The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 341 to 355.
Free Speech and Civil Defamation
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-civil-defamation
<b>Does defamation become a tool in powerful hands to suppress criticism? Gautam Bhatia examines the strict and unrealistic demands of defamation law, and concludes that defamation suits are a weapon to silence dissent and bad press. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b>Previously on this blog, we have discussed one of the under-analysed aspects of Article 19(2) – contempt of court. In the last post, we discussed the checking – or “watchdog” – function of the press. There is yet another under-analysed part of 19(2) that we now turn to – one which directly implicates the press, in its role as public watchdog. This is the issue of defamation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unlike contempt of court – which was a last-minute insertion by Ambedkar, before the second reading of the draft Constitution in the Assembly – defamation was present in the restrictions clause since the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee’s first draft, in 1947. Originally, it accompanied libel and slander, before the other two were dropped for the simpler “reasonable restrictions… in the interests of… defamation.” Unlike the other restrictions, which provoked substantial controversy, defamation did not provoke extended scrutiny by the Constituent Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In hindsight, that was a lapse. In recent years, defamation lawsuits have emerged as a powerful weapon against the press, used primarily by individuals and corporations in positions of power and authority, and invariably as a means of silencing criticism. For example, Hamish MacDonald’s </span><i>The Polyester Prince</i><span>, a book about the Ambanis, </span><a href="http://www.rediff.com/money/2000/jul/26dalal.htm">was unavailable</a><span> in Indian bookshops, because of threats of defamation lawsuits. In January, Bloomsbury </span><a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-praful-patel-descent-of-air-india-and-the-killing-of-a-critical-book-1951582">withdrew</a><span> </span><i>The Descent of Air India</i><span>, which was highly critical of ex-Aviation Minister Praful Patel, after the latter filed a defamation lawsuit. Around the same time, Sahara initiated a 200 crore lawsuit against Tamal Bandyopadhayay, a journalist with </span><i>The Mint</i><span>, for his forthcoming book, </span><i>Sahara: The Untold Story</i><span>. Sahara even managed to get a stay order from a Calcutta High Court judge, who </span><a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/136055468/">cited</a><span> one paragraph from the book, and ruled that “</span><i>Prima facie, the materials do seem to show the plaintiffs in poor light</i><span>.” The issue has since been settled out of Court. Yet there is no guarantee that Bandyopadhyay would have won on merits, even with the absurd amount claimed as damages, given that a Pune Court awarded damages of </span><i>Rs. 100 crores </i><span>to former Justice P.B. Sawant against the Times Group, for a fifteen-second clip by a TV channel that accidentally showed his photograph next to the name of a judge who was an accused in a scam. What utterly takes the cake, though, is Infosys </span><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/infosys-slaps-defamation-notice-on-three-newspapers/article6098717.ece">serving</a><span> legal notices to three journalistic outlets recently, asking for damages worth Rs. 200 crore for “</span><i>loss of reputation and goodwill due to circulation of defamatory articles</i><span>.”</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Something is very wrong here. The plaintiffs are invariably politicians or massive corporate houses, and the defendants are invariably journalists or newspapers. The subject is always critical reporting. The damages claimed (and occasionally, awarded) are astronomical – enough to cripple or destroy any business – and the actual harm is speculative. A combination of these factors, combined with a broken judicial system in which trials take an eternity to progress, leading to the prospect of a lawsuit hanging perpetually over one’s head, and financial ruin just around the corner, clearly has the potential to create a highly effective chilling effect upon newspapers, when it come to critical speech on matters of public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>One of the reasons that this happens, of course, is that extant defamation law </span><i>allows</i><span> it to happen. Under defamation law, as long as a statement is published, is defamatory (that is, tending to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of reasonable people) and refers to the plaintiff, a </span><i>prima facie </i><span>case of defamation is made out. The burden then shifts to the defendant to argue a justification, such as truth, or fair comment, or privileged communication. Notice that defamation, in this form, is a strict liability offence: that is, the publisher cannot save himself even if he has taken due care in researching and writing his story. Even an inadvertent factual error can result in liability. Furthermore, there are many things that straddle a very uncomfortable barrier between “fact” and “opinion” (“opinions” are generally not punishable for defamation): for example, if I call you “corrupt”, have I made a statement of fact, or one of opinion? Much of reporting – especially political reporting – falls within this slipstream.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The legal standard of defamation, therefore, puts almost all the burden upon the publisher, a burden that will often be impossible to discharge – as well as potentially penalising the smallest error. Given the difficulty in fact-checking just about everything, as well as the time pressures under which journalists operate, this is an unrealistic standard. What makes things even worse, however, is that there is no cap on damages, <i>and </i>that the plaintiff need not even demonstrate <i>actual</i> harm in making his claims. Judges have the discretion to award punitive damages, which are meant to serve both as an example and as a deterrent. When Infosys claims 2000 crores, therefore, it need not show that there has been a tangible drop in its sales, or that it has lost an important and lucrative contract – let alone showing that the loss was caused by the defamatory statement. All it needs to do is make abstract claims about loss of goodwill and reputation, which are inherently difficult to verify either way, and it stands a fair chance of winning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A combination of onerous legal standards and crippling amounts in damages makes the defamation regime a very difficult one for journalists to operate freely in. We have discussed before the crucial role that journalists play in a system of free speech whose underlying foundation is the maintenance of democracy: a free press is essential to maintaining a check upon the actions of government and other powerful players, by subjecting them to scrutiny and critique, and ensuring that the public is aware of important facts that government might be keen to conceal. In chilling journalistic speech, therefore, defamation laws strike at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). When considering what the appropriate standards ought to be, a Court therefore must consider the simple fact that if defamation – as it stands today – is compromising the core of 19(1)(a) itself, then it is certainly not a “reasonable restriction” under 19(2) (some degree of proportionality is an important requirement for 19(2) reasonableness, as the Court has held many times).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is not, however, a situation unique to India. In Singapore, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7632830.stm">for instance</a>, “[<i>political] leaders have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages in defamation cases against critics and foreign publications, which they have said are necessary to protect their reputations from unfounded attacks</i>” – the defamation lawsuit, indeed, was reportedly a legal strategy used by Lee Kuan Yew against political opponents.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Particularly in the United States, the European Union and South Africa, however, this problem has been recognised, and acted upon. In the next post, we shall examine some of the legal techniques used in those jurisdictions, to counter the chilling effect that strict defamation laws can have on the press.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We discussed the use of civil defamation laws as weapons to stifle a free and critical press. One of the most notorious of such instances also birthed one of the most famous free speech cases in history: <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html"><i>New York Times v. Sullivan</i></a>. This was at the peak of the civil rights movement in the American South, which was accompanied by widespread violence and repression of protesters and civil rights activists. A full-page advertisement was taken out in the New York Times, titled <i>Heed Their Rising Voices</i>, which detailed some particularly reprehensible acts by the police in Montgomery, Alabama. It also contained some factual errors. For example, the advertisement mentioned that Martin Luther King Jr. had been arrested seven times, whereas he had only been arrested four times. It also stated that the Montgomery police had padlocked students into the university dining hall, in order to starve them into submission. That had not actually happened. On this basis, Sullivan, the Montgomery police commissioner, sued for libel. The Alabama courts awarded 500,000 dollars in damages. Because five other people in a situation similar to Sullivan were also suing, the total amount at stake was three million dollars – enough to potentially boycott the New York Times, and certainly enough to stop it from publishing about the civil rights movement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his book about the <i>Sullivan </i>case, <i>Make No Law</i>, Anthony Lewis notes that the stakes in the case were frighteningly high. The civil rights movement depended, for its success, upon stirring public opinion in the North. The press was just the vehicle to do it, reporting as it did on excessive police brutality against students and peaceful protesters, practices of racism and apartheid, and so on. <i>Sullivan</i> was a legal strategy to silence the press, and its weapon of choice was defamation law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a 9 – 0 decision, the Supreme Court found for the New York Times, and changed the face of free speech law (and, according to Lewis, saved the civil rights movement). Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan made the crucial point that in order to survive, free speech needed “breathing space” – that is, the space to make errors. Under defamation law, as it stood, “<i>the pall of fear and timidity imposed upon those who would give voice to public criticism [is] an atmosphere in which the First Amendment freedoms cannot survive</i>.” And under the burden of proving truth, <i>“would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which "steer far wider of the unlawful zone." </i>For these reasons, Justice Brennan laid down an “actual malice” test for defamation – that is, insofar as the statement in question concerned the conduct of a public official, it was actionable for defamation only if the publisher either knew it was false, or published it with “reckless disregard” for its veracity. After <i>New York Times</i>, this standard has expanded, and the press has never lost a defamation case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are some who argue that in its zeal to protect the press against defamation lawsuits by the powerful, the <i>Sullivan </i>court swung the opposite way. In granting the press a near-unqualified immunity to say whatever it wanted, it subordinated the legitimate interests of people to their reputation and their dignity to an intolerable degree, and ushered in a regime of media unaccountability. This is evidently what the South African courts felt. In <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=khulamo+vs+holomisa&oq=khulamo+vs+holomisa&aqs=chrome..69i57.6996j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8"><i>Khulamo v. Holomisa</i></a>, Justice O’Regan accepted that the common law of defamation would have to be altered so as to reflect the new South African Constitution’s guarantees of the freedom of speech. Much like Justice Brennan, she noted that <i>“</i><i>the media are important agents in ensuring that government is open, responsive and accountable to the people as the founding values of our Constitution require</i>”, as well as the chilling effect in requiring journalists to prove the truth of everything they said. Nonetheless, she was not willing to go as far as the American Supreme Court did. Instead, she cited a previous decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals, and incorporated a “resonableness standard” into defamation law. That is, “<i>if a publisher cannot establish the truth, or finds it disproportionately expensive or difficult to do so, the publisher may show that in all the circumstances the publication was reasonable. In determining whether publication was reasonable, a court will have regard to the individual’s interest in protecting his or her reputation in the context of the constitutional commitment to human dignity. It will also have regard to the individual’s interest in privacy. In that regard, there can be no doubt that persons in public office have a diminished right to privacy, though of course their right to dignity persists. It will also have regard to the crucial role played by the press in fostering a transparent and open democracy. The defence of reasonable publication avoids therefore a winner-takes-all result and establishes a proper balance between freedom of expression and the value of human dignity. Moreover, the defence of reasonable publication will encourage editors and journalists to act with due care and respect for the individual interest in human dignity prior to publishing defamatory material, without precluding them from publishing such material when it is reasonable to do so.”</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The South African Constitutional Court thus adopts a middle path between the two opposite zero-sum games that are traditional defamation law, and American first amendment law. A similar effort was made in the United Kingdom – the birthplace of the common law of defamation – with the passage of the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf">2013 Defamation Act.</a> Under English law, the plaintiff must now show that there is likely to be “<i>serious harm</i>” to his reputation, and there is also public interest exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While South Africa and the UK try to tackle the problem at the level of standards for defamation, the ECHR has taken another, equally interesting tack: by limiting the quantum of damages. In <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57947#%7B"><i>Tolstoy Milolasky v. United Kingdom</i></a>, it found a 1.5 million pound damage award “disproportionately large”, and held that there was a violation of the ECHR’s free speech guarantee that could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, constitutional courts the world over have noticed the adverse impact traditional defamation law has on free speech and a free press. They have devised a multiplicity of ways to deal with this, some more speech-protective than others: from America’s absolutist standards, to South Africa’s “reasonableness” and the UK’s “public interest” exceptions, to the ECHR’s limitation of damages. It is about time that the Indian Courts took this issue seriously: there is no dearth of international guidance.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><i>Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and has just received an LLM from the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com</a>. Here at CIS, he blogs on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.</i></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-civil-defamation'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-civil-defamation</a>
</p>
No publishergautamCensorshipDefamationFreedom of Speech and ExpressionChilling EffectArticle 19(1)(a)2014-07-08T08:31:18ZBlog EntryFOEX Live: May 28-29, 2014
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-may-28-29-2014
<b>A selection of news from across India with a bearing on online freedom of expression and use of digital technology</b>
<p>Media focus on the new government and its ministries and portfolios has been extensive, and to my knowledge, few newspapers or online sources have reported violations of freedom of speech. However, on his first day in office, the new I&B Minister, Prakash Javadekar, <a href="http://www.sahilonline.org/english/newsDetails.php?cid=3&nid=24880">acknowledged the importance of press freedom</a>, avowing that it was the “<i>essence of democracy</i>”. He has assured that the new government <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/politics/press-freedom-will-not-be-curbed-under-modi-ib-minister-javadekar-1546291.html">will not interfere</a> with press freedom.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Assam</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>A FICCI discussion in Guwahati, attended among others by Microsoft and Pricewaterhouse Coopers, focused on the <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/FICCI-seminar-focuses-on-IT-role-in-governance/articleshow/35669912.cms">role of information technology in governance</a>.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Goa</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>Following the furore over allegedly inflammatory, ‘hate-mongering’ Facebook posts by shipping engineer Devu Chodankar, a group of <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Goa/Goan-netizens-form-watchdog-forum/articleshow/35691042.cms">Goan netizens formed a ‘watchdog forum’</a> to police “<i>inappropriate and communally inflammatory content</i>” on social media. Diana Pinto feels, however, that some ‘compassion and humanism’ ought to have <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/Stern-warning-better-option-than-FIR-in-Devu-case/articleshow/35691253.cms?intenttarget=no">prompted only a stern warning</a> in Devu Chodankar’s case, and not a FIR.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Karnataka</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p><a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Man-arrested-for-allegedly-sending-offensive-MMS-against-Modi-confirmed-innocent-by-police-released/articleshow/35624351.cms">Syed Waqar was released</a> by Belgaum police after questioning revealed he was a recipient of the anti-Modi MMS. The police are still tracing the original sender.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Madhya Pradesh</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>The cases of Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, and recently of Syed Waqar and Devu Chodankar have left <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/indore/Cautious-Indore-netizens-play-safe/articleshow/35661073.cms">Indore netizens overly cautious</a> about “<i>posting anything recklessly on social media</i>”. Some feel it is a blow to democracy.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Maharashtra</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>In Navi Mumbai, the Karjat police <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Cops-probe-if-sexual-abuse-of-shelter-kids-was-filmed/articleshow/35690030.cms">seized several computers, hard disks and blank CDs</a> from the premises of the Chandraprabha Charitable Trust in connection with an investigation into sexual abuse of children at the Trust’s school-shelter. The police seek to verify whether the accused recorded any obscene videos of child sexual abuse.</p>
<p>In Mumbai, even as filmmakers, filmgoers, artistes and LGBT people celebrated the Kashish Mumbai International Queer Film Festival, all <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/arts/international/a-gay-film-festival-in-india-strikes-a-chord.html">remained apprehensive</a> of the new government’s social conservatism, and were aware that the films portrayed acts now illegal in India.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Manipur</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>At the inauguration of the 42nd All Manipur Shumang Leela Festival, V.K. Duggal, State Governor and Chairman of the Manipur State Kala Akademi, warned that the art form was <a href="http://kanglaonline.com/2014/05/digital-age-a-threat-to-shumang-leela-says-gov/">under threat in the digital age</a>, as Manipuri films are replacing it in popularity.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Rajasthan</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>Following the lead of the Lok Sabha, the Rajasthan state assembly has <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Rajasthan-assembly-gets-digital-conference-system-to-keep-the-house-in-order/articleshow/35691967.cms">adopted a digital conference and voting system</a> to make the proceedings in the House more efficient and transparent.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Seemandhra</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>Seemandhra Chief Minister designate N. Chandrababu Naidu <a href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/states/naidu-promises-a-cyberabad-again/article6053614.ece">promised</a> a repeat of his hi-tech city miracle ‘Cyberabad’ in Seemandhra.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">West Bengal</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>West Bengal government has hired PSU Urban Mass Transit Company Limited to <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/City-buses-to-go-hi-tech-soon/articleshow/35692438.cms">study, install and operationalize Intelligent Transport System</a> in public transport in Kolkata. GPS will guide passengers about real-time bus routes and availability. While private telecom operators have offered free services to the transport department, there are no reports of an end-date or estimated expenditure on the project.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">News and Opinion</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>Over a week ago, Avantika Banerjee <a href="http://www.iltb.net/2014/05/internet-policy-india-direction-will-new-government-head/">wrote a speculative post</a> on the new government’s stance towards Internet policy. At <i>Fair Observer</i>, Gurpreet Mahajan <a href="http://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/the-politics-of-bans-limiting-the-freedom-of-speech-in-india-59018/">laments</a> that community politics in India has made a lark of banning books.<span></span></p>
<p>India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Cert-In-issues-security-warning-against-Internet-Explorer-8/articleshow/35632580.cms">has detected</a> high-level virus activity in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8, and recommends upgrading to Explorer 11.</p>
<p>Of the projected 400 million users that Twitter will have by 2018, <a href="http://www.indiatimes.com/technology/internet/india-surpasses-uk-in-twitter-userbase-151212.html">India and Indonesia are expected to outdo</a> the United Kingdom in user base. India saw nearly 60% growth in user base this year, and Twitter played a major role in Elections 2014. India will have <a href="http://www.mydigitalfc.com/news/india-have-third-largest-twitter-population-2014-246">over 18.1 million</a> users by 2018.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Elsewhere in the world</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>Placing a bet on the ‘Internet of Everything’, Cisco CEO John Chambers <a href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/cisco-chief-predicts-brutal-consolidation-in-the-technology-industry/article6051133.ece">predicted</a> a “<i>brutal consolidation</i>” of the IT industry in the next five years. A new MarketsandMarkets report <a href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/newmanager/worldwide-web-widens/article6054165.ece">suggests</a> that the value of the ‘Internet of Things’ may reach US $1423.09 billion by 2020 at an estimated CAGR of 4.08% from 2014 to 2020.</p>
<p>China’s Xinhua News Agency <a href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/international/china-clamps-down-on-instant-messaging-services/article6056514.ece">announced its month-long campaign</a> to fight “<i>infiltration from hostile forces at home and abroad</i>” through instant messaging. Message providers WeChat, Momo, Mi Talk and Yixin have expressed their willingness to cooperate in targeting those engaging in fraud, or in spreading ‘rumours’, violence, terrorism or pornography. In March this year, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/world/asia/china-cracks-down-on-instant-messaging-services/">WeChat deleted</a> at least 40 accounts with political, economic and legal content.</p>
<p>Thailand’s military junta interrupted national television broadcast <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-others/thai-red-shirts-freed-as-facebook-block-sows-panic/">to deny any role in an alleged Facebook-block</a>. The site went down briefly and caused alarm among netizens.</p>
<p>Snowden <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/world/americas/edward-snowden-no-relationship-with-russian-government/">continues to assure that he is not a Russian spy</a>, and has no relationship with the Russian government.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-may-28-29-2014'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-may-28-29-2014</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActFOEX LiveSocial Media2014-05-29T08:58:47ZBlog EntryFOEX Live: May 26-27, 2014
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-may-26-27-2014
<b>A selection of news from across India implicating online freedom of expression and use of digital technology</b>
<p>Media reports across India are focusing on the new government and its Cabinet portfolios. In the midst of the celebration of and grief over the regime change, we found many reports indicating that civil society is wary of the new government’s stance towards Internet freedoms.<span> </span></p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Andhra Pradesh</span></i>:</p>
<p>Andhra MLA and All India Majlis-e-Ittihad ul-Muslimin member Akbaruddin Owaisi <a href="http://www.asianage.com/mumbai/court-summons-owaisi-312">has been summoned to appear</a> before a Kurla magistrate’s court on grounds of alleged hate speech and intention to harm harmony of Hinduism and Islam. Complainant Gulam Hussain Khan saw an online video of a December 2012 speech by Owaisi and filed a private complaint with the court. “<i>I am prima facie satisfied that it disclosed an offence punishable under Section(s) 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code</i>,” the Metropolitan Magistrate said.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Goa</span></i>:</p>
<p>A Goa Sessions Judge <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/Comments-of-Devu-Chodankar-prima-facie-offensive-Judge/articleshow/35612485.cms">has dismissed</a> shipbuilding diploma engineer Devu Chodankar’s application for anticipatory bail. On the basis of an April 26 complaint by CII state president Atul Pai Kane, Goa cybercrime cell registered a case against Chodankar for allegedly posting matter on a Facebook group with the intention of promoting enmity between religious groups in view of the 2014 general elections. The Judge noted, <i>inter alia</i>, that Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code were attracted, and that it is necessary to find out whether, on the Internet, “<i>there is any other material which could be considered as offensive or could create hatred among different classes of citizens of India</i>”.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Karnataka</span></i>:</p>
<p>Syed Waqas, an MBA student from Bhatkal pursuing an internship in Bangalore, was <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/student-from-bhatkal-held-for-antimodi-mms/article6047440.ece">picked up for questioning</a> along with four of his friends after Belgaum social activist Jayant Tinaikar filed a complaint. The cause of the complaint was a MMS, allegedly derogatory to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. After interrogation, the Khanapur (Belgaum) police let Waqas off on the ground that Waqas was <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/waqas-let-off-after-questioning/article6052077.ece">not the originator</a> of the MMS, and that Mr. Tinaikar had <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/mms-case-complainant-gave-incorrect-number/article6052079.ece">provided an incorrect mobile phone number</a>.</p>
<p>In another part of the country, <a href="https://twitter.com/digvijaya_28/status/470755694488977408">Digvijaya Singh is vocal</a> about Indian police’s zealous policing of anti-Modi comments, while they were <a href="http://www.sahilonline.org/english/newsDetails.php?cid=3&nid=24840">all but visible</a> when former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was the target of abusive remarks.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Kerala</span></i>:</p>
<p>The Anti-Piracy Cell of Kerala Police <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/crackdown-on-sale-of-smut/article6049136.ece">plans to target</a> those uploading pornographic content on to the Internet and its sale through memory cards. A circular to this effect has been issued to all police stations in the state, and civil society cooperation is requested.<span> </span></p>
<p>In other news, Ernakulam MLA Hibi Eden <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/your-mla-is-just-a-phone-call-away/article6039644.ece">inaugurated “Hibi on Call”</a>, a public outreach programme that allows constituents to reach the MLA directly. A call on 1860 425 1199 registers complaints.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Maharashtra</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>Mumbai police are investigating <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/mumbai-police-seeks-explanation-on-drone-pizza-delivery/article6043644.ece">pizza delivery by an unmanned drone</a>, which they consider a security threat.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Tamil Nadu</span></i><span>:</span></p>
<p>Small and home-run businesses in Chennai <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/with-technology-small-businesses-have-big-reach/article6050497.ece?homepage=true">are flourishing</a> with the help of Whatsapp and Facebook: Mohammed Gani helps his customers match bangles with Whatsapp images, Ayeesha Riaz and Bhargavii Mani send cakes and portraits to Facebook-initiated customers. Even doctors <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/doctors-on-call-in-social-media-platforms-too/article5951628.ece">spread</a> information and awareness using Facebook. In Madurai, you can <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/groceries-just-a-click-away/article6052163.ece">buy groceries</a> online, too.</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Opinion</span></i>:</p>
<p>Chethan Kumar fears that Indian cyberspace <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Online-free-speech-hangs-by-a-thread/articleshow/35624481.cms">is strangling freedom of expression</a> through the continued use of the ‘infamous’ <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act">Section 66A</a> of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008). Sunil Garodia <a href="http://www.theindianrepublic.com/tbp/obnoxious-sec-66a-it-act-must-go-100037442.html">expresses similar concerns</a>, noting a number of arrests made under Section 66A.</p>
<p>However, Ankan Bose has a different take; <a href="http://indiaspeaksnow.com/freedom-speech-cant-interpreted-freedom-threaten/">he believes</a> there is a thin but clear line between freedom of expression and a ‘freedom to threaten’, and believes Devu Chodankar and Syed Waqar may have crossed that line. For more on Section 66A, please redirect <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act">here</a>.</p>
<p>While Nikhil Pahwa <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/05/223-ravi-shankar-prasad-telecom/">is cautious of the new government’s stance</a> towards Internet freedoms, given the (as yet) mixed signals of its ministers, Shaili Chopra <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-from-namo-to-pmo-narendra-modi-and-the-political-power-of-social-media-1991493">ruminates</a> on the new government’s potential dive into a “digital mutiny and communications revolution” and wonders about Modi’s social media management strategy. For <i>Kashmir Times</i> reader Hardev Singh, even Kejriwal’s arrest for allegedly defaming Nitin Gadkari <a href="http://www.kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=32715">will lead to a chilling effect</a> on freedom of expression.</p>
<p>Elsewhere, the <i><a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/allaboutnarendramodi/narendra-modi-takes-oath-as-pm-what-ht-readers-want-from-new-prime-minister/article1-1223119.aspx">Hindustan Times is intent</a></i> on letting Prime Minister Narendra Modi know that his citizens demand their freedom of speech and expression. Civil society and media all over India <a href="http://exitopinionpollsindia.blogspot.in/2014/05/as-freedom-of-expression-in-india-is.html">express their concerns</a> for their freedom of expression in light of the new government.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-may-26-27-2014'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-may-26-27-2014</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaIPCSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFOEX LiveIT ActTransparency, Politics2014-05-27T12:42:51ZBlog EntryFOEX Live: June 16-23, 2014
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-16-23-2014
<b>A weekly selection of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world). </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A quick and non-exhaustive perusal of this week’s content shows that many people are worried about the state of India’s free speech following police action on account of posts derogatory to or critical of the Prime Minister. Lawyers, journalists, former civil servants and other experts have joined in expressing this worry.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While a crackdown on freedom of expression would indeed be catastrophic and possibly unconstitutional, fears are so far based on police action in only 4 recent cases: Syed Waqar in Karnataka, Devu Chodankar in Goa and two cases in Kerala where college students and principals were arrested for derogatory references to Modi. Violence in Pune, such as the murder of a young Muslim man on his way home from prayer, or the creation of a Social Peace Force of citizens to police offensive Facebook content, are all related, but perhaps ought to be more carefully and deeply explored.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Kerala:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the Assembly, State Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala <a href="http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140618/jsp/nation/story_18524231.jsp#.U6kh1Y2SxDs">said that the State government did not approve</a> of the registration of cases against students on grounds of anti-Modi publications. The Minister denunciation of political opponents through cartoons and write-ups was common practice in Kerala, and “<i>booking the authors for this was not the state government’s policy</i>”.<span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Maharashtra:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nearly 20,000 people have <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/internet/peace-force-takes-aim-at-facebook-1.1705842#.U6khAI2SxDs">joined</a> the Social Peace Force, a Facebook group that aims to police offensive content on the social networking site. The group owner’s stated aim is to target religious posts that may provoke riots, not political ones. Subjective determinations of what qualifies as ‘offensive content’ remain a troubling issue.</p>
<h3><span>Tamil Nadu:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Chennai, 101 people, including filmmakers, writers, civil servants and activists, have <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Chennai/Intelligentsia-ask-CM-to-ensure-screening-of-Lankan-movie/articleshow/37107317.cms">signed a petition</a> requesting Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa to permit safe screening of the Indo-Sri Lankan film “<i>With You, Without You</i>”. The petition comes after theatres cancelled shows of the film following threatening calls from some Tamil groups.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Telangana:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The K. Chandrasekhar Rao government <a href="http://www.newslaundry.com/2014/06/23/channels-on-the-telangana-block/">has blocked</a> two Telugu news channels for airing content that was “<i>derogatory, highly objectionable and in bad taste</i>”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Telagana government’s decision to block news channels has its supporters. Padmaja Shaw <a href="http://www.thehoot.org/web/When-media-threatens-democracy/7593-1-1-14-true.html">considers</a> the mainstream Andhra media contemptuous and disrespectful of “<i>all things Telangana</i>”, while Madabushi Sridhar <a href="http://www.thehoot.org/web/Abusive-media-vs-angry-legislature/7591-1-1-2-true.html">concludes</a> that Telugu channel TV9’s coverage violates the dignity of the legislature.</p>
<h3><span>West Bengal:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Seemingly anti-Modi arrests <a href="http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140617/jsp/nation/story_18520612.jsp#.U6kh142SxDs">have led to worry</a> among citizens about speaking freely on the Internet. Section 66A poses a particular threat.</p>
<h3><span>News & Opinion:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Telecom is preparing a draft of the National Telecom Policy, in which it <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-19/news/50710986_1_national-broadband-policy-broadband-penetration-175-million-broadband-connections">plans to treat broadband Internet as a basic right</a>. The Policy, which will include deliberations on affordable broadband access for end users, will be finalised in 100 days.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>While addressing a CII CEO’s Roundtable on Media and Industry, Information and Broadcasting Minister </span><a href="http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/i-and-b-ministry/government-committed-to-communicating-with-people-across-media-platforms-javadekar-140619">Prakash Javadekar promised</a><span> a transparent and stable policy regime, operating on a time-bound basis. He promised that efforts would be streamlined to ensure speedy and transparent clearances.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A perceived increase in police action against anti-Modi publications or statements <a href="http://www.dw.de/indias-anti-modi-netizens-fear-possible-crackdown/a-17725267">has many people worried</a>. But the Prime Minister himself was once a fierce proponent of dissent; in protest against the then-UPA government’s blocking of webpages, Modi changed his display pic to black.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i><a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-social-media-helpline-mumbai/">Medianama wonders</a></i> whether the Mumbai police’s Cyber Lab and helpline to monitor offensive content on the Internet is actually a good idea.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/vGkg6ig9qJqzm2eL3SxkUK/Time-for-Modi-critics-to-just-shut-up.html">G. Sampath wonders</a> why critics of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi can’t voluntarily refrain from exercising their freedom of speech, and allow India to be an all-agreeable development haven. Readers may find his sarcasm subtle and hard to catch.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Experts in India <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/does-eu-s-right-to-be-forgotten-put-barrier-on-the-net-114062400073_1.html">mull over</a> whether Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, carries a loophole enabling users to exercise a ‘right to be forgotten’. Some say Section 79 does not prohibit user requests to be forgotten, while others find it unsettling to provide private intermediaries such powers of censorship.</p>
<h3><span>Some parts of the world:</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sri Lanka <a href="http://www.canindia.com/2014/06/sri-lanka-bans-meetings-that-can-incite-religious-hatred/">has banned</a> public meetings or rallies intended to promote religious hatred.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Pakistan, Twitter <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/Twitter-Restores-Access-to-Blasphemous-Material-in-Pak/845254">has restored</a> accounts and tweets that were taken down last month on allegations of being blasphemous or ‘unethical’.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Myanmar, an anti-hate speech network <a href="http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/10785-anti-hate-speech-network-proposed.html">has been proposed</a> throughout the country to raise awareness and opposition to hate speech and violence.</p>
<div class="kssattr-macro-text-field-view kssattr-templateId-blogentry_view.pt kssattr-atfieldname-text plain" id="parent-fieldname-text">
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>For feedback, comments and any incidents of online free speech violation you are troubled or intrigued by, please email Geetha at </span><span>geetha[at]cis-india.org or on Twitter at @covertlight.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="relatedItems"></div>
<div class="visualClear"></div>
<div class="documentActions"></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-16-23-2014'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-16-23-2014</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFOEX LiveCensorshipSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)2014-06-24T10:23:18ZBlog EntryFOEX Live: June 8-15, 2014
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-8-15-2014
<b>A weekly selection of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world). Please email relevant news/cases/incidents to geetha[at]cis-india.org.</b>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Karnataka:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A Hindu rightwing group </span><a href="http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=241239">demanded the arrest</a><span> of a prominent activist, who during a speech on the much-debated Anti-superstition Bill, made comments that are allegedly blasphemous.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Kerala:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span></span><span>On June 10, the principal and six students of Government Polytechnic at Kunnamkulam, Thrissur, </span><a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/modi-on-negative-faces-list-principal-6-others-booked/">were arrested</a><span> for publishing a photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside photographs of Hitler, Osana bin Laden and Ajmal Kasab, under the rubric ‘negative faces’. An FIR was </span><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/case-against-principal-students-for-slighting-modi/article6101911.ece?ref=relatedNews">registered</a><span> against them for various offences under the Indian Penal Code including defamation (Section 500), printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory (Section 501), intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace (Section 504), and concealing design to commit offence (Section 120) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). The principal was later </span><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kerala-college-principal-arrested-over-modi-negative-faces-row/article6111575.ece?ref=relatedNews">released on bail</a><span>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a similarly unsettling incident, on June 14, 2014, a <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/another-kerala-college-wades-into-modi-row/article6111912.ece?ref=relatedNews">case was registered</a> against the principal and 11 students of Sree Krishna College, Guruvayur, for using “objectionable and unsavoury” language in a crossword in relation to PM Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi, Shashi Tharoor, etc. Those arrested were later <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/nine-students-arrested-in-kerala-for-antimodi-remarks-in-campus-magazine/article6116911.ece?homepage=true&utm_source=Most%20Popular&utm_medium=Homepage&utm_campaign=Widget%20Promo">released on bail</a>.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Maharashtra:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook posts involving objectionable images of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar led to <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/facebook-post-on-ambedkar-sparks-violence-in-mharashtra/article6096766.ece">arson and vandalism in Pune</a>. Police have sought details of the originating IP address from Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A Pune-based entrepreneur <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/new-facebook-group-to-block-offensive-posts-against-religious-figures-542189">has set up</a> a Facebook group to block ‘offensive’ posts against religious leaders. The Social Peace Force will use Facebook’s ‘Report Spam’ option to take-down of ‘offensive’ material.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/maharashtra-deputy-cm-says-ban-social-media-retracts/">suggested</a> a ban on social media in India, and retracted his statement post-haste.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Punjab:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A bailable warrant <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/warrants-against-singer-kailash-kher-for-hurting-religious-sentiments/article1-1227795.aspx">was issued</a> against singer Kailash Kher for failing to appear in court in relation to a case. The singer is alleged to have hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community in a song, and a case registered under Sections 295A and 298, Indian Penal Code.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Uttar Pradesh:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The presence of a photograph on Facebook, in which an accused in a murder case is found posing with an illegal firearm, resulted in a <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/up-murder-accused-booked-for-posing-on-facebook-with-illegal-gun-1567323.html">case being registered</a> against him under the IT Act.<span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">News & Opinion:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Authors, civil society activists and other concerned citizens <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/civil-society-activists-flay-narendra-modi-pmos-silence-on-attacks-on-dissent/1258143">issued a joint statement</a> questioning Prime Minister Modi’s silence over arrests and attacks on exercise of free speech and dissent. Signatories include Aruna Roy, Romila Thapar, Baba Adhav, Vivan Sundaram, Mrinal Pande, Jean Dreze, Jayati Ghosh, Anand Pathwardhan and Mallika Sarabhai.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response to Mumbai police’s decision to take action against those who ‘like’ objectionable or offensive content on Facebook, experts say the <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/freedom-to-like-shareany-content-a-fundamental-right-experts/">freedom to ‘like’ or ‘share’</a> posts or tweets is fundamental to freedom of expression. India’s defamation laws for print and the Internet need harmonization, moreover.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While supporting freedom of expression, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Prakash Javadekar cautioned <a href="http://www.mizonews.net/nation/no-compromise-on-press-freedom-but-practice-self-restraint-javadekar/">the press</a> and <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-09/news/50448166_1_facebook-post-prakash-javadekar-speech">all users of social media</a> that the press and social media should be used responsibly for unity and peace. The Minister has also <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2014/06/09/indian-govt-vows-to-uphold-free-speech-after-hindu-book-withdrawal/">spoken out</a> in favour of free publication, in light of recent legal action against academic work and other books.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Infosys, India’s leading IT company, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/infosys-slaps-defamation-notice-on-three-newspapers/article6098717.ece">served defamation notices</a> on the <i>Economic Times</i>, the <i>Times of India </i>and the Financial Express, for “loss and reputation and goodwill due to circulation of defamatory articles”. Removal of articles and an unconditional apology were sought, and Infosys claimed damages amounting to Rs. 2000 crore. On a related note, Dr. Ashok Prasad <a href="http://www.newslaundry.com/2014/06/09/arresting-the-slander/">argues</a> that criminal defamation is a violation of freedom of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Drawing on examples from the last 3 years, Ritika Katyal <a href="http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/11/warning_bells_for_freedom_of_expression_in_modi_s_india">analyses</a> India’s increasing violence and legal action against dissent and hurt sentiment, and concludes that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has both the responsibility and ability to “<i>rein in Hindu hardliners</i>”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Discretionary powers resting with the police under the vaguely and broadly drafted Section 66A, Information Technology Act, are dangerous and unconstitutional, <a href="http://indiatogether.org/articles/freedom-of-speech-on-internet-section-66a-laws">say experts</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Providing an alternative view, the <i>Hindustan Times </i><a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/efficient-policing-is-the-best-way-to-check-cyber-crimes/article1-1228163.aspx">comments</a> that the police ought to “<i>pull up their socks</i>” and understand the social media in order to effectively police objectionable and offensive content on the Internet.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Keeping Track:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indconlawphil’s <a href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/free-speech-watch/">Free Speech Watch</a> keeps track of violations of freedom of expression in India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-8-15-2014'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-8-15-2014</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaFOEX LiveSection 66A2014-06-16T10:22:31ZBlog EntryFOEX Live: June 1-7, 2014
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-1-7-2014
<b>A weekly selection of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world). </b>
<p><i><span>Delhi NCR</span></i>:</p>
<p>Following a legal notice from Dina Nath Batra, publisher Orient BlackSwan <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/its-batra-again-book-on-sexual-violence-in-ahmedabad-riots-is-set-aside-by-publisher/">“set aside… for the present”</a> <i>Communalism and Sexual Violence: Ahmedabad Since 1969</i> by Dr. Megha Kumar, citing the need for a “comprehensive assessment”. Dr. Kumar’s book is part of the ‘Critical Thinking on South Asia’ series, and studies communal and sexual violence in the 1969, 1985 and 2002 riots of Ahmedabad. Orient BlackSwan insists this is a pre-release assessment, while Dr. Kumar contests that her book went to print in March 2014 after extensive editing and peer review. Dina Nath Batra’s civil suit <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/india-censorship-batra-brigade/">led Penguin India to withdraw</a> Wendy Doniger’s <i>The Hindus: An Alternative History</i> earlier this year.</p>
<p>The Delhi Police’s Facebook page aimed at reaching out to Delhi residents hailing from the North East <a href="http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=jun0114/at044">proved to be popular</a>.</p>
<p><i><span>Goa</span></i>:</p>
<p>Shipbuilding engineer Devu Chodankar’s <a href="http://www.ifex.org/india/2014/06/02/anti_modi_comments/">ordeal continued</a>. Chodankar, in a statement to the cyber crime cell of the Goa police, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Police-question-Devu-Chodankar-on-Facebook-posts-for-over-5-hours/articleshow/35965869.cms">clarified</a> that his allegedly inflammatory statements were directed against the induction of the Sri Ram Sene’s Pramod Muthalik into the BJP. Chodankar’s laptop, hard-disk and mobile Internet dongle were <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/goa-police-seizes-chodankars-laptop-dongle/article6075406.ece">seized</a>.</p>
<p><i><span>Jammu & Kashmir</span></i>:</p>
<p>Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announced the <a href="http://www.onislam.net/english/news/asia-pacific/473153-youth-cheer-kashmirs-sms-ban-lift.html">withdrawal of a four-year-old SMS ban</a> in the state. The ban was instituted in 2010 following widespread protests, and while it was lifted for post-paid subscribers six months later, pre-paid connections were banned from SMSes until now.</p>
<p><i><span>Maharashtra</span></i>:</p>
<p><a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maharashtra-police-to-crack-whip-on-those-who-like-offensive-Facebook-posts/articleshow/35974198.cms?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=timesofindia">In a move to contain public protests</a> over ‘objectionable posts’ about Chhatrapati Shivaji, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the late Bal Thackeray (comments upon whose death <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-20490823">led to the arrests</a> of Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan under Section 66A), Maharashtra police will take action against even those who “like” such posts. ‘Likers’ may be charged under the Information Technology Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, say Nanded police.</p>
<p>A young Muslim man was <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/muslim-techie-beaten-to-death-in-pune-7-men-of-hindu-outfit-held/">murdered</a> in Pune, apparently connected to the online publication of ‘derogatory’ pictures of Chhatrapati Shivaji and Bal Thackarey. Members of Hindu extremists groups <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pune-techie-killed-sms-boasts-of-taking-down-first-wicket/article1-1226023.aspx">celebrated</a> his murder, it seems. Pune’s BJP MP, Anil Shirole, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Pune-techie-murder-BJP-MP-says-some-repercussions-to-derogatory-FB-post-natural/articleshow/36112291.cms">said</a>, “some repercussions are natural”. Members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/seven-rightwing-activists-held-over-techies-killing-in-pune/article6081812.ece">were held</a> for the murder, but it seems that the photographs were uploaded from <a href="http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140606/nation-crime/article/pune-techie-murder-fb-pictures-uploaded-foreign-ip-addresses">foreign IP addresses</a>. Across Maharashtra, 187 rioting<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Offensive-FB-posts-187-rioting-cases-filed-710-held/articleshow/36176283.cms">cases have been registered</a> against a total of 710 persons, allegedly in connection with the offensive Facebook posts.</p>
<p>On a lighter note, <a href="http://post.jagran.com/what-bollywood-expects-from-new-ib-minister-1401860268">Bollywood hopes</a> for a positive relationship with the new government on matters such as film censorship, tax breaks and piracy.</p>
<p><i><span>News & Opinion</span></i>:</p>
<p>Shocking the world, Vodafone <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/06/vodafone-reveals-secret-wires-allowing-state-surveillance">reported</a> the existence of secret, direct-access wires that enable government surveillance on citizens. India is among 29 governments that sought access to its networks, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2651060/Unprecedented-terrifying-Scale-mobile-phone-snooping-uncovered-Vodaphone-reveals-government-requested-access-network.html">says Vodafone</a>.</p>
<p>I&B Minister <a href="http://www.exchange4media.com/55952_theres-no-need-for-the-govt-to-intervene-in-self-regulation-prakash-javadekar.html">Prakash Javadekar expressed his satisfaction</a> with media industry self-regulation, and stated that while cross-media ownership is a <a href="http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2014/06/05/146--Japan-to-ban-possession-of-child-pornography-except-comics-.html">matter for debate</a>, it is the <i>legality</i> of transactions such as the <a href="http://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/biggest-problem-network18">Reliance-Network18 acquisition</a> that is important.</p>
<p>Nikhil Pahwa of <i>Medianama</i> wrote of a <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-right-to-be-forgotten-india/">‘right to be forgotten’ request they received</a> from a user in light of the recent European Court of Justice <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties">ruling</a>. The right raises a legal dilemma in India, <i>LiveMint</i> <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Industry/5jmbcpuHqO7UwX3IBsiGCM/Right-to-be-forgotten-poses-a-legal-dilemma-in-India.html">reports</a>. <i>Medianama </i>also <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-maharashtra-police-warns-against-liking-objectionable-posts-on-facebook/">comments</a> on Maharashtra police’s decision to take action against Facebook ‘likes’, noting that at the very least, a like and a comment do not amount to the same thing.</p>
<p><i>The Hindu</i> was scorching in its <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/no-tolerance-for-hate-crimes/article6090098.ece">editorial on the Pune murder</a>, warning that the new BJP government stands to lose public confidence if it does not clearly demonstrate its opposition to religious violence. The <i>Times of India</i> <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/PM-Modi-must-condemn-Sadique-Shaikhs-murder-and-repeal-draconian-Section-66A/articleshow/36114346.cms">agrees</a>.</p>
<p>Sanjay Hegde <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-01/news/50245814_1_blasphemy-laws-puns-speech">wrote</a> of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) as a medium-focused criminalization of speech. dnaEdit also <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/editorial-dnaedit-netizens-bugbear-1992826">published</a> its criticism of Section 66A.</p>
<p>Ajit Ranade of the <i>Mumbai Mirror</i> <a href="http://www.mumbaimirror.com/columns/columnists/ajit-ranade/Republic-of-hurt-sentiments/articleshow/36191142.cms">comments</a> on India as a ‘republic of hurt sentiments’, criminalizing exercises of free speech from defamation, hate speech, sedition and Section 66A. But in this hurt and screaming republic, <a href="http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Why-Dissent-Needs-to-Stay-Alive/2014/06/03/article2261386.ece1">dissent is crucial</a> and must stay alive.</p>
<p>A cyber security expert is of the opinion that the police find it <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-derogatory-post-difficult-to-block-on-networking-sites-cyber-security-experts-1993093">difficult to block webpages</a> with derogatory content, as servers are located outside India. But <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/06/05/indias-snooping-and-snowden/">data localization will not help</a> India, writes Jayshree Bajoria.</p>
<p>Dharma Adhikari <a href="http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=76335">tries to analyze</a> the combined impact of converging media ownership, corporate patronage of politicians and elections, and recent practices of forced and self-censorship and criminalization of speech.</p>
<p><i><span>Elsewhere in the world</span></i>:</p>
<p>In Pakistan, Facebook <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Facebook-under-fire-for-blocking-pages-in-Pakistan/articleshow/36194872.cms">has been criticized</a> for blocking pages of a Pakistani rock band and several political groups, primarily left-wing. Across the continent in Europe, Google <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tech/Tech-News/Googles-new-problem-in-Europe-A-negative-image/articleshow/35936971.cms">is suffering</a> from a popularity dip.</p>
<p>The National Council for Peace and Order, the military government in Thailand, has taken over not only the government,<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/27/thailands-cybercoup/">but also controls the media</a>. The military <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/thai-junta-calls-meetings-google-facebook-over-allegedly-anti-coup-content-photo-1593088">cancelled its meetings</a> with Google and Facebook. Thai protesters <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/world/asia/thai-protesters-flash-hunger-games-salute-to-register-quiet-dissent.html">staged a quiet dissent</a>. The Asian Human Rights Commission <a href="http://www.humanrights.asia/news/forwarded-news/AHRC-FST-035-2014">condemned</a> the coup. For an excellent take on the coup and its dangers, please redirect <a href="http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/06/02/thailand%E2%80%99s-military-coup-tenuous-democracy">here</a>. For a round-up of editorials and op-eds on the coup, redirect <a href="http://asiancorrespondent.com/123345/round-up-of-op-eds-and-editorials-on-the-thai-coup/">here</a>.</p>
<p>China <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/china-escalates-attack-on-google/articleshow/35993349.cms">has cracked down</a> on Google, affecting Gmail, Translate and Calendar. It is speculated that the move is connected to the 25<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests and government reprisal. At the same time, a Tibetan filmmaker who was jailed for six years for his film, <i>Leaving Fear Behind</i>, <a href="http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2014/06/china-releases-tibetan-filmmaker-jail/">has been released</a> by Chinese authorities. <i>Leaving Fear Behind </i>features a series of interviews with Tibetans of the Qinghai province in the run-up to the controversial Beijing Olympics in 2008.</p>
<p>Japan looks set to <a href="http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2014/06/05/146--Japan-to-ban-possession-of-child-pornography-except-comics-.html">criminalize</a> possession of child pornography. According to reports, the proposed law does not extend to comics or animations or digital simulations.</p>
<p>Egypt’s police is looking to build a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/egypt-police-monitor-social-media-dissent-facebook-twitter-protest">social media monitoring system</a> to track expressions of dissent, including “<i>profanity, immorality, insults and calls for strikes and protests</i>”.</p>
<p>Human rights activists <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/facebook-bashar-al-assad-campaign-syria-election">asked Facebook to deny its services</a> to the election campaign of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, ahead of elections on June 3.</p>
<p><i><span>Call for inputs</span></i>:</p>
<p>The Law Commission of India seeks comments from stakeholders and citizens on media law. The consultation paper may be found <a href="http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/views/Consultation%20paper%20on%20media%20law.doc">here</a>. The final date for submission is June 19, 2014.</p>
<p>____________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p>For feedback and comments, Geetha Hariharan is available by email at <span>geetha@cis-india.org or on Twitter, where her handle is @covertlight. </span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-1-7-2014'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-1-7-2014</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaIT ActSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPrivacyFOEX LiveSurveillanceCensorship2014-06-07T13:33:45ZBlog EntryFixing India’s anarchic IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/livemint-opinion-november-28-2012-pranesh-prakash-fixing-indias-anarchic-it-act
<b>Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online, among other things. A conviction for such an offence can attract a prison sentence of as many as three years. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/ji3XbzFoLYMnGQprNJvpQL/Fixing-Indias-anarchic-IT-Act.html">published in LiveMint</a> on November 28, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>How could the ministry of communications and information technology draft such a loosely-worded provision that’s clearly unconstitutional? How could the ministry of law allow such shoddy drafting with such disproportionate penalties to pass through? Were any senior governmental legal officers—such as the attorney general—consulted? If so, what advice did they tender, and did they consider this restriction “reasonable”? These are some of the questions that arise, and they raise issues both of substance and of process. </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>When the intermediary guidelines rules were passed last year, the government did not hold consultations in anything but name. Industry and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sent in submissions warning against the rules, as can be seen from the submissions we retrieved under the Right to Information Act and posted on our website. However, almost none of our concerns, including the legality of the rules, were paid heed to. </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this year, parliamentarians employed a little-used power to challenge the law passed by the government, leading communications minister Kapil Sibal to state that he would call a meeting with “all stakeholders”, and will revise the rules based on inputs. A meeting was called in August, where only select industry bodies and members of Parliament were present, and from which a promise emerged of larger public consultations. That promise hasn’t been fulfilled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Substantively, there is much that is rotten in the IT Act and the various rules passed under it, and a few illustrations—a longer analysis of which is available on the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) website—should suffice to indicate the extent of the malaise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some of the secondary legislation (rules) cannot be passed under the section of the IT Act they claim as their authority. The intermediary guidelines violate all semblance of due process by not even requiring that a person whose content is removed is told about it and given a chance to defend herself. (Any content that is complained about under those rules is required to be removed within 36 hours, with no penalties for wilful abuse of the process. We even tested this by sending frivolous complaints, which resulted in removal.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>The definition of “cyber terrorism” in section 66F(1)(B) of the IT Act includes wrongfully accessing restricted information that one believes can be used for defamation, and this is punishable by imprisonment for life. Phone-tapping requires the existence of a “public emergency” or threat to “public safety”, but thanks to the IT Act, online surveillance doesn’t. The telecom licence prohibits “bulk encryption” over 40 bits without key escrow, but these are violated by all, including the Reserve Bank of India, which requires that 128-bit encryption be used by banks. These are but a few of the myriad examples of careless drafting present in the IT Act, which lead directly to wrongful impingement of our civil and political liberties. While we agree with the minister for communications, that the mere fact of a law being misused cannot be reason for throwing it out, we believe that many provisions of the IT Act are prone to misuse because they are badly drafted, not to mention the fact that some of them display constitutional infirmities. That should be the reason they are amended, not merely misuse.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What can be done? First, the IT Act and its rules need to be fixed. Either a court-appointed amicus curiae (who would be a respected senior lawyer) or a committee with adequate representation from senior lawyers, Internet policy organizations, government and industry must be constituted to review and suggest revisions to the IT Act. The IT Act (in section 88) has a provision for such a multi-stakeholder advisory committee, but it was filled with mainly government officials and became defunct soon after it was created, more than a decade ago. This ought to be reconstituted. Importantly, businesses cannot claim to represent ordinary users, since except when it comes to regulation of things such as e-commerce and copyright, industry has little to lose when its users’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression are curbed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, there must be informal processes and platforms created for continual discussions and constructive dialogue among civil society, industry and government (states and central) about Internet regulation (even apart from the IT Act). The current antagonism does not benefit anyone, and in this regard it is very heartening to see Sibal pushing for greater openness and consultation with stakeholders. As he noted on the sidelines of the Internet Governance Forum in Baku, different stakeholders must work together to craft better policies and laws for everything from cyber security to accountability of international corporations to Indian laws. In his plenary note at the forum, he stated: “Issues of public policy related to the Internet have to be dealt with by adopting a multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent approach” which is “collaborative, consultative, inclusive and consensual”. I could not have put it better myself. Now is the time to convert those most excellent intentions into action by engaging in an open reform of our laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Pranesh Prakash is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society.</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/livemint-opinion-november-28-2012-pranesh-prakash-fixing-indias-anarchic-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/livemint-opinion-november-28-2012-pranesh-prakash-fixing-indias-anarchic-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipInformation Technology2012-11-30T06:33:58ZBlog EntryFear, Uncertainty and Doubt
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-march-26-2015-sunil-abraham-fear-uncertainty-doubt
<b>Much confusion has resulted from the Section 66A verdict. Some people are convinced that online speech is now without any reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. This is completely false. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are many other provisions within the IT Act that still regulate speech online, for example the section on obscenity (Sec. 67) and also the data protection provision (Sec. 43A). Additionally there are provisions within the Indian Penal Code and other Acts that regulate speech both online and offline. For example, defamation remains a criminal offence under the IPC (Sec. 499), and disclosing information about children in a manner that lowers their reputation or infringes their privacy is also prohibited under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sec. 23).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Others are afraid that the striking down of Section 66A results in a regulatory vacuum where it will be possible for bad actors to wreak havoc online because the following has been left unaddressed by the IT Act.</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Criminal Intimidation: The phrase "criminal intimidation" was included in Sec. 66A(b), but the requirement was that intimidation should be carried out using "information which he knows to be false". Sec. 506 of the IPC which punishes criminal intimidation does not have this requirement and is therefore a better legal route for affected individuals, even though the maximum punishment is a year shorter than the three years possible under the IT Act.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Cyber-stalking: A new section for stalking - Sec. 345 D - was added into the IPC in 2013 which also recognised cyber stalking. The definition within Sec.345D is more precise compared to the nebulous phrasing in Sec. 66A, which read - "monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking". </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Phishing: Sec. 66A (c) dealt with punishment to people who "deceive or mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages". Sec.66D, which will be the operative section after this verdict, deals with "cheating by impersonation" and forms a more effective safeguard against phishing.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cyber-bulling of children is arguably left unaddressed. Most importantly, spam, the original intention behind 66A, now cannot be tackled using any existing provision of the law. However, the poorly drafted section made it impossible for law enforcement to crack down on spammers. A 2005 attempt by the ITU to produce model law for spam based on a comparative analysis of national laws resulted in several important best practices that were ignored during the 2008 Amendment of the Act. For example, the definition of spam must cover the following characteristics - mass, unsolicited and commercial. All of which was missing in 66A.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Good quality law must be drafted by an open, participatory process where all relevant stakeholders are consulted and responded to before bills are introduced in parliament.</p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center; ">A scanned copy of the article was published in the Deccan Chronicle on March 26, 2015. <br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/FearUncertaintyanddoubt.png/@@images/9871b918-5bc2-4957-8e23-5f9ae0eaa3d6.png" alt="Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" class="image-inline" title="Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-march-26-2015-sunil-abraham-fear-uncertainty-doubt'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-march-26-2015-sunil-abraham-fear-uncertainty-doubt</a>
</p>
No publishersunilIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-04-17T01:44:39ZBlog EntryFake News, Rumors & Online Content Regulation
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/fake-news-rumors-online-content-regulation
<b>Medianama and Mint organized #NAMApolicy open house on 'Fake News, Rumors & Online Content Regulation' on February 22, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre. Japreet Grewal and Amber Sinha attended the event.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussions broadly covered the impact of Fake News on democratic processes, Legal status of online content regulation in India & administrative challenges with Fake News, Responsibility and accountability of online platforms, while addressing challenges of identification of sources of Fake News, Potential legal and non-legal ways of addressing Fake News, etc.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Agenda</h3>
<ul>
<li>06:30 to 07:00 pm - Registration</li>
<li>07:00 to 07:10 pm - Introductory note</li>
<li>07:10 to 09:00 pm - Round-table discussion moderated by Nikhil Pahwa</li>
<li>09:00 pm onwards - Networking dinner </li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/fake-news-rumors-online-content-regulation'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/fake-news-rumors-online-content-regulation</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2017-02-28T02:46:13ZNews ItemFacebook: Limiting access to social media can restrict freedom of speech
https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-aug-1-2013-kim-arora-facebook-limiting-access-to-social-media-can-restrict-freedom-of-speech
<b>In its counter-affidavit to the PIL in the Delhi high court, Facebook has argued that limiting access to social media can limit an individual's freedom of speech and expression.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kim Arora's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-01/social-media/40960807_1_the-pil-social-media-other-social-networking-sites">published in the Times of India</a> on August 1, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The PIL, among other things, deals with the issue of minors accessing Facebook services, arguing that under the Indian Contract Act 1872, minors can't enter into a contract. The PIL will be heard next on Friday.</span></p>
<div class="mod-articletext mod-timesofindiaarticletext mod-timesofindiaarticletextwithadcpc" id="mod-a-body-after-first-para" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Last year, the UN Human Rights Council had passed a <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Resolution">resolution</a> declaring access to Internet as a human right. Facebook has argued making a similar point for access to social media. "The Internet is increasingly becoming a platform for citizens including minors to interact and voice their opinions and, therefore, a meaningful interpretation of the right to freedom of speech and expression would include the freedom to access social media," the counter-affidavit says.</p>
<p>"It can be argued that in a technologically mediated society, social media and communication infrastructure is essential to exercise freedom of expression," says Sunil Abraham, director, Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society.</p>
<p>Cyber lawyer Pavan Duggal sees it as "hyperbole". "The issue still remains that a minor doesn't have the capacity to act under the Contract Act," he says. Lawyers say that if a contract is entered into for free service in exchange of personal information, it is a "consideration" (like cash or kind) under the Indian Contract Act 1872. The Act says, "All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void." It then lists minors as incompetent to contract, and says, "The agreement, if any party is minor, is void ab initio." However, Abraham points out that "It is not an offence to enter a void contract."</p>
<p>To weed out fake profiles and children's profiles, the PIL, filed by former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya, argues that "obligation is cast upon Facebook and other social networking sites to verify the authenticity of each and every subscribers (sic) which is mandatory for Mobile companies in telecommunication sector.</p>
<p>Mumbai-based professor of law Saurav Datta feels this sort of authentication could have serious privacy implications. "There is no way they can verify users without impinging on their privacy. The goal of the PIL is wrong. We need to protect children, not keep people out," says Datta.</p>
<p>Abraham says that a possible way to deal with this can be on the lines of Canadian privacy law where a <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Privacy-Commissioner">privacy commissioner</a> can raise such concerns with the service provider directly.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-aug-1-2013-kim-arora-facebook-limiting-access-to-social-media-can-restrict-freedom-of-speech'>https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-aug-1-2013-kim-arora-facebook-limiting-access-to-social-media-can-restrict-freedom-of-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaInternet GovernancePrivacy2013-08-08T04:07:38ZNews ItemFacebook’s Free Basics hits snag in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india
<b>Indian regulators have dealt a major blow to Facebook’s controversial Free Basics online access plan by forbidding so-called differential pricing by internet companies, in effect banning the programme in the country. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by James Crabtree with additional reporting by Tim Bradshaw was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/08fadf8e-ce5b-11e5-986a-62c79fcbcead.html#axzz40CQUxGze">Financial Times</a> on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ee3ec02-b840-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.html#axzz3zZqe7eDy" title="‘Free Basics’ row presents India dilemma for Facebook - FT.com">Free Basics</a>, a plan to make access to parts of the internet free, has been at the centre of <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/537834e8-e3f2-11e4-9a82-00144feab7de.html" title="Facebook’s Internet.org effort hits India hurdle">a fierce row in the country</a> between the social network and local start-ups and advocates for net neutrality — the idea that all web traffic should be treated equally and technology companies should not be allowed to price certain kinds of content differently from others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last December, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ordered Facebook to put its Free Basics programme on hold pending a review.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, Trai published the results of its deliberations, introducing a complete ban on any form of differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling is the latest in a series of regulatory battles pitting net neutrality campaigners against telecom and internet companies, and is likely to be viewed as a test case for other emerging markets in which programmes similar to Facebook’s are yet to be challenged in the courts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also marks the most significant setback yet for Free Basics, which <a href="http://www.ft.com/topics/organisations/Facebook_Inc" title="Facebook news headlines - FT.com">Facebook</a> founder Mark Zuckerberg launched in 2014 as the centrepiece of plans to help poorer people access the internet in emerging economies. It operates in more than 30 countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook had launched a high-profile public campaign to defend its programme, which offered stripped-down access to sites such as BBC News or Facebook’s own app to customers of Reliance Communications, the US company’s local telecoms partner.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But critics attacked the programme as an attempt to become a gatekeeper for tens of millions of internet users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a post to his Facebook page on Monday, Mr <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251" title="Mark Zuckerberg post - Facebook.com">Zuckerberg said</a> the company “won’t give up on” finding new ways to boost internet access in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“While we’re disappointed with today’s decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet,” he wrote.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trai’s ruling was welcomed by anti-Facebook campaigners, a group that included the founders of many Indian start-ups including online retailers such as Flipkart, Paytm and restaurant search service Zomato, which had declined to offer their services as part of the Free Basics platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Analysts also hailed the Indian regulator’s ruling as a landmark. “This is the most broad and the most stringent set of regulations on differential pricing which exists anywhere in the world,” said Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, a think-tank.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a6cc092-4faf-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.htmlaxzz3zXMPWWz9" title="Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg plays the long game in India">India</a> has become an increasingly important focus for the company’s global business, with the country becoming its second-largest market by users last year.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsNet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-15T02:33:26ZNews ItemFacebook’s Fight to Be Free
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava
<b>In India, Mark Zuckerberg can’t give Internet access away.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Shrivastava was published in Bloomberg Businessweek on January 15, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thanks mostly to its mobile-ad profits, Facebook has had a great couple of years. According to its most recent earnings report, in November, the company’s quarterly ad revenue rose 45 percent, to $4.3 billion, from the same period in 2014. It has more than 1.5 billion monthly users, just over half of all the people online anywhere. Keeping up its rate of user growth—more than 100 million people each year—will only get tougher.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A big part of the problem is that a lot of potential new eyeballs are in places where Internet access is patchy at best. Some of Facebook’s grander projects anticipated that issue: It has satellites and giant solar-powered planes that beam Wi-Fi down to areas that don’t have it. And then there’s Free Basics, the two-year-old project Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has called an online 911. In about three dozen countries so far, Free Basics—also known as Internet.org—includes a stripped-down version of Facebook and a handful of sites that provide news, weather, nearby health-care options, and other info. One or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook says Free Basics is meant to make the world more open and connected, not to boost the company’s growth. Either way, online access is an especially big deal in India, where there are 130 million people using Facebook, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t. (The social network remains blocked in China.) That may help explain why Zuckerberg spent part of the first few weeks of his paternity leave appealing personally to Indians to lobby for Free Basics. On Dec. 21 the Indian government suspended the program, offered in the country by carrier Reliance Communications, while it weighs public comments and arguments from Internet freedom advocates who say preferential treatment for Facebook’s services threatens to stifle competition.</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">“An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet.” —Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook has bought daily full-page ads in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-ed, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service. “If we accept that everyone deserves access to the Internet, then we must surely support free basic Internet services,” the CEO wrote in a column published in the Times of India, the nation’s largest daily paper, shortly before the new year. “Who could possibly be against this?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Opponents, including some journalists and businesspeople, say Free Basics is dangerous because it fundamentally changes the online economy. If companies are allowed to buy preferential treatment from carriers, the Internet is no longer a level playing field, says Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of Indian mobile-payment company Paytm. A spokesman for Sharma confirmed that Zuckerberg called to discuss the matter but declined to comment further.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s Internet base will grow with or without Facebook’s help, says Nikhil Pahwa, a tech blogger and co-founder of the Save the Internet coalition, which opposes Free Basics. “We don’t see Free Basics as philanthropy. We see it as a land grab,” says Pahwa. When dealing with the famously protectionist Indian government, that’s a pretty good argument. An April attempt by India’s top mobile carrier to underwrite data costs for certain apps drew heavy criticism, and the carrier, Bharti Airtel, has put the program on hold.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">None of that means Facebook can’t help get more Indians online, says Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum. “An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet,” she says. “What Facebook Free Basics is doing is a bit extreme, but what you do need is a bit of a middle path.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet sampler packages such as Free Basics can also help carriers like Reliance, the fourth-largest in India, upgrade their often-struggling networks, Dharia says. That’s a symbiotic process, because customers may quickly grow frustrated with the bare-bones service and demand more. Free Basics doesn’t have Gmail, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, or Bollywood music streaming. (Video will account for 64 percent of India’s data traffic by March 2017, consulting firm Deloitte estimates.) It’s meant to be a steppingstone. Facebook says about 40 percent of Free Basics users start paying for data plans within a month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But again, if Free Basics catches on in India, people may just keep paying for data to use more Facebook and forget about some of those other services, says Dharia. “Facebook is the Internet” to a lot of people in India, she says. Google, whose services are most conspicuously absent from the Free Basics roster, declined to comment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s telecommunications regulator says Facebook’s advocates and opponents have until Jan. 14 to file public comments; it’s received about 2.4 million responses so far, most of them form letters supporting Free Basics. The government’s decision could also ripple beyond India, says Pranesh Prakash, a Free Basics opponent and the policy director at the nonprofit Centre for Internet & Society in Bengaluru. In the weeks since India suspended Free Basics, Egypt, which had done the same back in October, once again shut down the Facebook plan, though the government wouldn’t say why. The India fight “will be a reputational challenge for Facebook,” says Prakash. “It will set the tone for Free Basics debate in other countries.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The bottom line: Facebook’s free data plan in India faces strong opposition from local businesses and Internet freedom advocates.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceSocial Media2016-01-31T09:11:52ZNews ItemFacebook, Google tell India they won’t screen for derogatory content
https://cis-india.org/facebook-google-tell-india-they-won2019t-screen-for-derogatory-content
<b>In the world’s largest democracy, the government wants Internet sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google to screen and remove offensive content about religious figures and political leaders as soon as they learn about it. But those companies now say they can’t help. </b>
<p>India’s minister of communications Kapil Sibal began discussions with the online companies in September. On Tuesday, he told reporters the government will have to create new guidelines to disable such content from the Internet sites on its own.<br /><br />"We will not allow intermediaries to say that ‘we throw up our hands, we can’t do anything about it,’" Sibal said.<br /><br />Sibal had shown company executives derogatory images of the Prophet Mohammed and morphed pictures of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party chief Sonia Gandhi that appeared on their platforms. Sibal said these images would offend "any reasonable person" and also hurt religious sentiments of Indians.<br /><br />But on Monday, according to Sibal, the company executives said they cannot do anything.<br /><br />Soon after Sibal’s news conference, Facebook said in a statement: “We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service.” Those parameters are unlikely to include all the images the government of India wants screened out.<br /><br />Sibal’s move did not come as a surprise for some observers in India, which has the third-largest Internet-user community in the world--more than 100 million people. Earlier this year, India introduced new rules that called on Web sites, service providers and search engines to not host information that could be regarded as “harmful, “blasphemous” or “disparaging.” The rules also called on Web sites to remove offensive material within 36 hours of a complaint.<br /><br />"I can’t believe a democracy is doing this," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of India’s Center for Internet and Society. He said recent, unpublished research conducted by the group showed that "such rules have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression on the Internet." Researchers sent mock take-down notices to seven sites, complaining about their content. Abraham said six sites immediately deleted content. "They did not even verify the validity of our flawed complaint. They over-complied," he said.<br /><br />Sibal’s announcement also sparked a debate on Twitter, where Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor and Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah weighed in:</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/shashi.jpg/image_preview" title="shashi tharoor" height="82" width="176" alt="shashi tharoor" class="image-inline image-inline" /></p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/omar.jpg/image_preview" title="omar abdullah" height="89" width="178" alt="omar abdullah" class="image-inline image-inline" /></p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/jilian.jpg/image_preview" title="jillian" height="80" width="165" alt="jillian" class="image-inline image-inline" /></p>
<p>The Streisand effect is an online phenomenon in which an attempt to censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information further. (It is named after Barbara Streisand, who attempted in 2003 to hide pictures of her giant home; that only created more interest.)<br />But a blogger who calls himself the “Pragmatic Desi” argued that India had its own constraints: </p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/pragmatic.jpg/image_preview" title="pragmatic" height="88" width="185" alt="pragmatic" class="image-inline image-inline" /></p>
<p>But Member of Parliament Varun Gandi said that’s precisely why the Internet shouldn’t be censored:</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/varun.jpg/image_preview" title="varun gandhi" height="95" width="189" alt="varun gandhi" class="image-inline image-inline" /></p>
<p>The article written by Rama Lakshmi was originally published in the Washington Post on 6 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read it <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/facebook-google-tell-india-they-wont-screen-for-derogatory-content/2011/12/06/gIQAUo59YO_blog.html">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/facebook-google-tell-india-they-won2019t-screen-for-derogatory-content'>https://cis-india.org/facebook-google-tell-india-they-won2019t-screen-for-derogatory-content</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2011-12-07T05:25:52ZNews ItemFacebook, Google face censorship in India
https://cis-india.org/news/facebook-google-face-censorship-in-india
<b>Religious leaders in India are on a collision course with social media websites including Google, Facebook and Yahoo. Two Indian courts recently asked these American companies as well as 19 other websites to take down “anti-religious” material. They are now required to report their compliance by February. Betwa Sharma's blog post was published in SmartPlanet on 5 January 2012. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in it extensively.</b>
<p>Information technology minister Kapil Sibal also met with a delegation of different faith groups who are worried that certain internet content could lead to communal discord. India’s 1.2 billion people are made up of majority Hindus but it also has the third largest population of Muslims as well as large number of Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and other faiths.</p>
<p>India has an estimated 100 million internet users–the third largest in the world after U.S and China. The proposed restrictions are not at all comparable to China’s but is the internet free enough for the world’s largest democracy?</p>
<p>Some observers are suspicious that promoting religious or social harmony is a front for censoring the internet. Sunil Abraham, head of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said that "traditional intellectual property rights holders like movie studios, music companies and software vendors are trying to protect their obsolete business models by pushing for the adoption of blanket surveillance and filtering technologies."<br /><br />"They have found common cause with both totalitarian and so-called democratic regimes across the world interested in protecting the political status-quo after upheavals like the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Anonymous and the Pirate Party," he said.<br /><br />The Indian government has tried to reassure the public that it is not trying to censor. Google’s Transparency Report, however, recorded that out of the 358 items requested to be removed by the Indian government from Jan-June 2011, 255 had to do with government criticism and only a handful with hate speech.<br /><br />Sibal has also been speaking to executives from Facebook, Yahoo and Google in India. But no agreement has been reached on taking down hate speech. New rules, issued in April, require internet intermediaries like Facebook and Yahoo to check for “unlawful” material and take it down.<br /><br />CIS will soon be releasing a report called “Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011." For the report, CIS conducted a sting operation by sending flawed takedown notices to seven intermediaries. The results showed that six intermediaries over-complied with the notices. "From the responses from the intermediaries don’t have sufficient legal competence or unwilling to dictate resources to determine legality of an online expression," Abraham said.</p>
<p>"Various pretexts like national security, protection of children, crackdown on online crime and terrorism, defense against cyber war etc are used to compromise civil liberties and clamp down on freedom of expression," he added.</p>
<p>(Photo-facebook24h.com/Google images)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/global-observer/facebook-google-face-censorship-in-india/2180">Read the original published by SmartPlanet</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/facebook-google-face-censorship-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/news/facebook-google-face-censorship-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-01-09T05:10:37ZNews ItemFacebook, Google deny spying access
https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-javed-anwer-june-9-2013-facebook-google-deny-spying-access
<b>The CEOs of Facebook and Google on Saturday categorically denied that the US National Security Agency had "direct access" to their company servers for snooping on Gmail and Facebook users. But both acknowledged that the companies complied with the 'lawful' requests made by the US government and shared user data with sleuths.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Javed Anwer was <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-09/internet/39849496_1_facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-user-data-ceo-larry-page">published in the Times of India</a> on June 9, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a post titled "What the ...?" Google's official blog, CEO <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Larry-Page">Larry Page</a> wrote, "We have not joined any program that would give the US government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A few hours later, Facebook CEO <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Mark-Zuckerberg">Mark Zuckerberg</a> responded. "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers... We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday," he wrote on his page at the social media site.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to a few PowerPoint slides allegedly leaked by an NSA official, nine technology companies - Google, AOL, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Skype, Facebook, YouTube and PalTalk - are providing the US government easy access to user data. While all companies have denied being part anything called PRISM, Facebook and Google have been most vocal about it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A few hours after Facebook and Google statements, the New York Times said in a report that technology companies had "opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"In some cases, they (companies) changed their computer systems to do so," noted the NYT report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The statements by the CEOs have done little to allay privacy fears. "The denials from the companies look highly coordinated, including similar phrases in all their responses. I don't think they are lying outright, though the NYT report suggests that they are telling a half-truth. They may not provide the US government 'direct access' to all their servers, but may be providing indirect access, or may just be responding to very broad FISA orders," said Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with Centre for Internet and Society in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Friday US president <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Barack-Obama">Barack Obama</a> had tacitly acknowledged NSA surveillance programmes aimed at non-US citizens. "You can't have a hundred per cent security and also then have a hundred per cent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society," he told reporters in the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Page and Zuckerberg also called on the governments to be more open about surveillance programmes. "The level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish," wrote Page.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Added Zuckerberg, "We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-javed-anwer-june-9-2013-facebook-google-deny-spying-access'>https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-javed-anwer-june-9-2013-facebook-google-deny-spying-access</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2013-07-02T10:18:48ZNews Item