India Moves To Censor Social Media

An anonymous reader writes "India's Telecoms minister has prompted an uproar after it was revealed he met with executives from Google and Facebook to pressure them into screening 'objectionable' content. Critics argue it is a dangerous step down China's censorship path. 'He denied such a demand was censorship. There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said. The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.'

Comments

But it fails

[roman_mir]

The real story is this: India Moves TO Censor Social Media ... but it fails in the face of /. dupes./a.

Re:But it fails

[jezwel]

Mod up - I can still see the original from just yesterday.

Re:But it fails

[mwvdlee]

Well, they won't post racist insults on a technology site for one.

I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

people like him come to power. The only way for me not to be offended is for him to step down immediately.

Re:I'm offended

[Fluffeh]

I'm offended people like him come to power.

But that is the exact sort of character that democratic systems allow into power. The world wide, elections are won by those who are charasmatic, say the right things on camera and during conferences - then once they are in office, all of their "true" goals come to light as they try to keep themselves in power. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but have a look at this democratic election in 1932 and have a look at how people were misguided into who and what they voted for.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a relevant quote from the article:

Telecoms and Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal met executives from Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Monday to ask them to screen content, but no agreement with the companies was reached. Stinking of rotten body odor and unwashed genitalia, he excused himself from the streetside interview and urinated on a curb, hypocritically kicking a dog that was trying to do the same thing.

Returning to the coffee shop where the interview was taking place, spots of stray urine all over the crotch of his pants, Kapil gave both his pits a whif and resumed the interview. The representatives from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo asked him what his background was. Kapil stated that all of them should know, as Kapil is a coder for an outsourcing company with all of the big four as clients. "Hell," he stated, "it's the least you could do for me and my coworkers, we write your software." He then pointed at a pile of dog feces near the table and said, "You pay us instead of Americans to write code like that - Your country must be veddy veddy bad!"

When asked what Kapil's plans for the future were, he said, "Well, politics, obviously, but my team and I are finishing up the new Slashdot website. It works everytime, with every browser. They came to us because they couldn't make it themselves, and I am happy to say that is why people come to India for best coding practices. We are also responsible for adding all of the flashy stuff to Youtube, and for making Yahoo relevant again." After scratching his testes through his pants, Kapil coughed and said, "that's all. Thank you, come again," as he pulled a long stick of jerky out of his pocket, held it against his crotch pointing outward, and asked all of the representatives to shake it one-by-one. They all reluctantly did, as their holiday bonuses depended a lot on their sending of American jobs to Kapil's stewardship.

Re:I'm offended

[roman_mir]

Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.

Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?

---

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).

But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.

Re:I'm offended

[wdef]

Hahhahhha! Somebody mod this Funny.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the correct answer to 1 through 7 is yes. If it was no, we'd be libertarians or libertards.

Re:I'm offended

[roman_mir]

the above comment proves my point.

Re:I'm offended

[Ethanol-fueled]

Why? It's an obvious troll based on bad stereotypes. The person who wrote it is clearly a retard.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

I took it as a mock example of the type of derogatory caricature this politician will try to censor. I don't know of a stereotype that this describes. Troll? Trolls seek a pointless argument. No-one seems to be arguing with him.

Re:I'm offended

[causality]

Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences.

What do you expect? They're government educated by a system that is more concerned about not hurting anyone's feelings than it is with things like dialectic, critical thinking, and instilling intellectual independence. Most are far too passive (something promoted in the media by repeated example) to recognize this as a problem on their own and educate themselves despite the Information Age. This page sums it up nicely. The "lesson of dependency" is the hinge on which all the others rest.

I'll highlight the most glaring stupidity of this proposal, the unspoken and unacknowledged aspect it deliberately ignores.

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

... that you almost definitely won't see unless you are looking for it. It reminds me of people who call up a talk show to tell the host how much they hate him, his views, and his show ... yet they're quite familiar with all of it. You'd think a person would go with one of the multitude of other choices and listen to something other than whatever he finds offensive, but that would mean having nothing to bitch about. Nothing to bitch about would mean being denied their five minutes of climbing up on their high horse and feeling superior to someone else while they pontificate against them. This is very important to nothing human beings with no real sense of purpose in their lives and would be a great loss to them.

There are things I don't like so I don't watch them, listen to them, read them, etc, but it never occurs to me to feel offended. I don't get any pleasure or satisfaction from trying to force my will on others because I'm not an insecure fevered ego. If I were, I'd feel a sacred duty to work on fixing it while never making it someone else's problem. So, the fact that I don't enjoy something doesn't make me feel like no one else should (assuming it's just a matter of taste -- i.e. I don't feel that way about armed robbery -- since some of you are childish and jump all over every little thing not spelled out for you).

"I'm offended!" is a covert and thus cowardly way of saying "therefore, you should yield to me and change it to accommodate my tastes". It's an emotional appeal unconsciously designed to conceal a desire to control. The people who want to control others using this method are far too timid to try gaining any kind of domination or power to get what they want, so they go for the pity appeal instead. They try to gain the sympathy of someone who already has power or authority and by proxy obtain the control they desire. If they are thwarted, they accuse the authority of being insensitive and try to ridicule or shame (i.e. manipulate) them into doing their will.

The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like. These are the same disruptive types who aren't going to respect censorship laws. They would view them as a challenge. If anything, using Tor or some other international, jurisdiction-crossing proxy to evade censorship would only add to their thrill.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

For me, it depends on the regulations. I don't care for child slave labor or dumping chemicals in rivers, for instance. I don't see why anyone would think that all regulation is bad, or that the free market is able to work around every little problem (which might not even be deemed as a problem by an ignorant populace).

But, then again, anyone with a different opinion than anyone else is automatically wrong to those people.

Re:I'm offended

[Skidborg]

So how exactly do you propose to stop criminals without imposing on their civil liberties? How the heck do you propose that the constitution is even to be used if you are not going to interpret it? It's just inkblots on paper if you don't read it and convert it from ink to thoughts and concepts.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomies one one all. You are either a manipulator, or a moron. Possibly both.

Re:I'm offended

[Guy Harris]

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

...

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances

...which means you have a constitution that states things so precisely that it's impossible to draw more than one conclusion about what anything it says means. Do you have an example of such a constitution? (Hint: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is not part of such a constitution - what's a "limited Time"? This is not, BTW, an idle question, given, for example, various Acts of Congress that keep extending the lifetime of copyrights.)

Re:I'm offended

[Requiem18th]

That's why I propose to establish a Sortition system where a body of randomly selected jurors (obviously screened for violent crimes, mental health, etc) would be given governing power over the region the jurors are from. The State Jury might decide to elect one of the State Governor candidates as State Minister, but they will retain power to oversee and override his/her decisions, as well as the power to remove or add members to the Minister's Cabinet. The system could be established at any single level or number of levels but I can see it working from City Juries to Federal Juries replacing the President.

The same should be used for the legislative branch. There is no reason to select 2 rich guys to represent a million average people, specially when these 2 guys aren't even required to follow on their candidacy promises. A representative sample of the people who will actually live under the laws they pass is a much better choice. Heck, a Grand Jury is about 23 people strong and that's just to take a guy to trial.

And yes, the system isn't perfect. The Jury might turn out to be filled with racist, homophobic ass-holes. It might turn out to be composed entirely of ignorant creationist folk who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed. But we already elect people who are racist, homophobic, ignorant creationist people who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed.

And I'm sure blackmailing 23 people is harder than blackmailing just one.

Re:I'm offended

[mister_playboy]

At first I thought you made the AC comment and then posted this as meta-humor, but you usually sign your AC posts.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me saying that a constitution isn't open to interpretation also presupposes a flawless constitution. I seem to remember a few bad things being slipped in there (like prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment and the Three-Fifths Compromise). If the Constitution were not open to interpretation and alteration, where would we be now? I'm not saying it isn't a good document, but at the same time, it shouldn't be deified. Rule of Law does not mean taking everything as absolutes set in stone.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.

If the answer to the rest of your hypothetical questions is "no", then, sure, I understand the long-term "real consequences". For example, if not allowing government to enact #5 it would mean that eventually I wouldn't have access to road, fire department, border security, police, justice systems, and any number of other services commonly paid for with taxes and implemented by government. I wouldn't be able to afford them all by myself. The profit-motivated companies that ran them would focus their efforts on the richer clientele where the real money was rather than me (especially with no regulation, as in #7, they'd gouge as much as they could once a monopoly was established). I'd either be out more money than taxes would have costed or I would simply have to do without the service if my particular need wasn't profitable. And the same would be true of most of my neighbors.

I know exactly what we'd have if people thought long-term and the answer to those questions was "no": we'd roll back the state of society to something like it was several hundred years ago, which I'm sure people clueless about history would imagine to be better than it is now.

What you actually need is a citizenry that cares enough and are involved enough with government that they prevent the abuses. If citizens instead become lazy and inattentive about what their government is doing on their behalf, then it goes wrong. And it wouldn't particularly matter what the answers were to those questions if the citizens were lazy and inattentive. You'd be screwed regardless of the answers. Everyone would be too busy putting food on the table today to think at all about long-term issues.

Go back to your smug fantasy world or move to Somalia. Things aren't as simple as you imply. Or do you have a magical solution that is more efficient and will inevitably cost less for people than having a government empowered financially and legally to do something rather than let crime happen and do nothing to constrain business practices to fair competition?

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

No, there is already a mechanism for it. If it's broke, amend it.

2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?

No, debt has to be paid eventually otherwise it's theft, not borrowing.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

Obviously yes; by definition money is a government construct, it exists by law otherwise business would mint their own cash or we'd barter. [Fiat currency is fiat because you can use it to pay tax, that's what makes it special compared to an "IOU"]

4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?

This is a gray question, it depends on the person. Either system is sustainable though guaranteed safety nets tend to make places more pleasant in the highly probable event something goes wrong.

5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?

Yes, automatically follows 3.

6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?

No, reducing liberty and privacy to prevent crime is also known as pre-crime. i.e. trying to arrest people because they might have been thinking about doing something illegal. Police and the court system exist to mediate disputes when they occur, not outright prevent everything before it happens. (liberty or absolute safety, pick one).

7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

Yes, businesses are government constructs that exist by law, they rely on other laws like contract law (employment, supply deals, etc) as well so are, by definition, government regulated (only legal contracts are enforceable, guess who decides what is legal). Businesses which exist outside this system are called Organized Crime Syndicates (eg. Mafia) which have their own private police (enforcers) who carry out sentences (kill you) for breaking company by-laws. It's interesting that the government-free business construct (OCS) ends up looking like a government and business rolled into one (fascist state).

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

I suppose, if you were prone to short term thinking about what is good for you personally right now without regard for anyone else or the long-term consequences, then "no" for everything makes sense. Other people who know anything about history, law, economics and logic might not feel the same way.

Re:I'm offended

[arkenian]

Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.

Oh, its even worse than that. While interpreting the constitution should naturally be done with great care and respect, its worth noting that it is DOCUMENTED FACT, that several clauses in the constitution are intentionally vague because no more specific language could be agreed on. In other words, the founding fathers pretty much wrote several of the arguments that still exist today straight into our constitution knowingly ...

Re:I'm offended

[Sarten-X]

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

Yes. The societal context in which the Constitution is viewed changes, as do the very meanings of words (such an "insure" in the preamble to the Constitution, which now relates almost exclusively to financial matters). As an example, consider the curtailing of "free speech" to exclude speech which causes "imminent lawless action". Falsely warning about a bomb in a crowded building is extremely likely to cause assault, theft, and vandalism as people try to escape. Merely advocating illegal behavior at an indeterminate time in the future is not imminent, and is thus not prohibited. There are, of course, other laws that can affect how speech may be presented. You can not abuse or harass others with your ideas, for example. In my opinion, nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.

2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?

Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations that are not yet fully funded, nor expected to be. If the government has said it will pay several million dollars for a new fighter jet over the next 20 years, that full several-million dollar figure is counted as debt, even though only a small part of it is actually due now. Planning for future expenses is a reasonable thing to do, no? Another large portion of debt is a financial device to free up quantities of money for other uses. More on that shortly.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?

According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes". A strong economy is one where money moves freely and quickly, and everyone gets what they want. In other words, "to each according to his need". When the government adds money to the economy through the Federal Reserve Bank, it also adds an equal amount of debt. Increasing the monetary supply allows the public to have more money to spend immediately, with the knowledge that said money will disappear again shortly. It enables a strong economy to be built (or rebuilt), and when the economy is running again, the money supply can be reduced gradually to improve efficiency and reduce the effects of inflation.

There is a riddle about a man dying, leaving his 19 horses to be divided among his three sons, with the eldest receiving half, the middle receiving one fourth, and the youngest receiving one fifth. After trying for several days to figure out how to divide a horse, the local wise man came and brought his own horse, adding it to the pool. The eldest received 10, the middle received 5, and the youngest received 4. The wise man then took his horse and left.

The economy works similarly. With the temporary addition of money, transactions can be processed faster and easier, and operations can go more smoothly. The rapid response of the Federal Reserve Bank reduces the effect of recessions, and speeds recovery.

4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?

Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

Deposit insurance reduces the effect of bank runs. Before 1933, when a bank was in danger of closing, customers would rush to get their money out, before it became lost in the disappearing bank. Since banks can't keep all of their holdings on hand at once, some people would inevitably lose their savings. Now, there is no need to make that rush to withdraw, because even if banks are closed, the money is protected. Less damage from bank runs means the banks keep more money available, are are less likely to

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

read it and understand what it literally says. any retard can understand it. it only becomes difficult when law school educated weasel gets involved and starts twisting the words around.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

Econ 101:

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution? 2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt? 3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost? 4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)? 5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes? 6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties? 7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

1. If we don't interpret a constitution, how will anyone know what's written in it?

2. Both individuals and governments who don't understand debt end up in trouble. First, debt is a great tool. If you have a fantastic business idea that requires a lot of money (that you don't have at the moment), borrow. If your country is in a recession and you need to kickstart the economy, spend over your budget. It works. However, debt should only be used for one time expenses that you can repay. If you use debt to fund recurring short term costs, you'll never get out of it, and you end up in trouble. If you understand debt and use it when it is supposed to be used, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with debt.

3. I don't know what exactly you mean by "control", but technically, if the government was to have no control over money supply and cost, the government would shut down completely (or almost completely). A recession would become worse if the government watched it become worse by spending less (because revenue decreases) and not changing monetary policy. By kick starting the economy, everyone benefits because the economy is moving again. The government can recover money once the economy is growing quickly. This doesn't mean, however, that government does not need to create an environment that promotes growth.

5. How else does can the government run? (You also don't want it to run on debt)

6. That you cannot steal from someone else's house is diminishing individual liberties. That you cannot kill anyone you wish is also diminishing individual liberties. We will only have true individual liberty if there is no such thing as a punishable crime and all forms of punishment, incentives and regulation are removed from the role of the government. Yet again you demonstrate a bizarre and unexplained hate towards the idea of government.

7. If you don't, they can steal from you, not give you your money back and even "money" may not exist.

Answering "no" to the questions 1-7 is effectively asking the government to shut itself down. Since I believe that the government plays an important role in society and should not be shut down, I cannot agree with you.

How is this related to censorship in India?

Re:I'm offended

[tragedy]

Here's my take on those:

1. Interpretation of the constitution might be considered to include such things as interpreting "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" to include e-mail messages, computer records and the contents of your cell phone during a traffic stop. Interpreting it _not_ to mean those things is also an interpretation (a bad one), but both ways of seeing it are interpretations. It's a 200+ year old document. Even with the amendment process, it still has a lot of language that only sorta-kinda fits the modern world. Generally the intent is pretty clear, and I'll admit that politicians and judges pretending they can't see that intent or that many modern inventions still fit the framework just fine is a real problem. But, for good or bad, the constitution pretty much requires interpretation.

2. That one's a no brainer. The government should never, ever go into debt without extraordinary circumstances such as a truly huge natural disaster. The fact that the US government has been living beyond its means for something like thirty years is truly disturbing. Basically, just about everyone who has held high office in this country during that entire time, except for a scarce few, deserve to be fired for gross incompetence for this state of affairs.

3. I would have to say that controlling money supply and cost is and pretty much always has been a basic function of government. Not just in the US, but in pretty much every government that's ever had some form of money. Suggesting that it be done some other way is fine and good, but at present our only other real alternative is to fall back to a pure barter economy or to use bitcoins, which aren't really proven yet. Some future technological advance might allow us to shift to an energy based economy or something like that, but we just aren't there yet. All that said, the government should act responsibly in its role as controller of the money supply (a role which it has actually kind of doled out to semi-private third parties).

4. As for giving the government power to insure people in any way, I have to say yes. Yes to insuring bank deposits because it's been proven necessary to protect people from financial disasters. The crucial thing is that the insurance should be to protect the depositers, not the banks. If a bank screws things up like that, the government should sweep in, nationalize it, weed management aggressively, voiding compensation requirements in contracts as it sees fit, get it back on track and then sell it via some open bidding process so it doesn't just get handed over to cronies for a song. For retirement, yes, but the money collected should be handled responsibly, not shamelessly raided. For healthcare, good gravy yes! The system the US has right now is an abomination. It's pretty much the worst healthcare in the developed world for the highest price. When you consider the sorts of things government is good for, pooling risk across the entire population is one of those things.

5. Governments need taxes to operate. Nearly all governments have an income tax of some sort. You could have a set tax amount that everyone pays regardless of income. Of course, if it's high enough to actually support government operations, then it's going to financially crush poorer people and barely be noticed by richer people. Poorer people doesn't just mean the lazy, it can also include people who can't work this year because an anvil fell on them. Plus, what about children? Just remember, if you make any exceptions for anyone, then you're once again taxing based on income, just with coarser granularity.

6. The US government is certainly going way too far on that one at present. Trouble is, this is one of those things where there's always a balance. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think convicted criminals shouldn't lose some liberties, at least for a time. On the other hand, the TSA is now groping people getting onto (and off of!) trains and buses. Even ignoring the

Re:I'm offended

[gmhowell]

Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language.

I'm sure the belief that one need not interpret the Constitution is a result of such brilliance as: A=A.

Re:I'm offended

[doccus]

Question is wrong.. should say 'Is it a correct thing to let *legislators* interpret the constitution".. Your courts do it all the time.. it's their mandate, in fact..

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.

Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?

---

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).

But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.

You Sir, are an ANARCHIST (sorry for yelling)

P.S. I agree with you completely !

Re:I'm offended

[Skidborg]

That's the thing though. I'm reading it literally. If taken at face value, your statement would, in fact, make a country completely inoperable.

Re:I'm offended

[dryeo]

The constitution was only meant to be temporary.

Re:I'm offended

[arkenian]

Question is wrong.. should say 'Is it a correct thing to let *legislators* interpret the constitution".. Your courts do it all the time.. it's their mandate, in fact..

Well, to be fair, the courts' ability to interpret the consitution is not actually explicitly stated in said document. They asserted that power in an early Supreme Court decision ( Marbury vs. Madison) and didn't get impeached for it -- in part because it actually reduced the authority of the court by stating congress didn't have the power to extend the authority of the court, a fascinating slight of hand, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in multiple speeches on the history of the court -- thus making it the law of the land. However when most people refer to "interpreting the constitution" they are, in fact, referring to judges doing so, and as a reference to the rather curious concept of 'activist judges'. All that said, this is hugely offtopic, and mods should probably take note accordingly. I just can't help myself on such an interesting point of discussion.

Re:I'm offended

[HJED]

1. No (but you phrased it badly it should be allow reinterpriation as it had to be interpreted at least once otherwise it can't be applied), 2. No, 3. Yes, 4. . Yes (forcing them to on the other hand is questionable) 5. Yes (otherwise there would be no government), 6. No, 7. Yes, 8. Yes

5. Is necessary for the government to exist and to serve its function
3 and 7 are functions of the government (at least to an extent) and if they weren't the state would be very close to anarchy and there would be very large wealth gaps and no financial security for anyone.
4. Is broadly open to interpretation, but I would point out that the government is there to provide insurance against foreign powers. Social Security also makes a nation more prosperous and stable which is good for everyone. Furthermore providing insurance does not degrade democratic or human rights which is the key indicator for if government policy is acceptable.

Re:I'm offended

[HJED]

Um, I don't think interpret means what you think it means. You your self are in fact interpreting it literally, however sometimes people don't always agree on the literal interpretation. I agree that it should be taken literally though.

Re:I'm offended

[Omestes]

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

So who holds the "True" interpretation of the document? How do they prove, beyond a doubt that they hold the "true" truth, the one that was locked firmly in the founder's heads. Basically your saying "my interpretation is right and because your interpretation is different, it is wrong, since mine is right". Which is a pretty blatant fallacy.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

I don't see why not. Government exists for "the people", corporations exist "for themselves", someone has to protect the former from the latter, which is why the former all got together and formed governments in the first place.

5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?

How isn't it? Government's provide a service (notice the phrase "provide for the general welfare...), and these services have to be paid for. People tell their governments to do something, the government has to somehow procure funds to carry out the people's will.

6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?

Your reading of political philosophy must be shallow, or selective. Your liberties end where mine begin, this is one of the primary (THE primary) functions of government. Government, by nature, is the sacrifice of certain individual liberties for the protection of the liberties of the whole. This has been the function of societies long before formal governments ever existed. Go live somewhere without effective government, and tell me how your liberties fair.

7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

See above.

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

Why's that? Because you say so?

But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term,

Looking at the "long term" history of government, I'd say answering "yes" to most of those questions have fared better than answering "no" to them. I personally enjoy my rights, my girlfriend enjoys her vote and equal rights, my black friends enjoy not having to work your plantation, and I'm very happy that I wasn't mangled in some factory as a child. I'm also very happy that my tax dollars have went to keeping me from dying at 35, or being shot in the streets, or dying because my neighbors house caught fire. I'm also happy that my food is safe to eat, etc... The long term outlook is pretty good. I don't know what the future holds, obviously, but the past is a pretty good predictor.

Sure, the world isn't perfect. Nor will it ever be. Though I'm glad would be tyrants, such as yourself, are held in check by the evil government. Your "utopia' sounds like hell.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?

So you must disagree with government sanctioned fire insurance?

Re:I'm offended

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

I'm sorry, can't resist to argue you here, I don't even care about your libertarian views or whatever the correct term is: it's all about point 1.

Saying you can't interpret a text is saying you may not give it meaning. You state the point as if interpretation is a voluntary thing, a way of twisting the 'true meaning' of a text, kind of like religious extremist might do.

However, without interpretation words will not make any sense.

Re:I'm offended

[jawahar]

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy addresses/resolves these issues.

Re:I'm offended

[rioki]

I would rather make a clear "it depends". As with many things there is no clear Yes / No. The big problem how much is the right thing amount the government should influence whatever.

1. Yes, the Constitution should be interpreted. You need to adapt the interpretation to the technological realities and resulting implications. You think GPS tracking is unconstitutional? Go look it up, there is no provision on this. Should the Constitution be perverted beyond the original intent, definitely No.

2. I am all for a balanced budget and any government should strive for that. But there are unforeseen consequences, such as natural disasters. Should the people be left alone during this state of emergency, because there is no budget? No, they should not.

3. & 7. Is government allowed to interfere with the free market? Generally no, but the government is there to ensure that everybody plays by the same rules and that there remains a free market. Yes this includes laws that prevent monopolies form and price rigging.

4. I don't know about you, but will rather live in a country that helps me cases of dire need that starting and freezing in the cold, just because I lost a job. Sure there is abuse and that need handled.

5. What are the alternatives to an income tax? Ok, you get a road tax for driving on the government built road, you get a police, fire department and paramedic tax... It's not perfect but the approach to tax income has at least the potential to be "fair"; people with high income pay more... but the current situation is a broken one, yes...

6. If due process is done, then it is ok. If there is reasonable grounds to suspect some illegal activity and a judge approves all and every measure on an individual basis it is better for the entire society. The danger comes from abuse of power and that must be prevented.

So, no you can't answer yes to every question. Because if you do you actually don't have a government left and that is not called democracy, that's called anarchism.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

The views in the above post are the exact reasons America is failing. You poor Americans just don't get it. Adapt or die, and your poor childish culture is too busy fighting with itself to adapt. The wisest thing the USA has ever done is start taking care of it's own with basic health care. But hey continue fighting about these things amongst yourselves, the world will just continue to pass you by.

Re:I'm offended

[flyneye]

Charismatic idiots still don't have a human right not to be offended. No one does anywhere, if they do, it's a totally retarded dictatorship like some Islamic country or of course the Chinese. I don't think the Chinese are very thin skinned about offensive material, just sex stuff. I guess that leaves India as the butt of the world joke.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

1. GPS tracking is done by the federal government. The Constitution doesn't specifically allow it, so it shouldn't be allowed. It's only through "interpreting" that shit like this is allowed.
2. From the US government's inception until we were taken off the gold standard, the government did acquire debt when it was needed, mostly to fund wars but also for other reasons like disaster aid. But that debt was always quickly paid off, and most of the time there was no debt. Now the government *lives on debt*, meaning not only is it incapable of paying the debt back, but the inability to acquire more debt would bring it to its knees. That's what the GP was talking about.
3 & 7 can not be lumped together. As we've seen, if the government doesn't regulate business, then the businesses will end up monopolizing industries, owning the government (the current state we are quickly working toward), and generally becoming all-powerful. So I do agree that the answer to 7 should be a yes. However the gov controlling money supply and cost is completely unrelated. This is related to the fact that the fed only prints money for the gov, and they print when and how much the gov asks for. Other governments have (had) even more control than ours does. Generally this type of situation does not work out well for The People.
4. Federal insurance programs can be helpful, and countries have been prosperous both with and without them. Given a reliable government, they can be very useful. However with a democratic government and competition-driven business, I think it'd be better to let the private sector handle insurance with government regulation. The only US federal insurance program that has been remotely successful is FDIC and that's because they control the money. If your bank gets robbed, no problem. But if people run the banks, they can't do anything but print more money, and that never helps.
5. The US government worked *just fine* without an income tax for the first hundred years. The first peacetime federal income tax wasn't implemented until almost the 20th century, and even then the tax was only 2% for the few people who did have to pay it. If they had tried to make everyone pay 20% income tax 200 years ago, there would have been a revolution.
6. This one is a resounding NO. Even if the people were so distraught that they were clamoring for such legislation (which has never happened in the USA) the government STILL shouldn't enact it because part of their job is to be a voice of reason and prevent knee-jerk reactions among the population. None of these powers were ever granted to the fed in the Constitution, the only way they were enable to enact 95% of this type of bullshit federal mandate is via the Interstate Commerce Clause which has been raped and beaten and abused in ways that would make a meth whore blush. There is no such thing as due process when you're dealing with witch trials, which is what the whole post-911 terrorist watch list is. It's even worse because no one asked for this, the fed did it on their own despite people's massive disapproval. How are they going to protect our way of life by destroying it?

Re:I'm offended

[chrismcb]

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

What else do we do with it? Throw it in the trash bin? If you can't interpret it, then you can't read it and follow it. You know, words have different meanings. And terms aren't black and white.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is not part of such a constitution - what's a "limited Time"? This is not, BTW, an idle question, given, for example, various Acts of Congress that keep extending the lifetime of copyrights.

A "limited Time" is easy. But 'for limited Times to Authors and Inventors' are where it is failing - the law is giving the author copyright for his whole life, which may be fine, but afterwards that copyright is being secured by other people, which is beyond the scope of what the constitution allows.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

The answer to this one is an emphatic yes. For examples of why the alternative is so much worse, see circa-1900s Industrial Revolution in America.

This is why they need to teach more history in school.

I understand the basic premise of libertarianism, but there are a couple of problems with it that your type really ignores:

1. Not everyone thinks like you
2. Tribalism is the ultimate result of having no central authority. This means you will get gang-robbed, raped, and killed by the first group big enough to wipe everybody out. For an example of this, see most of present-day Africa.

You're only kidding yourself if you really think that's a desirable system to live under.

Re:I'm offended

[mandelbr0t]

The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like.

Which is precisely the point of the attempted censorship. You admit yourself, from your lofty view of total freedom to say what you like, that people will be exposed to offensive material. You practice self-censorship (i.e. burying your head in the sand) in the face of something you don't like. I don't think that government censorship is an appropriate response, but "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't always work.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no',

wrong
The correct answer to 1-7 is "yes"

1. Everything is interpreted. There is no possible way to not interpret the constitution other than to ignore it.
2. In times of crisis, running a deficit CAN help economic recovery
3. Yes. Otherwise I have to lug around barter and/or trade goods.
4. Yes. Read the constitution sometime "general welfare" clause and all.
5. Yes. Read the amendments to the constitution. Whether you like it or not, government costs money.
6. Yes. Otherwise I could come and give you the kick to the nuts you deserve and nothing could be done about it.
7. Oh hell yes. We're in the mess we are in because the government does not properly regulate businesses. Did you know that 3 common ways to preserve milk before refrigeration were: whiskey (yay), plaster of paris(=/), and arsenic (wtf). Yes. Government regulation put a stop to that.

In short, you are a grade A moron and should go move to one of those collapsing African nations that have no rule of law.

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominems aren't points, they're fallacies.

Re:I'm offended

[causality]

Which is precisely the point of the attempted censorship.

It will work about as well as drug prohibition. It's a law that is easily evaded and won't be widely respected. Yes you can try to order men around this way and micromanage their every action but it never really works. On an international Internet it's just too easy to get around it.

You admit yourself, from your lofty view of total freedom to say what you like, that people will be exposed to offensive material.

Yes, they will. Let's see. The most comprehensive, amazing, massive collection of information that has ever appeared before in all of human history plus the ability to instantly communicate with nearly anyone in the world and exchange information as equals... that's on the plus side. The occasional troll or asshat, that's on the minus side. Yeah, I think I like the trade-off. It's not broken and doesn't need fixing. Dealing with the minus side is called by various names -- I tend to favor "grow a pair".

You practice self-censorship (i.e. burying your head in the sand) in the face of something you don't like.

This word, it does not seem to mean what you think it means. Self-censorship means I want to say something but I fear the consequences of saying it. Not watching shows that don't interest me isn't self-censorship. Not listening to people I think are crazy isn't self-censorship. It's not burying your head in the sand, either.

Right now someone somewhere is listening to a song you absolutely couldn't stand. It would drive you up the wall with its annoying refrain and irritating sound. You didn't look for this song and purchase it online, not because you fear it but because you don't generally buy things you know you won't like. Are you hiding from it? Are you cowering in the shadows? Are you burying your head in the sand? Or are you merely acting in a rational manner by not participating (voting with your feet/wallet) in things you dislike?

I question the intellectual honesty of someone who can't disagree with something without falsely mischaracterizing it, as you have done.

I don't think that government censorship is an appropriate response, but "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't always work.

Where that doesn't work, sucking it up and moving on does. That's a tiny, tiny price to pay to live in the Information Age. Sometimes you just don't know how good you have it.

Re:I'm offended

[mandelbr0t]

Where that doesn't work, sucking it up and moving on does. That's a tiny, tiny price to pay to live in the Information Age. Sometimes you just don't know how good you have it.

Which is generally what I do. But, I'm not going to stop reading /. because of the trolls, either. And, if I disagree with them, I'll often express my point of view.

No one gets +5 insightful without at least some sort of argument, weak as it may be. ;-)

Re:I'm offended

[ffflala]

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution? 2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt? 3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost? 4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)? 5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes? 6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties? 7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business? 8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form? --- The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

Oh ffs. To believe that the "correct" answer to those questions is always no demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history. What's worse, you consider yourself a "sophisticated" voter!

Those questions have been answered no repeatedly, by similarly-minded people, and have repeatedly ended in widespread, disastrous, often violent failures.

Are you unaware of the violence and damage wrought by strict literalists of various types? It continues to this day. Why would you think constitutional literalists would differ from biblical or koranical literalists? How many more examples of this guy do you need -- http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

Have you learned nothing at all of the depths of depravity to which industrial will stoop if unregulated? Refer to the Sago Mine disaster for a recent example, if you can't bother with the countless examples from centuries past.

Do you recommend preserving the individual liberties of violent felons --murderers, rapists, extortionist thugs, etc-- at the expense of security?

Replace "government" with "people" and run through those questions again.

Re:I'm offended

[jdavidb]

Word. This is one reason why I no longer believe in democracy. Possession of tyrannical power does not become better just because we take turns, or only award turns to those who win a stupid popularity contest. It's not that we need somebody to possess these tyrannical powers and need a safe and rational way to hand it out -- it's that we need nobody to possess these powers!

Re:I'm offended

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, I wrote the troll. I sign all my serious posts, not my anonymous trolls.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:I'm offended

[roman_mir]

nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.

- yet the nazis are protected in their speech with the Constitution.

Everybody has the right to be protected from the government under the Constitution regardless of their speech.

You don't have Constitutional protection against your peers, so if you act like a jackass you may and sometimes will end up being punched in the face. That's the risk you take, and the criminal court may find that this was an assault and the person who punched you is punished for it.

Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations

- wrong. Any debt that government gets into is a tax future tax, because government has no money, it must raise taxes to pay back the debts.

So if the government must do something and it has no money, it must raise taxes immediately to cover that expense, and if the taxes cannot be raised for political reason (people don't accept it), then the government must not do it.

Of-course you can talk about war-bonds, those were all domestically bought, but those are equivalent to taxes, so government shouldn't be allowed to get into debt, it must be required to raise taxes.

Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?

- wrong. It's never 'necessary', nor is it authorized.

Government must never issue bills of credit, it's illegal for government to do so. Real money is expression of production, any money that is printed without production behind them is counterfeit money and counterfeiters must be hung by the neck till dead.

According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes"

- that's the 'modern theory' that gives the green light and justification for governments to steal and counterfeit, this is all nonsense. There is no economics but Austrian economics that is sound and will not destroy the economy in the long run.

Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

- wrong. Tranquility and general welfare have nothing to do with personal welfare and money redistribution (stealing from Peter to give to Paul). Government must not be allowed into insurance, all it does is it creates moral hazards and if it was running a real insurance program, it would the most worthless insurance program. Governments of-course never run insurance programs, only transfer and pyramid schemes.

Of-course SS and health care, just like education loans and and housing loans, etc., it's all pyramid schemes, it's all illegal and immoral. I wrote plenty on it in my journal (some examples).

Yes. The government runs on money, of course. Income tax is simple

- wrong. US Constitution authorizes taxes, but it took a while to start collecting income taxes instead of import/sales taxes (excise), as they had to create a clever scheme to call excise taxes 'income'. In any case it's definitely not a simple tax, it's the most convoluted tax from every perspective.

You don't need to hire an accountant and lawyers to pay your sales taxes for example, but you do in many cases when you pay income taxes. Income taxes violate your privacy, your liberties and rights against testifying against yourself and illegal searches and seizures and in any case those are the worst taxes to collect from point of view of economy, as they deprive economy from savings and investment, which is the only thing that grows the economy.

There is no such long term concept as 'consumption economy', there

Re:I'm offended

[Hognoxious]

But we already elect people who are racist, homophobic, ignorant creationist people who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed.

I thought she dropped out ages ago?

Re:I'm offended

[doccus]

Actually, I'm not sure it isn't actually implicit in the very wording of the constitution, as it being law by it's very nature, as law has no effect unless implemented, it's bound to be challenged in court, therefore requiring an legal interpretation, IMHO..

Re:I'm offended

[roman_mir]

The Constitution is always "interpreted" when the politicians/judges are trying to do something that is against the idea, on which the country was founded.

They don't 'interpret' the document when they are not trying to subvert and destroy it.

Civil disobedience.

[unity100]

The only route that is left to us at this point. in all countries, around entire world. we the people should just ignore those would-be controllers.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[Bucky24]

That cute girl you see at the laundromat won't go out with you? Civil disobedience.

Absolutely. It's clearly a government conspiracy that she won't go out with you.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the idea, but in general I think the kiddie-porn card trumps it. In a poll on the Swedish (arguably one of the countries where the dislike of censorship is strongest) hardware site Sweclockers (http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/14807-telia-filtrerar-internet-for-att-blockera-barnporr) 44% thinks "filtering" the internet for kiddie porn is a good course of action, while merely 39% see it for the counter-productive slippery slope that it is.

If kiddie porn is such a strong argument for censorship in Sweden, I'd imagine it be even stronger in other countries. Sorry.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[unity100]

at this point ?

yes. just search this site for surveillance, repression, censorship and public enemy practices by governments, corporation and even judiciary. it will be enough.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[kheldan]

That cute girl you see at the laundromat won't go out with you? Civil disobedience.

Nope! Chuck Testa.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[duguk]

Oh, for fuck's sake, that's your answer to everything. Social injustice?

What's the alternative? Blind social acceptance?

Censoring the Internet != Afternoon Egg McMuffin...

Re:Civil disobedience.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't use CP as the bait then it's usually that old bogie Terrorism. No-one in the media has the brains or balls to understand that filtering won't do much to either of these.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[causality]

If they don't use CP as the bait then it's usually that old bogie Terrorism. No-one in the media has the brains or balls to understand that filtering won't do much to either of these.

That or, being shrewd businessmen overseeing a large flow of information (only some of which makes it to prime time), they understand very well that it won't do anything. Instead, they view rampant Statism and centralization of human life in terms of consequentialism, i.e. they believe it serves some kind of "greater good" so any evils it perpetrates are somehow worth while.

Consequentialism is simply the idea that "the ends always justify the means". It's the belief that you can do a truly good thing using evil and dehumanizing methods. It's the way fanatics and worshippers of power tend to think. There are both, in abundance, in the mainstream media. The media is always sympathetic to power grabs. They are happy to report with entire articles why it's for your own good, with maybe a sentence or two that reads "but some groups express privacy concerns" without ever covering what they are or whether they are well-founded.

They are unwise but they're simply not that stupid. Otherwise they wouldn't be so effective. At some point it has to be deliberate because they sympathize with Statism and want to bring it about, either because they believe in it whole-heartedly or because they believe it's inevitable and think they will be rewarded for their early compliance.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[syousef]

That cute girl you see at the laundromat won't go out with you? Civil disobedience.

Absolutely. It's clearly a government conspiracy that she won't go out with you.

If only there were some way of coming across as a dangerous rebel.....I know.....CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!!

Re:Civil disobedience.

[syousef]

Oh, for fuck's sake, that's your answer to everything. Social injustice?

What's the alternative? Blind social acceptance?

You could always join them. I'm sure you could pick up a Nazi uniform cheap on Ebay.

Censoring the Internet != Afternoon Egg McMuffin...

...and torture isn't a big mac, fries and a small coke. Your point? ;-)

Re:Civil disobedience.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and torture isn't a big mac, fries and a small coke. Your point? ;-)

I get it; you like gherkins, don't you?

Re:Civil disobedience.

[gmhowell]

Feh. What would an Indian know about Civil Disobedience?

Re:Civil disobedience.

[mwvdlee]

I'd rather search this site for pink unicorns, flowers and rainbows. I'm sure I'll find the world is a wonderfully cute and cuddly thing.
If you look hard enough, you'll find whatever you want to find. Doesn't necessarily make it the truth.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's 'cause I'm not looking, but I have yet to find kiddie porn on the net. I'm pretty sure it's gotta be there I mean everyone is screaming about it all the time. I'm just surprised the politicians and media find it so easily.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere that the vast majority of the alleged CP sites that exist in the clear on the open web are actually police-run sting sites. That's why they don't get taken down. Anyone stupid enough to visit one of these sites from an IP address linked to their identity could receive a heavy knock on the door. Then there was the civil liberties disaster of Operation Ore (wikipedia) where innocent people found themselves arrested because someone stole their credit card and signed on to one of these sting sites.

Sting sites serve another purpose: these enable cops, politicians and NGOs to bleat and beat up the actual figures for this alleged 'industry' and get more funding. Some years ago a senior Scotland Yard police official went on the record as saying that the huge dollar estimates attributed to the supposed CP industry (billions?) were nonsense.

Re:Civil disobedience.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and torture isn't a big mac, fries and a small coke.

I reckon the jury's still out on that one.

makes sense

[pinfall]

What will all those Indian FB and +1 social media spammers do when they are suddenly out of work?

Silencing Dissent

[Das Auge]

Silencing dissent... Yet another American "job" getting outsourced.

I jest, but it's not like the US (where I was born and live) hasn't tried this sort of thing. The Internet kill switch, taking down sites without due process, and the need to filter the whole country.

This sort of shit needs to stop. Which will only happen when the government is "for the people" again, and not "for the corporations."

Re:Silencing Dissent

[TubeSteak]

He's already getting hit with a lot of backlash: #IdiotKapilSibal
This move by India probably has a lot to do with this summer's online anger over government corruption that eventually
morphed into real world protests and forced the Indian Government to pass anti-corruption laws to placate the people.

It's part of India's long term goal to be able to track and silence those they consider trouble makers and rabble rousers.

Re:Silencing Dissent

[ITConsultant]

As a professional IT consultant, I feel I must disagree with you.

You joke, but you bring up a serious point that supports the idea that America continues to be a world innovator--"silencing dissent", as you so aptly put it, just happens to be the next natural step toward technological progress. It is merely a step back in order to take take two steps forward; that is, if the American people wish it to be so. Many seem content with a "not in my backyard" philosophy.

I gladly welcome "this sort of shit" because "this sort of shit" needs IT to stay afloat while also bringing the general populace closer to their breaking point; maybe one day they'll come to their own senses of whether or not they enjoy freedoms when accessing networks.

On a personal note, it is nice to know that there will be need for people with my skills back home when I decide cease the extension of my H-1B. Any network blacklisting and censorship techniques that I learn will be good practice for when my home country follows in America's footsteps.

Re:Silencing Dissent

[stephanruby]

The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.

You'll notice, he said to "eliminate", not filter.

Call me paranoid, but I think that's a not-so-subtle death threat directed at Richard Gere.

Re:Silencing Dissent

[wdef]

The good news is this: with rapid economic development and relatively high birth rates (I think?), India has a youth culture boom on its hands. With luck, India will develop a mass counterculture of dissatisfied youth who will in effect say "Fuck that shit". I did say "with luck".

Re:Silencing Dissent

[wdef]

.. maybe one day they'll come to their own senses of whether or not they enjoy freedoms when accessing networks ...

I cite the boiling frog meme. This is not the way to defend freedoms. If people sit around letting it happen, they will awake ome day as slaves.

Re:Silencing Dissent

[bky1701]

Frog boiling applies poorly to politics. People's expectations of freedom slowly increase. That's why surfdom, absolute monarchy, and slavery are no longer acceptable. I am quite certain that our current control-oriented mindset is temporary. Eventually, it will become intolerable (we're already nearing it), and the result will be greater freedom overall than before. That process might be avoidable, but history suggests oppression comes slowly, and freedom comes in greater bursts.

There is another meme that applies: to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.

Re:Silencing Dissent

[Kjella]

Yes, but in the past oppressing a population has required help from large parts of the population. It's estimated that STASI employed 2.5% of the population and that possibly as much as 7% were regular and 25-30% occasional informers. Today you can put computers on the job, they track every call, every webpage, every cash transaction, analyze, mine, build patterns and dossiers. Almost all advanced weapon systems now come with IFF codes and remote kill switches, even if you could convince parts of the military to rebel you'd still have no tanks, no planes, no battleships as long as high command remains loyal. Any insurrection is best crushed in its infancy, make the government seem so big and you so alone because no one dares say anything because they'll be swiftly tracked down and neutralized.

There's a reason free speech is the first amendment, without enough people knowing where or why they should point their guns at the same time the second amendment won't help either. The point is that despite Internet and all while it's never been so easy to share information it's never been that easy to collect and use that information for mass surveillance and mass oppression either. Look at China, how many there are rebelling against the one-party state? They don't have to roll in the tanks anymore, they're already in solid control long before that. And even if it came to that, I doubt most of China would know or sympathize. The critical voices have mostly been silenced. And those at a safe distance outside China mostly kept from reaching those still in the country or discredited as foreign lapdogs trying to ruin the country.

Re:Silencing Dissent

[wdef]

People's expectations of freedom slowly increase

But increase over what tiny timeline - the last few hundred years? That's a blink of the eye in human history, not a sample you can use to make predictions about something as volatile as freedom.

That's why surfdom, absolute monarchy, and slavery are no longer acceptable.

Who said these are no longer "acceptable'? Acceptability is only relevant (a) where people care, and (b) if something is recognized to be what it actually is. All three of these either overtly exist or have just changed form into something less obviously tyrannical. Granted, it is still an overall improvement. But instead of being "owned" by a master or landholder, we are entrapped in debt and work and we do it willingly. Absolute monarchy has been replaced with other forms of control in our faux democracy though in say China it turned quite overtly into totalitarian government. Putin is not effectively a "monarch"? Slavery still exists in the open in parts of Africa and there are laborers in Asia who are literally bought and sold, many of whom are children.

I am quite certain that our current control-oriented mindset is temporary...

Say what? I can't let that level of blind optimism (naivete) go. Why should you have any certainty? What grounds are there for making such a dangerous assumption? Liberty such as we have it was hard won over a thousand years. Liberty as we know it has not existed over the vast majority of human history; it is not the historically normal condition. It's actually an historical anomaly that we had to fight to create. In a few short years we have seen some former common law rights diminished (eg right to silence in the UK) and Constitutions re-interpreted to weaken other protections. We are constantly finding that governments and businesses insist on spying on us and that we are in effect governed behind the scenes by powerful economic interests.

There is another meme that applies: to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.

Meaning what? Revolution?

Typical politician

[msobkow]

Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were ‘ex facie objectionable.’”

Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".

Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.

Re:Typical politician

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been saying that about the Holocaust (in Europe) for a long time.

Re:Typical politician

[subreality]

I'm not sure it's done for self-serving reasons, but it's bullshit either way:

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by,"

I don't think I could write a better one-sentence example of institutional conformism. "Normal human beings" are a myth, and even if such a thing existed, they have no inherent right to censor the abnormal ones. Almost everyone can be offended by the words of another sane, sincere human being.

Can I claim to be a normal human being who is offended by this proposal? Perhaps HE should be censored.

Re:Typical politician

[TechMouse]

Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were ‘ex facie objectionable.’”

Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".

Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.

Context: I am a British national living in India.

I once showed an episode of UK panel show "Have I got News for You" to some of my Indian friends. They found it hilarious, but at the same time were also a little uncomfortable with - if not genuinely shocked by - the content.

When I asked about their reaction they explained that Indian culture, for better or worse, revolves around respect for authority figures. Whether that's your parents, your boss, your elders or political leaders, it is what is expected. The public ridicule of the prime minister is more-or-less unthinkable, and would be widely condemned, possibly in a very ugly manner.

There is a lot of progress here, and a steadily growing middle class that may one day turn some of the more ridiculous polocies of the government around, but we're not quite there yet.

Remember that this is a country of 1.3 billion people, the vast majority of which live very traditional, religous lives - mainly in remote rural areas - well below any western notion of a poverty line, with very long standing ideas about their culture and society. It's a mistake to ascribe western notions of what is reasonable or sensibe to the "general population".

Re:Typical politician

[Zebedeu]

The public ridicule of the prime minister is more-or-less unthinkable, and would be widely condemned, possibly in a very ugly manner.

If that's the case, then why make such laws?
If someone tries to ridicule authority figures, they'll feel the backlash from the public itself, without the need for the government to be authoritarian.

Re:Typical politician

[jc42]

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by,"

I don't think I could write a better one-sentence example of institutional conformism. "Normal human beings" are a myth, ...

Nah; you just have to understand something that he left out: his definition of a "normal human being", which is "anyone who agrees with me".

Note that, by this definition, there exists at least one normal human being: Mr. Sibal himself.

And, in a bit of recursion, we might note that the above definition of "normal" is in fact the normal definition used by most people. So when I talk about normal people, we also know that there is at least one person who fits my definition.

Can I claim to be a normal human being who is offended by this proposal? Perhaps HE should be censored.

Certainly you can, and he should. This might be the most effective approach. Back when I was in college, there were a lot of complaints about the "pornographic" publications in the student bookstore. You know, Playboy, etc. The bookstore tried setting a policy of removing publications that more than N customers found offensive. When flocks of students started declaring that publications like Time and Newsweek were publishing offensive material, they had to quickly reverse that policy. The bottom line was that they kept selling Playboy, and the other "porn" magazines (like TIme and Newsweek ;-).

What we should do is ask for the URL where we can register that we find some site offensive. Then we go there and feed it links to stories about Mr. Sibal. We repeat this when others try the same thing in other countries.

Re:Typical politician

[TechMouse]

The public ridicule of the prime minister is more-or-less unthinkable, and would be widely condemned, possibly in a very ugly manner.

If that's the case, then why make such laws? If someone tries to ridicule authority figures, they'll feel the backlash from the public itself, without the need for the government to be authoritarian.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with the concept. It's ridiculous and it wont work. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to assume that the general population here wouldn't support such a move.

I live in Karnataka and it's illegal to have drinking and dancing in the same place here. Plus all the bars and clubs shut at 11:30. The younger more affluent people here think that's ridiculous but they are very much in the minority. On a practical level this is difficult to enforce, but the reality is that the police use this as a blunt instrument to elicit bribes. It's difficult to overstate the level of endemic corruption in the system.

They also ban the sale of alcohol on election day in case one of the candidates decides to set up shop outside a polling station and hand out free booze to anyone voting for him. Never mind that a smart politician could simply buy up a load of beers the day before. This is not a state that runs on the practicality of it's legislation.

Besides which, when was this kind of political grandstanding ever about actually achieving anything? It's more about banging a drum and painting yourself in a particular light. This is no different to the west. How many politicians in the US campaign on the pro-life issue, despite the fact that short of the Supreme Court overruling itself that is never going to change? It doesn't matter that the policy is unrealistic and unworkable, it's an emotionally loaded issue and automagically gains you the support of a lot of voters.

Dear Telecom/Information Technology Minister Kapil

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Fuck You Asshole.

I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM!

[kawabago]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me unless I'm China or India. How long do these countries have to be civilized before they develop enough confidence to withstand an insult? What are we at now, 5,000 years, 8,000 years and they still can't take a few unkind words? Maybe they should think about starting again, from scratch. Scratching in the dirt with a stick, to plant some food that is, right back to the beginning.

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM!

[dhavleak]

I'd draw a small distinction between a country itself and the idiots running it. But this guy is one prize moron for sure.

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM!

[Khashishi]

A moron, really? I don't think censorship is particularly moronic. Just evil. Do think the government doesn't know what it's doing? What would you do if you were an evil overlord?

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM!

[misexistentialist]

Civilization doesn't mean a constant state of progress. China and India both have newish governments that took steps backwards in some ways. Hell, this year Americans could no longer bear the sight of lovely asses in the Victoria's Secret show.

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting that is what they seem to do. Develop by leaps and bounds and they stagnate for several centuries.

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please check your world knowledge before putting India and China in same basket. India is the world's largest democracy! And the current regime is similar to Bush regime in US. They know they are fried for next election, they are trying to minimize the damage by proposing such ridiculous policies which will never work in India.
You could never get something similar to "Patriot Act" passed in India, people will not allow you unlike US. Please research "Anna Hazare movement" or read Indian papers or twitter for #KapilSibal trend.We are not the country watching our soldiers dying for some damn politician's delusion!

Re:Dear Telecom/Information Technology Minister Ka

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and the train you rode on the outside, in, on.

Goes to show...

[Dog-Cow]

Apparently, all the smart Indians have already emigrated.

Offensive content?

[StikyPad]

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.

Re:Offensive content?

[nickmalthus]

Good point. If a piece of content was universally offensive then it would never be created because the authors of the content would be offended by the idea and not manifest it into reality.

Re:Offensive content?

[Anonymous Coward]

BUT, do normal human beings frequent slashdot?

Re:Offensive content?

[stevenfuzz]

The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs.

Re:Offensive content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the guy cleverly said "normal human beings". If you aren't offended by exactly the same things he is then you don't count because you aren't a normal human being (otherwise you'd agree with him).

This isn't too bad if Indians agree with this shit (they are against porn on the Internet, no?). The idea I have of Indians is they're pretty conservative, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are ok with this.

Re:Offensive content?

[H0p313ss]

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.

I'm offended by censorship.

Re:Offensive content?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally

Let's see, there is the famous 3 guys, 1 hammer video. The participants in this video (except for the victim) did it for entertainment.

Here is a video of a woman being stoned to death in Pakistan, presumably for committing adultery.

Here is a leaked photo of Michael Jackson, dead on a gurney.

If the comments on this video are any indication, most people are offended by the actions of this family court judge.

Here is a woman crying while being gang raped.

Perhaps none of these things offend you. I think they offend most people.

Re:Offensive content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics seem to offend most people in one time or another. When the offensive political content goes too far into the realms of illegal, the offense turns into sorrow. In other words, offensive content is content which taken into extreme is saddening.

Re:Offensive content?

[wdef]

But do these need to be banned? Is there really any justification for banning anything if it's my choice not to look at it? I choose not to click on most of this sort of thing. I much regret watching a vid of an execution by the Taliban not that long ago. It did upset me for days. I shouldn't have clicked on it.

Re:Offensive content?

[jc42]

BUT, do normal human beings frequent slashdot?

They may, but we'll probably never know, because they're not posting anything.

I often hang out with a number of crowds that play several kinds of music, and often play for related dancing. There are occasional comments about the people in these crowds not being "normal". I like to reply along the lines of "Of course not; if we were normal, we'd all be at home, watching the Tube."

This usually gets grins, and the topic is dropped. It's obvious to all of us that this is literally true. Statistically "normal" people don't do things; they watch other people doing things. If you're the one actually out there doing something, no matter what it is, you're part of a tiny minority. By the standards of the large majority, you aren't normal.

We don't know how many people actually read /., but one thing we can safely say is that the population that posts here is a very tiny minority of humanity. These people are actively taking part in a public conversation (even those who just post "Frist Psot!" ;-) So nothing you read here was written by a "normal" human being. We're all participants, not spectators, so we're not normal.

I learned to accept my abnormality decades ago. You can too. The first step is to publicly admit that you're not normal ...

Re:Offensive content?

[alexo]

Plainly, Mr. Sibal has the best interests of India at heart but, unfortunately, he stopped short of the logical conclusion.

As evident from the fact that "there is some content on the Internet that any normal human being would be offended by", those that are not offended by it are clearly abnormal and have to to be dealt with accordingly. While euthanasia would be the preferred course of action, it could cause logistical problems, as well as adversely affect international relations. Therefore I suggest a time-tested solution pioneered by forward thinking western nations such as Canada and the USA: incarceration, followed by compulsory sterilization. The legal justifications can be based on the 8-1 supreme court decision decision of Buck v. Bell (never overturned) and the implementation modelled on the (now defunct) Eugenics Boards of Alberta and British Columbia.

Re:Offensive content?

[noodler]

First post1!!! ...

Sorry, i just wanted to participate..
I hope i won't get censored for this...

What if I

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I am not a normal human being? Have I not the right to see content that will not offend me?

Re:What if I

[Anonymous Coward]

Application forms for the Catholic priesthood are available in the lobby

Who gets to decide?

[kheldan]

..any normal human being

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"? What's next for this jackass? Is he going to "decide" what is and is not art? *facepalm*

Re:Who gets to decide?

[jesseck]

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is

i do.... I'm normal, everyone else is weird.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[kheldan]

You go right on telling yourself that, sweetie, your naivete is utterly adorable.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[Khashishi]

The ministry of truth.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reply, directed at an obvious joke, comes off as bitter.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[alexgieg]

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"?

Weeell, we usually understand this word as meaning the common, usual, average etc., but there's another, less know meaning that works quite well in this context: "normal" as that which adheres to a "norm". I doubt this politician used it in this way though. But if he did, he could answer with: "Why, ${BELIEF_SYSTEM}'s normative specialists, evidently!"

At which point you'd reply: "Good enough, yes, except for the fact that, according to ${MY_BELIEF_SYSTEM}, it's ${BELIEF_SYSTEM} that's abnormal."

Rinse, repeat, and watch the whole thing eventually collapsing in a puff of logic.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[kheldan]

Your reply, directed at an obvious joke, comes off as bitter.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[syousef]

The ministry of truth.

Hey, great band!!!

Re:Who gets to decide?

[Gaygirlie]

Not to mention that what people generally see as "normal" varies widly between place and country of origin, education and religion -- if any. There is no magical norm that is world-wide unless you go to REALLY basic stuff, such as eating, sleeping and breathing. There's hardly a consensus on what's "normal" even among people from one, single nation, yet alone multiple countries. Even such a regular concept as marriage can differ a lot, like e.g. in some places marriage can be polygamous instead of monogamous, in some places it gives actual physical ownership of the partner to the other one, how one celebrates a marriage can vary from brooding alone to feasting and partying wildly and so on.

Besides, why is it even seen as a positive thing to be considered "normal" at all? Being "normal" more-or-less means you conform to expectations from people around you and their moral and ethic codes, thereby becoming just another one of the crowd. Wouldn't it be a more positive thing not to necessarily conform, to make up your own decisions and arguments and make up your own view on the world around you? Atleast I personally am totally proud to be "abnormal"; I'll promise to never conform.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeating what someone else said is not a proper comeback. Thanks for playing.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[PPH]

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is,

The next religious war will commence shortly to decide that very question. The winners will define 'normal'. The losers will be burned out or driven out. Study the history of India, Mr Sibal. There are examples aplenty.

Re:Who gets to decide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeating what someone else said..

Faggot.

go back to writing poor code

[bmimatt]

He obviously fails to understand the core nature of the Internet.  Maybe he should go back to the spaghetti code factory he probably came from.

India is a democratic country, right?

[Taco Cowboy]

If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

This coming from someone in the US (presumably from the handle) -- the country where you were not till recently debating over the birth certificate of your president? And the land of Herman Cain and Anthony Weiner? (Granted one was not exactly nominated/elected)

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[identity0]

If military coups are so good, why is Pakistan such a hotbed of terrorism and nuclear proliferation?

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

This coming from someone in the US (presumably from the handle) -- the country where you were not till recently debating over the birth certificate of your president?

Sure, if by "debating" you mean "mocking everyone who seriously suggested there was even a debate to be had".

And the land of Herman Cain and Anthony Weiner? (Granted one was not exactly nominated/elected)

Neither was the other. Well, Weiner was elected as a Congressman, but you obviously meant "nominated/elected for the Presidency".

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[Jimbob The Mighty]

People with integrity rarely enter politics; the ones that do rarely rise to the top.

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[trawg]

If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?

I am not sure if you mean this as a criticism of democracy or not, but - part of the price of democracy is that people are given the power to vote stupid people in who do dumb things. (Assuming we are talking about a "real" democracy with fair elections, not one of the sham ones - I am not sure where India falls here.)

If they have a real democracy, then after this dumb idea is rolled out and fails spectacularly, then they should have the ability to vote in a new politician who promises to remove it.

I understand it doesn't always work that way in practice, even in real democracies, but that is the idea and there's not really a lot of better ones out there. I've always loved that Winston Churchill quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[syousef]

If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?

Because demcracy as practiced by the western world requires that people vote for politicians.

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[Shadow99_1]

While I'm not entirely sure how good or bad the Indian elections are... I do know that Indian people have a deep racism/classism for one of their Indian subgroups (I forget the actual name given to these people, but they get the shittiest jobs possible in their society and have been abused multiple ways over their history)... I also know that Indian government houses deep corruption where anyone with money and status can have anyone 'lesser' (basically anyone who doesn't have the means to do the same to the other person) then them hauled off to be tortured by the police with no penalty to them whether the accusations were right or wrong.

India really has always been on my list of places never to go to a jail in... The middle East and a large portion of Asia also fall into that category... Quite alot of Africa as well.

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok Cowboy, you must be new here!

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pakistan was that long before they had their military coup. The govt of the recent past merely did it more obviously.

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[jawahar]

836 million Indians are living on 20 rupees/day ($0.38).
They'll NOT vote as per conscience.

Re:India is a democratic country, right?

[Rexdude]

'cos there's no one left. Just as some Americans point out that both R and D are only loyal to different sets of corporate masters and have no interest in the welfare of the common people, here it's all about naked power grab for its own sake. India has a multi party system, but all of them pander to various communities and vote banks.
Educated urban Indians such as yours truly have simply dissociated themselves from the political process over the last 64 years since independence with the broad (and mostly true) argument that 'all politicians suck, and my vote isn't going to matter.'
The rural poor who are the majority, take their voting rights seriously and come out to vote en masse. Politicians pander to them by doling out freebies, which are often at the expense of the middle class non voting tax payer.

That's the beauty of democracy, the tyranny of the majority ensures that the majority get the leaders they deserve.

violence, intimidation, + fraud is not democracy

[decora]

there were elections there, maybe, but the Sturmabteilung and other organs of the Nazi party used violence and intimidation to corrupt the voting process.

it doesn't mean they were democratic elections.

the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.

why? because he would have been voted back out of office. that is the strength of democracy... which balances its weakness.

Great Idea!

[PvtVoid]

Start with Slashdot dupes.

It's more childlike than evil

[ribbitman]

The idea that one guy can speak for all normal people is one thing, but when coupled with his thought that, "Yeah...we'll just stick a bunch of normal people in a room and make them delete clearly offensive material off the internet as soon as it's created" is frakking ADORABLE.

Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only say, what a moron! This pinhead doesn't deserve to represent human people...

Censorship

[BlackHornet]

I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude. In democratic countries politicians use it to please people who chose them, so the problem is in the mindset of the majority. For politicians it is always easier to play with those things that don't require a lot of effort.

Re:Censorship

[wdef]

I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude.

Right: "even though I have no good evidence whether the effects of whatever are bad or not, I don't like it so that is enough. I am told it is bad therefore it is". This is the central idea of fascism.

Re:violence, intimidation, + fraud is not democrac

[wdef]

.. the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.

This is exactly what some of our "democratic" governments would like to do. However, they have more subtle and clever ways of subverting democracy that are far more effective.

He's right, but it's not that simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by,""

Well, yeah, but if furries can't be on the internet, then where are they going to show up instead? Maybe the public street in front of your house. And then what?

And as much as I and most other people find GOTO offensive, you're still going to need it to be on the internet in order to explain why it's a bad thing.

India wishes to censor Social media

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline is misleading. It can move all it wants, but in the end it just a wish because they have no means to block.

follow the leader?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is a dangerous step down China's censorship path

I dunno, China seems to be managing just fine despite our best pessimistic outlooks.
Perhaps the Indians are onto something here.

Wrong target cendored.

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to censor ISLAM. Why? Islam is a thing that wishes to censor YOU. Islam is a thing where worshiping the concept is more important than the people.

They're doing it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, a woman was arrested after a youtube video of her saying 'racist' things on a tram went viral.

I think the UK provides a much better model for controlling the thoughts of the population. Right now in the UK, you basically cannot say anything that the govt declares 'illegal' without this possibility of this happening. Can India say the same? In India this video would have been banned and they would never have found the woman in it (she wasn't the person taking the video).

Yay Internet Prohibition!

[stevenfuzz]

This makes perfect sense, because offensiveness is completely objective. In fact, the terms of being offended are as woven into the human condition as being bi-pedal and having five fingers; as is apparently the humans knack for devolving society. Great stuff India, this is definitively what you should spend your time and resources enforcing.

Offended?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly is wrong with being offended? Someone calls one an arsehole - one may get offended. So what? Maybe there was a fair reason. Maybe it's not even related to actual discussion. Forbidding to call someone retarded is retarded (offense intended).

Seeding ideas of limitation of free speech as a norm into masses is much more dangerous than posting any sort of perversion and IMHO is a more serious crime. It's only difference with trying to destroy current state is that the state is interested in protecting itself, so mostly countries around the world declare such activity as the heaviest crime, while freedom of speech is actually guarded only when there is enough people that actually consider consequences.

All modern wars start with propaganda. Killing free speech is the best that one can do to make propaganda effective. Nothing matters afterwards - one in power can turn black to white and vice-versa as much as it will. Now I'm not so extreme to consider India invading someone (yet). But war is not only about shooting.

Internet have become the most important point of defense against not so secret will of any government to "Divide and conquer". It's a holy grail. Guard it. You will fail when there will be no offended people anymore.

(kivig)

Re:Offended?

[cheekyjohnson]

What are you saying? There's all kinds of good reasons for this. Like, uh... think of the children! Yeah, that's it. And the terrorists, too! What about people infringing upon the copyright of others (the most serious crime of all)?

The internet is for everyone

[okmijnuhb]

Even those who fall into of the realm of those not offended by content that would offend "any normal people".

(A group whom I suspect is larger than the group of "normal people").

The world, and thus social media is full of offensive content, trying to eliminate it all is a fool's game.

People like me would be offended by bland social media bereft of any offensive content.

Another Ploy by our beloved Ruling alliance

[openfreak]

The government is in deep shit. First they announced FDA in retail, and now the minister wants to censor social media.

These are attempts to keep UPA scams and Lokpal off the headlines.

Hypocrisy.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the correct answer isn't "no" on most of those, short or long term. You would want a government that doesn't combat crime, doesn't regulate business and can't fund itself. But you aren't addressing the effects of those decisions while scolding the population for not considering the long-term effects of their decisions? Time to take a peek at that mirror.

When you do respond, if you would mind outlining what role you believe government DOES have, it would be appreciated. In the meantime I must assume you're for complete anarchy.

Go have primary classes again Minister

[Manas Kumar]

The Minister who urged to ban content on internet surely don't know how internet works. He must take his primary classes again. And he can avail a discount on that too as he is Education minister. lolz

But I am NOT a "normal" human being.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Normal" in relative. I'm definitely not in his "normal" area. And logically that means he's also not in *my* "normal" area. In fact he offends me *a lot*.
But other than him, I don't like to censor everything outside of my narrow world view, cause I'm not such a huge big cry-pussy.

"Normal" is by definition what you're used to: Boring. I *want* to experience the most unusual. It's what makes life interesting! If that means the occasional Goatse or 3 guys 1 hammer, then so be it. It's still damn worth it. (And come on, who here isn't already barely reacting upon seeing Goatse again? It's just a weird human body. So what? 3 guys 1 hammer... or the Fed giving 7.7 trillion to the banks for free so they could loan it back to the now in-debt government... now *that* is perverse! But even that is still part of humanity, and we have to accept that. Ignorance won't make it go away.)

But maybe the history of my country (Germany) has made me be a bit more open than him who's living in a country that still has a caste system..

You do not have the right not to be offended

[NikolaiKutuzov]

Philipp Pullman says it right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w

The idea of defining anything as being the norm for humans is actually offensive to me.

Whoooooooo.....

[Anonymous Coward]

...ooooooossshhh!

Right over your head, dude. ^^

Spirit and intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, if we are having trouble "interpreting" the consitution using modern-day language, the answer is to look at the spirit and intentions of the founders. By any measure, the spirit and intentions were for strictly limited government (especially the centralized "federal" government), individual liberty, and in general, invididual sovereignty taking precedence over government operations by default.

Regardless of how you "interpret" the constitution, what we have today is miles -- no, light years -- away from what the founders intended. For christ's sake, we are talking about the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries) that has ever existed. The founders' vision has been completely and utterly torn out, kicked out, and exiled from what we now know as government.

Re:Spirit and intentions

[Guy Harris]

Clearly, if we are having trouble "interpreting" the consitution using modern-day language, the answer is to look at the spirit and intentions of the founders.

...which still means interpreting the constitution based on what the founders said - and they might not always have stated things explicitly, so now you're interpreting that, as well.

For christ's sake, we are talking about the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries) that has ever existed.

"Most expensive ... government" only makes sense if you mean "per capita" or "as a fraction of GNP" or something such as that. It should not come as a complete surprise that the U. S. government spends more, on an absolute basis, than, say, the government of Luxembourg. Is the U.S. government really spending more per capita, or as a fraction of GNP, than any other government that exists or has ever existed?

Only offended?

[Anonymous Coward]

His statement is oxymoronic in that the human beings who post that material are not offended by it. Also, and more to the point, banning material that is actively harmful, such as child pornography, is acceptable while banning material that is simply offensive, even if it offends everyone, is not acceptable.

Try this instead

[meatpopcicle]

Maybe it would be easier to block all traffic to India and this Minister could allow sites and communications with sites he feels are not "offensive". Oh, and do it in real time.

Re:Try this instead

[noodler]

Nah,. i say let him make his own internets.

Hegemony

[Anonymous Coward]

The easiest/efficient way to protest Govt hegemony is to print/circulate/use your own banknotes exclusively among your community.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14774526