</li>
<li>juicylips.biz</li>
<li>www.escortsmumbai.name</li>
<li>www.kirstygbasai.net</li>
<li>www.hiremumbaiescorts.com</li>
<li>www.meeraescorts.com/mumbai-escorts.php</li>
<li>3–5–7star.biz</li>
<li>www.pranjaltiwari.com</li>
<li>www.richagupta.biz</li>
<li>way2heaven.biz</li>
<li>piya.co/</li>
<li>pinkflowers.info</li>
<li>www.beautifulmumbaiescorts.com</li>
<li>www.bestescortsinmumbai.com/charges-html</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescorts.me</li>
<li>www.tanikatondon.com</li>
<li>www.escortsinmumbai.biz</li>
<li>www.escortgirlmumbai.com</li>
<li>www.mumbaicallgrils.com</li>
<li>www.quickescort4u.com</li>
<li>www.mayamalhotra.com</li>
<li>www.legal-escort.com</li>
<li>escortsbaba.com/mumbai-escorts.html</li>
<li>rupa.biz</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescorts.agency/erotic-service-mumbai.html</li>
<li>www.escortscelebrity.com</li>
<li>www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..</li>
<li>garimachopra.com</li>
<li>kajalgupta.biz</li>
<li>lipkiss.site</li>
<li>aanu.in</li>
<li>bombayescort.in</li>
<li>hotkiran.co.in</li>
<li>khushikapoor.in</li>
<li>joyapatel.in</li>
<li>rici.in</li>
<li>aaditi.in</li>
<li>andheriescorts.org.in</li>
<li>www.jiyapatel.in</li>
<li>spicymumbai.in</li>
<li>rimpyarora.in</li>
<li>lovemaking.co.in</li>
<li>riyadubey.co.in</li>
<li>escortservicesmumbai.in</li>
<li>mumbaiescorts.co.in</li>
<li>midnightprincess.in/</li>
<li>vashiescorts.co.in/</li>
<li>angee.in/</li>
<li>www.rozakhan.in/</li>
<li>www.mumbaiescortsvilla.in/</li>
<li>kylie.co.in/</li>
<li>escortservicemumbai.co.in</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-blocked-escort-service-websites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-blocked-escort-service-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and Expression69ABlockingCensorship2016-06-15T08:33:31ZBlog Entry Legitimate Restrictions on Freedom of Online Speech: Deadlock to Dialogue
https://cis-india.org/news/legitimate-restrictions-on-freedom-of-online-speech
<b>The event was hosted by FICCI Communications and Digital Economy Committee on September 4, 2012 at FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi. Pranesh Prakash spoke on censorship and the way forward.
</b>
<p>The following were the speakers who spoke at the event:</p>
<ol>
<li>Anja Kovacs, Project Director, Internet Democracy Project</li>
<li>Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Center for Internet and Society</li>
<li>Prabir Purkayastha, Founder Member, Delhi Science Forum</li>
<li>Prasanth Sugathan, Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center</li>
<li>Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change</li>
<li>Ramanjit Singh Chima, Sr. Policy Analyst, Google India</li>
<li>Ankhi Das, Head of Public Policy for India, Facebook</li>
<li>Nikhil Pahwa, Editor & Publisher, Medianama.com</li>
<li>Rajesh Chharia, President, Internet Service Providers Association of India</li>
<li>Mahesh Uppal, Policy Expert</li>
<li>Virat Bhatia, Chairman, Communication and Digital Economy Committee, FICCI</li>
</ol>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.iigc.in/htm/2.pdf">Click</a> to read the Digest of Comments and Inputs at the panel discussion.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/legitimate-restrictions-on-freedom-of-online-speech'>https://cis-india.org/news/legitimate-restrictions-on-freedom-of-online-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-10-15T05:44:04ZNews ItemKilling of Yameen Rasheed Reveals Worsening Human Rights Situation in the Maldives
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/yameen-rasheed-human-rights-maldives
<b>A courageous liberal blogger in the Maldives was murdered for his words. The international community needs to act.</b>
<p>The fight for freedom of expression is often abstract. On Sunday, it became personal for me: Yameen Rasheed, a courageous human rights defender and blogger in the Maldives, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/world/asia/yameen-rasheed-dead-maldives-blogger-dead.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur&_r=0">was brutally murdered just outside his apartment</a>. Yameen ran the popular blog <a href="http://thedailypanic.com">The Daily Panic</a> in which he sought to "cover and comment upon the news, satirize the frequently unsatirizable politics of Maldives, and also provide a platform to capture and highlight the diversity of Maldivian opinion". In this blog he often ended up rubbing the powerful the wrong way, with politicians and religious bigots often finding themselves at the receiving end of his satire.</p>
<p>Yameen wasn't the first human rights activist to be attacked. He also led the campaign to force the police to conduct a proper investigation on the <a href="http://findmoyameehaa.com/">forced disappearance in August 2014</a> of journalist Ahmed Rilwan <a href="https://twitter.com/moyameeha">@moyameehaa</a>, whom he counted as his closest friend. This campaign made him a target as well.</p>
<p>When there was a crackdown on the largest pro-democracy rally in Malé on 1st May 2015, <a href="http://thedailypanic.com/2015/06/dhoonidhoo-diaries-part-1-arrest-and-incarceration/">Yameen became a political prisoner</a>: he was remanded in jail for 17 days, and then moved to house arrest. Hundreds of others were also arrested then. Some opposition leaders continue to remain in jail. Sheikh Imran Abdulla, the leader of the [Adhaalath Party] who spoke at that rally, was convicted on charges of terrorism and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/maldives-court-jails-opposition-figure-sheikh-imran-abdulla-for-12-years">sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment</a>.</p>
<p>As a result of his advocacy for freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the Maldives, Yameen <a href="https://twitter.com/yaamyn/status/711796772985659392">received death threats</a> on multiple occasions that he reported to the police, who refused to do anything about those complaints.</p>
<p>Why, despite receiving death threats did Yameen continue to voice his opinions fearlessly? When asked, "Do you have a death wish?", <a href="https://twitter.com/yaamyn/status/630344675958718464">he replied</a>: "No. I have a dignified life wish."</p>
<p>Amnesty International has called upon the Maldivian authorities to conduct a full investigation into this killing. I, however, believe that there is no hope for justice from the very police that refused to protect Yameen, and whom he held to be complicit in the disappearance of Rilwan. As Yameen said in 2015, <a href="https://twitter.com/yaamyn/status/569766158926131200">it is time for the international community to act</a>. I hope each of you reading this contacts your external affairs ministry and asks them to apply pressure on the Maldivian authorities, and push for an international investigation into the breakdown of human rights in the Maldives.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/yameen-rasheed-human-rights-maldives'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/yameen-rasheed-human-rights-maldives</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionMaldives2017-04-25T10:12:48ZBlog EntryKashmir: Telecom firms struggle to block 22 banned social media sites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-may-4-2017-aijaz-hussain-kashmir-telecom-firms-struggle-to-block-22-banned-social-media-sites
<b>A BSNL official says engineers are still working on shutting down the 22 social media sites but so far had been unable to do so without freezing the Internet across Kashmir.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Aijaz Hussain was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/c7DaWt2HvT6AVJLo5XJV2I/Kashmir-Telecom-firms-struggle-to-block-22-banned-social-me.html">published in Livemint</a> on May 4, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has banned 22 social media sites in an effort to calm tensions in parts of the disputed region of Kashmir, after several viral videos depicting the alleged abuse of Kashmiris by Indian law enforcement fuelled protests. But the sites remained online Thursday morning as the local telecom company struggled to block them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government said on Wednesday that the restrictions, to be in effect for one month, were necessary for public safety. “It’s being felt that continued misuse of social networking sites and instant messaging services is likely to be detrimental to the interests of peace and tranquillity in the state,” the public order reads.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, policy director for the Indian advocacy group the Centre for Internet and Society, called the ban a “blow to freedom of speech” and “legally unprecedented in India.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An official with Kashmir’s state-owned telecom company, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), said engineers were still working on shutting down the 22 sites, including Facebook and Twitter, but so far had been unable to do so without freezing the internet across the Himalayan region. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to give technical details of the effort to the media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Meanwhile, 3G and 4G cellphone service has been suspended for more than a week, but the slower 2G service was still running.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Residents in Srinagar, the region’s main city, were busily downloading documents, software and applications onto their smartphones, which would likely be able to circumvent the social media block once it goes into effect. Many expressed relief to still have internet access Thursday morning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It was a welcome surprise,” said Tariq Ahmed, a 24-year-old university student. “It appears they’ve hit a technical glitch to block social media en mass.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the government has halted internet service in Kashmir in previous attempts to prevent anti-India demonstrations, this is the first time they have done so in response to the circulation of videos and photos showing alleged military abuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Others mocked the government. One Facebook post by Kashmiri writer Arif Ayaz Parrey said that the ban showed “the Indian government has decided to take on the collective subversive wisdom of cyberspace humanity.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kashmiris have been uploading videos and photos of alleged abuse for some years, but several recently posted clips, captured in the days surrounding a violence-plagued local election 9 April, have proven to be especially powerful and have helped to intensify anti-India protests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One video shows a stone-throwing teenage boy being shot by a soldier from a few metres (yards) away. Another shows soldiers making a group of young men, held inside an armoured vehicle, shout profanities against Pakistan while a soldier kicks and slaps them with a stick. The video pans to a young boy’s bleeding face as he cries. Yet another clip shows three soldiers holding a teenage boy down with their boots and beating him on his back.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The video that drew the most outrage was of young shawl weaver Farooq Ahmed Dar tied to the hood of an army jeep as it patrolled villages on voting day. A soldier can be heard saying in Hindi over a loudspeaker, “Stone throwers will meet a similar fate,” as residents look on aghast.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-may-4-2017-aijaz-hussain-kashmir-telecom-firms-struggle-to-block-22-banned-social-media-sites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-may-4-2017-aijaz-hussain-kashmir-telecom-firms-struggle-to-block-22-banned-social-media-sites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2017-05-04T02:29:04ZNews ItemKashmir’s information vacuum
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-august-29-2019-aayush-rathi-and-akriti-bopanna-kashmirs-information-vacuum
<b>Legislative backing is being appropriated to normalise communication shutdowns.</b>
<p class="drop-caps" style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Aayush Rathi and Akriti Bopanna was <a class="external-link" href="https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/kashmirs-information-vacuum/article29282096.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on August 29, 2019.</p>
<hr />
<p class="drop-caps" style="text-align: justify; ">On August 4, around midnight, <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/tag/134-81/jammu-and-kashmir/?utm=bodytag" target="_blank">Jammu and Kashmir </a>was thrust into a near total communication shutdown. In the continuing aftermath of the dilution of Article 370, cable television, cellular services, landline and Internet and even the postal services have been rendered inoperational. Even hospitals and fire stations have not been spared. While law enforcement personnel have been provided satellite phones, locals are having to queue up outside designated government offices and register the numbers they want to call. The blackout is all encompassing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir is accustomed to the flicking on of the “Internet killswitch”, but this indiscriminate embargo is unprecedented. The blocking of multi-point/two-way communication is quite frequent in Kashmir, with close to 55 instances of partial or complete Internet shutdowns being recorded just this year. Of the 347 cases of shutdown that have been imposed in India since 2012, 51% have been in Kashmir. The blocking of one-way communication media, such as cable television, however, is new. Even the measures adopted during the Kargil war in 1999 stopped short of blocking telephone lines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Appearing for the incumbent government on a petition challenging the communications shutdown in Kashmir, the Attorney General of India, K.K. Venugopal, made the necessary-for-law-and-order argument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, recent research by Jan Rydzak looking exclusively at network shutdowns in India has shown no evidence backing this claim. On the contrary, network shutdowns have been shown to compel actors wanting to engage in collective action to substitute non-violent mobilisation for more violent means as the latter requires less coordination.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">In dubious company</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Network shutdowns have a limited and inconsistent effect on even structured, non-violent protests. Cross-country comparative research indicates that the shutdown of communication for achieving objectives of social control is usually the riposte of authoritarian regimes. The shroud of secrecy it creates allows for further controversial measures to be effected away from public scrutiny. Authoritarian regimes masquerading as liberal democracies are following suit. In 2016, the Turkish government had ordered the shutdown of over 100 media companies in the aftermath of a failed military coup. Earlier this year, Joseph Kabila’s government in the Democratic Republic of Congo had shut down Internet and SMS services for three weeks under the pretext of preventing the circulation of fake election results.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Venugopal further reassured the Supreme Court that the residents of Kashmir would experience the least amount of inconvenience. This line assumes that the primary use of telecommunication networks is for supposedly banal interpersonal interaction. What is forgotten is that these networks function both as an “infrastructure” and as medium of communication. Impacting either function has dire and simultaneous consequences on its use as the other. As an infrastructure, they are akin to a public utility and are foundational to the operation of critical systems such as water supply and finance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the Kashmir Valley, over half the business transactions are said to happen online. The payment of wages for the government-run employment guarantee scheme for unskilled manual labour is almost entirely made electronically — 99.56% in Jammu and Kashmir. The reliance on the Internet for bank-related transactions has meant that automated teller machines and banks are inoperative. What is telling is that the increasing recourse to network shutdowns as a law and order tool in India is also happening simultaneously with the government’s digitisation drive. Information flows are being simultaneously facilitated and throttled.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Ambiguous backing</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moreover, communication shutdowns have ambiguous legal backing. One approach imposes them as an order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A colonial relic, Section 144 is frequently used for the imposition of curfew in ‘sensitive’ areas as a preventive measure against public demonstrations. This approach lacks procedural accountability and transparency. Orders are not mandated to be publicly notified; they do not identify the duration of the lockdown or envision an appeal mechanism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Perhaps realising these challenges, the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, notified under the Telegraph Act, do incorporate a review mechanism. However, reviewing officials do not have the authority to revoke a shutdown order even if it is deemed illegal. The grounds for effectuating any shutdown also have not been elaborated other than for ‘public emergency’ or ‘public safety’ — both these terms are undefined. Legislative backing, then, is being appropriated to normalise, not curb, communication shutdowns. Tellingly, the owner of an Internet service provider in Kashmir pointed out that with Internet shutdowns becoming so common, often the shape that an order takes is of a call from a government official, while the procedural documentation follows much later.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Treated as collateral damage in imposing communication blackouts are the fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, trade, and also of association. The imposition of Section 144 along with the virtual curfew is designed to restrict the freedom to assemble peacefully. Such preemptive measures assume that any assembly will be violent along with negating the potential utility of technological means in maintaining social order (such as responsible digital journalism checking the spread of rumours).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most critically, this enables a complete information vacuum, the only salve from which is information supplied by the suppressor. Of the days leading up to August 5 and the days since, sparse information is publicly available. Local newspaper outlets in Kashmir are inoperational. This lack of information necessarily precludes effective democratic participation. Beneath the national security sentiments, a key motivation for network shutdown presents itself: that of political <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1351-1349/censorship/?utm=bodytag" target="_blank">censorship </a>through the criminalisation of dissent.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-august-29-2019-aayush-rathi-and-akriti-bopanna-kashmirs-information-vacuum'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-august-29-2019-aayush-rathi-and-akriti-bopanna-kashmirs-information-vacuum</a>
</p>
No publisherAayush Rathi and Akriti BopannaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2019-09-02T04:34:29ZBlog EntryKarthikeyan R v Union of India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/r-karthikeyan-v-union-of-india
<b>The court refused to direct the government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis to be constitutionally valid under Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression).</b>
<h2>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</h2>
<p><strong>DATED :01-04-2010<br />CORAM</strong></p>
<p><strong>THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO</strong><br /> AND<br /><strong>THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN</strong><br /><strong>WRIT PETITION NO.20344 OF 2009 and M.P.No.l of 2009</strong></p>
<p>Karthikeyan. R.<br />Advocate .. Petitioner<br />Vs.</p>
<ol><li>Union of India,<br />Rep. by its Secretary, <br />Department of Telecommunications, <br />Sanchar Bhavan, <br />20, Ashoka Road, <br />New Delhi 110 001.</li><li>The Secretary,<br />Department of Information Technology, <br />Electronics Niketan,No.6, CGO Complex, <br />Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.</li><li>The Secretary, <br />Department of Legal Affairs,<br />4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, <br />New Delhi 110 001.</li><li>The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, <br />Rep. by its Secretary,<br />Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, <br />Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110 002.</li><li>The Secretary,<br />Department of Women and Child Development, <br />New Delhi.</li><li>State of Tamil Nadu, <br />Rep. by its Secretary,<br />Ministry of Information Technology, <br />Secretariat, Chennai 9. <br /></li><li>The Asst. Commissioner of Police, <br />Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, <br />Egmore, Chennai 8.</li><li>The Central Bureau of Investigation, <br />Rep. by its Director,<br />Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, <br />New Delhi 110 003.</li><li>Internet Service Provider's Association of India,<br />612-A, Chiranjiv Tower, <br />43, Nehru Place, <br />New Delhi 110 019.</li><li>Google India Private Limited, <br />No.3, RM2 Infinity Tower-E, <br />Old Madras Road,<br />Bangalore 560 016.</li><li>Yahoo Web Services India Private Limited,<br />801, Nicholas Piramal Towers,<br /> Peninsula Corporate Park, <br />Lower Prel, Mumbai 400 013.</li><li>Microsoft Corporation India Private Ltd., <br />Tower-A, DLF Cyber Greens,<br />DLF Cyber Citi, Sector 25A, <br />Gurgaon 122 002.</li><li>Rediff.com India Limited, <br />Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate, <br />L.J. Road No.1, Mahim (West),<br />Mumbai 400 016. .. Respondents<br /></li></ol>
<p>Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to
forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a
regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online
publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic
publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and
search engine companies for offences and violations of licence
conditions committed by them.</p>
<p>
For Petitioner: Mr.P.T. Perumal</p>
<p>For Respondents 1 to 5: Mr.J. Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor General of India</p>
<p>For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. G. Desingu, Special Govt. Pleader</p>
<p>For Respondent 8: Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, Special Govt. Pleader</p>
<p>
For Respondent 10: Mr. G. Balasubramanian for M/s. Poovayya & Co.</p>
<p>Respondents 9,11 to l3: No Appearance</p>
<h3>ORDER</h3>
<div align="left">(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J)</div>
<ol><li>Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.<br /><br /></li><li>The present writ petition has been filed in public interest for
the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to
forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a
regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online
publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic
publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and
search engine companies for offences and violations of licence
conditions committed by them.<br /><br /></li><li>Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Respondents 1 to 5, the learned Assistant Solicitor General by placing
reliance upon a recent unreported decision of the Mumbai High Court in
Janhit Manch and Others v. Union of India IPI1 No. 155 of 2009),
disposed of on 3.3.2010, submitted that the prayer in the writ petition
before the Mumbai High Court is very much similar to the present writ
petition and, as has been observed in the said decision, the present
writ petition may also be disposed of.<br /><br /></li><li>We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision relied on by
the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In the said decision,
the prayer made by the petitioners therein was to direct the
respondents therein to make co-ordinated and sustained efforts, to have a
blanket ban on websites which according to them are displaying material
pertaining to sex and harmful to the youth of the country. The Division
Bench, after hearing the contentions made on either side, observed as
follows :<br /><br />"By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court
which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country,
should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and
sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once
Parliament, in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the
punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including
the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any
other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the
appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be
taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian
of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should
not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor
websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending
on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is
morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before
the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides
the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved
may file a complaint.<br /><br />In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of
our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any
website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which
amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a complaint.<br /><br />With the above observations, Petition disposed of."<br /><br /></li><li>From the facts of the Janhit Manch case and the observations made
therein, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio of the said
decision squarely applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch
as in the present writ petition the relief sought for by the petitioner
is to strictly enforce the rules monitoring online publications in
internet and punish the persons violating such rules, which is
indirectly made in the Janhit Manch case. Therefore, applying the ratio
of the aforesaid decision, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Moreover, we make it clear that if any complaint is made against the
publishing or transmitting any obscene or pornographic publications,
necessary steps should be taken by the respondents in accordance with
law.<br /><br /></li><li>The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.<br /><br />With the above observations, Petition disposed of."<br />Sd/<br />Asst.Registrar<br />/true copy/<br />Sub Asst.Registrar</li></ol>
<p>
To</p>
<ol><li>The Secretary, <br />
Union of India,<br />
Department of Telecommunications, <br />
Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road, <br />
New Delhi 110 001.</li><li>The Secretary, <br />
Department of Information Technology, <br />
Electronics Niketan,<br />
No.6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, <br />
New Delhi 110 003</li><li>The Secretary, <br />
Department of Legal Affairs,<br />
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, <br />
New Delhi 110 001.</li><li>The Secretary,<br />
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of Indie, <br />
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, <br />
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,New Delhi 110 002.</li><li>The Secretary,<br />
Department of Women and Child Development, <br />
New Delhi.</li><li>The Secretary, <br />
State of Tamil Nadu,<br />
Ministry of Information Technology, <br />
Secretariat, Chennai 9.</li><li>The Asst. Commissioner of Police,<br />
Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 8.</li><li>The Director<br />
Central Bureau of Investigation,<br />
Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.<br />
<br />
</li></ol>
<p>
1 cc To M/s.P.T.Perumal i E.Bdwing, Advocates, SR.22010</p>
<p>
1 cc To Mr.J.Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor, SR.22034</p>
<p>
1 cc To M/s.Poovayya & Co., Advocates, SR.22221</p>
<p>
1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.21929</p>
<p>
W.P.No.20344/2009<br />GR(CO)</p>
<p>srs 15/04/2010</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/r-karthikeyan-v-union-of-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/r-karthikeyan-v-union-of-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-01-18T11:51:59ZPageKapil Sibal to sterilise Net but undercover sting shows 6 of 7 websites already trigger-happy to censor under ‘chilling’ IT Act
https://cis-india.org/chilling-it-act
<b>The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has carried out an undercover investigation into the "chilling effects" of new information technology laws on freedom of expression online, with six out of seven major websites removing innocent content online without proper investigation, creating a "private censorship regime". </b>
<p>CIS’ still unpublished draft report, a copy of which Legally India has seen, was prepared before yesterday’s controversial announcement by India’s minister of communications and IT Kapil Sibal, who said that he was talking to major intermediaries on the web, such as Facebook, Google and Yahoo, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201112072434/Regulatory/www.livemint.com/2011/12/06130244/Govt-wants-to-scrub-the-Intern.html">to actively prevent “blasphemous” content from being posted online</a> by users. </p>
<p>Earlier this year a CIS researcher and lawyer had sent "fraudulent" takedown letters to seven internet companies making claims without providing any evidence that certain third-party content violated provisions under the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, explained Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS.</p>
<p>The rules, which were came into force in April 2011, aimed to limit the liability of web sites acting as intermediary publishers of information, if they comply to a takedown mechanism, but CIS said in its report that the rules were “procedurally flawed” because they ignored all principles of “natural justice”.</p>
<p>The researchers sent a notice to two Indian news website claiming without evidence that a reader’s comment related to the Telengana movement under a news article was “disparaging”, “racially and ethnically objectionable”, “hateful” and “defamatory”. One website removed two comments, while the other went even beyond the researcher’s request to remove only one comment and within 72 hours removed all 15 comments left by readers on the article.</p>
<p>The researchers also successfully convinced other websites, including a search engine, to remove content and links that they claimed encouraged money laundering or gambling,<br /><br />The only response that was rejected outright was a facetious takedown request to a shopping portal that an ad for baby’s diapers “harmed minors” by potentially causing babies’ rashes.<br /><br />"Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," stated the draft report on the research. "From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression."<br /><br />"This is just the tip of the iceberg,” commented Abraham, adding that he was told by at least one major international intermediary company operating in India that it was "constantly" receiving takedown requests.<br /><br />"Our empirical research demonstrates that intermediaries are unable to make the subjective test that is required of them," he added. "They are highly risk averse and they often choose to completely comply with the person sending a takedown notice."<br /><br />"There is clear anecdotal evidence that […] the recently notified rules have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, and that there is no transparency or accountability."<br /><br />"What we have is a private censorship regime that is alive and kicking in India."</p>
<p>This blog post by by Kian Ganz was published in Legally India on 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read it <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201112072434/Regulatory/kapil-sibal-to-sterilise-net-but-cis-sting-shows-6-out-of-7-websites-already-trigger-happy-to-censor-content-under-chilling-it-act">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/chilling-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/chilling-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2011-12-07T06:02:29ZNews ItemKapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs
https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules
<b>The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 (The Rules) continue to breathe after the statutory motion to annul them moved by member of parliament (MP) from Kerala P Rajeeve was defeated by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha yesterday.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/motion-to-kill-it-rules-defeated">This blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on May 18, 2012</a></p>
<p>Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal was heard on Rajya Sabha TV saying: “We are more liberal than US and Europe but let’s not cut our arms.”</p>
<p>Sibal countered Rajeeve’s annulment motion arguing that the government needs to be armed to meet the “new challenges” posed by “new media”, according to <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/05/17225536/Govt-pledges-to-review-plans-t.html">Mint</a>.</p>
<p>"Kapil Sibal reminds me of badly briefed counsels fumbling in the High Court" tweeted <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/#!/pranesh_prakash">Pranesh Prakash</a> of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as Sibal was mid-delivery in contending that online media not registered in India escaped the ambit of Indian legislation and thus created the peril of terrorism and increased drug peddling.</p>
<p>Another person tweeted: "The gist of Sibal’s argument was that we need to censor the internet because people are doing drugs."</p>
<p>Sibal’s answer to MP Ram Yadav’s attack on The Rules for being inconsistent with their parent act – the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) – was that <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511(1).pdf">Rule 3(2)</a> which prescribes “due diligence” to be observed by an internet intermediary, originates from <a class="external-link" href="http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/information-technology-act/section66A-information-technology-act.htm">Section 66A of the IT Act</a>, thus making the rules consistent with the parent act.</p>
<p>Section 3(2) obligates the intermediary to take down content posted on a website, on the basis of several undefined criteria.</p>
<p>"Minister you have created perverse incentives for censoring speech through law. That is regulation, not merely a definition of due diligence” proclaimed Supreme Court advocate <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/#!/aparatbar">Apar Gupta</a> in a tweet posted during Sibal’s defense of the rules.</p>
<p>Prakash tweeted: "The IT Rules don’t just prescribe ‘due diligence’ but create a takedown mechanism. That’s not the same thing Mr. Sibal."</p>
<p>Sibal went on to establish that the government’s motive was not censorious by stating: “It is your choice, you are free to work with the user who complains to an intermediary. Where does the government come in?”</p>
<p>To which quipped Prakash: “Government is not censoring. It has created a system by which anyone can censor with impunity.”</p>
<h3>Jaitley in-perspective</h3>
<p>Leader of the opposition senior advocate Arun Jaitley objected to The Rules holding that terms such as “disparaging”, ”libellous”, “defamatory”<a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201201182502/Legal-opinions/sopa-blackout-day-bah-wheres-the-kolaveri-about-indias-it-act-intermediaries-rules"> not defined in the Act or the Rules but enabling take-down of content</a>, could be misused, according to <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Internet-would-have-made-1975-Emergency-a-fiasco-Arun-Jaitely/articleshow/13219214.cms">Times of India</a>.</p>
<p>IBN Live reported him as urging Sibal to "reconsider the language of restraints".</p>
<p>Sibal addressed the house inviting objections from MPs on specific “words” contained in The Rules which provide for control of speech over the internet, according to<a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/govt-for-consensus-on-rules-for-internet-content-control/999876.html"> PTI</a>.</p>
<p>He further proposed to call a meeting of “stakeholders” to discuss the MPs’ objections, and assured that the consensus that emerges from the meeting will be implemented.</p>
<h3>Draconian Censorious Rules</h3>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/mps-to-be-taught-draconian-it-act-rules-as-indianet-support-galvanises-for-annul-motion">Legally India</a> reported last month how Rajeeve was trying to spread awareness among MPs about the draconian effect of the Rules which censor free speech and expression, by over-scrutinising users of the internet, over-authorising intermediaries to monitor content posted over the internet, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.</p>
<p>The Rules in their present form require intermediaries - providers of internet, telecom, e-mail or blogging services, including cyber cafes - to publish terms of use prohibiting users from publishing content of the nature specified in the Rules.</p>
<p>Once the intermediaries have knowledge of posted content that is in violation of such terms of use, they are liable for compensation if they fail to initiate action for removal of the posted content.</p>
<p>Some of the categories of prohibited content specified in the Rules are undefined, are not an offence under existing law, and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201203062622/Bar-Bench-Litigation/read-first-writ-challenging-censorious-it-act-intermediaries-rules-in-kerala">are claimed to be in violation of article 19(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression</a>.</p>
<p>CIS uncovered an additional problem the rules pose - that of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201112072434/Regulatory/kapil-sibal-to-sterilise-net-but-cis-sting-shows-6-out-of-7-websites-already-trigger-happy-to-censor-content-under-chilling-it-act">“over-complying” intermediaries</a> who in order to minimize the risk of liability may block more content than required, adversely impacting the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1).</p>
<p>"By and large, the impression is that India is going in the direction of censorship," Mint reported cyber law expert and supreme court lawyer Pavan Duggal as saying, yesterday.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules'>https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipInformation Technology2012-05-24T09:45:43ZNews ItemJust Net Coalition Workshop on Equity and Social Justice in a Digital World
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/just-net-coalition-workshop-on-equity-and-social-justice-in-a-digital-world
<b>Anubha Sinha participated in a JNC workshop organized by Just Net Coalition Workshop on Equity and Social Justice in a Digital World and its partners in Bangkok from March 25 to 27, 2019. </b>
<h3>Background</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Digital is increasingly the substratum of much of social, economic and political activities, marking the advent of what has been called as the digital society and economy. While it does promise the advancement of human civilisation in many ways – enabling unimagined efficiencies of resource utilisation and new forms of intelligent social and economic organisation and functioning, these gains are not automatic. This is especially so regarding whether the benefits of a digital society and economy will be equitably distributed, or if data enabled pervasive digital intelligence will get employed by the powerful to further entrench their controls over the rest. It is a telling fact that the last decade and half of the rise of the Internet and digital were also the times of one of the fastest ever worsening of inequality worldwide. If the deep social, economic and political troubles currently faced by the world are any evidence, we may not be employing the newly available digitally intelligent means for better management of our societies and economies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Governments, that are supposed to ensure appropriate economic distribution and social justice, are completely at a loss with regard to the digital society/economy phenomenon, and leave it to big – mostly global – business to advice and lead them. Even among civil society, while there exist many groups and networks advocating for the very important civil and political rights in a digital era, there is hardly any presence and work related to corresponding economic and social rights and justice. This has resulted in a singular homogeneous global digital economy discourse which is not just hegemonic – as admittedly happens in other areas as well – but also remains almost entirely uncontested, without any alternatives articulated even at its peripheries. It is underpinned by the neoliberal tenets of seamless techno-enabled economic globalisation, open unregulated markets (but actually monopoly corporate controls), and individual merit and personal responsibility. Productivity and inclusion are both sold as assured outcomes of imbibing digital technologies into everything.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more info, <a class="external-link" href="https://justnetcoalition.org/2019/Digital_justice_workshop_note.pdf">click here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/just-net-coalition-workshop-on-equity-and-social-justice-in-a-digital-world'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/just-net-coalition-workshop-on-equity-and-social-justice-in-a-digital-world</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2019-04-05T14:22:07ZNews ItemJanhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/janhit-manch-ors.-v-union-of-india
<b>The petition sought a blanket ban on pornographic websites. The NGO had argued that websites displaying sexually explicit content had an adverse influence, leading youth on a delinquent path. </b>
<h2 align="left">IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI <br /></h2>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE<br /></h2>
<h3 align="left">PIL NO. 155 OF 2009</h3>
<p>Janhit Manch and Ors. ... Petitioners<br />Versus<br />The Union of India ... Respondents<br />Mr. Sandeep Jalan for Petitioner in person.<br />Mr. A.M. Sethna for R. No. 1.</p>
<p><strong>CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &<br />J.H. BHATIA, JJ.<br />DATED : MARCH 03, 2010</strong></p>
<p><strong>P.C.</strong></p>
<p>Petitioner by the present petition has approached this court, seeking
relief to direct the respondents to make coordinated and sustained
efforts, to have a blanket ban on websites which according to
Petitioners are displaying material pertaining to sex and which in their
opinion is harmful to the youth of this country in their formative
years.</p>
<p>Mr. Jalan, Petitioner No. 2 appearing in person draws our attention
to amongst others to Section 67 and 67A of the Information &
Technology Act, 2000. Under Section 67 if any person publishes or
transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic
form any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient
interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt
persons who are likely, having regarding to all relevant circumstances,
to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be
punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years and fine which may extend to
five lakh rupees. Section 67A pertains to publishing or transmitting or
causing to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any
material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct can be punished
on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten
lakh rupees.</p>
<p>The Act therefore, makes provision for punishment of a person against
whom a complaint is filed, if such person commits the offence which
falls within the purview of section 67 or 67A as the case may be. Such
person can be tried and convicted. For that prosecution will have to
establish that an offence has been committed.</p>
<p>By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court
which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country,
should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and
sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once
Parliament in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the
punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including
the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any
other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the
appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be
taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian
of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should
not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor
websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending
on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is
morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before
the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides
the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved
may file a complaint.</p>
<p>In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise
of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any
website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which
amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information &
Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a a complaint.</p>
<p>With the above observations, Petition disposed of.</p>
<p><strong>(J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) </strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/janhit-manch-ors.-v-union-of-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/janhit-manch-ors.-v-union-of-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-01-18T11:57:04ZPageJ&K social media ban: Use of 132-year-old Act can’t stand judicial scrutiny, say experts
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-april-28-2017-shruti-dhapola-j-k-social-media-ban
<b>Jammu and Kashmir's social media ban: Legal experts are not convinced this is a viable order</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Shruti Dhapola was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/jammu-and-kashmir-social-media-ban-use-of-132-year-old-act-cant-stand-judicial-scrutiny-say-experts-4631775/">Indian Express</a> on April 28, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For residents of Jammu and Kashmir, there’s a blanket ban on social media for the next one month. This means no access to <a href="http://indianexpress.com/about/facebook/">Facebook</a>, WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/about/skype/">Skype</a> WeChat, YouTube, Telegram and other social networks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As The Indian Express reported, this ‘social media ban’ was ordered by the state government after Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti chaired a meeting of the Unified Command Headquarters in Srinagar. The total list includes 22 social media websites, and the order, a copy of which is available with The Indian Express, says this is being done “in the interest of maintenance of public order.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order to block the sites was issued by RK Goyal, Principal Secretary in the Home department, and cites Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, which “confers powers upon the Central government or the state government to take possession of license telegraphs and order stoppage of transmission or interception or detention of messages”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order reasons that social media sites are “being used by anti-national and anti-social elements by transmitting inflammatory messages in various forms”. It directs all ISPs to block these websites in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But questions are already being raised over its legality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This is an illegal order because the Telegraph Act and Rules, which the order cites, doesn’t give the government the power to block websites. The Telegraph Act is a colonial-era legislation first passed in 1885 in the aftermath of the Mutiny, making telegraphs a monopoly of the colonial British government, and restricting Indians’ access to communications technologies. In 1996, in the PUCL case, the Supreme Court laid down that powers to intercept or block transmission of messages cannot be exercised without procedural safeguards in place. In 2007, procedural safeguards were made for interception, but not for blocking of telegraphic communications,” points out Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pavan Duggal, senior lawyer specialising in cyberlaw, concurs. “Legally, the order is not viable. This is because the IT Act applies for blocking, under Section 69 (A). Also Section 81 of the IT Act also make it clear that this is a special law, which will prevail over any other older law. The IT ACT deals with everything related to the internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IT ACT notes in Section 1, that “It shall extend to the whole of India and, save as otherwise provided in this Act, it applies also to any offence or contravention there under committed outside India by any person.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But even blocking under the IT Act isn’t something that can be ordered over night, and the powers for this rest with the central government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There’s a provision (69A) in the Information Technology Act which provides for blocking of specific web pages for national security reasons, but only by the Central government. The J&K government, thus can only request the Central government to block. The central government has in the past denied requests by state governments as they were unlawful requests,” Prakash said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, blocking of URLs or in fact complete internet shutdowns is not new in India. “This is an example of Internet manipulation by the governments world over. The first casualty of any disturbance is now the Internet and the government, even the democratic ones living under rule of law have decided that is a-okay to prevent people from communicating in the name of law and order,” said Mishi Choudhary, President and Legal Director at SFLC.in</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">SFLC.in has also been keeping a track of internet shutdowns in India. It has a dedicated website Internetshutdowns.in which crowd-sources information on these bans, and India has already seen seven shut internet shutdowns in first three months of 2017. For instance, in the state of Nagaland internet and mobile services were down for nearly a month from January 30 to February 20.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The issue of url blocking and internet shutdowns inevitably gets linked to one of freedom of speech. While reasonable restrictions can be imposed under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, experts are not convinced the current order makes enough of a case to justify such a blanket ban.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The citizens of J&K are Indian citizens and can challenge the order as violative of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, violative of right to free speech and expression,” says Choudhary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Any kind of blocking must conform to the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, and any blocking must be legally “reasonable” for it to be acceptable as a legitimate restriction under Art.19(2). This blanket ban of 22 arbitrarily chosen service — why block QQ or WeChat, but not <a href="http://indianexpress.com/about/linkedin/">LinkedIn</a> — and that too for a month, cannot be called reasonable under any circumstances,” argues Prakash.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash adds that the order also raises other international concerns for India. “It also violates India’s international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), whose Article 19 protects the freedom of thought, opinion and expression. Only those restrictions that are provided by law, have a legitimate aim, are necessary with less restrictive option being available, and are proportionate to the harm being address are allowed. For instance, targeting of hate speech that is calling for genocide is reasonable. But such blanket bans of communications platforms are not,” he argues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So can the citizens challenge such an order, which puts a blanket ban on social networks? The answer is yes, as in this case this order “is legally untenable,” explains Duggal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the practice of blocking, he points that in today’s world it can only be seen an antiquated practice. “To give an analogy it is like fixing a leaking roof with a band-aid. It will only increase traffic to the blocked websites, and there are indirect ways to reach these sites via proxies and other tools as well,” he adds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The orders can always be reviewed by the courts. “While the IT Act allows for blocking, it should be remembered the process is always open to judicial review. Courts have final authority, and they can examine whether the principles of law were applied when passing such a blocking order,” explains Duggal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The affected social media websites or ISPs don’t yet have a response to this order. When we reached out, Facebook said it did not have an official comment on the ban. Mobile internet service providers Vodafone and Airtel also refused to comment.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-april-28-2017-shruti-dhapola-j-k-social-media-ban'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-april-28-2017-shruti-dhapola-j-k-social-media-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2017-05-04T02:12:23ZNews Item