
Indian court forces Facebook, Google to censor content - Slimy
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/indian-court-forces-facebook-google-to-censor-content/8643?tag=mantle_skin;content
======
dm8
How it is different from DMCA takedown requests? Under DMCA you request
website to takedown content that violates copyright. Under Indian law, you
takedown the content that is deemed religiously offensive or blasphemous.

Edit for downvotes: I'm against takedown requests. I'm extremely disappointed
that Indian govt. is taking such a narrow view. I'm genuinely interested in
knowing how these requests are different from DMCA takedown requests.

~~~
sushantsharma
You are right. FTA: _Last year, India passed a law that makes companies
responsible for user content posted on their websites, requiring them to take
down anything deemed offensive (”ethnically objectionable,” “blasphemous,” or
“grossly harmful.”) within 36 hours in case of a complaint._

The only difference is that the exact definition of offensive content is not
clear.

~~~
dm8
Interesting. Unfortunately, its even more harmful than DMCA. Resolving
copyright violations is really easy. However, if I praise Richard Dawnkins in
my blog and some religious retard finds that offensive then it should be taken
down because it can be deemed as "blasphemous". Who will decide what is good
and what is offensive? It will lead to extremely messy situation.

~~~
timwiseman
"Resolving copyright violations is really easy"

I think may be slightly off here. Some cases of copyright violation are quite
blatent, but many others become tricky.

Music companies have been known to file DMCA complaints over content that
their own PR-branches filed for publicity. Other times there is the question
of derivative work and whether it is fair use, authorized, or in violation.
For that matter, when talking about older works, something can be under
copyright in one country but in the public domain in another, depending on
their copyright term.

In contast, with the question of what is offensive, it matters greatly on who
you ask. All but the most banal and obvious facts will likely offend someone.

~~~
dm8
I should have mentioned, compared to resolving whether content is religiously
offensive or not copyright violations are easier to deal with. And with
digital signatures it can be detected by algorithms too. But your point is
valid too.

------
Jun8
We always complain about the Internet side of things, forgetting that in most
cases these issues are caused by local laws, for whatever political, cultural,
etc. reason, are lagging behind the currently accepted human rights (this is
hard to define rigorously but I'm sure we would all agree on a common core).
Many examples of this can be given: China (of, course), but also many Arab
countries, as well as Turkey (who had blocked YouTube at one point and
continues to block other sites). And evidently, now India.

It is interesting that the US is an outlier among these countries in that the
motivations of censorship here is motivated more by big business profit than
politics.

"Indian officials have seen illustrations showing Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi in compromising positions, as well
as pigs running through Islam’s holy city of Mecca. The punishment for such
offenses can be several years of jail time and financial penalties."

"Several years of jail time" for an offensive picture? There's something wrong
about that.

~~~
dm8
US truly values the freedom of speech. In India there is freedom of speech too
but it comes with certain conditions. People of key government positions,
successful members of civil society etc. command certain respect. And you
don't even call them by first name let alone vandalizing their pictures
(unless they are cartoons in newspapers). Its still a traditional society.
Flag burning is considered crime in India whereas in western countries it
won't be problematic. You can also wear flag patterned clothes but in India
you will be frowned upon by everyone including your friends and family.

~~~
qq66
What you're speaking of doesn't sound like a very useful form of "freedom of
speech." It's the right to criticize key government officials and other
powerful people which is MOST important, because they wield so much power --
it's much less important to be able to publicly criticize your crazy neighbor
Bob.

~~~
dm8
You can criticize government officials. A form of protest can be anything from
organized rally to famous Gandhian methodology of fasting. But society in
general shuns anything that is below belt and dignity. Be it your neighbor or
local political leader or your own uncle.

~~~
Locke1689
I don't understand how people still don't get this: you never have to protect
the speech you _like._ No one needs freedom of speech to protect the speech
everyone likes. As Noam Chomsky said,

 _If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for
views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor
of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom
of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views
you despise._

 _National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie_ paints the picture
clearly: almost no one liked the Nazis or wanted them in Skokie, but that's
precisely why their speech needs to be protected.

------
nate_meurer
This is another step down the path toward a partitioned internet. Separate
national networks, walled off to the point that they may not be functionally
interoperable.

The U.S. and China really got the censorship ball rolling, and there are
countless others just itching to cleanse the internet of content they find
disagreeable.

~~~
noarchy
As a Canadian resident, I get a sampling of a partitioned internet when I try
to use sites like Hulu or Pandora. The effort to bring national borders to the
Internet is well underway, and unfortunately it isn't limited to the usual
slate of repressive governments. I don't wish to compare my "plight" with that
of someone in China or Iran, of course. I recognize the difference.

------
armraj
Well ... The real motive for this is to some way cut out sites like wiki leaks
from revealing the names of corrupt Indian politicians who have siphoned of
tax payer's money to their Swiss banks accounts.

~~~
fl3tch
> Google India meanwhile has removed web pages deemed offensive to Indian
> political... leaders

That's the most dangerous part.

------
iwwr
What are possible consequences if those organizations ignore or defy these
"requests"?

(By and by, what would happen if said organizations defied a EU decree?)

~~~
raganwald
I kind of made this point a week ago, so sorry for repeating myself. If the
‘requests’ are ignored, India passes a law. If Google and Facebook ignore the
law, then India follows the USA’s lead and arrests any Google and Facebook
executives it can get its hands on, just as the USA arrests and prosecutes
executives of online gaming organizations that are entirely operated outside
of its physical borders but have US customers.

~~~
ori_b
So, in other words, Google stops operating in India.

~~~
JeremyBanks
Don't know why this was downvoted; it seems probable that Google would leave
before the issue was escalated to the point of their executives being
arrested.

~~~
throwaway64
or they would simply comply like they did in china for many years. Before you
mention that the pulled out for the censorship, that was almost certainly
nothing but a cover story, the real reason was Chinese government supported
hacking, and constant redirects to Baidu.

------
maeon3
The internet is like the audible spectrum in air, it doesn't need "cleaning
up" through censorship. It's not about porn or saving the children or
objectionable content at all. It's about saying: "This internet, and all the
bits that flow on it are my responsibility", if you want to use it, you'll
have to do what I tell you do to. And if you don't do what I want you to do on
it, I won't let you on it. These Dr-Evils would censor people's vocal chords
if they could.

The next internet better be wireless, encrypted, exclude ISP's all together.
Preferably where two individuals from two different countries can exchange
without any other human getting in the middle and stop the data flow. We need
to give the Internet itself an ability to "cut off" nations that want to own
the entire thing. The problem is we programmers, engineers and innovators are
too damn reasonable and accommodating. It's time for us to fight back and say
no. No we are not allowing you to have censorship. Needs to be a new law that
no standing member of congress may be re-elected if any part of the internet
is censored.

