The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 381 to 395.
Views | Why the Left may for once be right
https://cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right
<b>On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/04/23173934/Views--Why-the-Left-may-for-o.html?h=A1"><u>The article by Pramit Bhattacharya was published in LiveMint on April 23, 2012</u></a>.</p>
<p>India’s information technology (IT) minister, Kapil Sibal appears to be running into rough weather over IT rules framed last year, which curb freedom of expression on the internet. The rules have incensed India’s growing blogging community and piqued at least a few of his fellow parliamentarians.</p>
<p>On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a rediff.com report said. Ironically, the party that still treats Stalin as a hero (quoting him unfailingly in its political resolutions) has become the first to stand up for internet freedom.<br />Rajeeve is of course not the only parliamentarian to take exception to the rules. Jayant Choudhry, a member of parliament (MP) from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, was the first to draw attention to the draconian rules late last year, and MPs from other regional parties such as the Samajwadi Party and the Asom Gana Parishad criticized the rules in a parliamentary discussion in December.<br /><br />Two sets of rules, one governing cyber cafes and the other relating to intermediaries have attracted most criticism. The rules relating to intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines or interactive websites such as Twitter and Facebook are the most disturbing. Intermediaries are required under the current rules to remove content that anyone objects to, within 36 hours of receiving the complaint, without allowing content creators any scope of defence.<br /><br />The criteria for deciding objectionable content, laid down in the rules, are subjective and vague. For instance, intermediaries are mandated to remove among other things, ‘grossly harmful’ content, whatever that may mean.<br /><br />This is a unique form of ‘private censorship’ that will endanger almost all online content. In this age of easily offended sensibilities, it is virtually impossible to write anything that does not “offend” anyone. For instance, even this piece may be termed ‘grossly harmful’ to the CPI(M) party.<br /><br />However far-fetched this may sound, this has already become a reality. A researcher working with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) tried out such a strategy with several different intermediaries, and was successful in six out of seven times, always with frivolous and flawed complaints, Pranesh Prakash of CIS wrote in a January blog-post. It has become much easier in India to ban an e-book than a book, Prakash pointed out.<br /><br />The rules regulating cyber cafes are no better. Cyber cafes are required to keep a log detailing the identity of users and their internet usage, which has negative implications for privacy and personal safety of users, analysis of the rules by PRS legislative research said.<br /><br />Internet freedom in India has declined over time and is only ‘partly free’, a 2011 report on internet freedom by US-based think tank, Freedom House said. India has joined a growing club of developing nations where, “internet freedom is increasingly undermined by legal harassment, opaque censorship procedures, or expanding surveillance,” the report noted.<br /><br />The only saving grace is that some of the IT rules are drafted in a language so arcane that anyone will find it hard to decipher them, leave alone implementing them. Sample this: “The intermediary shall not knowingly deploy or install or modify the technical configuration of computer resource or become party to any such act which may change or has the potential to change the normal course of operation of the computer resource than what it is supposed to perform thereby circumventing any law for the time being in force: provided that the intermediary may develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of securing the computer resource and information contained therein.”<br /><br />The first task at hand for Sibal may be to explain to fellow lawmakers what the above rule is supposed to mean, before he defends such rules.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/04/23173934/Views--Why-the-Left-may-for-o.html?h=A1">Click</a> for the original, Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right'>https://cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-25T11:48:50ZNews ItemCampaign against curbs on websites gathers steam
https://cis-india.org/news/campaign-against-curbs-on-websites
<b>For political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and his blogger-cum-journalist friend Alok Dixit, who both ran a website against corruption, a tryst with the blind side of law triggered their mission against “gagging” of the new-age Indian Internet user.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/campaign-against-curbs-on-websites-gathers-steam/251155-60-120.html">The blog post by Arpan Daniel Varghese was published by IBN Live on April 23, 2012</a>.</p>
<p>It all started when they were in Mumbai, taking part in the first public protest seeking a strong Lokpal led by social activist Anna Hazare. “During the course of the protest, we got word that our website had been taken off,” recalls Alok.<br /><br />The Mumbai Police had banned the website without any prior notice, apparently after a complaint was filed by a Congress leader that some content on the site, CartoonsAgainstCorruption, was objectionable, he says.<br /><br />“We then contacted Bigrocks, the domain provider, but they did not divulge the exact procedure to restore our website,” he adds.<br /><br />Kerala High Court lawyer P Jacob, who has a masters in cyber law and is a researcher in the field, clarifies. “Let’s say that you are a website, blog or domain owner... As per the intermediary rules incorporated into the IT laws, introduced through an amendment in 2011, if a third person sends a complaint, be it a frivolous one, to you (the intermediary ) about some objectionable content, you will have to take off the said content within 36 hours.” <br /><br />This could happen to any one and could be quite dangerous, points out Sunil Abraham, the executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS-India).� “If a company wants to target your organization’s social media network, they can keep sending fraudulent emails to you and you will have to keep deleting it unless you are ready to face litigation or government action. And then there is no penalty for abusing the provision. There is no transparency, the people who comment will not be told,” says Sunil.<br /><br />It was this realization that drove Alok, who then quit his job as a reporter, and Aseem Trivedi to start a movement against such blind curbs. ‘Save Your Voice’ was thus born.<br /><br />A research conducted by the CIS gave further credence to their fears that it was very “easy to ban any website in India.”<br /><br />“We call it a policy sting operation,” details Sunil. “We sent out fraudulent take- down notices (or complaints) to seven of the largest intermediaries in India. They gladly over-complied and promptly took off the material in question. You can try this. You could look at a legitimate comment and complain that this is blasphemous, offensive or plain annoying. And without questioning your locus standi, the intermediary sites will have to take it off.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/campaign-against-curbs-on-websites'>https://cis-india.org/news/campaign-against-curbs-on-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-25T11:19:29ZNews ItemExpect anti-net censorship echo in house
https://cis-india.org/news/anti-net-censorship-echo-in-house
<b>For the anti-Internet censorship movement in the country, hope is now in sight. Their fight against the intermediary provisions (section 79) of the IT laws, according to which, an intermediary (website, domain owner) would have to take off content that a third party (or complainant) finds ‘objectionable,’ without any room for appeal, has now garnered the attention of the government itself. What is at stake is our fundamental rights, warns CPM Member of Parliament P Rajeeve, who was perhaps the first at the government level to realise that there was a gaping hole in the provision, and took up the matter in the Rajya Sabha.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/expect-antinet-censorship-echo-in-house/251515-60-120.html"><strong>This blog post by Arpan Daniel Varghese was published in IBN Live on April 25, 2012</strong></a></p>
<p>“A discussion on the annulment of the IT Act 2011 itself is likely to figure in the budget session of the Parliament on April 24. I am trying to mobilise other MPs. We have decided to convene a meeting of organizations, representatives of political parties and MPs to discuss this issue in detail,” says MP Rajeeve.</p>
<p>Noted Twitteratti and former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor too is concerned, particularly about the onus this places on Internet Service Providers.</p>
<p>“If a newspaper publishes something, you go after the newspaper, not the delivery boy. Yes, you can ask the delivery boy to stop delivering the newspaper, but that is such an extreme step that few democracies would contemplate. But what we are trying to do seems to go unacceptably far in this direction and needs further reconsideration,” Tharoor says, adding that he too is planning to raise the issue in the Lok Sabha.</p>
<p>Both Alok Dixit from ‘Save Your Voice’ and Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet And Society (CIS), say they are speaking to MPs and others in the government and trying to initiate an motion in the Rajya Sabha against the intermediary provisions. And support has been pouring in from all quarters, be it cyber space or through the pan-India protests, including the recent one at the Marina Beach in Chennai that ‘Save Your Voice’ has been holding.</p>
<p>Alok, Sunil and scores of activists across the country are now pinning their hopes on the annulment motion introduced by MP Rajeeve, which is likely to be taken up during the second half of the Parliament session on Tuesday.<br />The main hassle, however, is ignorance. “People don’t even know about the laws. They are not aware of their rights. So, the kind of support we are getting is quite less,” says Alok.</p>
<p>The legal fraternity and the administration too face the same roadblock, agrees Kerala High Court advocate Jacob. “This is a new area and people are just learning the theoretical side of it. There are not many cases. Trained professionals are not there to train the legal fraternity itself,” he rues.</p>
<p>The fundamental question is, according to Sunil, “why should freedom of speech and expression be any different on the Internet?”<br />“Remember, this is the same Internet which brought out Kolaveri and structured the Anna movement. So, it affects you,” Alok signs off.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/expect-antinet-censorship-echo-in-house/251515-60-120.html">Read the original here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/anti-net-censorship-echo-in-house'>https://cis-india.org/news/anti-net-censorship-echo-in-house</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-25T11:07:43ZNews ItemMobilising support for freedom on the Web
https://cis-india.org/news/mobilising-support-for-freedom-on-web
<b>A motion in the Rajya Sabha has sought annulment of the IT intermediary guidelines, writes Deepa Kurup in this article published in the Hindu on April 22, 2012.</b>
<p>A research, or a sting operation, conducted by researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society in October 2011 — a few months after the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules were notified — revealed some inherent flaws in the guidelines laid down by the Indian government. The results of the study made news, particularly after Union Minister for IT, Kapil Sibal, asked Internet companies and Web service providers to screen content.<br /><br />The study revealed that companies were only too eager to comply with take-down notices or requests, in order to avoid further hassles, particularly legal ones.<br /><br />Rishab Dara, a researcher who was part of this ‘sting', pointed out that unless the content was commercial, or had potential commercial interest, companies preferred to err on the side of caution.<br /><br />Addressing an audience at a panel discussion, titled ‘Resisting Internet censorship: strategies for furthering freedom of expression in India', held at the Bangalore International Centre, Mr. Dara pointed out that search engines did not invest enough resources to check how valid the claims were, before taking down over 2,000 URLs related to a random complaint or take-down notice sent by them. His study underlined the need for debate and discussion on the intermediary guidelines, locating this in the larger context of freedom on the Web.<br /><br />The discussion, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society, was moderated by the former journalist and academic, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. The audience and the panel comprised a diverse lot: from students, netizens and academics to those who were directly involved in the business of publishing content or hosting Web content. While a substantial part of the discussion dealt with the legal aspects of the notified rules, and how it may contradict the constitutional rights of citizens, a section of the debate also delved into whether the Web as a medium needed to be policed at all.<br /><br />If panellist Mahesh Murthy, Chief Executive Officer of Pinstorm, argued vociferously for unfettered freedom on the Web and accused the government of being threatened by movements such as the anti-corruption campaign led by Anna Hazare (which he said was largely mobilised on the Web), another panellist Na. Vijayshankar, Cyber Law College, who claimed he was among those instrumental in bringing down the pornographic cartoon portal Savitabhabhi.com, argued that though these rules need to be withdrawn, there are “boundaries” to what can be posted and said on the Web.<br /><br />Another section of the audience brought up the issues of hate speech on the Web, and pointed out that in some cases there was a need to pin liability on those who generate content that incites hatred.<br /><br />Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Centre for Law and Policy Research, pointed out that currently the way the issue was being played out in court, the discourse was more about companies.<br /><br />“The debate is not about users today. Companies are trying to duck liabilities, rather than deal with substantive issues of free speech,” he said, pointing to the complexities in locating liability for content.<br /><br />Speaking from the publisher's perspective, B.G. Mahesh, OneIndia.in, an online news and entertainment portal, spoke of specific cases where his portal had been targeted by the Chennai Cybercrime cell for hosting a news story (syndicated from a news agency) that was declared defamatory. “We took it down, but there was no answer from them when we asked for an explanation,” he said, adding that in such cases there is tremendous pressure and harassment from authorities, leaving publishers with no choice but to comply.<br /><br />Though the IT intermediary rules were notified in April 2011, the issue made headlines when Union Minister for Information and Communication Technology Kapil Sibal asked private companies or Web service providers to pre-screen content, a statement which he later withdrew.<br /><br />Also discussed in detail were the complexities posed by a medium like the World Wide Web, and what were the reasonable restrictions to free speech on the Web. Does one need a separate legal dispensation to deal with this medium, Mr. Thakurta asked. While emphasising that the solution does not lie in “knee-jerk reactions”, such as the rules that have been proposed, he pointed out that the bid to control flow of information was a simple manifestation of the utter helplessness and inability of the government — and governments worldwide — to control the Web. Be it in West Bengal, where a professor is held for sharing a cartoon, or with the Union government that beckons corporates to pre-screen the Web, these acts are a manifestation of a “combination of arrogance and stupidity”, he said.<br /><br />Subsequently, in February, Rajya Sabha member from Kerala, P. Rajeeve, moved a statutory motion in the Rajya Sabha seeking that these guidelines be annulled on the grounds that it allowed intermediaries protection from legal liability in return for trading away freedom of expression of users.<br /><br />In the Parliamentary session that will start next week, this is likely to come up for discussion, and across the country, rights activists are mobilising support and lobbying with legislators to garner support for this annulment.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/karnataka/article3340032.ece">Read the original here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/mobilising-support-for-freedom-on-web'>https://cis-india.org/news/mobilising-support-for-freedom-on-web</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-25T11:02:58ZNews ItemIndia arrests professor over political cartoon
https://cis-india.org/news/india-arrests-professor-over-cartoon
<b>Sharing funny, satirical cartoons over the Internet can land you in court and even in jail these days in the world’s largest democracy. The article by Rama Lakshmi was published in Washington Post on April 13, 2012.</b>
<p>A chemistry professor, Ambikesh Mahapatra, from the Jadavpur University in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal, forwarded a <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/#!/panchyat/status/190726431158972416/embed">cheeky cartoon strip</a> to his friends that made fun of the state’s mercurial chief minister Mamata Banerjee. Late Thursday, the professor was beaten up by angry political workers of Banerjee’s party, Trinamool Congress, and later arrested by the state police.</p>
<p>Indian politicians appear to have become very touchy recently. In the past few months, the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression/2012/02/02/gIQAHkOY9Q_story.html">government clamped down on Web sites</a> and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Google, for carrying defamatory cartoons and morphed images of senior politicians.</p>
<p>Banerjee, who ended a Communist party’s three-decades reign in West Bengal at the elections a year ago, has become the queen of controversies in the past month.</p>
<p>She first wanted the state’s school history textbooks to reduce the number of pages glorifying Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Then, she instructed 2,500 public libraries to buy only newspapers her government approved of.</p>
<p>Banerjee is also a partner in India’s national coalition government. She recently forced her party member Dinesh Trivedi, a national railway minister, to resign because he dared to raise rail passenger fares without consulting her. Mahapatra forwarded a cartoon that made fun of Banerjee sacking Trivedi.</p>
<p>On Friday, the professor’s arrest triggered outrage. Angry students in West Bengal’s capital Kolkata protested by pasting copies of the cartoon all over university walls. One TV commentator said that Banerjee had not only lost her sense of humor but had herself become a laughing stock.<br /><br />The state’s “new-found aversion to non-believers has gone a bit too far,” said Pranesh Prakash, an Internet freedom activist at the Center for Internet and Society, of the response to the cartoon.<br /><br />“[Banerjee’s] government wants to decide what people will read in public libraries, and tomorrow she will tell us what we should think,” said Brinda Karat, a lawmaker from the Communist Party of India (Marxist).<br /><br />West Bengal’s transport minister Madan Mitra said “those who call themselves professors, if they do such ugly things, will never be forgiven.”<br /><br />The chemistry professor was later released on bail, but not before he was charged with three crimes: humiliating and insulting the modesty of a woman, defamation and sending offensive messages through a computer.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/india-arrests-professor-over-political-cartoon/2012/04/13/gIQAZmrJFT_blog.html">Click</a> to read the original</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-arrests-professor-over-cartoon'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-arrests-professor-over-cartoon</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-04-25T10:27:48ZNews ItemThe Centre for Internet & Society Joins the Global Network Initiative
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-joins-gni
<b>The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is pleased to announce its newest member, the Centre for Internet & Society based in Bangalore, India. A technology policy research institute, CIS brings to GNI in-depth expertise on global Internet governance as well as online freedom of expression and privacy in India.</b>
<p>"We are delighted to add our first member based in India and welcome CIS’s engagement in support of transparency and accountability in technology," says GNI Executive Director Susan Morgan. "GNI's Principles for responsible company behavior apply globally, but require an appreciation of unique local contexts if they are to take hold. CIS will provide invaluable insight as we consider opportunities to work with India's burgeoning ICT industry."</p>
<p>"India’s ICT sector is one of the most dynamic worldwide, " says CIS Executive Director Sunil Abraham, "but rapid technological advances have raised anxieties around issues including hate speech, political criticism, and obscene content at a time when Indian institutions for the protection of free expression are under strain. We look forward to working with GNI's member organizations on these challenging issues."</p>
<p>CIS an independent, non-profit, research organization which is involved in research on the emerging field of the Internet and its relationship to the society, CIS brings together scholars, academics, students, programmers and scientists to engage in a large variety of Internet issues. CIS also runs different academic and research programs and is receptive to new ideas and collaborations, projects and campaigns for the public.</p>
<p>Leslie Harris, GNI Board Member and President and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology says: "The addition of CIS not only increases GNI’s global reach, it significantly enhances the initiative’s capacity around shared learning and policy engagement, not just in India, but on internet policy around the world."</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/newsandevents/CIS_Joins.php">Click to read the original published on the Global Network Initiative website</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-joins-gni'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-joins-gni</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernancePrivacy2012-04-25T09:13:50ZBlog EntryIntermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india
<b>Intermediaries are widely recognised as essential cogs in the wheel of exercising the right to freedom of expression on the Internet. Most major jurisdictions around the world have introduced legislations for limiting intermediary liability in order to ensure that this wheel does not stop spinning. With the 2008 amendment of the Information Technology Act 2000, India joined the bandwagon and established a ‘notice and takedown’ regime for limiting intermediary liability.</b>
<p>On the 11th of April 2011, the Government of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 that prescribe, amongst other things, guidelines for administration of takedowns by intermediaries. The Rules have been criticised extensively by both national and international media. The media has projected that the Rules, contrary to the objective of promoting free expression, seem to encourage privately administered injunctions to censor and chill free expression. On the other hand, the Government has responded through press releases and assured that the Rules in their current form do not violate the principle of freedom of expression or allow the government to regulate content.</p>
<p>This study has been conducted with the objective of determining whether the criteria, procedure and safeguards for administration of the takedowns as prescribed by the Rules lead to a chilling effect on online free expression. In the course of the study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 prominent intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented. Different policy factors were permuted in the takedown notices in order to understand at what points in the process of takedown, free expression is being chilled.</p>
<p>The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.</p>
<p>Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritise the allocation of its legal resources according to the commercial importance of impugned expressions. Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically (without application of mind or proper judgement) complies with the takedown notice.</p>
<p>The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is also no recourse to have the removed information put-back or restored. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice. The Rules in their current form clearly tilt the takedown mechanism in favour of the complainant and adversely against the creator of expression.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>The research highlights the need to:<br />
<ul><li>increase the safeguards against misuse of the privately administered takedown regime;</li></ul>
<ul><li>reduce the uncertainty in the criteria for administering the takedown;</li></ul>
<ul><li>reduce the uncertainty in the procedure for administering the takedown;</li></ul>
<ul><li>include various elements of natural justice in the procedure for administering the takedown; and</li></ul>
<ul><li>replace the requirement for subjective legal determination by intermediaries with an objective test.</li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
This executive summary is a research output of the Google Policy Fellowship 2011. The Centre for Internet & Society was the host organization. For the entire paper along with references, please write to <a class="external-link" href="mailto:rishabhdara@gmail.com">rishabhdara@gmail.com</a> or<a class="external-link" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org"> sunil@cis-india.org</a>
<p>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherRishabh DaraFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-04-21T18:05:58ZBlog EntryGlobal Censorship Conference
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/global-censorship-conference
<b>The Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School is holding a conference on global censorship from March 30 to April 1, 2012, at Yale Law School. The programme is sponsored by the Information Society Project at Yale Law School and Thomson Reuters. </b>
<p>"This conference is the first major event for the Abrams Institute
for Freedom of Expression, and it brings together an exciting group of
thinkers from law, political science, computer science, business and the
non-profit sector to discuss the lessons of the past few years,”
explained Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin, director of the Abrams
Institute and the Information Society Project. “We think the study of
free expression in the digital age should be international and
interdisciplinary."<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/global-censorship-conference#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a></p>
<p>Rishabh Dara, Google Policy Fellow who worked at CIS office in
Bangalore on freedom of expression and internet-related policy issues is
participating in the event as a speaker in the panel on Case Studies of
Censorship. The panel will explore recent instances of censorship in
the United States, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, and India and the common themes
and important differences that emerged.</p>
<p>This conference will consider how censorship has changed in a networked world, exploring how networks have altered the practices of both governments and their citizens. Panels will include discussions of how governments can and do censor and how speakers can command technical and legal tools to preserve their ability to speak. The conference will conclude with a discussion of new controversies in censorship, including laws designed to prevent online bullying and intellectual property infringement.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Agenda</h2>
<h3><strong>Friday March 30, 2012 </strong><br /></h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2:00</td>
<td>Begin Registration</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3:15 – 4:45</td>
<td>The Means of Change, Familiar and New<br />
(<em>co-sponsored by Sponsored by the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights</em>) <br />
In the popular story of the political upheavals in the Middle East and
North Africa, information technology stands out as the new factor that
was critical to rapid mass mobilization for demanding change. The media
have been credited with making popular demands for change contagious.
Enthusiasts for the potential of technology to foster progressive change
have labeled these apparently sudden developments a Facebook
revolution. Governments responded by seeking to curtail the use of
mobile phones and the Internet. What role has technology played in
igniting, sustaining and shaping recent political changes in the Arab
world? <br />
<ul><li>Anupam Chander, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis and Director, California International Law Center</li><li>Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation </li><li>John Pollock, journalist </li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5:00–<br />
6:30</td>
<td>Keynote Lecture <br />
(<em>co-sponsored by Sponsored by the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights</em>)<br />
<ul><li> Irwin Cotler, Canadian Parliament, former Attorney General of Canada </li></ul>
<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6:30– 9:00</td>
<td>Reception for Panelists of the Global Censorship Conference <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Saturday March 31, 2012</h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>9:00 – 10:00</td>
<td> Registration and Breakfast</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10:00–<br />
11:30</td>
<td>Panel One: Old and New Forms of Censorship <br />
Years ago, activists met in person to plan protests and quietly shared
subversive texts. Now, events can be planned over social networking
sites, and arguments for change are posted online. How have governments
responded to these changes? How have activist practices and governments’
reactions changed the way we conceptualize censorship? <br />
<ul><li>Jack Balkin, Yale Law School</li><li>Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School </li><li>Navid Hassanpour, Yale Political Science Deptartment </li><li>Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation </li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:45 – 1:15</td>
<td>Panel Two: Technical Architectures of Censorship<br />
There are a number of choke points across the Internet and a number of
different censorship mechanisms that can be deployed at various points
across the network. Censorship can be executed at the router level, the
Internet Service Provider (ISP) level, the Internet Content Provider
(ICP) level, or the device level. Additionally, countries can employ a
number of different technologies at each level. This panel will explore
the many technical options for censorship and the strategic value of
different choices. <br />
<ul><li>Laura DeNardis, Associate Professor of Communication at American
University, and Affiliated Fellow, Information Society Project at Yale
Law School</li><li>Nagla Rizk, American University in Cairo </li><li>Hal Roberts, Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet & Technology </li><li>Ashkan Soltani, Independent Researcher and Consultant on Privacy and Security </li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1:15 – 2:15</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2:15 – 3:45</td>
<td>Panel Three: Case Studies of Censorship <br />
In the wake of censorship both domestically and abroad, many questions
emerged about how the censorship was executed, what effects it had, if
and how activists were able to route around the it, and how, if it all,
it was eventually stopped. This panel will explore recent instances of
censorship in the United States, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, and India and the
common themes and important differences that emerged. <br />
<ul><li>Sherwin Siy, Deputy Legal Director and the Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow at Public Knowledge</li><li>Lina Attalah, Journalist, Managing Editor of Al-Masry Al-Youm </li><li>Anas Qtiesh, Blogger, Editor of Global Voices </li><li>Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Vice-Coordinator of the Center for
Technology & Society (CTS) at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law
School</li><li>Rishabh Dara, Researcher at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad </li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:00 –<br />
5:30</td>
<td> Panel Four: Technical Methods of Circumventing Censorship <br />
New technology may provide governments with new tools to censor, but it
also creates opportunities for speakers and “hactivists” everywhere. How
can individuals evade identification online and access blocked content?
Can activists circumvent attempts to shut down the internet during
periods of political unrest? What new methods are being developed to
preserve free speech online?<br />
<ul><li>Roger Dingledine, The Tor Project</li><li>Peter Fein, Telecomix</li><li>Alex Halderman, University of Michigan, Dept. of Computer Science</li><li>Sascha Meinrath, Open Technology Initiative Director, New America Foundation</li><li>Wendy Seltzer, Senior Fellow, Information Society Project at Yale Law School </li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6:00 – 9:00</td>
<td>Dinner for Speakers <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Sunday, April 1, 2012</h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>9:00 – 9:30</td>
<td> Breakfast</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9:30 – 11:00</td>
<td>Panel Five: Legal Solutions to Censorship <br />
Given the way censorship technologies have slowly crept into acceptable
use because of concerns like piracy, child pornography, or national
security, there is much debate about the role and capacity of law in
combatting these new, digital forms of government censorship,
domestically and internationally. This panel will discuss if and how
legal solutions to censorship can be deployed most effectively.<br />
<ul><li>Derek Bambauer, Brooklyn Law School</li><li>Jim Dempsey, Vice President of Public Policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology </li><li>Molly Land, New York Law School </li><li>Linda Lye, ACLU Northern California </li><li>Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation </li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:15 – 12:45</td>
<td>Panel Six: New Controversies in Censorship <br />
Does new technology change the appropriate scope of free expression
rights? Can policing intellectual property infringement burden free
speech interests? Does surveillance ever have a censoring effect? This
panel will wrestle with whether a variety of government activities
constitutes inappropriate censorship or necessary actions to protect the
public interest. <br />
<ul><li>Rebecca Bolin, Fellow at Information Society Project, Yale Law School</li><li>Mark MacCarthy, Vice President for Public Policy, Software and
Information Industry Association; Adjunct Professor, Communication,
Culture and Technology Program, Georgetown University </li><li>Preston Padden, Senior Fellow at the Silicon Flatirons Center and an
Adjunct Professor at the University Of Colorado's Law School and
Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program </li><li>David Post, Temple University, Beasley School of Law </li><li>Christopher Soghoian, Graduate Fellow, Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana University </li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12:45</td>
<td> Bagged Lunch Available</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
[<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/global-censorship-conference#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>].Global
Censorship Conference to be Held March 30-April 1 at Yale Law School |
Yale Law School, last accessed on March 30, 2012, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.law.yale.edu/news/15140.htm">http://www.law.yale.edu/news/15140.htm</a>
<p> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/censorship12.htm">Read the original posted in Yale Law School website</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/global-censorship-conference'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/global-censorship-conference</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-03-30T11:34:07ZBlog EntryStatutory Motion Against Intermediary Guidelines Rules
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules
<b>Rajya Sabha MP, Shri P. Rajeev has moved a motion that the much-criticised Intermediary Guidelines Rules be annulled. </b>
<h2>Motion to Annul Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=49472">motion to annul</a> the <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/intermediary-guidelines-rules">Intermediary Guidelines Rules</a> was moved on March 23, 2012, by <a href="http://india.gov.in/govt/rajyasabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=2106">Shri P. Rajeeve</a>, CPI(M) MP in the Rajya Sabha from Thrissur, Kerala.</p>
<p>The motion reads:</p>
<p>"That this House resolves that the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 issued under clause (zg) of sub-section (2) of Section 87 read with sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 published in the Gazette of India dated the 13th April, 2011 vide Notification No. G.S.R 314(E) and laid on the Table of the House on the 12th August, 2011, be annuled; and</p>
<p>That this House recommends to Lok Sabha that Lok Sabha do concur on this Motion."</p>
<p>This isn't the first time that Mr. Rajeeve is raising his voice against the Intermediary Guidelines Rules. Indeed, even when the Rules were just in draft stage, he along with the MPs Kumar Deepak Das, Rajeev Chandrashekar, and Mahendra Mohan drew Parliamentarians' <a href="http://rajeev.in/pages/..%5CNews%5Ccensorship_Blogs%5CBloggers_Internet.html">attention to the rules</a>. Yet, the government did not heed the MPs' concern, nor the concern of all the civil society organizations that wrote in to them concerned about human rights implications of the new laws. On September 6, 2011, Lok Sabha MP <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/164.100.47.132/debatestext/15/VIII/0609.pdf">Jayant Choudhary gave notice</a> (under Rule 377 of the Lok Sabha Rules) that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules as well as the Reasonable Security Practices Rules need to be reviewed. Yet, the government has not even addressed those concerns, and indeed has cracked down even harder on online freedom of speech since then.</p>
<h2>Fundamental Problems with Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>The fundamental problems with the Rules, which deal with objectionable material online:</p>
<h3>Shifting blame.</h3>
<p>It makes the 'intermediary', including ISPs like BSNL and Airtel responsible for objectionable content that their users have put up.</p>
<h3>No chance to defend.</h3>
<p>There is no need to inform users before this content is removed. So, even material put up by a political party can be removed based on <em>anyone's</em> complaint, without telling that party. This was done against a site called *CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com". This goes against Article 19(1)(a).</p>
<h3>Lack of transparency</h3>
<p>No information is required to be provided that content has been removed. It's a black-box system, with no one, not even the government, knowing that content has been removed following a request. So even the government does not know how many sites have been removed after these Rules have come into effect.</p>
<h3>No differentiation between intermediaries.</h3>
<p>A one-size-fits-all system is followed where an e-mail provider is equated with an online newspaper, which is equated with a video upload site, which is equated with a search engine. This is like equating the post-office and a book publisher as being equivalent for, say, defamatory speech. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which requires that unequals be treated unequally by the law.</p>
<h3>No proportionality.</h3>
<p>A DNS provider (i.e., the person who gives you your web address) is an intermediary who can be asked to 'disable access' to a website on the basis of a single page, even though the rest of the site has nothing objectionable.</p>
<h3>Vague and unconstitutional requirements.</h3>
<p>Disparaging speech, as long as it isn't defamatory, is not criminalised in India, and can't be because the Constitution does not allow for it. Content about gambling in print is not unlawful, but now all Internet intermediaries are required to remove any content that promotes gambling.</p>
<h3>Allows private censorship.</h3>
<p>The Rules do not draw a distinction between arbitrary actions of an intermediary and take-downs subsequent to a request.</p>
<h3>Presumption of illegality.</h3>
<p>The Rules are based on the presumption that all complaints (and resultant mandatory taking down of the content) are correct, and that the incorrectness of the take-downs can be disputed in court (if they ever discover that it has been removed). This is contrary to the presumption of validity of speech used by Indian courts, and is akin to prior restraint on speech. Courts have held that for content such as defamation, prior restraints cannot be put on speech, and that civil and criminal action can only be taken post-speech.</p>
<h3>Government censorship, not 'self-regulation'.</h3>
<p>The government says these are industry best-practices in existing terms of service agreements. But the Rules require all intermediaries to include the government-prescribed terms in an agreement, no matter what services they provide. It is one thing for a company to choose the terms of its terms of service agreement, and completely another for the government to dictate those terms of service.</p>
<h2>Problems Noted Early</h2>
<p>We have noted in the past the problems with the Rules, including when the Rules were still in draft form:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-due-diligence">CIS Para-wise Comments on Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011</a> </p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279712">E-Books Are Easier To Ban Than Books</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://kafila.org/2012/01/11/invisible-censorship-how-the-government-censors-without-being-seen-pranesh-prakash/">Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules/">'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Op280112proscons.asp">The Quixotic Fight To Clean Up The Web</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical">Online Pre-censorship is Harmful and Impractical</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/787789/">Killing the Internet Softly With Its Rules</a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Other organizations like the Software Freedom Law Centre also sent in <a href="http://softwarefreedom.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=79">scathing comments on the law</a>, noting that they are unconstitutional.</p>
<p>We are very glad that Shri Rajeeve has moved this motion, and we hope that it gets adopted in the Lok Sabha as well, and that the Rules get defeated.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActParliamentFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-04-03T09:35:41ZBlog EntryExpert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights
https://cis-india.org/a2k/freedom-of-expression-and-ipr-meeting
<b>This report provides an overview of the discussion from the Expert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights, organized by ARTICLE 19 in London on November 18, 2011. </b>
<p>At the meeting, nineteen international scholars, experts and human
rights activists met to explore the antagonistic relationship between
Intellectual Property (IP) and the rights to freedom of expression and
information (FoE). This conversation is timely if not overdue, as
governments are increasingly using the pretext of IP protection to place
unjustified restrictions on the exercise of FoE, particularly on the
Internet. ARTICLE 19 believes that increasing the profile of the human
rights perspective in debates on IP law and policy is essential to
protecting FoE, particularly in the digital environment. The objective
of the meeting was therefore to develop an appropriate rights framework
for evaluating IP law and enforcement mechanisms, to advance a policy
paper on the issue and eventually to establish a set of key principles
on IP and FoE.</p>
<p>This report outlines:</p>
<ul><li>A summary of the discussions that took place during the meeting; and</li><li>Outstanding
issues and those requiring follow-up discussion in order to
conceptualise and complete a position paper on the subject. <br /></li></ul>
<h2>List of Participants</h2>
<ol><li>Andrew Puddephatt: Director, Global Partners & Associates</li><li>Brett Soloman: Executive Director, ACCESS.</li><li>Dinah PoKempner: General Counsel, Human Rights Watch.</li><li>Jérémie Zimmermann: Co-founder and spokesperson, LaQuadrature du Net: Internet & Libertés</li><li>Jeremy Malcolm: Project Coordinator for IP and Communications; Consumer International.</li><li>Jim Killock: Executive Director, Open Rights Group</li><li>Michael Camilleri: Human Rights Specialist, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at OAS.</li><li>Michael Geist: Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Univesity of Ottowa.</li><li>Pranesh Prakash: Programme Manager, Center for Internet and Society</li><li>Raegan MacDonald: Policy Analyst, ACCESS (Brussels)</li><li>Saskia Walzel: Senior Policy Advocate, Consumer Focus</li><li>Yaman Akdeniz: Associate Professor in Law; Human Rights Law Research Center, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University.</li><li>Walter van Holst: IT legal consultant, Mitopics</li><li>Agnes Callamard: Executive Director, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Barbora Bukovska: Senior Direct for Law and Policy, ARTICLE 19</li><li>David Banisar: Senior Legal Counsel, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Gabrielle Guillemin: Legal Officer, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Andrew Smith: Lawyer, ARTICLE 19</li><li>Michael Polak: Intern, ARTICLE 19</li></ol>
<h2>Welcome, Introductions, Purpose </h2>
<p>Agnès Callamard opened the meeting with a welcome and introduction,
giving a brief overview of ARTICLE 19’s extensive experience over twenty
years bringing together coalitions to increase the profile of various
advocacy issues and develop key policy documents, including the Camden
Principles on FoE and equality, and the Johannesburg Principles on FoE
and national security.</p>
<p>In the last three years, the Internet has increasingly come to the
forefront of ARTICLE 19’s work. During this time it has become clear
that the agenda for protecting IP negatively impacts FoE, and that there
is a notable absence of traditional human rights groups engaged with
the IP agenda or campaigning on its implications for human rights.
ARTICLE 19 believes that there is a clear need for this gap to be
filled, for us to enter this dialogue and challenge current
preconceptions with an alternative human rights narrative that counters
that promoted by IP industries.</p>
<p>The purpose of this meeting, therefore, is to develop a strategy for
promoting the FoE perspective in debates on IP. To do this, it is
important to first conceptualise the relationship between FoE and IP
within a rights framework: to identify how or if these interests should
be balanced and what the areas of conflict and conciliation are. This
discussion should clarify the best way to proceed, with a view to arrive
at a policy paper and eventually a set of principles on how to best
protect FoE in the IP context. </p>
<h3>Session 1: Brief comments by participants on issues of concern for freedom of expression campaigners in relation to IPR</h3>
<p>The objective of the first session was for all participants to
identify the most significant issues in current debates on freedom of
expression and IP, and the extent to which some issues may have been
overlooked, underestimated, or over-emphasised. These issues, ideas and
perspectives would then guide discussions during the remainder of the
meeting and at future meetings.</p>
<p>All participants agreed that applying a human rights framework to
this debate is an important and worthwhile endeavour. The following
issues were identified during the discussions:</p>
<p><strong>Conceptual starting point</strong></p>
<p>Participants agreed that the status quo should not be the “starting
point” for discussions, and that we should avoid being trapped in the
narrative that has been developed and imposed by IP rights holders. This
requires questioning accepted language and norms, pushing the
boundaries of the debate and thinking outside the box. The proliferation
of terms such as “piracy”, “theft” and other criminal law language to
describe non-commercial copyright infringement demonstrates the extent
to which corporate interest groups have controlled the agenda. We should
reject these terms and instead adopt positive language that emphasises
the cultural and economic value of information sharing, and frame IP as a
potential obstacle to these values. This dialogue should recognise that
the relationship between people and information has changed in the
digital age, and that a new generation of people express themselves
through sharing media online and creating new works such as video
mash-ups.</p>
<p><strong>A human right to IP? </strong><br />
Several participants questioned whether we should accept interests in IP
as “human rights”, particularly as the concept is one born from
censorship. Rejecting IP as a human right would require challenging
accepted language such as “intellectual property rights” and “rights
holder”. If we speak of IP interests or claims, rather than human
rights, then it is also inaccurate to speak of their interaction with
other rights as a “conflict between rights” that requires “balancing”.
Instead, certain IP claims, and the detection or enforcement mechanisms
that support them, should be framed as restrictions on the right to
freedom of expression.</p>
<p>Some participants expressed doubts over the value of advocating that
IP is not a human right when the idea is already embedded and various
regional courts have already recognised it as such. Such a campaign
would be difficult and achieve little, particularly as it may require
changing established agreements such as Berne and TRIPS that would take
decades to reform. Staying within the existing legal framework may be
the only pragmatic way to achieve change in the short and medium-term.
There was agreement that understanding how different treaties and human
rights instruments or bodies understand IP is important before
proceeding.</p>
<p>In the alternative, it was suggested that IP could be viewed as a
“human right” to the extent that it complements other human rights, such
as FoE. Copyright is often justified on terms that it is essential for
incentivising creativity and that it is an “engine” of free speech –
this argument needs further exploration, as it shows that the two rights
may sometimes be complementary. ARTICLE 19 is familiar with a strategy
focussed on complementarity, as the Camden Principles promoted a similar
approach to advocate that the right to equality and right to FoE were
mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. Similarly, participants
spoke about a “social value” approach to viewing IP as a human right,
i.e. the greater the social value behind the IP protection, the more
weight it would have in a rights “balancing” exercise.</p>
<p>Other suggestions on reframing or reversing IP preconceptions
included recommending a system where the “public domain” is the norm and
any monopoly interest the exception. Exceptions would have to be argued
on a case-by-case basis and would be granted only when it would be in
the public interest to do so.</p>
<p>A consensus seemed to develop that rejecting the idea of IP as a
right would not be a helpful strategy. However, between the various
alternative suggestions the only agreement seemed to be that the issue
requires more exploration so that the nature of IP as a right can be
better understood. It is anticipated that reaching a definite conclusion
on this issue will inevitably not satisfy everyone, but would be
necessary to proceed with an advocacy campaign.</p>
<p><strong>The Right to Culture</strong><br />
As well as the right to property and the right to freedom of expression,
there is also the right to culture in Article 27 of the UDHR and
Article 15 of the ICESCR. Both instruments reflect the tension between a
right to access culture and the competing right of individuals to
protect the material interests in their intellectual property.
Participants recommended further exploration of the economic, social and
cultural rights perspective on IP issues and integrating this into a
campaign.</p>
<p><strong>Pulling apart multiple IP issues</strong><br />
Participants identified a number of ways in which IP engages freedom of
expression, and that it is therefore important that a FoE analysis dealt
with these issues separately. One focus should be on the IP protections
themselves – these give individuals monopolies over information and
thereby restrict others’ FoE. Within this, the breadth of exceptions
regimes is important, as these vary significantly between countries, in
particular the duration of copyright protection and how ‘fair use’ or
‘fair dealing’ type exceptions are defined. The use of digital rights
management systems (DRMS) as preventative measures also relate to this
area. A second focus, and a current “hot topic” in IP circles, is the
enforcement agenda. This includes the criminalisation of non-commercial
IP infringement, the privatisation of policing IP infringement and its
impact on net neutrality, and criminal and civil law protections for
DRMS.</p>
<p>The difference between types of IP was also discussed. There are
different rationales behind copyright, trademarks, and patents. Our
approach should be as nuanced and specific as possible – when we are
criticising copyright we should only refer to copyright and not IP
generally. Unpacking the issues in relation to the different types of IP
will be important for developing a coherent policy. </p>
<p>The way that international trade agreements have consistently
augmented IP rights was also highlighted. In relation to electronic
data, the copyright holder now has so much control over the use of the
information, particularly through digital rights management systems
protected by the criminal law, that purchasing such products is
increasingly more like renting than owning. This augmentation should be
tracked and highlighted in an advocacy campaign. </p>
<p><strong>Advocacy Strategy</strong><br />
It was also noted that developing a human rights perspective on IP is
not only an intellectual pursuit but needs to be viewed in terms of a
citizen movement capable of achieving outcomes. Participants identified
several further issues that should be considered when developing an
advocacy strategy.</p>
<p>One consideration would be how we develop campaigning alliances. Some
industries are potential allies, in particular Internet intermediaries
that are increasingly under pressure to be the private police of
copyright holders. Some artists themselves are also sympathetic to FoE
arguments. More obviously, consumers and information users should be
mobilised by a campaign. It is important to develop distinct strategies
for targeting identified groups that reflects our understanding of their
diverse interests; this would allow us to build commonalities between
actors who may normally be regarded as having divergent objectives, and
mobilise each to push for change in a direction that supports our
ultimate goal.</p>
<p>Central to a campaign strategy is also the idea of having a clear
message as to what the problem is and how it impacts people on a day to
day basis. The utility of graphics illustrating the inequitable
geographic distribution of IP interests was recommended as a useful tool
to demonstrate the scale of this global problem. Ways of countering
campaigns conducted by IP holders over the last two decades were also
discussed, in particular how to push back against the idea of copyright
infringement as “theft”, as has been promoted through slogans such as
“you wouldn’t steal a handbag.” Illustrative analogies were discussed,
including viewing IP infringement as mere trespass rather than theft and
as “copying” rather than depriving a person of property. However, it
was concluded that these analogies were helpful for developing our
understanding of the issues, but would not be as effective as campaign
tools. An effective campaign would have to distinguish between
background issues and our actual advocacy points, which would be
focussed on a clear set of key fundamental principles.</p>
<p>Participants also identified the importance of engaging governments
and the media on the inconsistency of their policies and coverage of FoE
and IP. The US, in particular, is loudly proclaiming its commitments to
FoE on-line whilst simultaneously promoting aggressive enforcements
mechanisms for IP that directly undermine FoE rights. </p>
<p>The campaign against ACTA in the European Parliament (EP) was also
recommended as a platform from which to launch further dialogue on FoE
and IP. Since the meeting, ARTICLE 19 has released a statement on ACTA
that we have shared with all participants, and plans to circulate this
statement to various EP committees and MEPs in the coming weeks.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[1]</a></p>
<p>Opportunities for strategic litigation were also identified. In
particular, there are a number of Article 10 ECHR cases pending before
the European Court of Human Rights on the blocking of websites, many
being from Turkey. </p>
<h3>Session 2: The tension between freedom of expression and IPR</h3>
<p>The second session began with a presentation by Gabrielle of the
background paper on intellectual property and freedom of expression.
Participants gave feedback on issues raised in the paper and suggested
ways of developing it into a policy paper to compliment an advocacy
campaign.</p>
<p>Gabrielle’s opening comments acknowledged that the background paper
is very much focussed on FoE in the digital age, and is centred more on
copyright rather than trademarks and patents. Gabrielle outlined the way
in which conflicts between tangible property rights and freedom of
expression have been dealt with by the ECHR. She also identified key
challenges to reframing understandings of IP, in particular in relation
to the notion that the public domain and information sharing should be
the norm while information monopolies should be the exception. Gabrielle
also highlighted the timeliness of this discussion as significant
changes to the enforcement agenda are taking place; including the
criminalisation of copyright infringement and DRMS circumvention.</p>
<p>Participants agreed that the policy paper was an excellent starting
point for discussions on FoE and IP, and recommended a number of areas
for further elaboration in future drafts:</p>
<ul><li>The objective tone of the paper, placing ARTICLE 19 as an impartial arbiter, is a productive starting point.</li><li>The legal framework for IP/FoE should be elaborated to acknowledge
the right to culture as contained in Article 27 of the UDHR and Article
15 of the IESCR. The ways that states periodically report their IESCR
compliance could be explored.</li><li>Intermediaries should be referred to in broader terms than just as
ISPs. “Information society service providers” is an umbrella phrase
that includes search engines, advertisers, payment services. </li><li>The Scarlett decision by the ECJ should be incorporated once it is released.<a name="fr2" href="#fn2">[2]</a></li><li>The concept of “filtering” is essentially a type of “blocking”,
both may be referred to as censorship to clarify their immediate impact
on FoE.</li><li>Some participants felt that explaining why the FoE implications are different for civil and criminal law would be helpful. </li><li>Participants felt that the section on the implications of the ACTA regime could be built upon.<a name="fr3" href="#fn3">[3]</a></li><li>In developing the section on FoE rights, the Latin American view
of FoE as a collective right may also be worth emphasising. It may also
be worth comparing the potential balance between IP and FoE to other
balancing exercises related to privacy or reputational rights. </li><li>The differences between copyright, trademarks and patents should be explained. </li><li>A section outlining the philosophical foundations of these
protections, in particular the difference between the US (incentivise
creation) and European (natural rights) approach to IP might also be
helpful. </li><li>It should be stressed that the failure of IP law to adapt to new
technologies is the problem, not new technologies themselves. This
failure undermines the justifications for protecting IP rights. </li><li>Greater emphasis should be placed on the way in which the current
legal framework is based on an ideal of an 18th century author, and does
not acknowledge the impact of IP on scientific research and
collaboration, indigenous knowledge, peer-to-peer sharing, the creative
power of new technology etc. </li><li>Positive examples of IP infringement would be useful for
illustrating why IP protection shouldn’t be safeguarded at all costs. In
particular, efforts to make works more accessible to minority language
speakers (crowd-sourcing methods in particular) and the impact that IP
law has on blind people’s access to information. </li><li>Similarly, examples of censorship that make the impact of IP
protections of FoE clearer to policy makers would be helpful in
debunking the myth that the interests of the IP industry giants are
synonymous with those of the individual creators. </li><li>It would also be helpful to illustrate that IP protection is also a
geographic concentration of wealth issues as much as a moral issue.<a name="fr4" href="#fn4">[4]</a></li><li>The role of de minimis exception regimes in protecting FoE should also be explored in greater depth. </li><li>Several sources were also recommended, including the Association
littéraire et artistique internationale (ALAI)<a name="fr5" href="#fn5">[5]</a>, the International
Federation of Libraries Association (Stuart Hamilton identified as a
contact)<a name="fr6" href="#fn6">[6]</a> and the OSCE study on Internet Freedom.<a name="fr7" href="#fn7">[7]</a></li></ul>
<h3>Session 3: Key questions, issues and challenges</h3>
<p>Dave chaired a third session to elaborate upon the key issues
discussed prior to lunch, with a view to reaching some level of
consensus on the appropriate scope of restrictions on freedom of
expression in defence of IPR.</p>
<p>Gabrielle offered comments on the balance that could be applied
between the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR) and
the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR). However, as
the European Court of Human Rights has not ruled on the balance that
ought to be struck between these two rights in the context of
intellectual property, it is difficult to speculate on how it would be
litigated.</p>
<p>Participants agreed that the ‘public interest’ is central to
assessing when property rights can be restricted to promote other
rights, including FoE. The need to stress the importance of the Internet
as a public forum was also identified. </p>
<p>The participants also discussed what limitations are appropriate to
place on IP rights. Various ideas were suggested, but it was concluded
that any recommended framework on the substance of IP rights would have
to be compliant with the Berne Convention. This means that in terms of
copyright duration, the minimum that could be recommended is 50 years.
It was also stated that any system that recommends a default public
domain with a system of registration for copyright “exceptions” would
not be compliant with Berne. The augmentation of IP rights through these
international agreements was again referenced, as there appears to have
been a pattern of the US and EU exporting the worst aspects of their IP
regimes abroad through trade arrangements without elaborating on how
exceptions to IP rights should be developed. It was also noted that
copyright holders will continue to support this process, as their
business model depends upon having as much control over the use of
information as possible.</p>
<p>Again participants identified the need to distinguish between the
limitations that are imposed on FoE by the IP rights themselves, those
limitations imposed by preventative technological measures and those
imposed by enforcement mechanisms.</p>
<p>The importance of distinguishing the different actors involved was
also emphasised, i.e. whether we are discussing competing rights between
private creators (e.g. original creator vs. derivative creator) or the
direct relationship between the state and individuals (e.g. enforcement
of criminal provisions against an individual infringing IP). It is
important that our analysis does not conflate private actors with state
actors, and that it is clear what positive and negative obligations are
on these parties and the rationale for their application. </p>
<p>It was suggested that an approach that balances competing human
rights is appropriate where the interests of two creators are in
conflict, but perhaps not when the state intervenes to prevent or punish
IP infringements. Where the state acts to restrict an individual’s
access to the Internet, it is not a balance issue but an unnecessary and
disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression.</p>
<p>Participants stressed the economic and social significance of blanket
(and even many specific) restrictions on Internet access. Blanket
prohibitions on access to the Internet was compared to solitary
confinement, and participants agreed that sanctions such as these are
never necessary or proportionate responses to IP infringement. An
analogy was made to a statement recently issued by ARTICLE 19 on
services to counterfeit mobile telephones being shut down in Kenya.<a name="fr8" href="#fn8">[8]</a>
Participants also indicated that these blanket measures are increasingly
rare, but that states still violate the principles of necessity and
proportionality through limitations that they impose. </p>
<p>Further FoE concerns were raised in relation to the enforcement of IP
rights in the digital environment. In order to monitor the Internet for
IP infringement, it is necessary to monitor the content of all Internet
communications. This has implications for FoE rights and privacy
rights, and has a potential chilling effect on all on-line expression.</p>
<p>There was also some discussion on defining what our working
definition of FoE should be in this context, particularly in relation to
use of new technologies and DRMS. Does FoE necessarily include the
right to scan a document, to use translation technology on it, to copy
and paste, to save in various formats etc?</p>
<p>Participants also discussed that the ordinary de minimis exceptions
cannot simply be transplanted and applied as ‘exceptions’ or defences to
DRMS circumvention offences. DRMS limit the use of works severely, and
unless you have the technical knowledge to circumvent these devices, it
is not possible to take advantage of exceptions or defences.</p>
<p>There were also discussions on access to justice issues, due to the
prohibitively expensive cost of contesting litigation against large
corporations.</p>
<p>Several participants mentioned that discussions on these issues have a
tendency to become too narrow in their focus. Examples given were that
the focus drifts to copyright rather than trademarks and patents, that
peer2peer sharing gets more attention than other technology uses, and
that artistic expression is talked about but not technical or scientific
forms of expression. At the same time, some participants expressed an
aversion to a “kitchen sink” approach in any campaign, as it may result
in an incoherent message.</p>
<p>Various sources were recommended for further reading. These included a
report by Consumers International on best state practices (Brazil,
Canada and South Africa mentioned for enacting progressive legislation
recently),<a name="fr9" href="#fn9">[9]</a> and the UN guidelines on consumer protection.<a name="fr10" href="#fn10">[10]</a></p>
<h3>Session 4: Measures for protecting and enforcing IP rights on the Internet: finding a better balance with FOE</h3>
<p>At the fourth session, Barbora chaired a discussion on procedural
issues that pose a threat to freedom of expression and Internet freedom.
Key issues identified at the outset were whether sticking to a human
rights view that judicial oversight is the best option or is there a
human rights compliant alternative model? As it was decided in the
previous session that disconnection is disproportionate, are all forms
of criminal liability for Internet use disproportionate? And what limits
should be placed on civil remedies, such as damages-award ceilings.</p>
<p>Discussions began on whether an administrative model for notice and
takedown would be appropriate. Advantages that were identified of
non-judicial models include:</p>
<ul><li>An administrative system is more effective in terms of time and
cost. The number of notice and takedown requests that happen on-line
would overwhelm a traditional judicial organ.</li><li>Protections for intermediaries from liability can be built into the system.</li><li>Guidelines can ensure compliance with legal certainty,
transparency, due process, specificity of remedies, protections for the
identities of users. </li><li>Could also be subject to judicial oversight.</li><li>That limitations on cost would also “disarm” corporations who
would not be able to threaten expensive court procedures that intimidate
individuals into prematurely settling civil actions. </li><li>The need for fast remedies in digital infringements was also
stressed. For example, a website may be created only for the 90 minutes
of a football game and then disappear – traditional judicial methods
cannot be used to provide redress in these circumstances. Although this
may appear to be a “shoot first, aim later” approach, one needs to
consider these pragmatic concerns. An administrative model is better
suited to this than a judicial system. </li><li>Alternatives to an administrative model included the use of
non-legal ombudsmen or arbitration proceedings. These measures could
also keep costs low. <br />
</li></ul>
<p>A number of participants disagreed that an administrative model was
appropriate. Their concerns focussed on the following issues:</p>
<ul><li>That the independence of an administrative body could not be guaranteed.</li><li>That an administrative procedure should never be used to impose criminal liability.</li><li>The procedural guarantees in an administrative system are less
robust, particularly in countries that do not have a strong separation
of powers. <br />
</li><li>That the time and cost of a judicial system is necessary to comply with international human rights standards. </li></ul>
<p>Concerns were also raised about recommending any boilerplate solution
that should be ‘copy and pasted’ into all national contexts without
adequate consideration being paid to that country’s legal system or
traditions. In terms of accuracy of language, it was also commented that
notice and takedown affects hosts of content, and not ISPs, who are
mere conduits.</p>
<p>Systems in place in Canada and Japan for “notice and notice” were
also discussed. In these systems, the IP holder notifies the
intermediary, who notifies the user, who has a time to reply before
action is taken. The role of the intermediary in this system is to
facilitate communications and they are not subject to liability. The
accommodation of “emergency requests” could also be considered within
this system.</p>
<p>With any notice and takedown system it would also be important to
make it clear to those controlling the content how you object to a
takedown notice. Access to justice principles are important here,
particularly considering the amount of misinformation that has
circulated in recent years on the nature of IP infringement.</p>
<p>Various examples were given of forum shopping by IP owners in
provincial courthouses where judges are less experienced in IP law and
therefore more responsive to the arguments of IP holders.</p>
<p>There was also a discussion on why copyright holders would favour
criminal sanctions as opposed to civil remedies. On the one hand, it
seems intuitive that the rights holder would rather receive damages than
have a person fined or imprisoned by the government. It was suggested
that the criminal law has the advantage of having a more significant
chilling effect. Also, in criminal cases, the costs of detection and
enforcement can be placed on the state.</p>
<p>A number of initial principles were identified through this discussion:</p>
<ul><li>Intermediaries should be immunised from civil liability.</li><li>There should not be liability for hyperlinking. It must be distinguished from “re-publication”. </li><li>Non-commercial infringement should not be criminalized. It was
noted that TRIPS requires commercial scale infringement to be
criminalized. Narrowly defining what is meant by “commercial” is
important:<br />
</li></ul>
<ol><li>Peer-to-peer sharing should not be considered commercial.</li><li>IP infringement committed by individuals should not be considered commercial. <br />
</li></ol>
<ul><li>The need for clarity in the law and for information on IP law to
be available to end-users facing litigation threats from copyright
holders. In particular, states should educate individuals in the
exceptions to copyright protections that serve the public interest.</li><li>Possible limitations on damages could be developed.</li></ul>
<h3>Session 5: Political developments and strategies of response</h3>
<p>The purpose of the fifth session was to provide participants with the
opportunity to discuss developing strategies for working together to
better combat governments’ attempts at restricting FoE on the basis of
protecting IP.</p>
<p>The first priority that was identified was to finalise a policy paper
on the issue. This would perhaps take some time to formulate, and may
require further meetings to discuss key issues.</p>
<p>A second priority for advocacy was identified in relation to ACTA,
which will be voted upon by the European Parliament in the coming
months. ARTICLE 19 has issued a statement on ACTA that will also be
circulated among participants.</p>
<p>A third discussion concerned the possibility of uncovering a
wikileaks-type “scandal” in which the hypocrisy of copyrights holders,
and their true motivations, could be exposed. Receiving internal emails
from whistleblowers interested in exposing such a story would provide a
good media storm in which to launch an advocacy campaign. Examples of IP
industries illegally lobbying governments or interfering with the
administration of justice would be helpful. The involvement of the
British Phonographic Industry in lobbying for the Digital Economy Act
was referenced in this discussion.</p>
<p>The utility of engaging with the copyright industries was also
discussed. These industries have a reputation for not negotiating– they
want as much control over information as possible, as control is
essential to their business model. There may be some utility in
identifying who our enemies’ enemies are. It was mentioned that the
occupy movements may be interested in pursuing a human rights narrative
against corporate property interests. These groups are very much engaged
in promoting FoE rights. The traditional media was also identified as a
group that may be interested in supporting a movement for greater FoE
protections against IP.</p>
<p>In terms of developing strategy, it was also recommended that we look
at successful human rights campaigns from the past, particularly any in
the field of cultural rights. Potential partners for coalition building
need to be looked at, and many of these partners may be within emerging
economies such as BRIC or South Africa.</p>
<p>As we develop a strategy, we need to remain focussed on framing this
battle as a human rights fight. We need to identify victims,
perpetrators, and a call to action. A different plan may be needed for
each audience that we identify. From the experience of activists at the
meeting, theoretical arguments will not succeed in rousing a
people-driven campaign. The use of new media, such as campaign videos on
youtube, that clearly outline the human rights case would be helpful.
It is also necessary to bridge the gap between popular campaigns and
videos, and getting those campaigns into the mainstream media and
creating a political issue out of it. As technology users that would be
interested in this campaign tend not to vote, making this a political
issue means making people who do vote understand the issue as one that
is a mass-scale human rights violation.</p>
<h2>Concluding comments and closing</h2>
<p>Agnès closed the session by identifying several key steps:</p>
<ul><li>The need to revise the policy paper in light of discussions throughout the day’s sessions.</li><li>The need to meet again to discuss the revised policy paper and to continue these discussions.</li><li>The objective of developing our role as advocates, identifying
what we can initiate, what existing efforts we can support, and what our
overall strategy should be.</li></ul>
<hr />
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">1</a>].ARTICLE 19 statement “European Parliament must reject ACTA”, see: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-%28acta%29">http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-%28acta%29</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn2" href="#fr2">2</a>].This judgment has since been released. See ARTICLE 19 press release: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2872/en/landmark-digital-free-speech-ruling-at-european-court-of-justice"> http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2872/en/landmark-digital-free-speech-ruling-at-european-court-of-justice</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn3" href="#fr3">3</a>].ARTICLE 19 has since released a statement on ACTA. See:<a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-(acta)"> http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-(acta)</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn4" href="#fr4">4</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png">http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png</a> was recommended for its map of patent distribution in 2002.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn5" href="#fr5">5</a>].ALAI homepage: <a class="external-link" href="http://alaiorg.vincelette.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=24">http://alaiorg.vincelette.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=24</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn6" href="#fr6">6</a>].See a list of publications at: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifla.org/en/publications">http://www.ifla.org/en/publications</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn7" href="#fr7">7</a>].OSCE study “Freedom of Expression on the Internet” (2010): <a class="external-link" href="http://www.osce.org/fom/80723">http://www.osce.org/fom/80723</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn8" href="#fr8">8</a>].ARTICLE 19 statement on FoE and counterfeit mobile telephones: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2762/en/kenya:-free-expression-standards-should-guide-fight-against-%E2%80%9Ccounterfeit%E2%80%9D-mobile-phones">http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2762/en/kenya:-free-expression-standards-should-guide-fight-against-%E2%80%9Ccounterfeit%E2%80%9D-mobile-phones</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn9" href="#fr9">9</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist">http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn10" href="#fr10">10</a>].<a class="external-link" href="http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/consumption_en.pdf">http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/consumption_en.pdf</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/freedom-of-expression-and-ipr-meeting'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/freedom-of-expression-and-ipr-meeting</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2012-03-16T07:41:39ZBlog EntryVinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors. | Summons Order
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23
<b>This is Judge Sudesh Kumar's summons order (dated December 23, 2011) by which he notes there is enough prima facie evidence to proceed with trial against the intermediaries named and their senior officials. In the order he notes that, "It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network. It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same."</b>
<p>IN THE COURT OF SUDESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI</p>
<p>Complaint Case No. 136 of 2011</p>
<p>In the matter of:</p>
<p>Vinay Rai<br />
S/o Sh. Mahima Rai<br />
10 A. First Floor. Pritvi Raj Road<br />
New Delhi<br /></p>
<p>...Complainant</p>
<p>Versus</p>
<p>...Accused</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Facebook India<br />
Through its country head<br />
Ms. Kirthiga Reddy<br />
Office at: 4th Floor, Building-14. OPUS Towers,<br />
Mindspace. Cyberabad, APIIC SW Unit Layout.<br />
Madhapur. Hyderabad-500081<br />
kirthiga@fb.com 07799021119<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Facebook<br />
Through its chairman<br />
Donald Edward Graham —<br />
Facebook Corporate Office<br />
1601 S. California Ave. Palo Alto. CA 94304<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Google India (P) Ltd.<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Orkut<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Youtube<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Blogspot<br />
Through its Country head<br />
Shri Rajan Anandan<br />
8th and 9th Floors. Tower — C, Building No.8,<br />
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon - 122 002<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Google<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Youtube<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Blogspot<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Orkut<br />
Through its CEO, Larry Page — CEO<br />
1600, Amphitheatre, Parkway, Mountain View,<br />
CA 94043, USA<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Yahoo India (P) Ltd<br />
Shri Arun Tadanki<br />
Building No.8, Tower-C,<br />
DLF Cyber CityPhase-2 Gurgaon-<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Yahoo<br />
Through Roy J. Bostock — Chairman<br />
Yahoo! Inc. 701 1st Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94089<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Microsoft India (P) Ltd.<br />
Sri Bhaskar Pramanik 7th Floor,<br />
Cyber Green Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, Phase-3<br />
Gurgaon – 122002<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Microsoft<br />
Through Steve Ballmer — CEO<br />
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way<br />
Redmond, WA 98052-7329 USA<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Zombie Time<br />
DNS Services, 1650-302 Margaret St #332<br />
Jacksonville, FL 32204-3869, US<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Exbii<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>BoardReader.com<br />
700 Tower Drive, Suite 140<br />
Troy, Michigan 48098 US<br />
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>IMC India<br />
Through Sh. K.M. Gala-CEO, IMC India (Head Office)<br />
418, Swastik Chambers, Sion Trombay Road<br />
Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071 (Maharashtra)<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>My Lot<br />
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN<br />
MyLot LLC, 7415 W 130th St<br />
Suite #100, Overland Park, KS 66213, US<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Shyni Blog<br />
Through Sri Rajan Anandan<br />
C/o Google India (P) Ltd<br />
8th and 9th Floors. Tower—C, Building No 8,<br />
DLF Cyber City Gurgaon—122002.<br /></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Topix<br />
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN<br />
TOPIX.COM.P.O. Box 821650<br />
Vancouver, WA 98682, US<br /></p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR</p>
<p>Ld. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE / PATIALA HOUSE COURTS / NEW DELHI</p>
<p>CC No. 136/1<br />
Vinay Rai Vs. Facebook<br />
PS Tughlak Road<br />
23.12.2011<br /></p>
<p>Order on Summoning:</p>
<p>The complainant in the present case is a Senior Journalist and Editor of Urdu Weekly namely Akbari. He has filed the present complaint U/s 200 Cr. PC r/w 156 (3) Cr. PC therein praying that the accused persons be summoned for having committed offences punishable U/ s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295 (A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. The complainant has submitted that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic content in question in the present complaint and also responsible for the management and control of online site and internet content and the accused includes those who used, posted and uploaded the material on the site through the internet. It is alleged by the complainant that the content in question has been hosted on various websites which is per-se inflammatory, unacceptable by any set of community standards; seeks to create enmity, hatred and communal Violence amongst various religious communities: is demeaning, degrading and obscene, and it will corrupt minds and adversely affect religious sentiments. It is further submitted that the complainant had received some information in this regard and while going through the contents in the above said websites realized that the same were unacceptable to the secular fabric provided by the Constitution of India and would be intolerable to any community or religion. It is further alleged that on a bare perusal of the contents it is clear that the same would certainly corrupt young minds below the age of 18 and even elders, it is highly provocative and which may even lead to consequences effecting communal harmony. The complainant has mentioned the names of the websites allegedly hosting the said objectionable content in the memo of parties and provided the alleged objectionable material in a sealed envelope. The complainant has further stated that the Social Networking Websites are meant only for providing content with respect to educational, historical, research material and entertainment work etc. as part of their commercial activities for social purposes. However, the objectionable content available on these social networking websites may lead to communal riots. It is further alleged that Government authorities have turned a blind eye to the same and do not have any established procedure or rules and guidelines to control and regulate the same. It is averred that the Government is least bothered and as usual waiting for some mishappening before taking some appropriate actions. Neither police officials nor the Government have initiated any action to curb or check these activities sou moto and failed to register any case against the above named accused persons under any law to remove such contents from there. The complainant has further alleged that the main social networking websites are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, Broadreader, Mylot, Zombie Time, Shyni Blog, Blogspot, Exbii.com, IMC India. It is alleged that the accused persons knowingly allowed these contents and materials to be hosted in the websites which is dangerous to communal harmony with common and malfide intentions and have failed to remove the objectionable content for their wrongful gain. The complainant further stated that he has provided the said contents to the Court, in a sealed cover with request for directions not to publicize the offensive and inflammatory material which may lead to communal disharmony under his social responsibility. It is further stated by the complainant that the said contents available and hosted on the these sites are per-se unacceptable and clearly established the offences punishable under various provisions mentioned in the IPC and in case no action is taken against the accused person the same will cause serious prejudice to our society and social values provided and protected under the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as a member of the community the complainant is not only individually hurt but also believes that it such content is allowed to continue on these platforms in this form, then incalculable and irreparable damage will be caused to the secular fabric of India. It is alleged that all those who are responsible for allowing this content to be hosted on the websites conspired with those who are the source of such content, and those who are promoting such material with malice to defame the country and with intent to spread communal violence to destabilise the country with undisclosed persons and are liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences U/s 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and120-B IPC.</p>
<p>It is further averred that the contents which are shown on the social networking websites are clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony as is quite apparent on a bare look at the material available on these social networking websites. It is further stated that the content which has been shown on these websites amount to imputations, assertions, which are prejudicial to national integration. It is alleged that the contents which are available on these social networking websites are obscene may lead to creation of obscene books, pamphlets, paper, which can easily be downloaded from these social networking websites affecting the minds of children and was harmful for social harmony and may lead to increase in crime against women also.</p>
<p>That the contents which are clearly mentioned and annexed in the sealed cover show the malafide intentions of these social networking websites hosting such content in these websites is an act of malice intended to outrage, religious feelings of classes of citizens by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. It is averred that the cause of action for filing the present complaint has risen on 8.12.2011 when the complainant downloaded these pictures and photos and these facts came to the knowledge of the complainant while sitting at his above stated residence and still continuing.</p>
<p>The complainant prays that the above said accused persons alongwith undisclosed persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC.</p>
<p>The complainant has thereafter examined four witness in support of his complaint. Complainant Mr. Vinay Rai has examined himself as CW 1 in pre summoning evidence and he deposed on oath that he has gone through the contents which have been posted on various social networking websites as alleged and the documents downloaded from those sites are original as these have been downloaded directly from those websites. He produced Ex. CW 1/A-1 to Ex. CW 1/A-16 which have been downloaded from the website named as www.zombietime.com. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-17 has been downloaded from Orkut which is arrayed as accused no.4 and 10. He also proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-18 downloaded from website mylot.com, which is a pre-se defamatory to all politicians. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-19 to Ex. CW 1/A-22 were downloaded from the post of topix.com and the contents are dangerous for our social structure and community. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-23 to Ex. CW 1/A-36 which are posted by the service provider youtube.com without any sensor or prohibitory or disclaimer which is also dangerous for communal harmony and peace. He deposed that Youtube shown as accused no.5 and 8 provided the internet service and allowed to post these defamatory contents on websites and same is available to people below 18 years of age also which was also alarming danger to our society and Country. He deposed that such contents are against the secular fabric of our society, religion and culture. The witness has further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-37 to Ex. CW 1/A-48 are taken from the website facebook.com. He further proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-49 to Ex. CW 1/A-52 as provided by the blogspot.com, which is arrayed as accused at number 6 & 10 in the complaint and these documents are obscene and against the culture of our Country. He further stated that the blogspot is being managed by googleindia and googleinternational who have already been arrayed as accused in his complaint. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-53 has been taken from the website exbii.com, which provides services through google.com. The contents of the said exhibit are dangerous to our society and same has also been shown as political conspiracy to destabilize our Country. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-54 has been taken from website indymedia.org and same has been shown as a article posted by imcindia.org, which is against the Hinduism and defamatory to our religion. He further stated that the Ex. CW 1/A-55 provided by broadreader.com which is defamatory to Indian politicians and the Ex. CW 1/A-56 and Ex. CW 1/A-57 have been taken from the service provider blogspot.com which has been provided by the websites Further more, the complainant has deposed on the lines of his complaint. It is further prayed by the complainant that said accused persons alongwith certain undisclosed person were liable to be prosecuted U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. It is further deposed by the complainant that all the contents were clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.</p>
<p>Complainant thereafter examined Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex as CW 2 in pre summoning evidence, who deposed on oath that he was not only a practicing Orthodox Christian but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents on the websites in question. He further stated that the present complaint is filed by the complainant not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever user and post the material on the site through internet. CW 2 further deposed that the contents of the website in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that on bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequences. He deposed that the contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He stated that the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intentions of the these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused persons and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.</p>
<p>Thereafter Dr. Aziz Ahmad Khan was examined as CW 3, who also deposed on oath that he is a scholar and P.HD. in Urdu but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He also deposed that the complainant has filed the present complaint not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused person are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He also deposed that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that the on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to dangerous consequences. He submitted that these contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He deposed that if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further deposed that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further deposed that all the documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.</p>
<p>Mr. Rahul Agrawal was examined as CW 4 in pre summoning evidence by the complainant, who also deposed on oath that he is a Journalist and running a News Agency and he is a secular person and believe to maintain peace and harmony amongst the society and Country. He stated that he felt offended when he had seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He further stated that accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He further stated that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further stated that even on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequence. He further stated that the contents as exhibited prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony and if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further stated that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that the contents hosted on each of these websites are ex-facie scurrilous, defamatory, prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions and communities, likely to cause fear and generate a feeling of insecurity amongst members of religious communities, obscene by any criteria of community standards of obscenity, seeks to corrupt young minds, malicious and insulting to religions and religious feelings of persons and under no stretch of imagination be considered to be under freedom of speech and expression. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.</p>
<p>No other Complainant witness was examined in pre summoning evidence and the pre summoning evidence was closed. As the addresses of most of the respondents are beyond the jurisdiction of this court, an enquiry report U/s 202 Cr. PC was sought from the SHO concerned regarding the authenticity of documents as filed in the court.</p>
<p>SHO PS Tughlak Road has furnished this enquiry report on 17.12.2011. Today, the matter has been fixed for Orders on summoning. The complainant has furnished about 60 internet generated print outs alongwith the complaint in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was opened during pre summoning evidence. I have gone through each and every internet generated print out. Today, complainant has also furnished a CD submitting that the same contained the vulgar and obscene data available on the networks of the proposed accused and print outs of which were placed on record vide Annexure-A.</p>
<p>To my mind the printouts as furnished and exhibited on bare perusal are found to be obscene, lascivious, indecent and shocking. The printouts shown are totally degrading and demeaning. Some of the printouts are showing various religious idols in a very degrading, demeaning and obscene way which are certainly unacceptable to any person professing such religion and also to civilized society as a whole. There are obscene picture and derogatory articles pertaining to Prophet Mohammed, Jesus and various Hindu God and Godesses. There are defamatory and obscene articles pertaining to various Indian political leaders. The contents are certainly disrespectful to the religious sentiments and faith and seem to be intended to outrage the feelings of the religious people whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian. There are certain degrading and obscene photographs of various political leaders belonging to different political parties and the photographs pasted and the language used is also obscene, filthy and degrading.</p>
<p>Prima facie, I am satisfied that the material produced on record will promote enmity between different religious sections and groups and a feeling of hatred and ill-will between them would be promoted if the offensive material was allowed to be publicised as such. The documents are certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious groups. They tend to promote feeling of insecurity amongst members of some religion. The documents are obscene and could certainly corrupt the minds of the young. Most of the obscene pictures produced on record are tending to hurt the feelings of different religions. In my considered view, the said contents are certainly prejudicial to national harmony and integration. The publication of such offensive and inflammatory material which has tendency to inflame minds cannot be considered to be an expression of freedom of speech by any stretch of imagination in civil society. Having gone through the record, I am satisfied that the said contents produced on record by the complainant and which were available on various websites are not protected by the doctrine of free speech of expression under our Constitution. In fact much content fell foul of Provisions of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.</p>
<p>The Counsel for complainant has further argued vehemently that the offensive material as placed on record was just a part of a very large bunch of such content which was available on these networks. He further argued that it was impossible that availability of such content in such large quantity was publicised without the knowledge and connivance of the accused persons. He further alleged that all the accused persons in connivance with each other and some unknown persons have intentionally and knowingly permitted such content to be publicised just for the sake of commercial gains.</p>
<p>Having gone through the record, I find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant. All the accused persons are involved in the business of publication and are providing service of the electronic contents to users. They are certainly doing it for commercial gain. The accused persons having full control over the working of their sites it seems have purposely promoted and publicised offensive material for their commercial gains. It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network.</p>
<p>It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same. It is also evident that such contents are continuously openly and freely available to every one who is using the said network irrespective of their age and even the persons under the age of 18 years have full and uncensored access to such obscene contents.</p>
<p>From the above, it is clear that there is prima facie material on record against the accused persons for committing offences U/s 292/293/120 IPC and they are liable to be summoned for facing trial for the same.</p>
<p>However, from the testimony of these witnesses examined on record belonging to three different religions alongwith the material produced on record, it is evident that the same promotes enmity between different groups and religions, which is certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and communal harmony. The accused persons through the publication and promotion of the offensive material as produced on record seem to be promoting disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions. The act / omission on part of the accused person as alleged certainly tends to prejudice the maintenance of harmony between different groups and religions. The imputations and assertions and publications as produced on record are prejudicial to the national interest.</p>
<p>The contents as produced by the complainant are insulting and outrageous to the religious feelings of various classes of people.</p>
<p>From the above as argued vehemently by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. I find, prima facie, that the accused persons are liable to be summoned for offences U/s 153-A, 153-B and 295-A IPC. However, owing to the embargo under section 196 Cr. PC which prohibits taking of cognizance under the said Provisions except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or State Government or District Magistrate, the accused persons are not summoned for the said offences. All the accused persons however, be summoned for facing trial U/s 292, 293 and 120-B IPC for 13.01.2012 on filing of PF.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for complainant has also vehemently argued that even the Government of India seems to have turned a blind eye to the offensive, degrading and demeaning content on these websites which is outrageous and also against national integration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the complainant, let a copy of this Order be also sent to the Government of India through the Secretary (Information and Technology), Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Law) for taking the immediate appropriate steps in this regard and file a report on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2012.</p>
<p>Sudesh Kumar / MM / ND / 23.12.2011.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionCourt Case2012-03-15T07:53:05ZPageSave Your Voice — A movement against Web censorship
https://cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship
<b>‘Save Your Voice (SYV)’ is a movement against Web censorship and its main demand is the repealing of the Information Technology Act, said SYV founders, Aseem Trividi, a cartoonist, and Alok Dixit, a journalist, on Monday. </b>
<p>DNA Correspondent covered a press conference held on March 12, 2012 in Bangalore. Sunil Abraham was quoted in the story.</p>
<p>Trivedi’s website — www.cartoonistagainstcorruption.com — was banned during Anna Hazare’s movement. Trivedi said: “Mumbai police banned the website without any prior notice and cases of ‘treason’ were also filed. The website was banned without a judicial order and I haven’t received an explanation about the crime committed.”</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, said the private sector does not protect the freedom of expression.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_save-your-voice-a-movement-against-web-censorship_1661820">Read the original published by Daily News & Analysis on March 13, 2012</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-03-13T11:44:27ZNews ItemIndia debates limits to freedom of expression
https://cis-india.org/news/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression
<b>From Google to Facebook, from world-famous author Salman Rushdie to a little-known political cartoonist, it has become increasingly easy in recent months to offend the Indian government, and to incur the wrath of the censor or even the threat of legal action.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression/2012/02/02/gIQAHkOY9Q_story.html">This article by Simon Denyer was published in the Washington Post on February 13, 2012</a>. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this.</p>
<p>In the world’s largest democracy, many Indians say freedom of expression is under attack, and along with it the values of pluralism and tolerance that have bound this nation of 1.2 billion people together since independence from Britain more than 64 years ago.</p>
<p>India’s democracy is nothing if not raucous. The huge array of newspapers and 24-hour television news channels are often vociferous in their criticism of politicians. But the media’s determination to root out corruption in the past two years has prompted a backlash. Talk of more stringent regulation is mounting.</p>
<p>At the same time, artists say their creative freedom has been steadily eroded. Even <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/mitt-romney-joke-on-jay-leno-angers-indian-sikhs/2012/01/23/gIQAYJX4KQ_blog.html">Jay Leno managed to offend Indian Sikhs</a> — and prompt an official government complaint — with a satirical reference to their holiest shrine, the Golden Temple, in a joke about Mitt Romney’s vacation homes.</p>
<p>At fault, many say, is a thin-skinned government that gives in to the demands of violent mobs, ostensibly to make political gains but in fact to suppress its critics.</p>
<p>“For a country that takes great pride in its democracy and history of free speech, the present situation is troubling,” said Nilanjana Roy, a columnist and literary critic. “Especially in the creative sphere, the last two decades have been progressively intolerant.”</p>
<p><strong>Targeting authors, artists </strong></p>
<p>Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” was banned in India in 1988,<a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/salman-rushdie-video-interview-canceled-amid-muslim-protests/2012/01/24/gIQAtVRUNQ_blog.html"> was forced to cancel appearances at the Jaipur Literature Festival</a> last month after threats of violence from Muslim groups and a warning about a possible assassination attempt — information he said was probably fabricated by authorities to keep him away.</p>
<p>Wary of alienating Muslim voters in ongoing state elections, not a single Indian politician spoke out in favor of Rushdie’s right to be heard.</p>
<p>Last month, <a class="external-link" href="http://cpj.org/blog/2012/01/indias-challenge-intolerance-vs-intellectual-freed.php">the screening of a documentary on Kashmir was canceled</a> at a college in the city of Pune after right-wing Hindus objected, and an artist was beaten in his gallery in Delhi for showing nude paintings of actresses and models that his attackers claimed were an insult to the country.</p>
<p>The release of the <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kolkata-Book-Fair-cancels-release-of-Taslima-Nasreens-book/articleshow/11715363.cms">latest book by Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen</a> was canceled in Kolkata after Muslims protested, and <a href="https://cis-india.org/news/cpj.org/blog/2012/01/can-an-indian-cartoonist-be-barred-from-mocking-th.php" class="external-link">Aseem Trivedi, a 25-year-old political cartoonist</a>, was charged with treason and insulting India’s national emblems in drawings inspired by activist Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement.</p>
<p>But perhaps the most shocking episode for advocates of freedom of expression has been <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">the government’s attempt to muzzle Facebook and Google</a> — and prosecute the companies’ executives — for content posted on their sites deemed to be offensive. “Like China, we can block all such Web sites,” warned the judge hearing the case in the Delhi High Court.</p>
<p>The government cites images insulting to one or another of India’s religions, content it says could provoke unrest. It is up to social media sites, the government says, to manually screen and censor all potentially offensive content or face prosecution.</p>
<p>“No freedom can be absolute,” said the chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice Markandey Katju. “The hold of religion is very strong in India, and you have to respect that. You can’t go insulting people.”</p>
<p>Katju’s concerns are perhaps understandable in a country whose birth was scarred by the mass murder of Hindus and Muslims at the time of independence in 1947. But the effect, critics say, is to give the mob the power of veto and take away a fundamental right in a free society: the right to offend others.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham at the Center for Internet and Society says the government’s proposals on Web censorship would kill the vibrancy of the Internet in India. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales warned that they would scare off investors and crush the country’s potential to become a true leader in the Internet industry.</p>
<p>The irony, according to critics, is that the concern over religiously offensive content was little more than an excuse: What appears to have really offended the ruling Congress party were defamatory images of their idolized leader, Sonia Gandhi.</p>
<p>“The myth that is spread is that the government is acting against hate speech and obscenity. But when the government acts to control information on the Internet, it is usually defamatory or potentially defamatory content against people and politicians,” Abraham said.</p>
<p>Almost a year ago, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021602323.html">Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the media </a>were undermining the nation’s self-confidence by harping on official corruption. Since then, talk of tighter media regulation has grown louder.</p>
<p>And despite the vibrancy of India’s mainstream English-language media, the country’s ranking on the press freedom index of the journalism advocacy group <a class="external-link" href="http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html">Reporters Without Borders</a> has dropped, from 105th in 2009 to 131st last year.</p>
<h3>An optimistic view</h3>
<p>Arnab Goswami, the editor and anchor of the Times Now television channel, points to television’s dramatic success in exposing official corruption in the past two years to argue that there is plenty to be optimistic about.<br /><br />Courts in India generally have a better record than do politicians of defending freedom of expression. And there are people in government, including Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni, determined to resist the temptation to take a harder line.<br /><br />“The pressure was enormous, to control the media, to clamp down on the media,” she said. “But I did withstand the pressure.”<br /><br />Soni said she sees self-regulation by the media rather than official regulation as the way forward. She maintains that, for example, the debate about Rushdie has not necessarily done India any harm.<br /><br />“That’s the strength of Indian society,” she said. “You have discussed it, everyone has had their say on the matter, the government has had its share of criticism, yet we’ve moved on.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-debates-limits-to-freedom-of-expression</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-02-28T09:50:37ZNews ItemMufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors
<b>This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.</b>
<p>Suit No 505/11</p>
<p>Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi<br />
vs.<br />
Facebook etc.</p>
<p>20.12.11</p>
<p>Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.</p>
<p>Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.</p>
<p>I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.</p>
<p>In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.</p>
<p>Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.</p>
<p>Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.</p>
<p>Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.</p>
<p>Sd/-<br />
(Mukesh Kumar)<br />
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W<br />
Rohini Courts, Delhi<br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleCourt CaseObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookCensorshipResources2012-02-20T18:02:44ZPageIndia won't censor social media: Telecom Minister
https://cis-india.org/news/india-wont-censor-social-media
<b>India does not intend to censor online social networks such as Facebook, a minister said Tuesday, but he demanded that they obey the same rules governing the press and other media. The article by AFP was published in the Tribune on February 14, 2012.
</b>
<p>“I never wanted to censor social media and no government wants to do so. But like the print and electronic media, they have to obey the laws of the country.” He held a number of meetings with leading Internet companies late last year in which he asked about the possibility of checking content before it is posted online by users.<br /> <br />The minister was said to have shown Internet executives examples of obscene images found on the Internet that risked offending Muslims or defaming politicians, including the boss of the ruling Congress party, Sonia Gandhi. “The media reported I had said I wanted to pre-screen the content on social media. I have never even heard the word pre-screen,” he told the summit.<br /> <br />Since these meetings, 19 Internet firms including Google, Yahoo! and Facebook have been targeted in criminal and civil cases lodged in lower courts, holding them responsible for content posted by users of their platforms. The government has given its sanction for the firms to be tried for serious crimes such as fomenting religious hatred and spreading social discord — offences that could land company directors in prison.<br /> <br />“All I want is that they (social media) should follow the laws of the land. Social media must not consider itself to be above that,” Sibal said. But Internet privacy groups say social media sites may not have the resources to screen obscene material that violates local laws posted on the Internet. Local laws prohibit the sale or distribution of obscene material as well as those that can hurt religious sentiments in overwhelmingly-Hindu India.<br /> <br />“It is just not humanly possible to pre-censor content and Sibal knows that very well,” said Rajan Gandhi, founder of a New Delhi-based advocacy group Society in Action. Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society said he was “glad Sibal does not believe in censorship and that companies operating in India should follow local laws.” “But on the other hand he has asked them to evolve new guidelines and actively monitor user content which is not legally sanctioned. This makes him look two-faced,” Prakash added.</p>
<p>Google and Facebook said earlier this month they had removed the allegedly offensive content used as evidence in the court cases.</p>
<p>The groups have appealed to the Delhi High Court asking for the cases against them to be quashed on the basis they cannot be held responsible for their clients’ actions. The comments of a judge hearing the case raised further fears that freedom of expression online could be restricted. “You must have a stringent check. Otherwise, like in China, we may pass orders banning all such websites,” the judge said at the January hearing. Facebook is banned in China and Google moved its operations out of the country in 2010 in protest at censorship laws there.</p>
<p>The debate about social networks mirrors a larger national dialogue about freedom of speech in the world’s biggest democracy following recent protests by religious groups. Indian-origin writer Salman Rushdie was prevented from speaking at a literature festival in Jaipur last month after Muslim groups protested against his presence over his allegedly blasphemous 1988 novel “The Satanic Verses.” A group led by author and journalist Nilanjana Roy organised public readings of banned literary works on Monday to protest against what it said were recent curbs on intellectual freedom.</p>
<p>The initiative, called “Flashreads for free speech”, was widely advertised on social networks including Twitter and Facebook.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilgN7BOvkKddNXocYI9gMMd4XkvQ?docId=CNG.c0ad44e4f11cacfb71d75ae1fe1d813b.5b1">Originally published by AFP</a> and reproduced in the <a class="external-link" href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/336345/india-wont-censor-social-media-telecom-minister/">Tribune.</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-wont-censor-social-media'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-wont-censor-social-media</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-03-01T07:15:29ZNews Item