Comments on: Shiv Sena’s Orkut Campaign: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant India

By: thunker

thunker — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:17:53 +0000

Google USA certainly complies with Indian Police’s authority over them. This authority is vested by Indian Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 91(1). This section of CrPC is related to general evidence gathering, and not specific to IT or cybercrime laws.

However, Indian Police could be misusing the authority they enjoy over Google USA. Google USA has always co-operated with governments of all kinds, whether or not they protect freedom of speech.

If Google USA promotes Freedom of Speech in the USA, it is only because it can afford to do so in the USA. It is because of USA, not Google.

Let netizens be aware that Google is not here to provide freedom of speech on a universal basis. Nor is the USA in that business. Citizens have to make sure that their home countries make the right laws. Google is no shortcut to freedom.

By: Global Voices dalam bahasa Indonesia » Sistem Kasta di Orkut Cermin Keganjilan Masyarakat India

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:46:53 +0000

[...] sudah pernah menulis tentang pendekatan militan Shiv Sena dalam komunitas Orkut sebagai langkah penting bagi Partai tersebut, Bal…. Komunitas berdasarkan kasta di Orkut merupakan salah satu contoh mencemaskan dari komunitas [...]

By: Global Voices Online » Caste Based Communities on Orkut Mirror India’s Splintered Society

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:32:41 +0000

[...] have written before about Shiv Sena's militant approach towards Orkut communities critical of the party, its leader Bal Th…. Caste-based communities on Orkut are another disturbing example of online communities mirroring [...]

By: Caste Based Communities on Orkut Mirror India’s Splintered Society | Gauravonomics Blog

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:17:25 +0000

[...] have written before about Shiv Sena’s militant approach towards Orkut communities critical of the party, its leader Bal …. Caste-based communities on Orkut are another disturbing example of online communities mirroring [...]

By: Caste Based Communities on Orkut Mirror India’s Splintered Society | DigiActive.org

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:16:12 +0000

[...] have written before about Shiv Sena’s militant approach towards Orkut communities critical of the party, its leader Bal Thak…. Caste-based communities on Orkut are another disturbing example of online communities mirroring [...]

By: In the Supreme Court of the Indian Blogosphere « Kafila

In the Supreme Court of the Indian Blogosphere « Kafila — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:28:38 +0000

[...] In the Supreme Court of the Indian Blogosphere (I had written this article after the Supreme Court’s refusal to quash a defamation case in a Thane court against a student-blogger in Kerala, Ajith D. A shorter version was offered to a newspaper which refused to publish it. So finally I’m posting it here. For a better context, please see Lawrence Liang’s posts on the subject. Whatever is written below is without prejudice against any of the parties named. For the history of the Shiv Sena encounter with Orkut, I am graetful to Gaurav Mishra for this excellent article.) [...]

By: My Piece on Online Freedom of Expression in India in Indian Magazine Tehelka | Gauravonomics Blog

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:09:30 +0000

[...] Welcome to Gauravonomics Blog! Subscribe to my combined feed in a feed reader or by e-mail and you’ll never miss a single post. Thanks for visiting!An edited version of my post on online freedom of expression in India appeared in Tehelka recently. It is an edited version of post on Shiv Sena’s crusade against Orkut communities. [...]

By: Medianama Editorial:Should we moderate All Comments? : NAACHGAANA

Medianama Editorial:Should we moderate All Comments? : NAACHGAANA — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:44:56 +0000

[...] A case in the Supreme Court of India is going to set an important precedent in the way user generated content is looked at. Ajit D had started an anti-Shiv Sena community on Orkut, and following anonymous abusive comments on the community, a Shiv Sena member filed a police complaint under Sections 506 and 295 A. Ajit D reportedly sought the quashing of the complaint, suggesting that the comments were restricted to a community, and were an exercise of an individuals freedom of speech. Gauravonomics has put together a timeline. [...]

By: Editorial: Should We Moderate All Comments? | MediaNama

Editorial: Should We Moderate All Comments? | MediaNama — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:47:49 +0000

By: Hemanth

Hemanth — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:48:00 +0000

@Gaurav: It’s interesting to see how the Mumbai/Pune police finds its place among all these above mentioned cases. Communities like “I Hate…” have been there on orkut for a very long time, and it’s only in the past 2-3 years they have attracted considerable attention. I think, suing a blogger/individual members of Orkut for all those defamatory statements is easier than to do the same against an organisation or a political party…which is exactly why it’s disturbing too. I think I agree with what Sanjukta has to say…Blogging isn’t an obscure trend anymore and it’s time that we take up more responsibility for what we are writing.

Brilliant post…by the way, one of the paragraphs in your post seems to have been repeated twice…”Subsequently, Ajith got anticipatory bail from Kerala High Court and….”….:)

By: Priyanka

Priyanka — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:04:23 +0000

This is a very good post. I this this situation begs for a wider public debate on the role of internet in India especially political system. We need more education and awareness about using Internet appropriately. The situation shows that social networking websites are no more a personal space but have become a very public media.

By: Gaurav Mishra

Gaurav Mishra — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:28:55 +0000

@Ashit: I’m not going to defend someone who has posted death threats against someone, or allowed these comments to be posted and then refused to remove them, in the name of freedom of expression. As for politicians who issue such death threats are rallies, it’s up to us, as citizens to show our disapproval with our votes. The fact that we choose to not do so says something about our political system.

By: Gaurav Mishra

Gaurav Mishra — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:26:00 +0000

@Nandu: I agree, but we can’t go from the “publish then filter” paradigm to the “filter then publish” paradigm. That can only happen in China (but, then, we though that many things can only happen in China).

By: Ashit

Ashit — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:22:13 +0000

So giving death threats on blogs is not acceptable, but politicians giving death threats to an entire section of the population (read minorities) during rallies is alright?

I am not saying such behavior (death threats crosses the lines of freedom of expression) is acceptable however everyone should be held to the same standard.

By: Nandu Muralidharan

Nandu Muralidharan — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:09:07 +0000

Gaurav, I agree with you that less regulation is better and I also believe in freedom of speech/expression. IMHO airing your opinion/critisizing or saying that a person/group sucks and having a healthy argument over it is perfectly fine. Giving death threats in online forums is taking this freedom of expression too far and I don’t think it should be encouraged.

By: Gaurav Mishra

Gaurav Mishra — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:29:23 +0000

@Amit: Yes, these trends are disturbing, and using anonymizers is an option all of us need to think about.

@Nandu: I tend to believe that less regulation on the internet is better than more regulation, because regulation, especially on political speech, is a rather slippery slope.

By: Nandu Muralidharan

Nandu Muralidharan — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:37:17 +0000

Excellent post and sum up if this issue. While I do agree that freedom of speech & expression is impacted by these type of police involvement and court cases, Individuals also need to act responsibly and morally. Putting a death threat on forums/internet is definitely not acceptable and whoever put these threats should be punished.

One solution possible solution to this is introducing some kind of content filtering where by the owner of these groups/communities can put a policy in place to block certain key words/group of words from being published in the community. Alternatively they could put a policy to moderate these posts containing these key words so that someone can review and approve it for publishing. They should also publish rules of conduct for community and if anyone violates these rules they should be banned from these communities.

To sum up both netizens and Govt/police needs to act together to fix these issues. Social network tools/community owners need to ensure that derogatory content is not published without moderation/filtering and Govt/Police need to be able to differentiate better between expression of opinion Vs Offensive content and they need to do sufficient due diligence before taking actions.

By: Amit Upadhyay

Amit Upadhyay — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:39:47 +0000

This is more disturbing than it appears: I am left with only one option, to use anonymizers and encrypted, untracable networks. Govt action and police is forcing me to.

If we do that, nearly all investigation will be stonewalled. Terrorists will use it too. Its not easy to break these things for even NSA in US.