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.
"A computer science student, Ajith pleaded that the comments made on the blog were mere exercise of their fundamental right to freedom of expression and speech and could not be treated as an offence by police. Unimpressed, the Bench said, "We cannot quash criminal proceedings. You are a computer student and you know how many people access internet portals. Hence, if someone files a criminal action on the basis of the content, then you will have to face the case. You have to go before the court and explain your conduct." So in essence, you are free to speak...and they are free to press criminal charges. Kind of like libel suits here in the States
Putting aside the particulars of this case, something that really bothers me about law in general is that somebody has to be punished for a precedent to be set.
Suppose (taking an example from this case), the fellow genuinely believed that an Orkut community was not equivalent to a public forum. Without a very specific law, and without a ruling on the matter, all a lawyer would be able to tell him would be "maybe".
So your choices: a) play it safe, and never do anything that hasn't specifically been ruled "legal", or b) proceed, and when you're the first to find out it's not legal, you get slapped hard.
"a" is what most people choose, and it's among the largest costs of our lawyer-ocracy.
Is there a way for a judge to declare something illegal while letting a guy off the hook if he genuinely had no way to know for sure?
No, I think the Indians need to offshore their blogging to the US where there is more freedoms of speech. What is it the economists call it? Comparative advantage?
Shiv Sena are a bunch of corrupt racist bastards. This judgement smacks of someone having bought the Supreme court so that they would have the power to crack down on people who have negative things to say about them and their bullshit political agenda. They are not above violence, torture, extortion, anything. I fear that nothing can stop these sectarian fucks from ruining my country. Where once the press had the freedom to poke fun at any politician they felt like, now they have to walk on eggshells.
Also, the judge who delivered this judgment was no less than the Chief Justice himself. Thing is, he hasn't said that what the blogger said was wrong. He says that the blogger is responsible for what he writes.
I'm disturbed by this. I believe the Internet should be a place where anyone can say anything. This will only increase anonymous blogging. On the other hand, I would be very hesitant to trash the judiciary as it's one of the few pillars of Indian society that is keeping corrupt politicians from doing whatever the hell they want.