satyam1729 Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Controversial Page Facebook has blocked in India the controversial "Everybody draw Mohammed Day!" page that last week led to the site being banned in Pakistan. The move follows protests by Muslims in the country over the page which invites users to put up caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. "Out of respect for the local regulations, standards and customs, we have decided to restrict access to the 'Everyone Draw Mohammed!' page from India, after being contacted by authorities and reviewing the matter closely," a spokeswoman for Facebook said on Sunday in an email. We have not removed the Page from Facebook, but have only restricted access to it from India," she added. The page was inaccessible from India from late Saturday. Officials at India's Departments of Telecommunications and Ministry of Home Affairs said on Sunday that they were not aware of the Indian government blocking the site. The country's Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 allows the government to block web sites under certain conditions. Access to Facebook was restricted on Wednesday in Pakistan by the local regulator, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). Earlier, a court in the country had instructed the government to block the site. On Thursday, PTA also blocked YouTube, citing sacrilegious content on the video-streaming Web site. Facebook may consider IP blocking in Pakistan after further review of local regulations, standards and customs, the Facebook spokeswoman said on Sunday. A move to block the page in Pakistan would be in line with Facebook's stated policy on the issue. When dealing with user-generated content on global Web sites, there are occasions where content that is illegal in one country is not, or may even be protected, in another, Facebook said on Thursday. Most companies, including Facebook, approach this issue by preventing certain content from being shown to users in the countries where it is illegal, it added. The "Everyone Draw Mohammed!" page had 112,541 fans and 12,983 photos on Sunday. The page was however brought down on Thursday for two days by a page moderator who got scared after his e-mail and Skype account was hacked into, and his personal data revealed, according to a post on the page on Saturday. The page has spawned a number of look-alike pages on Facebook with the same or similar names, as well as pages opposing it. http://www.pcworld.com/article/196984/facebook_blocks_access_in_india_to_controversial_page.html
Serani Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 They should just get rid of the page, it is pretty insulting to a lot of people worldwide.
Clarke Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 was expecting that. There is a law in our constitution against hate speech anyways, good that the govt did not have to intervene.
Clarke Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 Wrong. There's no express provision in our borrowed Constitution against hate speech. Only a fuzzy clause about reasonable restrictions to be placed if public order' date=' morality or decency is threatened.[/quote'] Section 153A of the penal code says, inter alia: Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Enacted in 1927, section 295A says: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both. Not really fuzzy, its as clear as it gets.
Clarke Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 ^^ ur right actually, its the IPC that has the details. From what i could find through a quick search is the statement of the supreme court that states "‘Section 295(A) does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion...Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the section...It only punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention’’. Ofcourse the court decides whats an aggravated form of insult .. does that mean some liberal can challenge the blocking of the site if it were 4m the govt (unlike this case) ?
yoda Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 It it is rather irritating that the atheist/non-believing crowd (which is an insignificant (in terms of %) minority BTW) has to thump it's nose at anything religious and doesn't have the basic decency to just stay away from people's religions and mind their own fracking business.
Bumblebee Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 well that page is quite hilarious, i trying to make a cartoon myself :winky:
Texy Posted May 24, 2010 Posted May 24, 2010 I was expecting this from kangress so... MF hussain -- no ban, no restriction, welcome back into the country w/ wide arms Taslim Nasrin -- Visa gets only extended by 6 months, has to live in India in seclusion in fear Facebook muhammad page gets taken down in India to keep the local muslims happy while Sohail Tanvir vacations in India
saneindian Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Whatever happened to those who said Hussain was right and using his freedom of speech.
b555 Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 well that page is quite hilarious' date=' i trying to make a cartoon myself :winky:[/quote']
King Tendulkar Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 It it is rather irritating that the atheist/non-believing crowd (which is an insignificant (in terms of %) minority BTW) has to thump it's nose at anything religious and doesn't have the basic decency to just stay away from people's religions and mind their own fracking business. Its their free will do to do what they want. Its called freedom of speech! Or does that not apply when it comes to Islam?
Zap_Brannigan Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Another reason to hate India and its faux freedom of speech esp. when it comes to the faux religion of peace. Is it Irony that the op used the article from pcworld
yoda Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Its their free will do to do what they want. Its called freedom of speech! Or does that not apply when it comes to Islam? Freedom of speech doesn't mean do whatever you want. It comes with certain responsibility. Read here for more: http://www.philartalliance.org/Lesson1.pdf
King Tendulkar Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Freedom of speech doesn't mean do whatever you want. It comes with certain responsibility. Read here for more: http://www.philartalliance.org/Lesson1.pdf What so if I accuratley criticise a prophet and expose the anomolies then that should be banned? If I then use humour to exemplify the ridiculousness of such beliefs then again that should be banned as well? Have you not turned in to the thought and speech police? Instead your moral guidelines should be directed at intolerance of others who do not allow valid criticism.
Gunner_Mania Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Wrong. There's no express provision in our borrowed Constitution against hate speech. Only a fuzzy clause about reasonable restrictions to be placed if public order' date= morality or decency is threatened. What do you mean by borrowed Constitution?
Gunner_Mania Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 It borrows heavily (since you cannot technically plagiarize from a government document) from the Government of India Act, 1935 drafted and made into a law by the British. A lot of Articles in the Fundamental Rights chapter are heavily influenced by the US Constitution. Doesn't matter, for most Indians, Baba Saheb did it alone with his brilliance. :hysterical: I was more interested in knowing about the borrowed bit, because I found it amusing after coming here that we had a written constitution while the Brits don't have one.
Recommended Posts