Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court of India Comes Down On Bloggers
An anonymous reader writes "The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that bloggers cannot shelter under an escape clause such as 'Any views expressed are solely those of the writers' to exercise freedom of speech in discussions and statements online. The ruling comes in response to an anti-defamation case filed against a 19 year old student's Orkut community, commenting upon the right-wing political organization Shiv Sena. This organization is based in the western state of Maharashtra and has been responsible for inflammatory speeches and numerous attacks upon non-Maharashtrians." The article does not make it entirely clear whether the student owner is himself accused of defamatory speech, or only commenters posting on his site. His defense that an Orkut community is not equivalent to a public forum was denied.
It amazes me how quickly civil liberties are being eroded around the world. It seems like every time I read the news or slashdot I hear another theft of the public good. Time to vote these bums out.
>>>The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that bloggers cannot shelter under an escape clause to exercise freedom of speech
If the politicians/leaders have shackles on your mouth, you are no longer free. They own your mouth and control what can be said. You are a slave.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that bloggers cannot shelter under an escape clause such as 'Any views expressed are solely those of the writers'
That isn't any kind of escape clause. Basically, it's a clause that says that views ARE the responsibility of the writers. "Editors" aren't mentioned as a writer, but they could be described as such. In addition, it doesn't say anything regarding to expressions presented not as a "view" but as a "fact".
But after how many dollars are wasted? And all the other stress factors? This only further illustrates the necessity of anonymity.
What?
The threat of having to spend the money to defend yourself, possibly of having to be arrested and incarcerated while awaiting a criminal trial, is onerous enough that it would keep people from speaking freely.
They already do that, it's called immigration to the US.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Freedom of speech has limits. If what you say is untrue and can reasonably be argued to damage someone's reputation, then that person has a legitimate case. I haven't read the blog in question, but it boils down like this:
If I say something like "I don't like Smidge because I don't believe in his ideology", that's neither inflammatory nor defamatory.
If I say something like "Smidge is a threat to democracy in India!", that's inflammatory, but too general to be libelious. Smidge could bring a suit against me, but it would likely die before seeing a court room.
If I said something like "Smidge should be arrested because he makes kiddie pr0n", that's inflammatory and defamatory, and would likely go to trial.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message belong to no one in particular, and are likely just random characters assembled by my army of monkeys with typewriters. And IANAL.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
I've often wondered why there isn't a mechanism by which a person/company can go to a court and get some kind of "advanced ruling" or "pre-judgment". Basically you file some kind of case that is asking the court/judge "if I go ahead and do this... will it be legal?" Then based on the ruling, you can decide whether or not to do it. I would imagine that such a ruling would not be 100% binding, in the sense that you could still be sued even with a supportive "pre-judgment"... but presumably having such a judgment would go some way towards building a defense case and a long way towards demonstrating no willful disregard for the law.
Presumably the party asking for a such an advanced ruling would have to pay for their lawyer (and maybe some court fee?), but I would guess that it would still be highly valuable to many companies. There are so many startups that try things that are legally questionable (e.g. Psystar), and probably thousands of other startups that never see the light of day because investors are unsure about the legality. Shouldn't there be a way for these new ideas to be ruled legal/illegal without the massive risk of just going out and doing it!?
Of course IANAL so for all I know something like this already exists. Please educate me if so.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message belong to no one in particular, and are likely just random characters assembled by my army of monkeys with typewriters. And IANAL.
RTFA. That defense no longer works because comments by random people on a blog are actionable in India. There is no difference, legal or otherwise (in India), between blog commenters and monkeys randomly bashing away on keyboards.
There, fixed that for you.
$ make available
I agree. This is what I garnered as well. Freedom to speak doesn't equal freedom to slander.
India fought for independence when fighting for the right to self determination even though there were homeless people at that time too. Should the freedom fighters have said "We have bigger problems?"
The lower infrastructural facilities in India deserve attention, no doubt, but not at the cost of what makes India a free country. Also, why is are you implying that the two are exclusive? You can't say - "First I will do this, and then I will do that".
Tolerating Free speech is about changing an attitude. Where does the lack of clean water come into this?
On big difference is that the US has far better protection of free speech than India (or Europe). Hurting people's feelings is not a criminal offence in the US, as it often is in India