Facebook, Google Argue Against Web Censorship In India

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook, Google Argue Against Web Censorship In India

Posted by Unknown on Monday January 16, 2012 @05:21PM from the but-it's-unpossible-sir dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook and Google told the Delhi High Court today they cannot block offensive content that appears on their services. The two Internet giants are among 21 companies that have been asked to develop a mechanism to block objectionable material in India, and the Indian government has given the green light for their prosecution. Although India is democratic (in fact, it's the world's largest democracy), many fear the country will resort to censorship."

160 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The people who try to ban Internet free speech by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-01-16 17:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Should be made to shut up.
1. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by kheldan · 2012-01-16 17:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No. People are entitled to their opinions, however ignorant they might be. Ignoring their opinions, on the other hand, is perfectly OK. ;-)
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
2. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  It is their view that we are also entitled to their opinion that is the problem.
3. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by rubycodez · 2012-01-16 18:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  NO, we're talking about people in government. The should be MADE to shut up.
4. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by symbolset · 2012-01-16 18:37 · Score: 2
  
  To support censorship - even of support of censorship - is to take the gag into your own mouth willingly.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
5. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by rubycodez · 2012-01-16 18:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Censorship is what a government does. The people shutting the evil mouths of those in government is not censorship
6. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by symbolset · 2012-01-16 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Then you should say that you propose to let these old men yell at their clouds in some corner where they will do no harm. Not to prevent them from having their say to all who care to listen.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
7. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by Pieroxy · 2012-01-16 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  It is their view that we are also entitled to their opinion that is the problem.
  Isn't it funny to bring such a universal way of communication to your people to censor it afterwards? Anyways, the internet is not like TV, in that you cannot control the sender of the information. This move will just push a little further the accessibility of various anonymisation programs and cryptography, and they won't be able to track what people say anymore, let alone whet they can access.
  If anything, the pursuit of the pirates by the *AA has brought us insight in that area.
  In the long run, it'll be good.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
8. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by Jedi+Alec · 2012-01-16 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  And the government, in a democracy at least, is a direct extension of "We, the People".
  Shutting other people up is hardly ever a good idea. Much better to make them face the consequences instead.
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
9. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by flyneye · 2012-01-17 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  If you made them to shut up, one wold not ROFL and lose their ass in the process.
  As the goal of most internetizens is to lose several pounds off their backside, this should not be taken for granted.
  Governments exist for many reasons, entertainment being the most polished of these.
  What could be more entertaining than a person in a high position spewing the most absurd , ill-conceived suggestions to a technologist so far above his station he seems like a retarded janitor? How about a parliment/congress/senate full of moronic clowns?
  If it weren't so funny, the world would be at bloody revolution without exception.
  You knew there was a reason we tolerate modern governments, this is the only explanation available.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
10. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by Hentes · 2012-01-17 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's what Anonymous did when they still had a goal to fight for.
11. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-17 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, they should be allowed to say whatever they want. If, however, the views that they express do not reflect those of their employer (the general population), then they should be fired. Then they can continue to say whatever they want, as private citizens.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
12. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-17 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  "if there's one thing I can't stand, its intolerance!"
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
13. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by orgelspieler · 2012-01-17 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Then you should say that you propose to let these old men yell at their clouds in some corner where they will do no harm.
  Did anybody else read this and think of that really pissed off grandpa yelling at his TV about the Casey Anthony case?
14. Re:The people who try to ban Internet free speech by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Obligatory xkcd
I wish I could say I'm surprised by kheldan · 2012-01-16 17:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

We here in the U.S. know that our politicians aren't in the least bit technologically savvy (yes, I'm painting with a broad brush when I say that). Should I be surprised or comforted to know that politicians in any number of countries are also, apparently, luddites? India doesn't seem to understand that what they're asking to do isn't technologically feasible. It would require a gigantic staff of people round-the-clock, judging each and every post and video before they're allowed to be seen by the general public. I understand that India doesn't have much of an issue with having enough workers when your population is one billion, but the cost to implement censorship on such a level? Astronomical. Seriously, if India is really that worried about "offensive" content, then maybe it's time for Google, Facebook, and whoever else they have an issue with, to just pull out and leave India to it's own devices. Or, maybe, the Indian government can get a grip and realize that their citizens aren't all little children needing a Big Brother to protect them from the entire world. The world is too small for nations to be so xenophobic, unless they want to wall themselves in like China and North Korea (and I'm sure there are other examples).

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
1. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Skapare · 2012-01-16 17:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No surprise. Politicians are not people that have a passion for creativity (from art to innovation). They are people that have a passion for manipulating and controlling others (and school board members are wanna-be-politicians that failed at manipulating and controlling adults).
  The problem with pulling out of India is that, eventually, the issue will be resolved. By then, other companies will have taken over in place of Google, Facebook, etc. There is a distinct possibility this action is being done by the government for the purpose of allowing some unknown government "patron" (e.g. bribery) to be given this opportunity to move in on Google and Facebook (not that I would mind that).
  These kinds of attacks (not specifically this exact kind) by many government around the world seem to be happening for one reason or another. Maybe they just resent the fact that the internet was not created by them?
  BTW, you forgot Myanmar in that list.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
2. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Rennt · 2012-01-16 18:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The world is too small for nations to be so xenophobic, unless they want to wall themselves in like China and North Korea (and I'm sure there are other examples).
  Like the United States of America?
  Okay, okay, that was rather trollish. But ALL government seeks increased control, it's just the nature of the beast. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are safe. "Land of the Free" rings pretty hollow these days.
3. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-01-16 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  I really wish people who've obviously been to neither place would quit lumping together China and North Korea without even thinking about it.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
4. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-16 18:22 · Score: 2
  
  Land of the free-est perhaps?
5. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-16 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  But what do you do when a majority of the citizens ASK the govt.(by rioting and destroying public property ) to be a "Big Brother" and make sure only U rated content is available everywhere: books,news,TV,Internet,etc?
6. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Nyder · 2012-01-16 18:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We here in the U.S. know that our politicians aren't in the least bit technologically savvy (yes, I'm painting with a broad brush when I say that)....
  That is an excuse.
  If you are a politician it's your job to be familiar with issues that face your constituents. Not familiar with technology, get learning.
  If I can't use the ignorance as an excuse to get out of trouble when I break a law, then the politicians damn well better get familiar with the issues they are voting on, if not, that is a big failure on their part and even a bigger failure on the people voting for that person.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
7. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by laird · 2012-01-16 18:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Land of the free-est perhaps?"
  You need to travel more. Since 9/11 the US government is much more heavy-handed than the governments of most other countries, and social mobility here (i.e. you can work hard and succeed) is less than elsewhere. So while we like to think of ourselves as free men on the rugged frontier, the reality has changed.
  
  --
  Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
8. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-16 18:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  American constitution atleast guarantees free speech with virtually no restrictions applied I believe
  Ours doesnt even do that
9. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever heard of free speech zones? They don't care about the constitution (see: TSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, ACTA, SOPA, etc). If doing something won't severely hurt their careers (as maybe it would with SOPA... for now), then they'll probably do it. The constitution is rarely a factor.
  Some countries are worse, but I doubt we're the best.
10. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by grmoc · 2012-01-16 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution is a wonderful document, but it doesn't guarantee anything. It specifies something.
  The Gov't is supposed to follow the specification, at which point we have a guarantee.
  Wish it were so.
11. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by laird · 2012-01-16 19:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "American constitution atleast guarantees free speech with virtually no restrictions applied I believe"
  That's long gone. As an extreme example, look at how for the last several elections' political conventions all protesters were forced into "free speech zones" out of site of the convention attendees and the press (i.e. you have free speech, but only where nobody can hear you). And the police arrested thousands of people to get them off the streets, for the same reason. Of course, all of those people were then released, because they hadn't broken any laws, but only after the conventions were over and the press was gone.
  I'm not saying that the US is the most restrictive country - there are some that are much worse - but the constitutional rights have been heavily cut back in the last decade. Strangely, we had much stronger respect for civil rights when we were fighting the UK, the most powerful empire on the planet, than we do now, fighting a small number of desperate terrorists. George Washington, for example, expressly forbade torturing captured British soldiers, even though the British tortured captured American soldiers.
  "In 1776," wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in "Washington's Crossing," "American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution."
  This commitment to our principles was how we won the war against a much larger, more powerful empire. Everywhere they went, pillaging, torturing and killing, they created more opposition. Or, as one of their soldiers wrong "Wherever our armies have marched, wherever they have encamped, every species of barbarity has been executed. We planted an irrevocable hatred wherever we went, which neither time nor measure will be able to eradicate."
  Our modern leaders have less foresight. But then, I'm sure that the British in 1776 thought that they were right, too.
  Rather than me quote the whole thing, go read it http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1217-30.htm.
  
  --
  Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
12. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by perryizgr8 · 2012-01-16 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  an extremely small minority of the people ever resort to rioting to make sure only U rated content is available. any educated, sensible person is very unlikely to hold such an opinion. also, fuck them. the constitution of india guarantees me free speech. if you're gonna start censoring stuff on the web, you're in violation of the constitution itself.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
13. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by darkstar019 · 2012-01-16 20:07 · Score: 2
  
  imo, this is a political gimmick before elections and the government wants to ensure social media be capped against any campaigns against itself. Other governments have tried to 'ban' specific websites, but netizens can subvert this lock down through different measures. What these uneducated lawmakers do not realize is that banning few websites would only incite resentment and bring about more immoral content into the cyberspace.
  
  --
  Fuck Beta
14. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by priyank_bolia · 2012-01-16 20:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I agree it isn't technologically feasible, but anyone in India have the right to file a case in court. But don't worry, the pace at which judgements are delivered in India, human would have abandoned the mother earth and we all would be governed by the Galactic Empire laws. :P Also I don't think Indian govt. has any wish to create the gr8 wall of India. But things are different here, you can publish a cartoon in Europe, burn some book in US, but in India, it would mean communal riots, and millions dead, so I guess its OK for the govt. to step in sometimes and take care of their little children.
15. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  A heavily armed populace is what guarantees everything else.
16. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  After consideration, I'll continue to lump China and North Korea together as oppressive, totalitarian states. And no, I have no desire to go to either, or any other country where people exist solely for the benefit of the ruling class.
17. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by jpapon · 2012-01-16 22:07 · Score: 0
  
  I'm so tired of this trolling over free speech zones. Free speech zones are necessary, unless you want every schmuck who has an axe to grind being able to shut down society. Can you imagine if the Occupy WS folks were allowed to actually occupy Wall Street? The chaos that would wreak on the global financial system? How would that be fair to the millions of workers whose livelihoods it would affect?
  Free speech is great, but it's pretty obvious that for society to function your ability to protest must be somewhat restricted. You are free to speak your mind, so long as it doesn't start trampling on my rights, such as my right to get to work and make a living.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
18. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  Free speech zones are necessary, unless you want every schmuck who has an axe to grind being able to shut down society.
  
  You are free to speak your mind, so long as it doesn't start trampling on my rights, such as my right to get to work and make a living.
  You do not have a Constitutional right to not be inconvenienced.
  Leave earlier for work, you tyrant-loving fuck.
19. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 22:27 · Score: 0
  
  And the police arrested thousands of people to get them off the streets, for the same reason. Of course, all of those people were then released, because they hadn't broken any laws, but only after the conventions were over and the press was gone.
  As they say: If you haven't harmed anybody, it's the punishment that's the crime.
  Sue the bastards into oblivion.
  If that's not possible, it's time for the ammo box.
20. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's called Burma.
  The idiot dictatorship tried to change its name, but only Wikipedia gave any kind of shit.
21. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by jpapon · 2012-01-17 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the point. Free speech can be used as an aggressive tool to infringe on the rights of others, which was never the intent of the First Amendment. You are free to speak, but you are not free to force others to listen by aggressively forcing your speech upon them. Or do you think you should be able to stand (on a public street) in front of someone's private residence with a megaphone and yell at them 24 hours a day?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
22. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  > India doesn't seem to understand that what they're asking to do isn't technologically feasible.
  Its just a technologically illiterate judge, that does not mean all Indian's don't understand the this is technologically infeasible. Or may be this judge is pretending not to understand the situation, under government pressure/favours.
23. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Hognoxious · 2012-01-17 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Can you imagine if the Occupy WS folks were allowed to actually occupy Wall Street? The chaos that would wreak on the global financial system?
  Old hat. They should find something more original to do.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
24. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  "free-est" to have your child blasted by x-rays every time you fly, or have them groped by TSA pervs? Free to not record police brutality, lest you get get prosecuted yourself? Free to have FBI tracking devices put under your car if your skin is the wrong color?
25. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by unity100 · 2012-01-17 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the point. Free speech can be used as an aggressive tool to infringe on the rights of others, which was never the intent of the First Amendment
  and when you say that 'free speech' becomes totally pointless and impractical. the moment you say 'what constitutes free speech' and start defining it, free speech goes out of the window.
  
  are you aware that the founding fathers you spoke of were not that stupid as to not be able to realize that 'free speech' could cause some schmucks to set up a stool in front of their garden door and start shouting their ideas there endlessly ? not that they themselves did not do it either. free speech was put in without a condition for a reason ...
  
  --
  Read radical news here
26. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
27. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Pi1grim · 2012-01-17 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately educated, sensible people are the extremely small minority.
28. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Hentes · 2012-01-17 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to confuse the right to free speech with the right to assemble.
29. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Hentes · 2012-01-17 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are two totally different things.
30. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-01-17 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with pulling out of India is that, eventually, the issue will be resolved. By then, other companies will have taken over in place of Google, Facebook, etc.
  Isn't it prudent to pull out of India if the costs (financial and freedom) to continue doing business there are so dire? Who cares if they can't show ads to those people who are being censored? Once the content police are done polishing the content of the entire internet they'll start telling Google, FB, etc what ads they can sell and how they should look, etc.
31. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by jpapon · 2012-01-17 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I don't, the people who are so vehemently against "free speech zones" do.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
32. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by jpapon · 2012-01-17 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  and when you say that 'free speech' becomes totally pointless and impractical.
  
  I don't see how that is the case. There are obvious situations where "free speech" isn't guaranteed. Yelling fire in a movie theater, libel, and threats of violence all come to mind. Just because you're not free to say *everything*, and not free to say it *everywhere* doesn't mean that the spirit of the First Amendment is violated.
  The point of the First Amendment is to guarantee that the government can't stop you from criticizing it. You are fully free to criticize the government wherever you want, so long as you are not disrupting the lives of others by forcing them to stop and listen to you. If you want to do that, go to a "free speech zone", which is really just a designated place where it is convenient to assemble.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
33. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by unity100 · 2012-01-17 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  once you start introducing exceptions to free speech, you end up with free speech zones. just like what happened. once the equation that allows introduction of exceptions is allowed, the government uses it to introduce exceptions to make free speech impractical.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
34. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Jawnn · 2012-01-17 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. The problem is that there is no individual or group paying to educate the ignorant lawmakers on the "real" issues. RIAA, MPAA, et al, on the other hand, are lavishing money on the Senators, Congressmen, and their staffs to make certain that they "understand".
35. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Hydian · 2012-01-17 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'll ignore for the moment that the entire United States *is* a "free speech zone" just for the sake of argument.
  One issue with these so called "free speech zones" is that they are not evenly enforced. Only speech that the powers that be don't want to hear is shuttled off to these "free speech zones" which are conveniently placed where said speech will not be heard by anyone. Speech that is authorized can be exercised anywhere. Even if for the sake of argument we say that these "free speech zones" are needed for some reason, that is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
  You are correct that one person's rights can not be allowed to infringe upon another person's rights without consequence (the basis of laws for libel, threats, etc.) There is also a difference between restricting speech and consequences for speech. Most laws fall into the latter rather than the former. Blocking traffic, etc is separate from protesting and/or exercising your rights to free speech. It can be an example of civil disobedience which is not always a bad thing and is sometimes needed to enact change. Either way, there are mechanisms in place to deal with it. "Free speech zones" are not needed in addition to those.
36. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by mjr167 · 2012-01-17 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  And they are both covered by the 1st amendment! How convenient!
37. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by trygstad · 2012-01-17 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the Internet--which is the first fully-functional anarchical institution in the history of humanity--was created directly through the efforts of the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)--so it WAS government that created the Internet. I've always considered the fact that the DoD created the first functional anarchy to be one of the single greatest instances of irony in history.
38. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Hentes · 2012-01-17 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of assembly can't be without any regulation, as it would give a small number of radical people the ability to completely block certain parts of a city, thus causing serious damage to the majority if their demands aren't met, which would be undemocratic. The place and duration of protests has to be restricted. Whether those restrictions are overly broad can be debated, but freedom of assembly in its ideal form would only lead to the radicalization of politics and threaten the viability of city centers.
39. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by orgelspieler · 2012-01-17 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  You obviously underestimate the level of douchebaggery that police are capable of in this country. I was on a choir tour back 1996 to DC and the surrounding area. We were sight-seeing, visiting the monuments, etc. At the Jefferson Memorial we were so moved that a few of us began singing something somber and beautiful. Not 30 seconds later, a local cop was in our faces telling us we would have to shut up or leave because there we didn't have a permit to demonstrate there.
  That was over fifteen years ago. It's only gotten worse. The problem with free speech zones is that they enable police to think that any political speech (or non-political, for that matter) outside of the zone is somehow forbidden. That's why the very notion of needing free speech zones is not tolerable. Would you have a problem if you were only allowed to pray in "free religion zones" or if you were only allowed to read the newsp-- um, Slashdot -- in "free press zones"?
  What of your other rights? Say the right to due process only applied in "due process zones." Oh wait... that's right, the president can order the execution of US citizens abroad without due process now. I forgot.
  One thing I do agree with is that free speech doesn't mean you can force others to listen. You may not stand in my front yard with a bullhorn. You may not peaceably assemble in my driveway. But that's not what free speech zones are about. They're about curtailing protests and keeping people from getting their message out.
40. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Why isn't it feasible? Chinese websites, many of which are giants compared to their more famous western counterparts, do this censoring quite well. I'm sure there are a ton of companies in China able to provide the necessary tech and experience.
  That said, I totally agree that censorship in a democracy is unacceptable.
41. Re:I wish I could say I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-18 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  American constitution at least guarantees free speech with virtually no restrictions applied I believe
  
  ONLY! if you do it in a "Free Speech Zone".
Makes you wonder by deatypoo · 2012-01-16 17:31 · Score: 2

With population over 1 billion people, it makes me wonder what kind of democracy is actually applied in that country. Even winning an election 51 to 49 (supposed it works that way over there too), it would leave over 500 million dissatisfied...

--
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
1. Re:Makes you wonder by exomondo · 2012-01-16 17:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What really makes me wonder what they are thinking is when they suggest blocking of 'offensive' content, as though that's not a subjective term.
2. Re:Makes you wonder by KramberryKoncerto · 2012-01-16 17:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  In many modern "democracies", you can with with 99% and then almost everyone is dissatisfied.
3. Re:Makes you wonder by Idbar · 2012-01-16 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  And what makes me wonder is that companies capable of identifying and taking down audio and video tracks (censoring on copyright basis), claim they cannot block posts? (not that I agree with any, but I really wonder why. I'm guessing you're spot on with subjectivity)
4. Re:Makes you wonder by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-16 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  Because extracting the meaning from natural-language is a very difficult task. It is one of those things trivial for humans, very difficult for software.
5. Re:Makes you wonder by exomondo · 2012-01-17 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  And what makes me wonder is that companies capable of identifying and taking down audio and video tracks (censoring on copyright basis), claim they cannot block posts? (not that I agree with any, but I really wonder why. I'm guessing you're spot on with subjectivity)
  It's not that they cannot block posts, it's that they cannot identify which posts to block.
(political) Shooting of someone else's shoulder by webanish · 2012-01-16 17:32 · Score: 5, Informative

An analysis here suggests that the target of Internet censorship was against political blasphemy rather than any generic web censorship. Its worse than a state trying to censor the web as consistent with their national policies; in this case the 'ruling government' is molding laws as it sees fit to its political advantages. Only one of the so called complaints by the ministers was deemed a national security threat.
1. Re:(political) Shooting of someone else's shoulder by Aardpig · 2012-01-16 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine the censorship will also encompass historical/nationalistic blasphemy -- there is a very strong ultra-nationalist movement in India, which seeks to recast (pardon the pun) the country's history as a mythic, self-serving narrative.
  
  --
  Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
2. Re:(political) Shooting of someone else's shoulder by darkstar019 · 2012-01-16 20:01 · Score: 2
  
  Damn right, This is a kind of knee jerk reaction from the government after the recent agitations against government, which used the social media for coordination. The GOI does not want a repeat of bad press against it as was the case in the 'India Against Corruption' movement recently. The offending gestures made against different religions is a mere hogwash.
  
  --
  Fuck Beta
3. Re:(political) Shooting of someone else's shoulder by perryizgr8 · 2012-01-16 20:04 · Score: 2
  
  this is true. this thing is all about one idiotic (and corrupt) minister (Kapil Sibal), trying to control online media to prevent people from criticizing the prime minister and others in the government. nothing to do with 'offensive' content.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Democracy != Freedom by mc6809e · 2012-01-16 17:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why does anyone still believe that democracy means freedom?
1. Re:Democracy != Freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 17:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why does anyone still believe democracy means democracy?
2. Re:Democracy != Freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't like this new system where money means speech. People with more money have more to say.
3. Re:Democracy != Freedom by Jawnn · 2012-01-17 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like this new system where money means speech. People with more money have more to say.
  It is hardly "new". What is (relatively) new is how emboldened the monied interests have become in how they wield that influence. The Citizens United decision, of course, has had much to do with this, but it has always been possible to buy influence in Washington.
  I rather suspect that the driver behind this dramatic increase in political spending is a response to the Internet. Controlling the flow of information used to be much easier when there were no media anywhere near as accessible.
4. Re:Democracy != Freedom by poity · 2012-01-17 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Democracy is the potential for freedom. As the saying goes, "I can only show you the door, but you must walk through it." And even with freedom, there is the choice to turn back or to move forward. Of course, when the alternative sociopolitical systems don't offer even that much, it's not easy to get too angry at democracy's imperfections.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by symbolset · 2012-01-16 17:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I believe in freedom of speech. If some individual wants to stand up in public and say that he supports depriving every citizen of free speech and due process of law to help save the profitability of a 90 year old mouse cartoon - then I will defend his right to do that.
For an elected representative to not only do that - but to sponsor or support a bill which does that also - that's a different thing. That's a failure of citizenship, a neglect of your civic duty. These are essential liberties our nation was founded to protect. Such a representative should be removed from office as swiftly as the democratic process will allow, as he's a threat to the security of the Republic and the liberty of its People.
There is no Mulligan on this one, no middle ground. Either you are FOR freedom of speech and due process of law forever and always, or you're NOT.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by davester666 · 2012-01-16 18:10 · Score: 2
  
  But there should be a mulligan.
  Everybody in his/her district should get two swings at him/her.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
2. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  That's ridiculous. You only support freedom of speech for people who are not in a position to change anything?
3. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Either you are FOR America, forever and always, or you're a TERRORIST!
4. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by symbolset · 2012-01-16 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I'm in favor of legislators being able to say anything they want and propose anything they want - including proposing a law banning free speech. I didn't say they ought to be preempted from acting the fool. I just think the appropriate response is to ensure that they never hold a position of responsibility again.
  If you consent to be gagged, thereafter your silence is implied consent. Who knows what evils come then?
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
5. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Torinir · 2012-01-16 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  With a 4 iron. Or a 1 wood.
6. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  I believe when someone argues against our rights process in any way, shape or form, they should first enjoy the fruits of their argument.
  If they argue against due process, calling it an affront to law enforcement, they should be shot on sight; after-all, they're arguing for the cops to be judge, jury and executioner. If they argue against free speech, they should be locked in a basement for the rest of their lives. After all, that's what they're arguing for.
  You may say what I'm arguing is shocking, but think about it for one second; it's REALLY what they are arguing for, too. "But that's now what they meant!" Of course not. THEY are hypocrites who want to profit from the systematic enslavement of you and if you aren't willing to tar and feather the !%$!@#!'ers out of town, you aren't American.
  Let them pass the law, it would destroy the internet, and nickel and dime the recording industry utterly into dust, as it would give the small dog companies the ability to put the big-dog corporate directors and execs in jail for small-time contract disputes.
  Remember kids, those trials aren't CIVIL trials, they are CRIMINAL Trials, and at THOSE trials, The judge tells the jury to follow the law TO THE LETTER. "Your big time band ripped off my small-time bands lyrics", Que warrant and CEO of Universal being drug out of his home.
7. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-01-16 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Or a 1 wood.
  Only on Slashdot would someone refer to a driver as a "1 wood".
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
8. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Nursie · 2012-01-16 19:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  THEY are hypocrites who want to profit from the systematic enslavement of you and if you aren't willing to tar and feather the !%$!@#!'ers out of town, you aren't American.
  No, but you may be Indian, which is what this is about.
  It's not always about America!
9. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by symbolset · 2012-01-16 19:36 · Score: 2
  
  Human rights are about every one, every where.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
10. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Nursie · 2012-01-16 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but a blatant copy-paste of a post about SOPA and the US, that specifically mentions how un-American something is, is not useful in a discussion of India and facebook.
11. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by symbolset · 2012-01-16 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  There is pressure afoot to ensure that these bad laws, if enacted, are pressed on India and other countries through treaties. Is that enough to make it relevant for you?
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
12. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by sempir · 2012-01-16 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Only on Slashdot would someone refer to a driver as a "1 wood".
  My driver has a 1 stamped in the bottom, should I send it back?
  
  --
  A closed mouth gathers no foot.
13. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by symbolset · 2012-01-16 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's a difficult thing to wrap your mind around the idea that freedom is recursive. It's always tempting to insert a non-reentrant idea in there, but it just doesn't work - just one breaks the whole thing.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
14. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Nursie · 2012-01-16 21:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not in a discussion of India proposing censorship of facebook, no.
15. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Hognoxious · 2012-01-17 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea what's on my driver's bottom. We absolutely insist on the servants being correctly attired at all times.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
16. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-01-17 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Or a 1 wood.
  Only on Slashdot would someone refer to a driver as a "1 wood".
  That's because on /. the word driver usually means something completely different.
17. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think this is about free speech. It's more about porn popping up in completely unrelated searches.
  You Tube is particularly bad about this. Search for science or history documentary and in the middle of the results is a close up image of a scantily clad booby augmented bimbo.
  Its getting kinda old. And that's what the religious nuts in India think too, except eventually they will riot, find the closest Google employee and chop him to pieces with swords.
  Grow up Google.
18. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by mjr167 · 2012-01-17 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how people seem to think that "Free Speech" implies no consequences of voicing the opinion. Why is the difference between being allowed to say whatever you want and being responsible for your actions so hard?
19. Re:From a post I made somewhere else, edited. by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-01-17 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  My driver has a 1 stamped in the bottom, should I send it back?
  Depends... what's printed on your mashie-niblick?
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
It is not that bad by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 17:50 · Score: 0

Reason that it is being discussed and is in court is good enough for not making it succeed. Courts in India have been much closer to western idea of individual freedom, so I hope that it would not get much further than govt. idea of getting cheap shot at conservative idea of censoring what it does not like.
A good portion of political class is still thinks internet is like print media which can be controlled and regulated. It would take time, but they will learn to use it rather fight it.
1. Re:It is not that bad by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-16 18:26 · Score: 2
  
  Reason that it is being discussed and is in court is good enough for not making it succeed. Courts in India have been much closer to western idea of individual freedom, so I hope that it would not get much further than govt. idea of getting cheap shot at conservative idea of censoring what it does not like.
  The High Court has already given its go-ahead for the prosecution
  Thats bad enough
2. Re:It is not that bad by oiron · 2012-01-16 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  Occasionally high courts go crazy. Usually, either the bench rules sensibly, or it goes to the Supreme Court, who do the right thing in about 99% of cases.
  Besides, this is only the Delhi High Court, who's writ extends to the whole grand National Capital Territory, all of 1500 square kilometers. A ruling in this case shouldn't be binding on the rest of the country. And finally, the court really has no power to make this happen. That power is with the government, who probably won't this being an election year, their backs being against the wall in several corruption cases, and that's before considering that enforcement of any such thing would rank next to impossible.
  I'm not particularly worried, except for the shameful scene of the Delhi High Court comparing us with China! Seriously, China?
Like I said before about China... by wisebabo · 2012-01-16 18:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

... the reason why the United States of America (may) remain the most powerful, prosperous country* in the world isn't because we aren't the best or most efficient or smartest.
It's because (it seems) invariably our competitors screw up in a big way. With China it's when their authoritarian government can't keep the lid on their repressed people, with India it's because their chaotic government can't promote effective policies. So let's hope that America's creatively destructive democracy hasn't wounded itself too much (thanks Bush) and will regain its balance. (Actually, hoping that the U.S. will outcompete China, a country 4x its population, is probably a bit much. How about a close second?).
As I've gotten (much) older, I'm wondering if I see a personal corrolary to this; I've seen people do well not because they've had spectacular successes but because they've managed to avoided catastrophic failures. Sort of like the tortoise and the hare I guess.
* prosperous BIG country; I know Switzerland, Singapore and Qatar are richer on a per capita basis but they don't have nukes. Or Facebook.
1. Re:Like I said before about China... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, both Switzerland and Singapore have Facebook. Qatar bans it.
2. Re:Like I said before about China... by wisebabo · 2012-01-16 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I should've been more explicit. I meant the country that CREATED Facebook (or Google or Apple). I was going to say MTV (as an example of American cultural hegemony) but it seemed a bit dated for those young whippersnappers out there. ;)
3. Re:Like I said before about China... by El_Muerte_TDS · 2012-01-16 18:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  USA didn't create Facebook, a bunch of people living in the USA created Facebook.
4. Re:Like I said before about China... by nzac · 2012-01-16 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  ... the reason why the United States of America (may) remain the most powerful, prosperous country* in the world isn't because we aren't the best or most efficient or smartest.
  .....
  As I've gotten (much) older, I'm wondering if I see a personal corrolary to this; I've seen people do well not because they've had spectacular successes but because they've managed to avoided catastrophic failures. Sort of like the tortoise and the hare I guess.
  Come on, the reason the US is prosperous is due to adequate leadership and coming out of both world wars far better off than any of the pre-war powers.
5. Re:Like I said before about China... by wisebabo · 2012-01-16 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  I think many people would agree that it was the socio-political-economic-educational environment that ALLOWED those people to create Facebook (and Google and Apple). How many OTHER population centers in the world are the same size as the Boston area or Silicon Valley (or Hollywood)? Now how many world changing inventions or works of (commercial) art have come from them?
  Most telling is the number of IMMIGRANTS (like the founders of Intel and Google) who came to America to realize their dreams. Proof that like retail, for innovation it's all about location, location, location.
6. Re:Like I said before about China... by wisebabo · 2012-01-16 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Good point but we've seen other competitors seem to begin to challenge American dominance (Japan, now Europe) and then something messes up. Looking at this from a very long perspective, one could say that the world wars (at least the second one) was a very catastrophic failure on the part of Germany/Japan due to their overly authoritarian government (I'm winging it here, I'm not a historian).
  But I could be wrong! So we'll see what happens with China, I've heard their leadership described as "the Harvard Alumni Association with an army" so I presume they're competent. India just looks too dysfunctional.
7. Re:Like I said before about China... by Alex+Belits · 2012-01-16 19:33 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I came to US in 1993, and I completely disagree with US idea of "freedom". Immigrants such as myself came to US because their home countries were destroyed or went through massive political disasters (often provoked or exacerbated by US). We don't love you. We don't care about you. We certainly don't care for your ideological crap. We can adapt to anything -- replace stars on your flag with swastikas or hammers with sickles, or start praising Cthulhu in your stupid giant churches, and we won't notice.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
8. Re:Like I said before about China... by Alex+Belits · 2012-01-16 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  India just looks too dysfunctional.
  India made a mistake on trying to build an economy by growing production of things that are completely worthless in India and depend on foreign consumers/clients -- all the outsourcing crap, call centers, etc. That's pseudo-economy, it is colonial in nature, it encourages complete indifference to the results of work, and inevitably results in fraud.
  As far as I know, India does have actual economy, however to develop it, they have to kill the parasitic pseudo-economy that sucks resources from it and produces mis-educated people who can only eat and pretend to be Java developers.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
9. Re:Like I said before about China... by TechGuys · 2012-01-16 19:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  What? Do you honestly think no other country could have created those? For example we had multiple local Facebook equivalents since like the 90's. Widely used in my country too, with almost all teens and young adults being on those services. Similarly there was search engines, in fact in larger countries they even to this day dominate Google (In Russia Yandex, in China Baidu and in South Korea Naver)
10. Re:Like I said before about China... by Grishnakh · 2012-01-16 20:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Immigrants such as myself came to US because their home countries were destroyed or went through massive political disasters (often provoked or exacerbated by US).
  That sure sounds a lot like the Roman Empire... didn't they also have a lot of people in Rome from other parts of their empire, and not necessarily because they really loved Rome?
11. Re:Like I said before about China... by Grishnakh · 2012-01-16 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  China does appear to have a more competent government than the US, FWIW. There do seem to be some rising tensions there, but if the govt there is smart they'll be able to relieve those tensions without things exploding. The fact that they have a rapidly-growing middle class and rising prosperity will probably keep most of them happy; people don't care that much about govt misdeeds when things are good overall, esp. if they're getting better (and in China, they have been; just look at where they were 30 years ago compared to now).
  India seems to be the poster boy for dysfunction in a national government.
  WWII was a failure for Germany/Japan not really because of their governments (which were popular with their people at the time), but because they were too aggressive with their imperial plans and invasions, starting a giant war that they lost. If they had gone much slower, they would have done much better.
  But as for "something messing up", America seems to be making its own giant screw-ups these days.
12. Re:Like I said before about China... by nzac · 2012-01-16 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  Looking at this from a very long perspective, one could say that the world wars (at least the second one) was a very catastrophic failure on the part of Germany/Japan due to their overly authoritarian government (I'm winging it here, I'm not a historian).
  Neither lost because of an authoritarian government but i guess the non-authoritarian governments (and the USSR) ended up out numbering and isolating them.
  The Media has said Counties have challenged the US their lead is still massive.
  Have a look at what the authoritarian Communist government of China has archived since it got power they started with a pretty poor situation.
13. Re:Like I said before about China... by sempir · 2012-01-16 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  USA didn't create Facebook, a bunch of people living in the USA created Facebook
  Were any of them American?
  
  --
  A closed mouth gathers no foot.
14. Re:Like I said before about China... by Rich0 · 2012-01-17 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Come on, the reason the US is prosperous is due to adequate leadership and coming out of both world wars far better off than any of the pre-war powers.
  Certainly true, but at least in the case of WW1 you could argue that those other pre-war powers made catastrophic failures. In the case of WW2 you could argue that for Germany, but the other countries didn't seek that war out.
  WW1 was basically the last old-European war, fought with much more modern technology. Europe has a long history of various families (today we'd nearly call them warlords) with concentrated power getting into turf wars for whatever reason, and then a bunch of people die over a few years or maybe a generation or two, and then the borders get re-drawn. For the average serf life didn't change much - the lords fought over who got to bully who for tax payments. Even with the advent of democracy in Europe that mentality took a while to go away, and WW1 was really the war that broke this habit as such insane levels of destruction resulting from petty matters of national pride and honor were simply unsustainable.
  In the end some random dissident shot a royal couple and before you know it everybody in Europe is losing parents, siblings, and children. A failure of leaders to understand the nature of modern warfare made the whole problem a LOT worse, as did a tradition of people blindly heading off to war at the call of some nobleman as had been done for centuries before.
  WW2 was basically a result of Germany being plundered after the war and millions of people collectively figuring that it couldn't possibly get worse so who cares who we elect into power (they were wrong), combined with the general tendency of people to go along with the crowd no matter where it is headed. No doubt a more just resolution to WW1 could have helped prevent it.
  I don't think things have really improved much since - it must be the human condition to elect idiots like ourselves into office and follow them blindly. I think the only thing that has prevented additional wars on a national scale has been the advent of nuclear weapons - those with the power to make war are no longer so sheltered from their effects. As was pointed out in the recent Mission Impossible movie, war can be profitable but not nuclear war (though the preparation for it is no doubt lucrative).
15. Re:Like I said before about China... by Rich0 · 2012-01-17 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say you are right about WW2. In WW1 everybody had relatively authoritarian governments and there was a much greater sense of nationalism/etc back then. In the middle ages if one king called the daughter of another king ugly ten-thousand serfs would die in a few battles and life would move on. WW1 was really just a more modern extension of that, and it wasn't until it was ending that people realized just how insane it was. The thugs that won blamed the thugs that lost for the war, setting the stage for WW2.
  WW2 was different since Germany was clearly the aggressor (though it did have legitimate grievances it too was swallowed by nationalism and clearly sought to do more than right wrongs). WW1 was basically a free-for-all.
16. Re:Like I said before about China... by Hentes · 2012-01-17 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Economy is not a zero-sum game, if everyone else loses you are still not guaranteed to win. Just because you have the strongest economy doesn't mean you couldn't be better off in a world where you cooperate with others even at the cost of losing said leadership. Also, until China has 4x the GDP of America the average American citizen is still better off.
17. Re:Like I said before about China... by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-17 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Creating FaceBook in the EU would have been difficult. A company that exists for the sole purpose of collecting information about individuals and selling it to third parties would be under a lot of scrutiny for data protection violations.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
18. Re:Like I said before about China... by coyote_oww · 2012-01-17 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly true, but at least in the case of WW1 you could argue that those other pre-war powers made catastrophic failures. In the case of WW2 you could argue that for Germany, but the other countries didn't seek that war out.
  Japan invaded Manchuria in 1932, China in 1937. The government publicly announced plans to create the "Greater Asian Co-properity Sphere". US responded with progressively firmer warnings, culminating in an embargo of war making materials (oil, steel, etc). Japan planned for taking over the Dutch East Indies (to replace the oil) but assumed the US would intervene (questionable assumption) and bombed Pearl Harbor as a pre-emptive move. The assumption was that this would cow the US into negotiating a deal (ala Somolia in the 1990s, the US had the reputation of not being willing to sustain a fight in the 1930s).
  To say that Japan wasn't seeking a war when it invaded 2 countries, bombed a third, then invaded the Phillipines and British, Dutch, French and Australian possesions, as well as bombing Australia itself doesn't fit the facts of the case.
19. Re:Like I said before about China... by Rich0 · 2012-01-18 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry - I was thinking of just the European theater and in particular the contrast between Germany in WWI and WWII. Clearly Japan was an aggressor as well.
  You could argue that Germany was the first to start firing in WWI as well. Those convoluted alliances were a problem and everybody else was eager for war, but Germany didn't have to declare war so quickly, and chances are that nobody really wanted to be the first to flinch so waiting could have avoided the war.
Meet the retard who started it all by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:20 · Score: 1

blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/01/16/meet-vinay-rai-indias-censorship-crusader/?mod=WSJBlog
Seriously, there isnt a single line said by him that makes sense
1. Re:Meet the retard who started it all by Aryden · 2012-01-16 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  He says: "It is the right of every Indian citizen to voice his/her opinion against what he deems objectionable." Would it not also be every Indian's right to voice their own opinion regardless of whether someone else sees it as objectionable? No matter what you say, someone, somewhere can and will take offense to it. It is the way of humanity to have dissenting opinions.
2. Re:Meet the retard who started it all by perryizgr8 · 2012-01-16 20:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  vinay rai is probably a paid puppet hired by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapil_Sibal
  he is a minister in the government and there was a huge public outcry when his attempts to force facebook into censoring stuff were leaked by the press. so this vinay rai is just another tactic to subdue the issue and get a court order so that facebook has no option but to comply.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
It's hilarious by Swampash · 2012-01-16 18:29 · Score: 0

...how people from the country that gave us the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and state-approved assassinations and warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention without trial and the DMCA and SOPA and PROTECT-IP can get so upset when other countries do stuff.
It it because Jesus is on their side?
Control of content by singlevalley · 2012-01-16 18:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is a sensitive time in indian politics, the new generation (kids) of the current politicians are all set to make their splash into active politics. And if there is free press, then their family scams will start haunting them as well. so, in order to neutralize this, the current government wants to muzzle the free press and internet. Follow the fate of the public lokpal bill to understand what i mean. Of course, that is just my opinion, and i could be wrong.
Ah, Qatar... by Aardpig · 2012-01-16 18:33 · Score: 1

...land of the wise. How I yearn'st for peace from 'Here's some activity you may have missed on Facebook', as I gaze upon thy sun-kiss'd dunes....

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
democratic eh? by rubycodez · 2012-01-16 18:34 · Score: 0

how's that democracy working out for the Utouchables? hardly get beaten or raped at all, much, compared to fifty years ago?
1. Re:democratic eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 19:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Its working out pretty well for them.
  Today the many Chief Ministers (like Governors in US) and MPs (like senators in US) are from "untouchable" class which would not have been possible without "that democracy".
  Just so that you know, "Untouchable" in India could vote before blacks could vote in Home of the free.
2. Re:democratic eh? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-01-16 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  how's that democracy working out for the Utouchables?
  Now you just HAD to drag Chicago politics into this...
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
3. Re:democratic eh? by oiron · 2012-01-16 20:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  hardly get beaten or raped at all, much, compared to fifty years ago?
  Yes, actually... Things are improving, though there's a long way to go. It's a flawed process, but the point is, it's happening
  At least we didn't continue with the practice for a good 90 years after independence, fight a civil war over it and then spend the next 100 years not actually granting civil rights to those who were supposedly "freed" by the civil war...
4. Re:democratic eh? by milkasing · 2012-01-17 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  It is probably a waste discussing the caste system -- it needs a degree of starting knowledge on the subject that you clearly do not have.
  I mean even for flamebait the question is pretty stupid (Incidentally, The term Untouchable is considered to be in bad taste by most indians, particularly the dalits themselves).
  There can be an argument that dalits have unfair disadvantages in today's Indian society (and also arguments that they have unfair advantages as well), adn it is true that for many of them life is terrible.
  However, compared to pre-Independence India though, democracy has been working out really well for them. Dalits have had tremendous upward mobility in the last 50 years and a huge in political power. As for rape, if you are american, you should be embarrassed to even bring up the topic -- ahref=http://askville.amazon.com/top-10-countries-world-amounts-violence-women-children/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58338882rel=url2html-15557http://askville.amazon.com/top-10-countries-world-amounts-violence-women-children/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58338882>
Not the least worried by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 18:37 · Score: 0

Court cases in India run for an average 4-5 decades. I'm sure Google and Facebook would have found solutions to this and many more problems by then.
1. Re:Not the least worried by singlevalley · 2012-01-16 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  ah, but you forget the "special" courts that the political class can setup, if it suits them. they can then be staffed with pliable judges, and then it is anybody's guess as to the result. the Supreme court is the only place where there seems to be a modicum of impartiality, for now. National security, those magical words can do some terrible things.
2. Re:Not the least worried by oiron · 2012-01-16 20:21 · Score: 2
  
  Not above the magistrates' courts. The judiciary in India are not really appointed by the executive; they' have to be selected by a collegium of judges, and it usually goes by seniority at the next lowest level (I think they can co-opt eminent lawyers at the high-court level too). They can be quite bullish and independent. Which means that sometimes they do stupid things (present case, for example), but at least it's not from government influence
  We were badly burned by Indira Gandhi's tenure, and since then, there hasn't been so much influence peddling in these matters. Some corruption, yes. But normally they're quite jealous in protecting their independence from the government.
Democracy vs. liberal democracy by Compaqt · 2012-01-16 18:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

It makes no sense to throw in the line about India being the "world's largest democracy".
All that that means is that India holds elections, and that it has a lot of people.
It doesn't mean that (as in other 3rd world democracies):
-India has a guarantee of freedom of speech like in the US
-India has constitutional protections for "life, liberty, and property"
-You can refuse to testify against yourself (an important protection against torture)
-The government doesn't censor (plenty of stories on RIM, etc., on Slashdot re: that)
The word you're looking for is "liberal democracy", i.e., a democracy in which an emphasis is placed on liberty.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:Democracy vs. liberal democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 19:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Mod parent up. Democracy does not ensure liberty. It just ensures that people can vote. Liberal democracies on the other hand are built on a strong constitution that protects the liberty of the citizens in conjunction with independent courts. And I am sorry to say that most liberal democracies are being eroded to just being democracies.
2. Re:Democracy vs. liberal democracy by perryizgr8 · 2012-01-16 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  -The government doesn't censor (plenty of stories on RIM, etc., on Slashdot re: that)
  there was no censorship in the rim case, it was a breach of privacy, allowing the government to intercept bbm messages, etc.
  
  --
  Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
3. Re:Democracy vs. liberal democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  > -India has a guarantee of freedom of speech like in the US
  Thats funny to compare with US-as if US has freedom of speech- ,Did you forgot how US going about wikileak and his founder :P and blocking all his financial support.
4. Re:Democracy vs. liberal democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  >-India has a guarantee of freedom of speech like in the US
  Yeah,we know about ""freedom of speech"" in US. Ask Wikileak's founder.
  ps:I hope this message won't get removed - just like my previous one.
5. Re:Democracy vs. liberal democracy by Ash-Fox · 2012-01-17 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah,we know about ""freedom of speech"" in US. Ask Wikileak's founder.
  Okay, I'll do as you say, AC.
  Wikileak's founder, tell us (I'll use your PGP key for verification it's you replying).
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Google, Facebook etc. should block India by rcasha2 · 2012-01-16 18:50 · Score: 2

Since the court said that Google/FB/others must filter their content or be blocked, these sites should go along with the latter option and block all requests coming from India. It shouldn't take long for India to be clamouring to be let back in and offering that judge's head on a platter as a peace offering.
This should be good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 19:12 · Score: 0

Let them censor it. With a country that big, they'll learn the true wrath of people who have nothing better to do than screw around online. If there's one thing I learned, it's that there's no faster way to start a riot then by giving the people who are angry at you a whole lot of free time with nothing to do at all.
The fear of loosing control by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 19:19 · Score: 0

Politicians around the world are totally POed that they have no control over internet. They are not able to use it to their favor they way they can use print and tv/radio since the cost of entry is very low. This another example of the same SOPA/PIPA .
Three Bears and their porridge by wisebabo · 2012-01-16 19:19 · Score: 1

Remember the story about the three bears and their porridge? (one was too hot, the other too cold...)
Well the only countries large enough to challenge the U.S. are the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). So in the spirit of the three bears...
China's government is too authoritarian
India's government isn't authoritarian enough
Brazil's government/society isn't focused enough on the future (education)
and Russia's government is too corrupt and they're facing one hell of a demographic problem maybe because "without a vision the people perish.". It seems there is no visionary leadership in Russia, just everyone grab whatever you can.
Just more late night musings. (I'm back in the U.S. now, no longer in Vietnam talk about a f-up government).
1. Re:Three Bears and their porridge by ThiagoHP · 2012-01-17 00:21 · Score: 2
  
  Brazil's government/society isn't focused enough on the future (education)
  As a Brazilian, unfortunately I need to agree with you. Our education system is improving, but too slowly for the problems and neglect we've had. On the other hand, many people who didn't valued education in the past has been valuing it now, due to the economic growth and the demand for more specialized and educated labor.
2. Re:Three Bears and their porridge by oreiasecaman · 2012-01-17 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Things are slowly improving. Despite all the problems that plagued them, enem and sisu are a step on the right direction IMO. :)
  
  --
  This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
Everything is fine till you tick off Govt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 19:22 · Score: 0

Everything is fine in India till you tick off Govt. or ruling party and the its first family. Dont speak against them. If you do, they will chase you down and make you shut up or else you are locked up with all kind of frivolous charges. Like Subramanyam Swami who is behind exposing the biggest scam India have seen in recent years also for exposing head of ruling party .
Damn lies by Meneth · 2012-01-16 19:30 · Score: 0

Facebook and Google are lying. They can and do censor all their networks. They have processes in place to remove content at will. For example, in the USA these processes are used by copyright holders via the DMCA.
absurb by alienzed · 2012-01-16 19:46 · Score: 1

Free speech is not a liberty, it is a reality.

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
India has full internet access right now by msobkow · 2012-01-16 20:00 · Score: 1

Just plug in "India" instead of "Canada" or "United States" or "America" in any of a bazillion opinion pieces on censorship posted to slashdot over the years.
i.e. Just search it.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:India has full internet access right now by msobkow · 2012-01-16 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  India's legal system is based on the UK-British system, the same as Canada's, the same as every Commonwealth Country I know of.
  The same arguments apply as to why "Censorship is bad, m'kay?"
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Money talks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 20:30 · Score: 0

They should just buy india :P
Ah, and this is why democracy is failing by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-01-16 20:47 · Score: 1

Democracy should not be "winner takes all" if you win with a 51% majority, you should take into account that the 49% have to be accounted for in your policies and not gloated over and made to regret voting against you. You are elected by 51% as the leader of all.
If as in the US, the parties are so evenly split, then the message should be clear, the populace as a whole wants neither extreme and therefor a middle ground must be reached. Abortion rights but with a strict process. Socialized health care but a sober one perhaps.
In Holland we are experiencing something far more extreme. The VVD (Liberal, pro-business or as Americans would label them, pinkos) is the current ruling party IN a coalition but the polls say that they are now sharing the largest party title with the SP (Socialist protest party (logo red thrown tomato), or as Americans would label them... lets not kid ourselves Americans would run screaming in terror at so much red)... so... should they rule together as the leader of the SP has suggested?
A few years ago, the killed Pim Fortyun and the now retired SP leader had a similar dilemma, both grown very large on the disatfication with the existing parties BUT showing that the dissatifaction lead people both to to the left AND the right. And not extreme right or extreme left either no matter what some extremists like to claim to further their own cause.
It is easy to go for "winner takes all" and ignore the other half but all that leads to is US style politics in which it is all out war between the parties and nothing gets done anymore because the next election might swing the vote in your favor so why agree to anything the current winner suggests?

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:Ah, and this is why democracy is failing by RogueSounds · 2012-01-16 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  Democracy should not be "winner takes all" if you win with a 51% majority, you should take into account that the 49% have to be accounted for in your policies and not gloated over and made to regret voting against you. You are elected by 51% as the leader of all.
  So why have elections at all?
I'm all for it by Leo+Sasquatch · 2012-01-16 20:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just as soon as we get a cast-iron definition of 'obscene' or even 'offensive' that applies to everything correctly for everyone.

It's okay, I'll wait...

Because, of course, language is never going to modify itself to route round censorship. No-one has ever invented entire new sub-tongues like polari, or thieves' cant to discuss dangerous or illegal subjects in plain sight without detection.

I wish these idiots nothing but the best with their endless game of Whac-a-Mole (TM).
An Indian's take on this (I am late late, though) by HauntedGhost · 2012-01-16 21:40 · Score: 1

The thing is our politicians are crackpots when it comes to technology (infact, in most of the areas where they can't "earn" their share). The leading whiner, Kapil Sibal, claims that the content on web may hurt communal feelings. But, most of the people who are backward enough to getting hurt by such content don't use web at all. Those who use are tech-savvy enough to ignore such contents. One reason behind this step was that contents abusing the politicians of the ruling party (mainly, the party head Sonia Gandhi) arose in the social networking sites and search engines. So, the most logical solution for these guys is to block the content. Of course, we Indians know that it is totally retarded. And India is a democratic nation for a reason. If people think what the government is doing is wrong, they won't let that happen. Indian citizens rallied against government in mid-2011 to stop it from introducing a crippled anti-corruption law. I am confident that the sites won't be censored in India, not until there is democracy. The current government has anyways done enough harm to the country so as not to get elected again.
Re:An Indian's take on this (I am late late, thoug by HauntedGhost · 2012-01-16 21:45 · Score: 0

Oh, and this step taken by the Indian government is negligible to what the US government was going to impose: SOPA. Also, as of now, nothing is being censored in India. And no one, but the politicians, have any objections for the web content. We Indians enjoy and believe in freedom as much as other do. Trust me on that.
Re:An Indian's take on this (I am late late, thoug by jpapon · 2012-01-17 00:33 · Score: 1

Oh, and this step taken by the Indian government is negligible to what the US government was going to impose: SOPA.

Umm, how so? This legislation was intended to censor political speech. SOPA was intended to censor websites trafficking in pirated material. These are in no way comparable. Our worst fears are that SOPA might potentially be abused to do what this legislation expressly intends to do.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
yeah by unity100 · 2012-01-17 01:03 · Score: 1

I believe in freedom of speech. If some individual wants to stand up in public and say that he supports depriving every citizen of free speech and due process of law to help save the profitability of a 90 year old mouse cartoon - then I will defend his right to do that.
and then that individual will find/brainwash others like him, increase in numbers, become an economical/political power, and then really shut you up. democratically. all that will end up happening will be the irony of letting democracy be destroyed 'through democracy'.

that is what most of the islamist groups that are dubbed as 'mild islamist' by the west are doing by the way.

http://www.meforum.org/2045/fethullah-gulens-grand-ambition

--
Read radical news here
So what if India is democratic? by nhat11 · 2012-01-17 01:16 · Score: 1

They're still a 2nd/3rd world country. It's extremely hard to to keep progression going let alone enforce a lot of issues in those countries because of the resources and how poor the people are. There's still a lot of corruption happening because of that. People have to understand that the US does not = the world. Yes censorship is bad but there's a lot of pressing issues in India they should be focusing instead of censoring people.
Not a wise choice by Hentes · 2012-01-17 01:51 · Score: 1

With this move the Indian government will deal a huge blow to the country's IT sector, the only thing that could save them from poverty.
May be they want the Google UMG Deal by Frankie70 · 2012-01-17 03:51 · Score: 1

India doesn't seem to understand that what they're asking to do isn't technologically feasible. It would require a gigantic staff of people round-the-clock, judging each and every post and video before they're allowed to be seen by the general public.
The Indian Govt may have heard about the Google UMG & they are ready to employ their own staff to do the wiping.
Censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-17 09:25 · Score: 0

India already supports censorship: All types of pornography are illegal in India. That is something I'd expect from a Muslim dictatorship.