Perhaps this interview I did with someone directly involved with the lobby to stop internet freedom might throw more light.
'Restrictions on Web content should be reasonable' L Subramani ,April 26, 2012,DHNS In the aftermath of the arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra over the posting of Mamata cartoons, there have been serious questions over the government’s new rules introduced in 2011 to the Information Technology Act, 2000. While organisations opposed to restrictions on internet freedom speak of police brutalities and government heavy-handedness usually seen in dictatorial regimes, efforts have been on to annul the rules which, according to experts, removes protections given to ‘intermediaries’ (such as Google, Facebook and Twitter) if they fail to remove contents reported to them as ‘blasphemous’ or ‘harassing’ by anyone. Many, including the Rajya Sabha MP from Bangalore Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who has promised to take up the issue in Parliament, believe the rules would kill the freedom of speech represented by the internet. Prasanth Sugathan is the counsel for Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) India, a Delhi-based organisation at the forefront of the moves to annul the rules. He spoke to L Subramani of Deccan Herald on the implications of the rules and the efforts being made by Non Governmental Organisations across the country to remove the rules from the law book. Excerpts: Explain how the rules would affect freedom of speech… Last year, the government had tabled the rules in Parliament which would effectively remove protections given to the ‘intermediaries’ like Google and Facebook under the IT Act if they fail to oblige the request from someone to remove content which they regard as objectionable. In effect, this ensures none of the users of the social network platform can post anything that would touch upon politics or virtually anything that is of dislike to them. If, for instance, you go to a hotel and comment on the social platform that you didn’t like their service, the hotel, according to the rules, can request the platform concerned to remove the comment. This is one way of pressurising the intermediaries into submission. Why wasn’t the rules objected to when they were introduced? The government had published a draft of those rules and asked for public opinion. We had sent in our views and the possible changes that were needed to be made to the rules. However, the government seems to have neglected those suggestions by us and several others and had notified the rules with minor changes. One of the problems with the provision of the rules is that there is no definition of words such as ‘blasphemous,’ ‘harassment,’ or ‘grossly harmful.’ We don’t know what can be blasphemous or harassing or how to determine it. In the absence of this, the intermediaries have to determine the malicious nature of the postings users have made on their platform on the request of someone and remove them. They have to compromise their user’s freedom to protect themselves. What has been done ever since the rules were tabled? The bills introduced by the government must be debated and passed in Parliament. In the case of rules, government can notify them without debate and, barring objections inside Parliament, they are deemed passed. As part of our campaign, we approached Lok Sabha’s Committee on Subordinate Legislations, who can recommend to the government for the removal of the rules. We have also requested P Rajeev (Rajya Sabha MP from Kerala) to sponsor a motion in the latter half of the budget session to annul the rules. We are working with several NGOs to spread awareness on the impact of the rules and trying to turn public opinion against it. Are these rules framed in the wake of social media growth? Yes. The IT Act passed in 2000 was basically to control e-commerce related issues. Internet has since then metamorphosed into something else (with the growth of social media). So the government amended the Act in 2009, in which several aspects were introduced. Section 66-A of the Act was invoked when Prof Mahapatra was arrested a few weeks ago in West Bengal. The amendment happened in the immediate aftermath of the 26/11 terror attack and it was passed without debate. It was also the last set of bills the UPA-I had passed. The rules have come subsequently in 2011. There was a clamour about the pre-screening (of content) issue when the IT minister raised it end of last year. Of course, the government knew and subsequently accepted that pre-screening of content before they were posted to the social networking platforms was technically complex. But the funny thing is that while so much of focus was on pre-screening, we somehow failed to acknowledge that post-screening is equally dangerous for freedom of expression. What do you expect the government to do? We do recognise the need to have guidelines for intermediaries. However such rules should have a transparent procedure for take-down of content and any restrictions on content should be reasonable as per Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. We expect the government to have a multi-stakeholder consultation and amend the existing rules. This would ensure fair monitoring of the intermediaries without compromising freedom of speech. On 4/30/13, avinash shahi <shahi88avin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, Rajesh sir is right. > In fact Section 66A of Information Technology Act 2000 states that > "any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or > communication device, any information that was grossly offensive or > has a menacing character could be punished with imprisonment for a > maximum term of three years, besides imposing appropriate fine." > And if you remember friends, Chief Justice Altamas Kabir in the month > of January, while hearing two Public Interest Litigations (PIL) sought > response from the government on the arrest of Two young girls in > Maharashtra. > Petitioner argued that impugned provisions were "draconian and > arbitrary" in nature, according unreasonable leeway to the police and > other authorities of misusing them. The PIL has demanded striking down > the impugned provisions. > But one thing we need to notice here, that the phraise "reasonable > restriction" always saves the government. Because article 21 of The > Indian Constitution also provides freedom of speech and expression > with so called reasonable restriction... > I don't think the news item discussed here, will effect indipendent > functioning of AI Mailing Group. > So keep them coming. > On 4/30/13, Kotian, H P <hpkot...@rbi.org.in> wrote: >> Legal experts >> >> Please enlighten us on the impact this ruling could have on the >> functioning >> of AccessIndia. >> >> In my personal opinion this is very bitter to swallow and violative of >> Fundamental rights. >> Anyways, read on. >> Harish Kotian >> >> The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the validity of Information >> Technology Rules making it mandatory for a website owner to screen >> content >> and exercise online censorship of the contents posted on the portal. A >> bench >> of Justices T S Thakur and S J Mukhopadhaya issued the notice to the >> Centre >> and all the states on a PIL filed by a company which runs a portal >> challenging Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, >> 2011. >> >> Source: http://allindiaradio.nic.in/default.aspx# >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility >> of >> mobile phones / Tabs on: >> http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in >> >> >> Search for old postings at: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ >> >> To unsubscribe send a message to >> accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in >> with the subject unsubscribe. >> >> To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, >> please >> visit the list home page at >> http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in >> >> > > > -- > Avinash Shahi > MPhil Research Scholar > Centre for the Study of Law and Governance > Jawaharlal Nehru University > New Delhi India > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of > mobile phones / Tabs on: > http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please > visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > -- L. Subramani, Snr. Subeditor, Deccan Herald, Bangalore, M: 91-7204322451 Facebook: Subramani Lakshminarayanan Twitter: lsubramani60873 Linkedin: L. Subramani website: http://www.lsubramani.com Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
