Kapil Sibal gets what he set out to censor

[Sachin=GOD]

'Why censor Facebook when you don't censor Sunny Leone?'

NEW DELHI: Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) young leader Anurag Singh Thakur wonders why the government wants to censor social media like Facebook when it is not "censoring Sunny Leone", an Indo-Canadian porn star who is a rage on the popular television show "Bigg Boss". "Why do they want to censor Facebook, when they don't censor Sunny Leone," Thakur asked a day after Communications Minister Kapil Sibal advocated screening of inflammatory or offensive content on social networking sites. "Thousands of children are searching for her on internet and getting connected to porn sites," Thakur told IANS on the sidelines of a conference on effective legislatures organised by PRS Legislative Research. Congress leader and Lok Sabha MP Shashi Tharoor, who had Tuesday "rejected" censorship for socal media, however, said that after an expostulation from his colleague Kapil Sibal he felt some restriction was needed as Indian politics and society was not as mature as in the West. "I talked to Kapil Sibal, he told me that there were inflammatory images of gods, goddesses, prophets. When I saw those, I felt there is a problem. Free speech in India is not the same as in the West," he said at the conference. "If certain people see these images, it can cause violence, we don't have a democracy so mature that we can ignore such things. So certain amount of restraint is necessary," he said. "Inflammatory communal incitement is like a match at a petrol pump, why should we do that?" Tharoor argued, adding in good measure, however, that he was against censorship. Contradicting him, Thakur said social media was a platform for common expression and should be allowed to grow and become mature. "Social media should be given time to get mature," said Thakur, adding that it should be left to the social media to create ways of removing objectionable content. "There are options like watermarking," he said. Sibal had Tuesday said the government will not allow social networking sites to host "objectionable" content and will take steps to screen and remove these.

link

[cowboysfan]

sorry Mr tharoor,that is the dumbest thing i have read recently.this arbritrary censorship is going to get abused and will be used as a tool by politicians.

[akshayxyz]

Free speech activists ridiculing Sibal :wavey: What are your thoughts on moderation on ICF :bubblegum: Have I earned my first ICF ban? :nervous:.

[G_B_]

dont know about social media but mainstream television media in India does need to be reigned in. they publish anything

[Pagalpanti]

"Thousands of children are searching for her on internet and getting connected to porn sites," Thakur told IANS on the sidelines of a conference on effective legislatures organised by PRS Legislative Research.

Looks like Mr. Thakur has been googling. :cantstop:

[bulbul]

dont know about social media but mainstream television media in India does need to be reigned in. they publish anything

Really...i dont see they publish that much news against Con Party

[G_B_]

Really...i dont see they publish that much news against Con Party

i thought they really blew a lid when it came to Hazare agitation. Secondly there are anti congress outlets like India TV CNN-IBN which slightly leans towards the BJP

[bulbul]

i thought they really blew a lid when it came to Hazare agitation. Secondly there are anti congress outlets like India TV CNN-IBN which slightly leans towards the BJP

Lokpal bill they dont have any option...now they dont show same support to Anna has it during agitation... i dont think CNN/IBN is leaning towards BJP...India TV may be , but i never watched that or any other Hindi channels so no idea

[G_B_]

Lokpal bill they dont have any option...now they dont show same support to Anna has it during agitation... i dont think CNN/IBN is leaning towards BJP...India TV may be , but i never watched that or any other Hindi channels so no idea

I would say they are. CNN/IBN is a centre right channel. its NDTV which is the big Congess/commie/left wing channel.

[ganeshran]

This is what Sibal wants to pre - screen from google

[mishra]

^ Actually i tried that (xx is a ) on other world leaders...try yourself for a laugh

[yoda]

Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Kapil-Sibals-web-censorship-Indian-govt-wanted-358-items-removed-says-Google/articleshow/11021470.cms

[Trichromatic]

Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/IN/?p=2011-06&t=CONTENT_REMOVAL_REQUEST&by=PRODUCT

[ravishingravi]

Who Really Cares For Free Speech? get Kapil Sibal. I really do. When he says that he is not against political dissent per se but merely acting, in the benefit of the nation, to wipe out online speech that promotes communal disharmony and religious unrest, I totally understand where he is coming from. I know that Google says that of the 358 requests to remove content, 255 dealt with the criticism of the government. But where Google and perhaps many of the wise commentators are missing the bus is that the government (which in Mr. Sibal’s mind and I guess ours too is the Congress party) is actually a religion. It is built on the dogma that some people with a certain juxtaposition of letters in their last name are divinely ordained to rule. It has its pantheon of above-laws-meant-for-mortals Gods whose achievements, while being sung about in hymns, are almost never perceived in the real world and who need to be continuously propitiated with sacrifice and utter “respect my authority” reverence. Once we accept this basic premise, what Mr. Sibal says makes perfect sense, that being that his religious sentiments and those of the believers of his religion (or more precisely, those who subscribe to his “community standards”) are being hurt by the not-so-complimentary depictions of their idols that have flooded the interweb. Which is why they have to be removed, sometimes even before they have seen the light of the day since Gods are sent into wrath not just by impure actions by also by impure intentions. Those trying to find an inconsistency between what he is claiming to do (remove comunal hate speech) and what he is doing (censoring political criticism) need to lay off. Mr. Sibal, after all, is a fine lawyer. He knows what he is doing. If not from a technological perspective (since most of us know the semantic pre-screening he is asking for is technically infeasible) but definitely from the legal one. Because in India, our rights to free speech are curtailed by what the Constitution calls “reasonable restrictions” on its practice. These include restrictions on speech that is defamatory in nature, or against decency and morality, or that which compromises friendly relations with foreign states or the sovereignty and integrity of India. Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code severely restricts any speech that could be construed to outrage religious beliefs. In this paragraph, two phrases should have come out and struck you like Pawarian slaps—-”against decency and morality” and “outrage religious beliefs”. Virtually anything and everything that vexes the authorities can be put into these two baskets—a non-flattering photoshop of a prominent political figure may definitely be claimed to be against decency or as an attack on figures held in Godly reverence. But wait, wait. What’s wrong in these legal restrictions? What if people get offended by expressions of dissent or sarcasm or opposition and do something naughty? Like if I draw an offensive cartoon and some people get so angry that they catch hold of some other man on the street, put a tyre around him and set him on fire. Does the government not have a responsibility to pre-empt that violence? Hmm. The problem of course here is the basic assumption that adults can use a “He made me do it” argument to justify illegal acts. The girl showed cleavage and so I mauled her. His book offended me and so I trashed all stores selling it. The Devil spoke in my head and so I slaughtered the family in sleep. In a mature democracy one would hope that people realize that 1) criminal acts are criminal acts and should be punished as such and that speech or artistic expressions should not be used as justifications for such acts, 2) criminals will do whatever they have done and can always find a rationale later on. Unless speech is that which concerns the operational plans for a criminal activity (e.g. planning a terrorist attack on the Net) or that which is plainly libelous (making a serious specific accusation against someone without evidence) it is not the expression that need to be the object of a severe yank, but those that supposedly are goaded to act unlawfully on its basis that need to be yanked up by their necks. Something, (actually Google’s “255 number”) tells me that what has got Mr. Sibal’s blood pressure all high is none of the above. Again the important thing here is not the famous lawyer, who to be honest, is one of the better politicians we have in this country. (Yes I know that’s not saying much). What’s worthy of attention thing is the law that gives principals like Mr. Sibal the power to impose the insecurities of a privileged few on the nation. Why does a law, so weak in protecting dissent, exist so many years after independence? Here is where things get uncomfortable. That is because we love what Sibal is doing. Yes. You heard me right. Growing up in a culture where respect is everything, we want everyone to kneel down their heads. To our Gods. The only thing we disagree, as a country on, is who our Gods are. So those who are blowing salivary froth over the digital air-waves at Sibal’s attempts to stifle anti-Gandhi family vitriol, will be equally rabid, but on the opposite side, if the needle-head of irreverence are turned towards Modi-”ji”, Baba Ramdev or The Fast Gandhi-ian Who Loves Administering Lashings With Belts . Those who say that Arundhati Roy should be legally prosecuted are as passionate in respecting Swamy’s right to say what he feels. Genteel liberals who cry scented tears on the removal of books from syllabi have no compunction in ganging up to stifle the voice of someone who does not share their “Free Kashmir” political philosophy. And even those who claim to see “both sides” suddenly discover the joys of censorship when it comes to sex or violence in movies because “Hey my son’s morals need to be protected” and it is somehow the government’s duty to do so. One may argue that this is basic human nature—we think that everyone is obliged to share our view of good and bad and if they don’t, a dry rag need be stuffed down their mouths. At the very least, if they dissent they should do it in ways we deem acceptable. Which is why a mature democracy needs strong laws, like the US First Amendment, that covers not just the content but also the context in which speech is being made (which is why comic expressions are given an enormous leeway), so that the decision whether speech is licit or not is left, to the least amount possible, to human agency and to slippery subjective slopes like “hurtful to religious sentiment” and “immoral”. And nothing expresses this better than the court ruling given in “Hustler vs Falwell” (link) which, I believe, explains perfectly why First Amendment-like laws are imperative in a democracy. “At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.” The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large”. But we will not have such strong laws. Because no one in politics, from the white caps to the saffron gowns to the red bandannas to the green scarves, want it. And to be honest, deep down inside, neither do we. [PS: A sincere word of thanks to all those who inquired about my health. I had an emergency appendicitis operation earlier in the week. I am feeling better now.] http://greatbong.net/2011/12/09/who-really-cares-for-free-speech/

[f.b.m]

Is this Dhoni's actual FB profile? Because he is one of the 20 members of the Kapil Sibal and Chidambaram hate club :hmmmm2:

[Stuge]

lol I don't think he has time to use fb .

[Mariyam]

Kapil Sibal is a very good lawyer, if nothing else. Still it will take a gargantuan effort on his part to get this proto-censorship law into place. It directly contravenes the " freedom of speech & expression" , Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. There are very few exceptions to 19(1)(a) 1) National security 2) Spreading of propaganda against another country 3)Contempt of court 4) Defamation 5) Incitement to an offense 6) Public Order 7)Sedition 8) Accepted Decency/Morality: Section 292 of IPC Of all these points, to me , it looks like he can argue on the lines of the last one. I.e on the lines of morality/ indecency in showing leading political figures in a bad light. But that's a very slippery slope. I don't think there will be any disturbances in Public Order just because someone posted a caricature of Sonia Gandhi on FB. Having said that, some of the stuff you come across on the internet is just appalling, in terms of abusing celebrities/politicians.

[Sachin=GOD]

US in talks with India for freedom of cyberworld Washington: Asserting that freedom of expression applies equally to the internet as it does in the real world, the United States has said that it is in talks with Indian government over the regulatory mechanism on Internet. “We believe that freedom of expression applies equally to the internet as it does in the real world,” the US state department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters when asked about the efforts of the Indian government to regulate or monitor content postings on the internet and social networking websites such as Facebook. The US state department spokesperson, however, clarified twice that its position on internet freedom is not necessarily India specific, but in general globally. “We are concerned about any effort to curtail freedom of expression on net,” he said. Telecom minister Kapil Sibal had on Wednesday said that the government has asked companies, including Google and Facebook, to block offensive material, especially content that could hurt religious sentiments. With India, Toner acknowledged that it is indeed one of the topics of discussion with the Indian government and is part of the strategic dialogue. “In terms of India, we do have a working group on information and communication technology between the US and India, and it’s part of our overall strategic dialogue. “Of course, within that working group, we do talk about issues on information technology, discuss approaches our governments can take to create investment, for example, on regulatory environments that maximize the development of these sectors,” Toner said. The state department spokesperson said America’s position is very clear and the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is scheduled to deliver a major speech on internet freedom in The Hague on Thursday. He did not give an insight in to the much anticipated speech, but the recent developments in India and South Korea in this regard is most likely to figure. “Our position’s clear. Secretary Clinton’s called on the global community to protect freedoms of expression, association and assembly in the online world as we do in the regular world. We uphold those beliefs. I don’t want to get out too far in front. PTI

link

[Sachin=GOD]

Kapil Sibal is a very good lawyer, if nothing else. Still it will take a gargantuan effort on his part to get this proto-censorship law into place. It directly contravenes the " freedom of speech & expression" , Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. There are very few exceptions to 19(1)(a) 1) National security 2) Spreading of propaganda against another country 3)Contempt of court 4) Defamation 5) Incitement to an offense 6) Public Order 7)Sedition 8) Accepted Decency/Morality: Section 292 of IPC Of all these points, to me , it looks like he can argue on the lines of the last one. I.e on the lines of morality/ indecency in showing leading political figures in a bad light. But that's a very slippery slope. I don't think there will be any disturbances in Public Order just because someone posted a caricature of Sonia Gandhi on FB. Having said that, some of the stuff you come across on the internet is just appalling, in terms of abusing celebrities/politicians.

I think his argument will be more on the lines of religious tension due to certain things being posted online.

[Sachin=GOD]

What to do about internet content? Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, has set off a firestorm of protest by demanding that ‘internet intermediaries' — specifically in this round, four social networking giants, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Microsoft, which enable hundreds of millions of individual users to publish and share on the worldwide web — remove inflammatory content as well as other text and images that might “offend Indian sensibilities.” As in other battles over free speech, both sides are claiming the moral high ground: Mr. Sibal's supporters, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, don the mantle of defenders of order, decency, and ‘Indian values'; his opponents, led by the bloggers, wear the halo that comes with wanting to protect and expand modern democratic rights. The issue is, in fact, far more complex and intriguing than either side admits. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the claim of Mr. Sibal's detractors that the government acted not so much out of concern over inflammatory content, which has been around on the worldwide web for quite a while, as on account of blogged graphic content that targeted Congress president Sonia Gandhi is correct. The imputed motive, however, does not ipso facto undermine his argument. There can be little question that the internet has opened up new commons for the exchange of ideas and information. But can it be exempt from the application of laws any more than the press and the broadcast media are? Obviously not — in principle. Hate speech, defamation, and incitement to offences can be proceeded against under the law irrespective of whether the medium involves ink or digits transmitted through fibre-optic cables. It is another matter that the law should be liberal, progressive, and up to contemporary requirements, which it is decidedly not in India when it comes to criminal and civil defamation, legislative privilege, contempt of court, official secrets, and incitement to offences. But the objection that Mr. Sibal's proposals are unworkable because it is simply impossible to monitor billions of web pages sounds like a practical argument — but, in a careful analysis, turns out to be opportunist and misleading. Laws are made not because they will eradicate crime, but because they allow perpetrators, when caught, to be punished. And the issue in this case is not monitoring but retaining or removing impugned content that is alleged to offend the law or norms of decency. In an interview published in The Hindu (December 7), Mr. Sibal made the argument that the nature of the medium, the worldwide web, has blunted the instruments in the law's arsenal: for example, a blogger posting inflammatory communal polemic might be doing so using servers located in a country where it is not a crime. India's dysfunctional political culture has foisted a climate in which religious and caste groups have acquired a de facto veto over ideas. ‘Free trade' in ideas, the right to dissent, dispute, rebel, and cause outrage in robust public debate — a keystone of a real democracy, which has been repeatedly upheld by India's higher judiciary while interpreting Article 19 of the Constitution — has been steadily eroded. But intellectual honesty also demands that free speech champions acknowledge that hate speech can kill, something India's experience has long shown. Liberal democracies, almost without exception, place ‘reasonable restrictions' on certain kinds of speech, for instance by criminalising anti-Semitism or placing new kinds of post-9/11 restrictions on content that is seen to provide aid and succour to terrorism or harm ‘national security'. Some liberal democracies place fewer restrictions on free speech than others. But on matters like content featuring child pornography, intolerance and proscription have become the absolute global standard. The question then comes down to what restrictions on free speech are reasonable, and who will make this determination. Unfortunately, the government's track record here is not edifying. Earlier this year, it sought to address the question by making it legally mandatory for internet intermediaries to censor content that is not only “paedophiliac” or “libellous” but “harmful”, “objectionable”, or merely “disparaging”. The amended version of the Information Technology Act, which became law in 2009, even proscribes the publication of “any material which contains [a] sexually explicit act or conduct” — phrasing which criminalises, arguably, everything from scientific texts to ancient temple art. The scope for over-reaching subjective interpretation can well be imagined. It takes little to see that this expansive mandate is an invitation to governmental abuse. In fact, the report published in The Hindu on December 8, “India wanted 358 items removed,” reveals that 255 of these requests made to Google fell in the “government criticism category,” with the biggest chunk accounted for by a single request from “a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles” from the Google-owned social networking site, Orkut, which were “critical of” an unnamed “local politician.” This strengthens widespread suspicion that the inflammatory content argument is really a cover for censoring political attacks and uninhibited criticism circulating in the social media. In the face of strong criticism, Mr. Sibal has promised further consultations. These must centre on addressing the excessive powers the government seeks to wield on what can circulate digitally. One idea that could be explored is bringing in an independent regulator empowered by law to deal with complaints about internet content, with the threshold for the admissibility of complaints raised high. India is, as things stand, readying a sledgehammer to swat some flies: the blow, when it falls, could end up undermining one of our most cherished freedoms. the Hindu