Depends what their definition of objectionable is, doesn't is?
I mean, pr0n or just stuff that the government doesn't agree with? Like anti government blogs, etc...
Google, Facebook and other internet companies have been warned by India's High Court that their websites could be blocked if they fail to remove "offensive, objectionable" content from their sites. The Delhi High Court told representatives from Facebook and Google yesterday that the firms "must have a stringent check" in place …
Personally I think if that type of content is such a big deal then the current government should make it illegal. If that type of content is NOT illegal and the government does not want to make it so then shut up about it. The best way to fight alternative or opposite opinions is by encouraging free speech. Censorship is never the answer.
in a global system is a hard one to define - they are basically telling global businesses that things they are fine in their founding countries are not in others - but the Internet transcends borders.
Be interesting how this pans out - whether free speech is more powerful to these sites that the money available in these markets...
Yes, India is a bloody large country. Why they feel the need to turn into China, though, is a bit beyond me. Even in a small country you can't please everyone, so why bother at all? You are free to not go there and refrain from looking at things you know would offend you. The Chinese very clearly do it to keep hold of their power. What do the Indians do it for? Are they not, in fact, actually democratic?
The US is ostensibly democratic too, but there is still quite a bit of censorship here (usually followed by "FOR THE CHILDREN" or somesuch).
Remember the fervor over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction? The worst thing about that wasn't that people saw a tit on TV, it's that it was an old nasty dried up tit on TV. Certainly not the sort of tit I'd want my kids to see...
According to this:
"He provided examples of faked naked pictures of Indian political leaders and religiously sensitive images."
Meh, so basically what the net seemed full of in the late 90s :-0
the first example which was given was fake nude photos of politicians. I will not pretend to know Indian laws. I am not sure if that sort of imagery or manipulation is illegal. If it is then it is not offensive content it is ILLEGAL content and as such should be remove on that premise and that premise alone.
The other content mentioned was anti-religion or religious parodies. Again...if that type of content is ILLEGAL then remove it on that premise and that premise alone. Just because a group of people find that offensive is no reason to remove it, their is obviously another group who don't. So if I find that religion in general is offensive (but not illegal) should I then be allowed to have all religious content removed? (the answer is no) opinions and beliefs are just that so if the government chooses to censor content to try and push or lean the general population in a certain direction then call a duck a duck (that last comment didn't offend anyone did it?).
I found the scenes of widespread poverty on the streets of Mumbai objectional. Perhaps the government should focus their efforts to feeding and providing shelter for the millions of homeless families instead of trying to censor their population against Beyonce videos on Youtube.
Also, as the "world's largest democracy" what percentage of the population actually has access to the internet?
Forget all the arguments about censorship, or freedom. What we have here is another example of the most populous countries in the world recognising that they have power: both political and commercial - and exercising it.
Whether the "objectionable" material the Indian government is objecting to (surely de facto, if they object to it, that alone makes it objectionable?) is political in nature, religious, cultural or illegal is less of an issue. We already live in a world where a self-appointed copyright guardian in one country has given itself the right to dictate to everyone on the planet what they may or may not show, stream, upload or view. That's got to be a far less legitimate use of power than for an elected body to require similar controls within its own borders.
Let's fix the mote in our own eye first.
It's perfectly acceptable for millions in the country to live in squalor many of them without any form of education, clean water or electricity but post a faked naked picture of the idiots that continue to allow them to live in those conditions whilst partaking in the delights of the widespread corruption and suddenly their sensibilities need protected.
Huh this means that those who object to me saying things like the Koran is a book inciting violence and that most rag hats are out to kill christians is offensive. Well I am afraid that much of their rubbish is offensive to me so please can we block things relating to rag hat stuff on You tube and so on. Better yet just shut them from the internet for a week or three. With no server access then let them see how they cope.
Lets blow up all mosques, there lets see if they want that stopped. In fact, lets go one step further, stop all rag hat passports, make rag hat wearing and sympathising punishable by stoning (EXACTLY the same as the Koran asks that people who convert to Christianity are dealt with) All that stuff is offensive to me so MS, Yahoo, facebook and the like we want all that stuff removed from your sites.
Good grief! Not just a horrible racist rant against Muslims, by someone who's clearly never read beyond the title page of the Qu'ran, but by someone who is completely pig ignorant of world history too. For the record, India is predominantly Hindu, not Muslim. Didn't you do history in school then, pal? Probably too focussed on getting you NVQ in football hooliganism I expect. For the record, try Googling the partition of India. It happened in 1947, and split what was the former India under the British Empire into the modern (Hindu majority) India and the Muslim majority countries of West Pakistan and East Pakistan (which itself later turned into Bangladesh). I don't know. Sometimes I really do despair of my fellow countrymen. You'll be telling us next that the fundamental principle of Buddhism is every man for himself, I suppose.
I really don't mind if India blocks Google or Facebook - it would be "as if millions of voices cried out and were suddenly silenced" - all those India based cold callers will struggle to pretend they're called Dave and are just down the road because they've checked on the weather in your general area or what's going on in Eastenders before they start their evening of auto-dialled pestering.
Go for it India - see who squeals first - your own businesses or Google/Facebook.
There was a report earleir this week that in India a government agency sampled milk in 33 states and found 68 percent were contaminated.
Detergent, filthy water etc.
Now that is obscene, particularly given the hunger strikes to get anti corruption legislation passed - or a watered down version which has nearly passed but not yet.
Whereas I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of politicians protecting their over inflated pride is a part of this, there is a more serious side, which has nothing to do with such things. It is the kind of content which may result in mobs killing each other, whether it is in the name of religion, caste or whatever. Don't other countries have laws against stuff?
India has grown up a lot in recent years. The terrorism still goes on, but, thank god and the common sense of Indian people, those who seek to turn one group against another often fail. Carnage is one of their tools. It seems facebook may be another.
It is easy to dismiss people as prudes, but it is nowhere near that simple. In fact, it could be a matter of lives and deaths.
Every single religious sect on the entire subcontinent commits mass bloodletting via street mobs on a repetitive and reliable basis. To say that India has 'grown up' in recent years is to dismiss nearly every media source available, including the state sponsored ones.
True: India has a huge number of terrorist attacks. Far too many. Before you dismiss the "growing up" in the sense that I mean it, please go look at your media reports and see just how many recent bomb blasts have led to "Mass blood-letting on a repetitive and reliable basis." Not many. It is their purpose, and they fail, even though too many people suffer in the attempts.
Let them fail to stir up inter-community violence on the net too. As I said, don't other countries have laws against the promotion of hate and violence?
It would appear that the Prime Minister of India - Manmohan Singh, and the ruling Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi have joined together with the most dreaded force known to man - Lawyers, and are now vying for the title of 'The Biggest Puddle of Santorum in India'.
Maybe Santorum Americanus should join forces with Santorum Indicum and jointly sue the likes of Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.
We can call it 'The Grand Santorum Technicum'!
Yeah, good luck with that.
As for the silly SOPA (a.k.a softSOAP) posturing - anything that can be erected in cyberspace can and will be be circumcised.
I almost forgot to say, Mmmm... frothy!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019