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.

Comments

Oh Boy

[WiiVault]

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.

Re:Oh Boy

[JPortal]

Yup. Gandhi was imprisoned 4 years for sedition.

But what do you mean "like the US"? How can the U.S. be considered the bastion of freedom of speech, unless in name only?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Re:Oh Boy

[slashdotlurker]

I do not think you can. I have spent some time in India in the past. Judges there are not elected. Instead, they are like bureaucratic career professionals, selected through some examinations, and appointed by elected officials. A bit like our (and their) civil service.

That system has its pluses and minuses. The minus is pretty obvious in this case. The plus is that their judiciary, though as corrupt as the rest of the country, is under no political pressure. I would check this with some of our Indian friends here, but I think its pretty hard to fire a judge there.

Re:Oh Boy

[PitaBred]

No, the fairness doctrine was stupid. Sometimes there aren't two sides that you need to give equal time to. Like evolution and Intelligent Design. Evolution is the only one that even reasonably needs discussed.

Or there are more than two sides, more valid viewpoints than two overarching "types" could adequately represent. There are a hell of a lot of people in the US that are perfectly fine with gay marriage AND being fiscally responsible. That doesn't fit into the "liberal" or "conservative" bracket, though.

Freedom and Shackles are not compatible

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:Freedom and Shackles are not compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, free speech never existed and never will. Constraints will always be put on speech because society only likes and wants to allow speech that is socially acceptable. That's why hate speech is illegal in many places--people don't value freedom of speech for the sake of freedom of speech, they look to utilitarian value of speech and they'll drop the principle in a moment, claiming "free speech doesn't cover X" while doing so.

You may not like it, but it's a feature of liberal democracies, and as long as we have liberal democracies the individual will always be subservient to the whole.

Re:Freedom and Shackles are not compatible

[damburger]

Indeed. In Nazi Germany, you were free to say whatever you wanted, but the Gestapo was equally free to torture you and execute you for it.

Re:Freedom and Shackles are not compatible

[stonewallred]

You are a slave when you decide to be a slave. Until that point, you may be shackled and gagged, beat and tortured, but you are still free. When the desire to fight, to escape, to search for physical freedom is lost, then you are a slave. Until then you are a prisoner.

Re:Freedom and Shackles are not compatible

[Ashriel]

Actually, the argument over the Bill of Rights was that if it were included than possibly sometime in the future the government might assume that the rights enumerated within might be considered the only rights that citizens have.

Hence the 9th Amendment, which clearly states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here in the U.S., citizens have any and all rights to do whatever they can imagine, the sole exceptions being actions that interfere with others' rights, and rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights that have been constrained by law for the purpose of the common welfare.

At least, that's how it's supposed to be. Our government has been ignoring the Constitution for a long time now. Things need to be set right.

Re:Is this so different than the U.S?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Good way to drive them underground

[Captain Splendid]

They already do that, it's called immigration to the US.

Re:A column of democracy...FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!

[geobeck]

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.

Re:Precedence

[JustinOpinion]

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.

Re:Is this so different than the U.S?

[Danger Will 42]

I agree. This is what I garnered as well. Freedom to speak doesn't equal freedom to slander.