The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 181 to 195.
Kapil 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CIS’ still unpublished draft report, a copy of which Legally India has seen, was prepared before yesterday’s controversial announcement by India’s minister of communications and IT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 ItemIT Leaders, Lawyers Welcome SC Ruling on 66A of the IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-in-march-25-2015-it-leaders%2C-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act
<b>The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment in scrapping section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prescribed 'punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.' and had been branded as grossly 'unconstitutional' by various lawyers and legal advisors.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog past was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cio.in/news/it-leaders,-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act">published by Cio.in</a> on March 25, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here's what 66A of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 stated: Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, or (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per the study conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, intermediaries over-comply and tend to take down even legitimate information when they receive a takedown notice. There were also several arrests made as a result. The most recent among which was when a class XI student from Bareilly was arrested for sharing an “objectionable” post on Facebook against senior Samajwadi party leader and state Urban Development Minister, Azam Khan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling by the Supreme Court has not only been welcomed by Shreya Singhal, the young law student who was among the first to challenge it in the Supreme Court, but also lawyers, legal advisors as well as IT leaders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, a Policy Director with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and a graduate of the National Law School tweeted: While the case is about 'Internet' censorship, the SC judgment is against ALL censorship. That's important. #66A</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to Pavan Duggal, advocate, Supreme Court of India, Section 66A symbolized the tyranny of ambiguous vague terms over the purity of legitimate free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It represented a tool for suppressing bonafide free speech, which was extensively misused. Sec 66A was a foe more than your friend. In scrapping Sec 66A, Supreme Court has done a great service to the cause of free speech of vibrant digital Indians. Digital free speech in India owes a great deal to the SC ruling," said Duggal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Various Indian IT leaders also expressed their satisfaction towards the apex court's ruling, and called it a balanced judgment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Anjani Kumar, CIO, Safexpress says, the ruling is by and large, a favorable one. “Previously, people who were writing against the establishment were being harassed. However, with this ruling, the apex court has protected the constitutional right of freedom of speech,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There will be freedom of speech and everyone will be able to express their views openly on social media platforms. It will help maintain an equilibrium over a period of time,” said T.G Dhandapani, group CIO, TVS Motors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the general sentiment was fairly positive. Manas Mati, executive director and technology head, Walt Disney said, “I think the Section should not have been scrapped. Every person needs to be responsible and accountable for what they post on social media.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Accountable or not, the judgment clearly indicates that's there won't be any arrests on the subjective interpretation of vague expressions such as “grossly offensive” and “menacing character” etc. under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“However, the ruling is a very balanced one, with the court stating that the government has the right to remove objectionable content, but not arrest the person. The negative can be that some people go overboard on social media and they need to be checked," Kumar said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-in-march-25-2015-it-leaders%2C-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-in-march-25-2015-it-leaders%2C-lawyers-welcome-sc-ruling-on-66a-of-the-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T15:58:19ZNews ItemISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-moulishree-srivastava-june-14-2016-isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order
<b>DoT on Monday ordered blocking of 240 URLs; blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and Information Technology Rules.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="p-content"> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Moulishree Srivastava <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order-116061400376_1.html">was published in the Business Standard</a> on June 14, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have started blocking websites allegedly offering escort services after an order from the Department of Telecommunication (DoT).<br /> <br /> The DoT on Monday asked ISPs to immediately block around 240 such URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) offering escort services, to filter out obscene content on the internet. Speaking to Business Standard, Internet Service Providers Association of India’s (ISPAI) President Rajesh Chharia said the ISPs were in process of shutting down these websites. ISPAI represents 60 ISPs including Bharti Airtel, Tata Teleservices, Reliance Communication, Vodafone and Idea Cellular. <br /> <br /> “We received the order yesterday, and it entails a list of about 240 websites that the government wants us to block,” said Chharia. “CERT-In, which works under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (Deity), advised the department on certain websites that it feels could be a national or social threat. Deity then reached out to DoT, which is our licensor. We are the licensee, and as per the licensing agreement, we have to comply with the order.”<br /> <br /> While declining to comment on whether this is the first such order the association had received this year, Chharia said, “Since last few years, we have been receiving orders to block websites which hosts content that may be a threat to social order or national security.” Blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and a 2009 secondary legislation called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules (“Blocking Rules”).<br /> <br /> The rules empower the central government to direct any agency or intermediary to block access to information when satisfied that it is “necessary or expedient so to do” in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above. Intermediaries failing to comply are punishable with fines and prison terms up to seven years.”<br /> <br /> In December 2014, around six months after the Modi-led BJP government came into power, the DoT ordered ISPs to block 32 websites, including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to an RTI filed by no-for-profit organisation Software Freedom Law Centre in March last year, Deity said 2341 URLs were blocked in 2014, adding that “barring few numbers, all URLs were blocked on the orders of the Court”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another RTI filed by Bangalore based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) found that 143 URLs were blocked in first three months of 2015 in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts. Later that year, the government attempted to block about 857 porn websites, but it had to revoke the order following the backlash online and offline.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recent notice named a number of websites that need to be banned, including pinkysingh.com, jasmineescorts.com, onlyoneescorts.com, payalmalhotra.in, localescorts.in, pearlpatel.in, kavyajain.in, xmumbai.in, shimi.in and anchu.in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to Freedom on the Net 2015 report by Freedom House, which termed India as a “partly free” country on the internet, there were 129 operational ISPs in India as of May 2015.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-moulishree-srivastava-june-14-2016-isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-moulishree-srivastava-june-14-2016-isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2016-07-02T04:17:25ZNews ItemIs the govt caught in the 'censorship' web?
https://cis-india.org/news/www-ndtv-com-we-the-people-aug-26-2012-is-the-govt-caught-in-the-censorship-web
<b>NDTV aired a one-hour debate on censorship in "We the People" episode hosted by Barkha Dutt on August 26, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated in the discussions as a speaker.</b>
<p>Pranesh Prakash responded to Barkha Dutt's question on what does a government do in a time of social unrest:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"I think in a time of social unrest there is leeway provided in laws for the government to take action. The law existing and the law allowing for it is a very different matter from the government actually making use of it. There are as shown in the United Kingdom, much better ways of combating situations of riots. As we have seen in India for instance, there are people who provoke riots from podiums yet don't get arrested and as we have seen in the UK, there are people who take part in riots and have been punished a great deal."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Video</b></p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-0f0_yG2gVE" width="320"></iframe></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">See the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/we-the-people/is-the-govt-caught-in-the-censorship-web/244248">full debate</a> on NDTV</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-ndtv-com-we-the-people-aug-26-2012-is-the-govt-caught-in-the-censorship-web'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-ndtv-com-we-the-people-aug-26-2012-is-the-govt-caught-in-the-censorship-web</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceVideoCensorship2012-09-04T06:54:25ZNews ItemIs the govt bid to regulate content on the Internet a good thing?
https://cis-india.org/news/ibn-live-chat-with-pranesh
<b>The recent move by Union Minister Kapil Sibal to engage leading Internet platform providers like Google, Facebook, etc in regulating content has seen netizens react in different manners. The question of freedom of expression vis-a-vis objectionable content has come to the fore. Pranesh Prakash who deals with such issues on a regular basis at the Centre for Internet and Society was answering questions (more like comments) live on CNN-IBN's chat feature on December 7, 2011. </b>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: OK... then how about this... People report abuse against a page...and after some hits that report will go to the governmental organization, and they will decide on what action to take... this may include hiring of some IT services company to do that and gives more employment to people too. Anyways thanks for replying to my questions.<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Tilak Kamath<br /><br />
<div align="left">A: How about just approaching courts, who are in a far better position to judge what is legal and what is illegal under Indian law than any IT services company or government organization.</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Suppose a group of rabble rousers does indeed use a forum and become violent, (the group being identifiable) would the state have the right to ask the forum to be discontinued?<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Zeus<br />
<div align="left"><br />A: Of course (if what you meant is 'the right to ask the forum to remove the violence-inciting content'). Indeed, this is how ultra-left wing and ultra-right wing publications that advocate violence (which is an imminent threat) are proscribed in India. And the same laws already apply for online fora. But just as you wouldn't ban a newspaper like DNA for carrying an offensive article (such as the anti-Muslim screed written by Subramanian Swamy a few months back), and just as the postal service wouldn't be discontinued for carrying Maoist letters, a forum shouldn't be banned for offensive content. There is no need for a new 'self-regulation code', since the 'report abuse' links found on many of these sites are exactly that: self-regulation.</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Article 19(2) of our constitution places arbitrary and subjective restrictions on free speech - public order, decency, morality are all subjective, according to the whims and fancies of those who are in control. Aren't you concerned this is going down the exact path (ignoring that this is impractical to begin with)?<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Karunakaran<br /><br /></div>
A: No, because there is a rich jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of what is and what isn't a "reasonable restriction". While I do believe that our Constitution does go beyond what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a signatory) allows for, Article 19(2)'s interpretation by the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been very progressive for the most part. <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: The government has a mandate to govern and keep the society in harmony and take care of law & order... If no check on the expressions of netizens the chances of a spark generating debate can escalate to violence given the extremism we see today. The media in print as well as electronic we know & see does it's CENSORING, calling it as editing and publishing only what it likes and wants.This style is for all including CNN-IBN.The difference is in media, the EDITOR gets responsible in case of offensive or blashphemous material gets published. Social network the responsibility seems missing. Freedom always needs to be enjoyed with discipline. How do you the minority indisciplined netizens, who are there and no denying on that ?<br /><br />
<div align="right">Asked by: sundar1950in</div>
<br />A: I believe that killing speech is not the right way to prevent violence. Indeed, a newspaper editor in the Maldives recently noted that they have had less violence committed against the newspaper office ever since they allowed for online comments. Speech often allows people to vent out violence instead of acting it out. Violence should be curbed by reining in those who're committing it, and those who're inciting it on the ground. At any rate, the laws that apply to inciting violence in print apply to the Web also, and no new rules need to be drafted. <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Thanks for the information on the report abuse button. but can't we have a Governmental agency regulating websites like FB or Google... they can't say no, cos India is a Huge market for such companies.. and why don't we find many ultra offensive posts about the U.S. or other countries, as we find for Indians..<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Tilak Kamath</div>
<br />A: That would be a very bad idea. Governments don't have a regulatory agency to dictate what letters post-offices shouldn't carry, nor what articles newspapers shouldn't publish. They should definitely not have a regulatory agency dictate what status updates Facebook or Google+ should and shouldn't carry. You don't find ultra-offensive posts about the U.S. because you aren't looking around. They're *everywhere*, even more so than those that bad-mouth India. Yet, such offensive speech is the price we have to pay (gladly, I should add) for democracy and the freedom of speech.<br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: The idea to ban any post on something that would lead to communal strike is fine however, I feel this is not the intention. The intention is clearly political and due to the Anna movement becoming popular thanks to the posts on the internet as also certain remarks on the Gandhi family in particular and Congress leaders specifically has led to this decision. Kapil Sibal is a smart alec and he knows that this can be used against any adverse comments against them.<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Arun</div>
<br />A: I am less suspicious of Mr. Sibal. I believe, especially after speaking with some senior lawyer friends of his, that he genuinely believes what he is doing to be required and legal and constitutional, and not for the appeasement of one or two Congress leaders. That, however, does not make his suggested solution correct. Multiple High Courts' decisions have held otherwise, and the Supreme Court's decision in <em>Ajay Goswami v. Union of India</em> also provides them support. <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: One best possible thing is to advertise the Report Abuse button on the Internet, don't you think so? again there should be proper authentication to do so to avoid miscreants blocking some good pages unnecessarily.<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Tilak Kamath</div>
<br />A: I believe that the "Report Abuse" option available on most large social media and social network websites is useful, but it is also potentially dangerous since it allows a private party (such as Facebook or Google), rather than a court, to dictate what content is and isn't acceptable, to the possible detriment of larger society.<br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Good evening sir, my question is that it is legal to pre-screen the private data of users by sites and to interfere between their privacy.<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Shrey Goswami<br /><br /></div>
A: Whether this proposal by Shri Sibal necessarily involves an invasion of privacy is an open question, since the details of the proposal as as yet not fully sketched out. On Google Plus and Facebook, one can restrictedly share information. Will such restricted sharing also have to be pre-screened, or only information that is going to be available to all members of the public? The proposal still consists only of press articles and a press conference held by the Minister. Even assuming it only require pre-screening of information that is going to be publicly accessible, it imposes too high a burden on intermediaries, and is impractical. And, as you might be aware, only very limited pre-censorship is allowed in India, and such a general requirement of pre-censorship does not seem to be constitutional, in my opinion.<br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Yes, we were browsing FB yesterday and some content in there, could not be opened in front of my children. So Content is not always good, and there must be some kind of screening. Again, the current trend in India, to think that whatever the government does is not at all a good one. Governing must be left to government and not to news channels/civil society, etc. This looks dangerous, and sad no one is realising this.<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Narayanan S</div>
<br />A: Perhaps I should allow former Supreme Court Justice Hidyatullah's words speak for themselves: "Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read." - Justice Hidyatullah in <em>K.A. Abbas v. Union of India</em>. In the Janhit Manch case, the Bombay High Court held: "By the present petition what the petition 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 effort 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. Court in such matters, the guardians of the freedom of 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 view 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 /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Kapil Sibal has not been able to give conviction to objectionable content as social unrest can't take place through web and it needs well oiled machinery and as far as using offensive language against politicians is concerned it won't be curtailed through web and it will require better self regulation among politicians rather than being irresponsible<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Rij</div>
A: I agree completely.<br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Do you feel that Government (Congress in particular ) is trying to impose restrictions on social media to stifle the peoples anger against the Government and its leaders due to various scams and corruption?<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Santosh</div>
<br />A: No. I am taking Mr. Sibal's words at face value, that what they are trying to prevent is hate speech, inciting speech. Still, the means of doing so are undemocratic, ignorant of how the Internet functions, and liable to have very harmful consequences on our polity. <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Q: Are our laws going to be like those in gulf countries with respect to censorship? In the name of communal messages, is there a motive to censor something else?<br />
<div align="right">Asked by: Gaurav</div>
<br />A: It doesn't matter what the 'ulterior motive' is, and I'm not sure there is one. The touchstone should should be that of our Constitution and Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression with the Article 19(2) laying down the reasons for which reasonable restrictions can be laid down. And in many ways our laws are worse than those in Saudi Arabia. There at least when a website is blocked or content removed the public is notified when they try and access the content. In India, there is no such notification. <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Q: Is this being done as the politicians on the whole and congressmen
in particular are not upon notwithstanding how true the comment is. Is
it particular so when they are charry if any adverse comment is made on
the Gandhis. All these politicians who have opted for public life need
to be open for adverse comments as they are in the public limelight and
or it is their privilege.</p>
<div align="right">Asked by: Arun</div>
<p><br />
A: The examples being cited by Kapil Sibal are of harming religious
sentiments and inciting hatred. Be that as it may, even if the content
deserves to be removed—and I can't comment until I see the content he
finds offensive—doing so by mandating pre-censorship by intermediaries
with liability fixed on them otherwise is a wrong way of going about it.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>* The chat is over. Read the original published in IBN Live Chat <a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/chat/pranesh-prakash/is-the-govt-bid-to-regulate-content-on-the-internet-a-good-thing/758.html#">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/ibn-live-chat-with-pranesh'>https://cis-india.org/news/ibn-live-chat-with-pranesh</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2011-12-08T07:12:24ZNews ItemIs India’s website-blocking law constitutional? – I. Law & procedure
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure
<b>Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with its corresponding Rules, set out the procedure for blocking of websites in India. Over two posts, Geetha Hariharan examines the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><span>Introduction</span>:</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“<strong>IT Act</strong>”) is no stranger to litigation or controversy. Since its enactment in 2000, the IT Act has come under stringent criticism, both for the alleged Constitutional infirmities of its provisions and Rules, as well as for the way it is implemented. In recent years, Sections 66A (re: criminal liability for offensive, annoying or inconveniencing online communications), 67A (re: obscene 69A (re: website-blocking) and 79 (re: intermediary liability) have all come under attack for these reasons.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Today, these Sections and several others have been challenged before the Supreme Court. A total of ten cases, challenging various Sections of the IT Act, are being heard together by the Supreme Court. This is a welcome occasion, for the IT Act desperately needs judicial review. Nikhil Pahwa over at Medianama provides an </span><a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-if-a-law-requires-a-person-to-be-careful-it-is-not-violative-of-free-speech-notes-from-the-supreme-court/">update and the list of cases</a><span>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Among the challenged provisions are Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A. Section 66A was and continues to be used wantonly by the State and police. A student was <a href="http://m.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/andhra-pradesh-law-student-arrested-for-facebook-comment-on-cyclone-hudhud/article6544417.ece/">recently arrested</a> for a Twitter comment regarding Cyclone Hudhud, while anti-Modi comments led to several arrests earlier in the year (see <a href="http://m.firstpost.com/politics/goa-facebook-user-faces-jail-term-for-anti-modi-comments-1538499.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/aap-activist-arrested-for-allegedly-forwarding-anti-modi-mms-in-karnataka/article1-1222788.aspx">here</a> and <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/modi-on-negative-faces-list-principal-6-others-booked/">here</a>). At CIS, we have previously subjected Section 66A to constitutional analyses. <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act">Pranesh Prakash traced</a> the genealogy of the Section and <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A">its import</a> in targeting offensive, annoying and inconveniencing communications and spam, while <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/two-arguments-against-the-constitutionality-of-section-66a">Gautam Bhatia examined</a> the Section’s overbreadth and vagueness. The casual wording and potential for misuse of Section 79 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/constitutional-analysis-of-intermediaries-guidelines-rules">led Ujwala Uppaluri</a> to offer strong arguments regarding their violation of Part III of the Constitution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Similar infirmities also handicap Section 69A and its Rules. This provision empowers the Central government and officers authorised by it to order the blocking of websites or webpages. Website-blocking is permissible for reasons enumerated in Section 69A, and in accordance with the process laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public (sic)) Rules, 2009 (“<strong>Blocking Rules</strong>”). In our view, Section 69A and the Blocking Rules are also unconstitutional, and liable to be declared as such by the Supreme Court. We provide our analysis in this post and the next.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><span>Section 69A, IT Act</span><span>:</span></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69A and the Blocking Rules provide for website-blocking in accordance with enumerated reasons and process. The Section reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; "><strong>69A.</strong> <i>Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.- </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i><span>(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span><span>(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span><span>(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.</span></blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As you will notice, the Central government may block any information that is “<i>generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted</i>” in any computer. This will extend, clearly, to any webpage available and/or hosted in India. The Government can order website-blocks if it is satisfied of the necessity or expedience for this on the basis of (any of) six reasons. These reasons are:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Sovereignty and integrity of India,</li>
<li>Defense of India,</li>
<li>Security of the State,</li>
<li>Friendly relations with foreign states,</li>
<li>Public order,</li>
<li>Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>If the Central government is convinced it has a valid reason, then it must follow the blocking procedure set out in the </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/information-technology-procedure-and-safeguards-for-blocking-for-access-of-information-by-public-rules-2009">Blocking Rules</a><span>, which were notified on 27 October 2009. Before entering into an analysis of the Blocking Rules, let us understand the blocking procedure.</span></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Blocking Procedure</span><span>:</span></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I will explain the blocking procedure in 4 steps: (1) Relevant designations and committees; (2) Procedure to make and examine a blocking request, and issue blocking direction; (3) Blocking in special circumstances; and (4) Review of blocking directions.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>(1) Relevant designations and committees:</span></h3>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Designated Officer (“<strong>DO</strong>”)</span></strong>: The Central government notifies an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary as the Designated Officer, who will issue the blocking direction ot the relevant intermediary or agency [Rule 3]. By a <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Gazette1_20082010(1).pdf">notification dated 20 January 2010</a>, the DO is the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division, Department of Information Technology (DIT). Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division <a href="http://deity.gov.in/content/people-and-offices">on the website</a> of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY, the name to which DIT was renamed in 2012). I am also unable to find a notification updating the designation of the DO. Presumably, Dr. Gulshan Rai, Director General (Cyberlaws & E-security), DeitY, continues to be the DO.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Nodal Officer (“<strong><strong>NO</strong></strong>”)</span></strong></span>: Every organization designates one of its officers as a Nodal Officer, who will receive blocking requests and forward them to the DO [Rule 4]. ‘Organisation’ is defined in Rule 2(g) as Ministries or Departments of the Government of India, State governments and Union Territories, and any Agency of the Central government notified in the Official Gazette. I am unable to find <a href="http://deity.gov.in/content/notifications">on the DeitY website</a> a notification explaining which government Agencies are ‘organisations’ under Rule 2(g).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Intermediary Contact</span></strong></span>: Every intermediary also designates one person to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO [Rule 13].</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Committee for Examination of Request (“<strong><strong>CER</strong></strong>”)</span></strong></span>: The 5-membered CER comprises the DO as Chairman, along with officers not below the rank of Joint Secretary from the Ministries of Law & Justice, Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and <a href="http://deity.gov.in/content/indian-computer-emergency-response-team-cert-dpl-rtoi">CERT-In</a> [Rule 7]. The CER examines each blocking request, before issuing recommendations to the DO to block or not to block. Regrettably, I am unable to identify the current membership of the CER, as no document is available that gives this information. However, the CER’s composition in 2010 <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dit-response-2nd-rti-blocking">may be gleaned</a> (see Annexure III).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Review Committee (“<strong><strong>RC</strong></strong>”)</span></strong></span>: Rule 2(i) defines the RC as the body set up under Rule 419A, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. <a href="http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/358%20GI-2014%20dated%208.2.2014_6.pdf">As per Rule 419A(16)</a>, the Central RC is constituted by the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span><strong>(2) </strong><strong>Blocking procedure</strong><span>:</span></span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Blocking Rules stipulate that the entire blocking procedure, from examining a blocking request to issuing a blocking direction, must be carried out within 7 days from the date on which the DO receives the blocking request from the NO [Rule 11].</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(a) Making a blocking request</span></strong>: Any person may send a request for a website-block to an NO of any ‘organisation’ (“<strong>outside request</strong>”). Alternatively, the NO may himself raise a blocking request. The organization has to examine each outside request and be satisfied that it meets the requirements of Section 69A(1), IT Act. Once it is satisfied, the NO forwards the blocking request to the DO. Outside requests must be approved by the Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory, before they are sent to the DO. [See Rule 6 for this procedure]</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(b) Examining a blocking request</span></strong>: Once the DO receives a blocking request, he/she places it before the CER. The DO tries to identify the person/intermediary hosting the troubling information, and if identified, issues a notice seeking their representation before the CER. Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed over fax/email. The person/intermediary has 48 hours from the date of receiving the DO’s notice to make its representation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After this, the CER will examine the blocking request. It will “consider whether the request is covered within the scope of Section 69A(1)”, and whether it is justifiable to block [Rule 8(4)].</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(c) Blocking direction</span></strong>: The DO then places the CER’s recommendation to block or not to block before the Secretary (DeitY) for his/her approval. If and once approval is granted, the DO directs the relevant Agency or intermediary to block the website/page.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span><strong>(3) </strong><strong>Blocking in special circumstances</strong>:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(a) Emergencies [Rule 9]</span></strong>: In an emergency “when no delay is acceptable”, the DO passes over the blocking procedure described above. With written recommendations, the DO directly approaches the Secretary (DeitY) for approval of blocking request. If satisfied, the Secretary (DeitY) issues the blocking direction as an <i>interim measure</i>. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the blocking request before the CER at the earliest opportunity (in any case, not later than 48 hours after blocking direction).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">(b) Court orders [Rule 10]</span></strong>: If a court has ordered a website-block, the DO follows a procedure similar to an Emergency situation. He/she submits the certified copy of order to the Secretary (DeitY), and then initiates action as ordered by the court.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span><strong>(4) </strong><strong>Review of blocking directions</strong>:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The RC is to meet once in 2 months to evaluate whether blocking directions issued under the Blocking Rules are in compliance with Section 69A(1) [Rule 14]. No other review or appeal mechanism is provided under the Blocking Rules. Nor are aggrieved parties afforded any further opportunities to be heard. Also note that Rule 16 mandates that all requests and complaints received under the Blocking Rules are to the kept strictly confidential.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the next post, I will subject Section 69A and the Blocking Rules to a constitutional analysis.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><span>Blocking procedure poster</span>:</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (<a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/at_download/file">download PDF</a>, 2.037MB).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActBlocking2014-12-11T11:02:01ZBlog EntryIs India Ignoring its own Internet Protections?
https://cis-india.org/news/is-india-ignoring-its-own-internet-protections
<b>India’s information technology law of 2008 limits the liability of Internet companies for material posted on their Web sites by users, including anything government regulators deem objectionable. The firms are supposed to be notified of offensive content — by users or the authorities — and then remove it when legally warranted.</b>
<p>If that’s how the system is supposed to work, then why did the Indian government just sanction a criminal lawsuit against Google, Facebook and 19 other companies that all but ignores those protections in the information technology law?</p>
<p>That is one of the most puzzling elements of the legal drama over free speech on the Web that is unfolding in New Delhi.</p>
<p>The case against the companies, brought by Urdu weekly journalist Vinay Rai, accuses them of violating various provisions of India’s criminal code by allowing material that is mocking or offensive to religious and political figures to stay on their social networking sites. There are charges of inciting communal passions and disturbing public order – catchall stuff normally meant to give police tools to rein in hooligans.</p>
<p>The punishments for these criminal offenses can include several years of jail time and stiff fines. That these elements of the criminal code are now being used to target Internet companies is somewhat bizarre, especially when one considers the apparently careful lawyering that went into drafting protections for Internet companies a few years ago.</p>
<p>As Google and others fight the charges – today they are continuing an appeal in Delhi High Court to quash the case – they will likely make the case that the courts cannot ignore India’s I.T. law. “It isn’t a trivial defense – the court cannot dismiss it,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, a civil liberties advocacy group. “The I.T. act provides immunity to (Internet companies) and that should be the default starting position.”</p>
<p>A spokesman for India’s telecom ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. We’ve described Mr. Rai’s rationale for filing the lawsuit in a separate post.</p>
<p>The crackdown on Web companies couldn’t come at a worse time for the emerging Internet sector in India, which many analysts believe has a potential to grow from about 100 million users to more than 300 million within a few years if nurtured. Facebook and Google representatives declined to comment on the case.</p>
<p>The protections for Internet firms are fairly clear in Section 79 of the 2008 law, known as India’s I.T. Act Amendments. An “intermediary,” or Internet firm, “shall not be liable for any third party information, data or communication link.” There are several caveats, of course – the company can’t initiate or solicit the harmful post and can’t coordinate with the offender. Under the rules that India put into place last April to implement the act, companies must remove material that is “grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory” as well as anything “ethnically objectionable, disparaging” or “otherwise unlawful in any manner.”</p>
<p>Internet companies and civil society advocates weren’t happy with those guidelines, finding them far too draconian and subjective. But at least the law required that the companies be notified of such content and be given a chance to remove it within 36 hours. (The punishments for not removing offensive content within 36 hours would depend on the underlying laws governing that content in India; in general, prison time and fines would both be possible.)</p>
<p>In the case of the Vinay Rai lawsuit, such procedures don’t appear to have been followed. Google has told the court it hasn’t seen the allegedly offensive material or been notified about it. Mr. Rai says he didn’t flag the content to Google or others, because he believed his duty as a citizen was to notify the government.</p>
<p>What was the point of passing the I.T. law if it’s being swept to the side?</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/01/16/is-india-ignoring-its-own-internet-protections/tab/print/">The article by Amol Sharma was published in the Wall Street Journal on 16 January 2012</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/is-india-ignoring-its-own-internet-protections'>https://cis-india.org/news/is-india-ignoring-its-own-internet-protections</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-01-17T05:33:40ZNews ItemIs freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?
https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-mahima-kaul-january-18-2013-is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-the-digital-age
<b>This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This post by Mahima Kaul was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/01/india-conference-index/">published in Index on Censorship</a> on January 18, 2013.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Index on Censorship, in partnership with The Editors Guild of India, hosted a debate in New Delhi on Tuesday (15 January) asking, “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Discussing the topic were Ajit Balakrishnan (founder and Chief Executive of <a href="http://rediff.com/" target="_blank">rediff.com</a>), Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes, Sunil Abraham (Executive Director of the centre for Internet and Society), and Professor Timothy Garton Ash, Director of the Free Speech Debate project.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham questioned the idea of technology specific “internet freedom” that has been advocated by many not least the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said there was for instance much greater freedom and diversity on Indian TV than in the US. He also argued that that this freedom does not seem to extend to a right of access to knowledge, as demonstrated by the charges brought against open access activist and developer Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide earlier this month. Swartz was <a href="http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-reddit/" target="_blank">facing charges</a> for allegedly downloading 4.8 million academic articles from subscription-only digital library JSTOR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Abraham said one unintentional effect of censorship by governments is that it teaches citizens how to protect themselves online. Finally, he questioned the Indian government’s draconian laws and arbitrary actions <a href="http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/08/india-internet-freedom/" target="_blank">in the digital realm</a>, wondering whether this is the authorities’ way of warning future netizens about “acceptable online behaviour”, to condition the public not to criticise the government and to create a chilling effect.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img class="wp-image-43807" height="316" src="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/indiaevent.jpg" title="indiaevent" width="602" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div id="themename"><a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/theme/digital-media/" rel="tag">Digital</a></div>
<h1 class="post"><a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/01/india-conference-index/" rel="bookmark">Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?</a></h1>
<p><span class="date">18 Jan 2013</span></p>
<div class="clearfix buttons-wrap" style="float:left; "><br />
<div>
<div class="fb_iframe_widget fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb-like"><span> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><b>This week Index held a</b><b> high level panel</b><b> debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports </b></p>
<p><span id="more-43750"> </span></p>
<p>Index on Censorship, in partnership with The Editors Guild of India, hosted a debate in New Delhi on Tuesday (15 January) asking, “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Discussing the topic were Ajit Balakrishnan (founder and Chief Executive of <a href="http://rediff.com/" target="_blank">rediff.com</a>), Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes, Sunil Abraham (Executive Director of the centre for Internet and Society), and Professor Timothy Garton Ash, Director of the Free Speech Debate project.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham questioned the idea of technology specific “internet freedom” that has been advocated by many not least the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said there was for instance much greater freedom and diversity on Indian TV than in the US. He also argued that that this freedom does not seem to extend to a right of access to knowledge, as demonstrated by the charges brought against open access activist and developer Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide earlier this month. Swartz was <a href="http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-reddit/" target="_blank">facing charges</a> for allegedly downloading 4.8 million academic articles from subscription-only digital library JSTOR.</p>
<p>Abraham said one unintentional effect of censorship by governments is that it teaches citizens how to protect themselves online. Finally, he questioned the Indian government’s draconian laws and arbitrary actions <a href="http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/08/india-internet-freedom/" target="_blank">in the digital realm</a>, wondering whether this is the authorities’ way of warning future netizens about “acceptable online behaviour”, to condition the public not to criticise the government and to create a chilling effect.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/indiaevent.jpg"><img class="wp-image-43807" height="316" src="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/indiaevent.jpg" title="indiaevent" width="602" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of expression is always under threat and in need of defending, argued Timothy Garton Ash. However, he didn’t think the threat was particularly high today in the digital realm — rather the threats to privacy were what were particularly concerning online. With 76.8 per cent of India’s 1.2 billion population connected by mobile phone, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the prevalence of freedom of expression brought about by new technologies. But he said there are also a lot of challenges to free expression in India — and that “swing states” such as Brazil and India will be very important in determining where the global conversation goes on freedom of expression</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ajit Balakrishnan, founder of web portal Rediff.com, explained that many of the problems that have occurred in the digital realm in India have to do with poor drafting of legislation. He was particularly concerned about intermediary liability and explained why and how intermediaries roles needed protecting. He also explained that government officials have genuine problems with phrasing, and that when it comes to the application of these laws, understanding them and when they should be applied will take another 25 years. He added that the country is challenged by a legal system ill-equipped for coping with new technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kirsty Hughes said that freedom of expression is a universal right, meant to be applied across borders not just within countries. She said that while the digital domain allowed a big expansion in freedom of expression there were risks we are heading towards a more controlled net, a partially censored net, and a fragmented net (for instance with Iran attempting to build its own internet disconnected from the rest of the world). She said that some of the negative reactions by government to social media in India were seen to in the UK where there had been a trend towards criminalising supposedly offensive comment — although the new interim guidelines on social media prosecutions were a step in the right direction. Hughes emphasised three main concerns — state censorship, privatisation of censorship and the role of big companies, and mass surveillance. She pointed out that the British government had pushed for extensive surveillance with the Communications Data Bill, but this has now been shelved after a critical report from MPs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ramanjit Singh Chima, policy adviser for Google, said that the question is not about absolute freedom, but about what is appropriate and lawful. He emphasised that in the US, judges had strongly defended free expression online as they saw the digital world as a powerful space for free exprssion. He pointed out how effective social media tools, including Google’s own products, have become in helping during emergency situations like natural disasters and terrorist attacks. He also pointed out that the internet is not only about free expression but business as well. The internet contributes to 1.6 per cent of India’s GDP. Singh Chima said positive judgements by US and EU courts protect the users, adding that regulation for the net should be appropriate for its engineering.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-mahima-kaul-january-18-2013-is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-the-digital-age'>https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-mahima-kaul-january-18-2013-is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-the-digital-age</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2013-02-03T10:50:52ZNews ItemIs freedom of expression under threat in digital age?
https://cis-india.org/news/ians-news-is-freedomexpression-under-threat-in-digital-age
<b>With social networking site Facebook boasting of 1 billion members globally and micro-blogging site Twitter claiming millions, opinion was divided on whether the freedom of expression was under threat in the digital age.</b>
<hr />
<p>This article was originally published by<a class="external-link" href="http://in.news.yahoo.com/freedom-expression-under-threat-digital-age-035801134.html"> Indo Asian News Service</a> on January 16, 2013. It was also covered in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/ians/news/is-freedomexpression-under-threat-in-digital-age/110168/">Business Standard</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-digital-age/453154/">Vancouver Desi</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-digital-age_1789344">DNA</a>, and <a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/general/is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-digital-age/695272">Tech2</a>. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_232" style="text-align: justify; ">"Censorship of content should be the last resort as curbing a particular content online actually amplifies its spread over the internet," said <span class="cs4-ndcor yshortcuts" id="lw_1358308825_6">Sunil Abraham</span> from Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_224" style="text-align: justify; ">He was speaking at a panel discussion organised by London based <span class="cs4-ndcor yshortcuts" id="lw_1358308825_7">Index on Censorship</span> and the <span class="cs4-ndcor yshortcuts" id="lw_1358308825_1">Editors Guild of India</span> on the issue at the <span class="cs4-ndcor yshortcuts" id="lw_1358308825_3">India International Centre</span> Tuesday evening.</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_276" style="text-align: justify; ">"The government has refused to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act which is used to curb free speech on the net," said Guild chief TN Ninan who moderated the debate. "The law treats digital media differently than the print media," he said.</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_230" style="text-align: justify; ">Director of Free Speech Debate, Oxford University, <span class="cs4-ndcor yshortcuts" id="lw_1358308825_5">Timothy Garton Ash</span> said, "There was no threat to the freedom of speech as internet was actually an opportunity for spreading freedom of expression."</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_289" style="text-align: justify; ">India with the large number of net users could act as swing state between two extremes of China which is trying to control the net and the US which champions free speech, he said.</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_296" style="text-align: justify; ">"The question is what are the legitimate limits of free speech rather than asking for unlimited speech," said Ash.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ajit Balakrishnan, CEO and founder of online portal rediff.com, said "there was a sense of powerlessness among nation states as only local laws applied to any such violations."</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_277" style="text-align: justify; ">He said the internet was not so democratic as it sounded as the actual numbers of users who posted content on Facebook were just 8-9 million while the rest just watched. The same was with Twitter with just 7-8 percent users actually posting messages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kirsty Hughes, CEO, Index on Censorship, said "freedom of speech was universal" while noting a "worrying trend that increasingly governments were moving to control the internet."</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_284" style="text-align: justify; ">"The risks of such controls are that we could have a much more controlled, censored and fragmented internet," she said.</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_228" style="text-align: justify; ">Ramanjit Singh Chima of Google India stressed on the need to have laws to protect <span class="cs4-ndcor yshortcuts" id="lw_1358308825_4">internet freedom</span> as such curbs affected livelihood of many users and contributed to local economies.</p>
<p id="yui_3_5_1_19_1358402432026_295" style="text-align: justify; ">He said the internet allowed people to instantly collaborate and publish critical information during emergency situations.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/ians-news-is-freedomexpression-under-threat-in-digital-age'>https://cis-india.org/news/ians-news-is-freedomexpression-under-threat-in-digital-age</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2013-01-17T06:16:09ZNews ItemIs free speech an Indian value?
https://cis-india.org/news/india-together-april-27-2013-satarupa-sen-bhattacharya-is-free-speech-an-indian-value
<b>Is freedom of speech and expression deeply accepted in Indian society? Or is it merely a European cultural import that made its way along with the English language and appeared in the Constitution because of the founding fathers' genius? Satarupa Sen Bhattacharya reviews Freedom Song, a film and connects the dots. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Satarupa Sen Bhattacharya's blog post was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indiatogether.org/2013/apr/hrt-freedom.htm">published in India Together</a> on April 27, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Debates on freedom of speech can be traced back to the earliest evolutions of human society, but if there is a time which could be considered most apposite for this debate to come to the fore and dominate public thought and discourse, this surely would be it for Indian society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the banishment of literary icons such as Salman Rushdie to repeated assaults on artists and cartoonists seeking to express their viewpoints through their art, and even the gag on the common man’s voice in traditional and new media, freedom of speech and expression has found itself under fire increasingly and in the most alarming of ways.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Is India as a nation becoming more intolerant of contrarian perspectives, or is it merely that voices seeking to stifle dissent are now amplified, thanks to a greater number, as well as newer forms, of media covering this debate?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Can India really achieve free speech in the way that its founding fathers conceived of and constitutionalized it?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are the questions probed in Freedom Song – a 52-minute documentary from the Public Services Broadcasting Trust, co-directed by veteran journalist, author and academic Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Professor Subi Chaturvedi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Freedom Song, the film</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Interestingly, since the time <i>Freedom Song</i> was conceived of and filmed, the clamp-down or attacks on free speech in India have only become more frequent and flagrant. This was made much before the time that Salman Rushdie, in almost a repeat of the 2010 Jaipur Lit-fest incident, was stopped by the state from attending the screening of <i>Midnight’s Children in Kolkata</i>; or when two young girls from Palghar in Maharashtra were arrested by the police merely because one of them had questioned on Facebook the derailment of normal life in Mumbai following Balasaheb Thackeray’s death and the other had ‘liked’ it; or even before the long-awaited Kamal Hassan film <i>Vishwaroopam</i> was banned for purportedly offending the sensibilities of a religious community in a few scenes, which the director eventually had to agree to censor in order to ensure that his creation could reach the audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom Song, the documentary, chronologically precedes all of these as well as the debate and outrage over sociologist Ashish Nandy’s remarks on corruption and backward castes; yet, when one sees it now, recalls the numerous incidents highlighted in the film, and hears the debates that rage on, the larger context and culture that has facilitated the perpetuation of suppression become clearer. It also drives home, disturbingly, the alarming regularity with which speech and expression have been muffled. It can thus be seen as a commentary on the gradual but consistent build-up to the current climate where there is an almost systematic and continuous crackdown on free speech whenever it inconveniences the powers-that-be.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Gags on expression - recent incidents</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In July 2010, when T.J. Joseph, a professor of Malayalam at the Newman College in Thodupuzha (Ernakulam district) in Kerala was arrested by police following a controversial examination question set by him, allegedly containing disparaging remarks about the Prophet Mohammad. He was released on bail but suspended from his post following protests by Islamic organizations. But suspension wasn’t the last of Joseph’s tribulations: he was brutally attacked by a gang of men who chopped off his hand at the wrist with an axe. He was also stabbed in the arms and legs. While Joseph’s hand was stitched back in a 16-hour-long operation, even as he was recuperating, his college terminated his services on grounds that he had offended the religious sentiments of students. He was also stripped of all benefits and pension.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Curiously, Joseph himself distances the entire incident from the issue of freedom of expression. In his conversation with the film-makers he says that whatever happened could be interpreted as attempts to meddle with and dilute academic independence in the state. “The incident is not related to the issue of freedom of expression...external attempts to break down communication between students and their teacher was at the core of the entire episode,” says Joseph. Even Union Minister for Human Resource Development Shashi Tharoor, who hails from the state himself, attributes this incident to the act of some anti-social fringe elements who masquerade as representatives of a particular community. But these arguments from the victim himself, and an eminent authority, cannot resolve the question of his expulsion from service. Nor can they address the fact that the atmosphere of tolerance in the country is such that anti-socials can hijack as simple an academic exercise as question-setting to their advantage and perpetrate such atrocities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A more recent incident highlighted in the documentary is the arrest and detention of Ambikesh Mahapatra, a professor of Chemistry in Jadavpur University of West Bengal for forwarding a set of cartoons that allegedly defamed Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Shortly after the dismissal of Union Railway Minister, Trinamool’s Dinesh Trivedi, and his replacement by Mukul Roy, the widely-circulated cartoon showed Roy and the CM having a conversation along the lines of one in a very popular Satyajit-Ray film, conspiring to get rid of Trivedi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ambikesh was not the creator of this cartoon – as he himself says, he received it on a forwarded email. Amused by it, he wanted to share it with his friends. Thus he forwarded it again to over 60 members of his housing co-operative society, some of whom happened to have affiliations to the party in power. This action led to the professor being arrested and charged under IPC Sections 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), Section 500 (defamation) and Section 66 A of the IT Act (causing offence using a computer). He had to spend a night in jail before he was released on bail the following afternoon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, charges against the professor have since been dropped and the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC) ruled that the state police were indeed guilty of harassing the professor (and one of his colleagues, who had also been arrested).</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Paranjoy.png/@@images/81bda2f8-971f-4c46-b7d4-157e5b9a216b.png" alt="Paranjoy Guha Thakurta" class="image-inline" title="Paranjoy Guha Thakurta" /></p>
<p>Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, co-director of Freedom Song</p>
<p> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p><span class="contents2"><b>Muffling creativity</b></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="contents2">One thing that stands out pretty sharply in <i>Freedom Song</i> is the deep angst shared by the creative fraternity in the country over the assault on free speech. Perhaps, by dint of being that section of society which is most inclined to spontaneous and non-conformist expression, they also constitute one of the most vulnerable groups when it </span><span class="contents2">comes to being restrained or gagged. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br /><span class="contents2">One of the darkest chapters of suppression of artistic expression in India relates to the forced exile of iconic painter M F Hussain during the last days of his life, after being targeted for his nudist depictions of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Sadly, as artist Arpana Caur points out, such waves of intolerance or fanaticism fail to factor in either subjective value judgments (how deeply Hussain must have loved Hindu culture and mythology to actually apply his creative instincts to bring it alive) or objective facts (that the nudist paintings were actually done in the ancient Khajuraho tradition of figurative depiction, it was not something Hussain had developed). </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="contents2"> </span></p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2">Often, the gag on works by artists and writers has transcended to direct discrimination against the person himself. The state of West Bengal banned exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen’s book “Dwikhandito” in 2003 on fears that it would stoke communal disharmony. When human rights activists challenged the decision in Court and managed to win rulings on her behalf, the writer herself was banished from public life in the state. She was unceremoniously asked to leave the state in 2007, after violent protests against her by fundamentalists. Much later in 2012, even after the political reins in the state had changed hands, the launch of her book at the Kolkata Book Fair was cancelled upon threats of protest. </span></p>
<p><span class="contents2"> </span></p>
<p align="justify">One of the most heart-rending is the story of Pakistani singer Ali Haidar, who confesses to being almost brainwashed, in one of his weakest moments, by radical elements into believing that the loss of his child was in fact a retribution for him having taken up music as a profession.</p>
<p align="justify">The feeling of anger, frustration and even a sense of bewilderment among the artists, writers and performers interviewed in the documentary is almost palpable. As Rajiv Lochan, Director of the National Gallery of Modern Art, says, “Freedom of expression, creative freedom…in simple words, that is the only freedom you are born with...” The unuttered question of how anyone can take that away from you hangs heavy in the silence.</p>
<p align="justify">If artists are the most vulnerable, they are also perhaps the most resilient. In the context of the various cartoon controversies that this nation has seen and the proscriptions of cartoonists from Shankar to Aseem Trivedi, eminent political cartoonist Sudhir Tailang says, “We cartoonists know only one way of protest, which is the most peaceful, Gandhian way…you do what you want, we’ll draw a cartoon…and more cartoons… we’ll flood you with cartoons.”</p>
<p align="justify">The defiance and rejection of censorship is also strongly voiced by noted danseuse Mallika Sarabhai, who talks of the various forms of attack and insult that she has been subjected to for her unconventional presentations and activism, but asserts that despite all of it, she feels it is her “dharma to go on.”</p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2"><b>The language barrier</b></span></p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2">Perhaps unwittingly, Freedom Song tends to favour the premise that freedom of speech as a principle in India is largely a preoccupation among the English-educated, intellectual and creative segments of the populace. Even the musical score that has played such a dominant part in invoking the spirit of freedom throughout the film seems to underline that - from the refrains of Bob Marley’s ‘Won't you help to sing these songs of freedom,’ to the remixed pop version of ‘Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram’ that one hears in parties and joints in India’s westernized urban landscape. </span></p>
<p><span class="contents2">
<p align="justify">How attuned to the issue of free speech is the wide majority of India, the section that still follows vernacular media and are relatively distanced from the constructs of Anglo-Saxon influence? The verdict on the linguistic divide does not emerge with clear certainty when we talk to intellectuals or thought leaders from various parts of the country.</p>
<p align="justify">In the words of academic Subhoranjan Dasgupta, a professor at the Kolkata-based Institute of Development Studies, mainstream Bengali media has played a big role in highlighting transgressions of freedom of speech and expression every time it has occurred, irrespective of the political regime in power at the time.</p>
<p align="justify">"Whether in the case of the ban on Taslima Nasreen or the arrest of Professor Mahapatra, local media - and especially two widely-followed dailies, the <i>Anandabazar Patrika and Ei Shomoy</i> - have been audibly vocal and consistent in their coverage of these incidents," says Dasgupta. "Irrespective of political ideologies, the common man in Bengal knows that Taslima Nasreen got a raw deal or that what happened to the professor was not acceptable," he adds. Ostensibly, the role of local media in such public consciousness cannot be written off. In a way, it might not be an exaggeration to say that the voices of these publications have been instrumental, to a large extent, in ensuring that these issues grab the eyeballs of the largest number possible, and hence gain traction.</p>
<p align="justify">And yet, a completely different picture emerges as one reaches out to another part of the country. Badri Seshadri, Publisher, New Horizon Media - a Chennai-based company that publishes books in Tamil, and an active blogger, feels that notions of freedom, or free speech, are essentially offshoots of the modern era which have found a voice in our country primarily through English media.</p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2">Seshadri goes back to the freedom struggle in India when many among the noted thought leaders and freedom exponents wrote both in English and the local language. In those days, the discourse on freedom of thought and expression were perhaps more at par across spheres. But with the dying trend of bilingual writing, intellectual writing increasingly gravitated towards English. Today, the gulf between English writers and regional writers has become so huge in his state that even the most fundamental of issues are discussed in vocabularies that cannot bridge the schism. Issues pertaining to secularism and democracy are viewed with a completely different lens in vernacular media, and those pertaining to liberalism, not at all. </span></p>
<span class="contents2">
<p align="justify">"Take the case of the most recent ban on Kamal Hassan's Vishwaroopam," points out Seshadri; "this was not a film made in Hindi or English that you could assume to be emotively disconnected from the Tamil mindspace. It was a film that had been made by one of the cult film personalities of the region, and yet even as the national English media followed this issue and consistently questioned the violation of an individual's right to creative freedom, deliberations in local channels and publications were strangely muted and focused only on whether or not the disputed scenes in the film could be considered to be offensive to the Islamic community. The larger debate on whether one has the right to offend, in an impersonal way, was completely missing." Those who want to toe the line of liberalism either through their writing or new media are dismissed as harbouring "fancy" ideals or pandering to Western sensibilities.</p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2">Guhathakurta, himself, disagrees with the claim that free expression is essentially a Western construct or that debates around it are restricted to the chattering classes in plush drawing rooms. “It is something that concerns every common man,” he says, referring to the case of Laxmi Oraon, the teenaged tribal girl who was stripped, beaten and molested in the streets of Guwahati, where she had been part of a peaceful protest rally, seeking the inclusion of 80 lakh Adivasis living in Assam in the ST category. Traumatised and deeply angered by the brutal injustice meted out to her and the lack of legal redress, Laxmi eventually even contested the Lok Sabha elections, points out the director in order to elucidate the struggle that even the most marginalized take part in to press for their fundamental rights. </span></p>
</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/FreeSong.png" alt="Freedom Song Movie" class="image-inline" title="Freedom Song Movie" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; ">A still from the documentary Freedom Song. Pic: PSBT India via Youtube</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span class="contents2"><span class="contents2"><span class="contents2"> </span></span></span></p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2"><b>"Reasonable” restrictions</b></span><br /><span class="contents2"> </span></p>
<p align="justify">Despite the continuous infringements on artistic and even individual expression, what emerges from the film is not a blanket wave of intolerance that is engulfing society but rather certain powerful groups with vested interests who are driven either by fanaticism for their ideologies or by the lure of political mileage to raise voices against freedom. In the age of 24x7 channels, their voices gain in both volume and pitch and new media enables greater visibility and debate around it.</p>
<p align="justify">As Tharoor says, “The government has the lowest level of tolerance possible because it cannot be seen as offending anybody who is held precious by any segments of Indian society.”</p>
<p align="justify">Veteran journalist Saeed Naqvi points out, “You have a whole link between the politician, the vote bank and the proprietor. Therefore, the freedom of the press, while this trio exists, is under threat.”</p>
<p align="justify">But having said all of the above, it is also clear that defining freedom, especially in an absolute sense, is in itself a huge challenge that most of society acknowledges. More so, in the context of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution which itself allows the state to impose <i>“reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right...in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”</i></p>
<p align="justify">Senior journalists such as Rajdeep Sardesai are quoted in the documentary, expressing their support for such ‘reasonable restrictions’ to combat the spread of expression or opinion that fuels divisiveness or hatred in society. But the fact remains that such restrictions not only add a qualifier to freedom as enshrined in the founding principles, but also create the larger question of ‘who decides?’</p>
<p align="justify">Young India however would prefer to see Article 19 (2) as an enabler rather than as a veto. As Apar Gupta, an advocate of the Supreme Court says in the film, he would like to believe that the incorporation of “reasonable restrictions” was done with a view to ensuring that the Constitution does not remain a static document and does not apply only to fixed definitions of facts and circumstances. Certainly not with the objective of curbing any form of dissent or deviation from convention.</p>
<p align="justify">Fali S. Nariman, senior advocate to the Supreme Court and a constitutional jurist, also points out very pertinently that the range of restrictions in 19(2) does not include public interest.</p>
<p align="justify">Reality does not bear that out though; especially when one looks at the many recent instances of arbitrary impositions of Sec 66A of the IT Act in booking individuals for expression of their opinion and stances through channels offered by new media and Internet. The documentary in itself does not delve deep into the challenges and threats to freedom of expression that have emerged in the FB/Twitter era, perhaps because many of the most volatile and controversial cases surrounding freedom of speech on the Internet occurred after the film was made. But a new debate is brewing in India, especially after the Palghar incident or the arrest of a Puducherry businessman for allegedly posting 'offensive' text on the micro-blogging site Twitter about the son of an Union Minister.</p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2"> </span></p>
<p align="justify">Snehashish Ghosh, a lawyer and Policy Associate at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, says, “Essentially, there are eight restrictions on freedom of speech and expression as enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in many cases has held that these reasonable restrictions should be construed narrowly and with due regards to the value of freedom of speech in a democratic society. Section 66A in its current form goes well beyond the restrictions laid down under Article 19(2). Therefore, it is liable to be struck down for being in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”</p>
<p align="justify">Snehashish also feels that technologically, in the present time, it would be near-impossible to 'monitor' the Internet. As far as regulations are concerned, there are laws already in place which ensure the implementation of reasonable restrictions. For example, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 already covers offenses such as incitement of violence, obscenity, criminal intimidation and outraging religious sentiments. The laws which are being applied offline are well equipped to deal with offenses committed online. There is no need to have extraordinary laws where ordinary laws suffice.</p>
<p align="justify">But in a country that appears to grow increasingly thin-skinned with time, the import of such logic could well be lost.</p>
<p align="justify"><span class="contents2"><b>Access and freedom</b></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p align="justify">Interestingly, Freedom Song begins with a series of frames capturing the widely different and divergent faces of Indian society, fast moving scenes juxtaposing the educated, affluent sections of urban India against the child who performs on sidewalks to earn his bread or the old emaciated man getting his night’s sleep on the pavement. The clear correlation between access – to basic needs, education and media – and the very consciousness of freedom is hard to ignore.</p>
<p align="justify">“Freedom to me is the ability to do what I want, where no one tells me to do anything” says one child on screen, evidently from an English-speaking, relatively privileged background; but one cannot help feeling that his coherence and articulation on freedom would be hard to come across in the children on the streets who are filmed in some of the previous shots.</p>
<p align="justify">The point that access to the very basic necessities of life is a necessary condition for freedom of expression is driven home by social activist Ram Bhat in the documentary, who says that despite the technologies aiding free expression, and the profusion of players in this debate, talk of freedom of speech will be pointless unless the problem of access is solved. In its absence, such freedom will remain the privilege of a few.</p>
<p align="justify">On balance, in all the voices that emerge from our conversations, and the many more episodes that <i>Freedom Song</i>, the documentary narrates, the only thing that can be concluded without doubt is the challenge of establishing freedom as a perennial or permanent concept in a country as complex and diverse as India. A truly effective and desirable state of free speech and expression can only evolve out of a continuous, fearless, rational dialogue between society and its stakeholders, in which all voices are expressed and heard.</p>
<p align="justify">Whether India, as a whole, can facilitate such a dialogue is going to be the moot question in the times to come.</p>
<p><span class="contents2"><span class="contents2"> </span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div id="_mcePaste"></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-together-april-27-2013-satarupa-sen-bhattacharya-is-free-speech-an-indian-value'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-together-april-27-2013-satarupa-sen-bhattacharya-is-free-speech-an-indian-value</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2013-04-30T07:18:10ZNews ItemInvisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship
<b>The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.</b>
<h2>Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression</h2>
<p>The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.</p>
<h2>Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>In India, the new <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511%281%29.pdf">Cyber Cafe Rules</a> that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene <a class="external-link" href="http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf">Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution</a>, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.</p>
<h2>Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies</h2>
<p>We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.</p>
<h2>Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors<br /></h2>
<p>Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.</p>
<h2>'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship</h2>
<p>Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.</p>
<h2>Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act</h2>
<p>Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power. <br /><br />It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.</p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Invisible Censorship (Marathi version)">The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleAccess to KnowledgeSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-04T08:59:14ZBlog Entry