Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Officials Rebuke India's Request To Subpoena Facebook, Google

Posted by timothy on from the sorry-fellas-no-can-do dept.

hypnosec writes "U.S. officials have told the Indian Government that they will not be able to serve summons to the executives of companies like Google and Facebook because they are not convinced that the content hosted on these sites can cause violence and that these summons impact 'free speech principles.' The reply comes as a response to India's request to the US to help serve papers to 11 Internet companies accused of hosting content on their sites that was meant to fuel communal hatred and violence. The U.S. authorities said that there are limitations when it comes to protection on free speech — when the speech comprises a true threat or provokes imminent violence — but in this particular case there is not sufficient evidence of either of these."

60 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Words are words, nothing more by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Words are words, nothing more by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice."

      As a society, we have chosen to limit free speech to speech that does not directly threaten or "provoke imminent violence". Those are accurate statements. What people often misunderstand about this is what threats and "imminent violence" are.

      A threat is illegal not because it's abhorrent speech, but because it's a threat. It's illegal to threaten someone in order to get them to behave the way you want. (Somebody please get that through some heads in Federal government!) We have many laws against this kind of behavior that have little or nothing to do with speech per se. But the courts have decided (even the U.S. Supreme Court) that your right to speech is not stronger than someone else's right to not be threatened.

      The "imminent violence" language is often misunderstood. Saying "we must overthrow the government" is not provoking "imminent" violence. In fact it's protected political speech. But tweeting "let's all go outside and beat up some white guys", if you expect to be taken seriously, could be "provoking imminent violence". Here imminent means "immediate" or "close by; likely". A real provocation to violence right here, right now. That makes it different from "hate speech" or radical (or even violent) political speech.

    2. Re:Words are words, nothing more by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently. Censorship is just the authoritarians' attempt to control thought and conserve their power. Now, if you're saying there is no free will, well that's a another matter entirely. The only proper way to deal with 'contrary' speech is to make an effective counterpoint, more speech, not less.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Words are words, nothing more by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently."

      Yes, that's true, but words can provoke, sometimes against our better judgment or will.

      The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While that's not violence, strictly speaking, under some circumstances words can cause havoc. The question is whether someone has the right to say things that do actual damage to others.

      Why is it illegal (in most circumstances anyway) to punch me in the nose?

      But in any case, one must keep in mind the standard: in order to be illegal, it must provoke "imminent" violence. Like standing on a soapbox and inciting an already riled crowd to riot. We know it's possible because it has happened in our lifetimes.

    4. Re:Words are words, nothing more by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I should add that for the most part I agree with you, and any restrictions on speech must be only for the most extreme, most egregious cases.

    5. Re:Words are words, nothing more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice.

      Try telling that to a certain person hiding in a certain embassy and unable to leave, thanks to the US Govt.

    6. Re:Words are words, nothing more by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      "Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently."

      Yes, that's true, but words can provoke, sometimes against our better judgment or will.

      The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While that's not violence, strictly speaking, under some circumstances words can cause havoc.

      In my opinion that classic example is a bad one, and I put it to you that your claims are untested hypotheses which lack any evidence to support them. What is the percentage of times that someone will lapse their better judgment due to a provocational word? No metrics? That's what I thought. Your stance is invalid. Let us test the hypothesis, or begone with laws based on bogus assumptions.

      I do have some experience with being provoked and provoking others -- Any school child does. "Teasing" is a human rite of passage that better hones our judgment in the face of provocation. Sure, in extreme cases someone may be provoked to action against their judgement by words, but I'm pretty sure it's the one taking the action that is found at fault -- "Who threw the first punch?" Additionally, outliers do not a law make. In reality, it's harmful to the free society of man to make laws or take action based on a mere minor possibility of something occurring, depending on what the something is and the estimated risk. You need look no further than searching "internment camp" or "red scare" if you need some backing evidence here.

      I was actually in a crowded theater once when a man shouted "FIRE!" The immediate response was an overwhelming, "WHERE?!" No one else could see or smell any smoke -- They wanted to know which way to go to escape the fire. Turns out he just though there was a fire -- It was a wisp of dust rising out of a seat cushion in front of him, as a nearby observer pointed out. "Oh, sorry, it was just dust or something, nevermind", he said, and it was on with the show.

      You see, If you perceive an event, it stands to reason that others should be able to perceive it too. If he had insisted that there was a fire where there was none it probably would have caused everyone to annoyingly shuffle out of the theater -- It's not like the fire would spread faster than a human could walk away. A guy popping his head in the door and yelling fire might have spooked us more, but it should be the action that is actually caused that is weighed in all these instances of "word abuse". Actions speak louder than words, as they say.

  2. Tags by Tokolosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems the appropriate tags should be "pot", "kettle" and "black".

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Tags by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems the appropriate tags should be "pot", "kettle" and "black".

      Really? I think you mostly misunderstand what is going on.

      US Government does not routinely haul Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page into court because some user posts child porn or hate speech on Facebook or Google Plus. Nor does the US demand Pakistan or India deliver summons to the web services in those countries to appear in US courts for anti-US hate postings on their services.

      In the US, there are procedures to have those types of things taken down if warranted, without demanding that the CEO appear in court and answer personally for content so massive in scope and diverse in nature that no one person or large group could possibly police it all.

      And, the US, and most Western governments, would rather allow the stuff to be posted, if for no other reason than doing so provides them with a "watering hole" opportunity for observation.

      Its a whole different thing to demand a court appearance by Zuckerberg simply because some guy going by the name of Tokolosh posted some hate rant on his Facebook page. Especially when there are different countries involved, and different laws about what actually is hate speech.

      Apparently you are in good company in this misunderstanding of what is going on here, judging by how quickly you were modded insightful.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Tags by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems that Indians take license to be violent if they hear anything that denigrates any of their gods ... India is also host to a number of Muslims, who we know reserve license to be violent if they hear something THEY deem offensive ... in India, men also assume license to violent gang rape any time they find a woman alone, without defense

      Generalize much? With over a billion people, there may be some minor variations amongst their attitudes and actions. Your generalizations about Indians, as though they were all the same, is precisely the sort of prejudice that leads to the problems you list.

      India certainly has its problems, and I've always been amazed that with such a variety of languages, cultures, religions, etc. they manage to keep the place glued together at all. Most of the things you hear about because of the outrage in the Indian press. Do you really think American news organizations put much effort into reporting specific domestic incidents in India? Unsurprisingly, the people I hear most loudly decry these problems are Indians themselves.

    3. Re:Tags by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Has it ever occurred to you that there are things the Indian government does to try and prevent ill treatment of the Dalit castes? What you're saying is like going back to the 1960's and saying the US government does nothing to try to prevent ill treatment of black people.

      P.S. The people I've met who most hate the caste system are Indians. I know one fellow who talked about the clashes he had with his grandparents because he brought home friends who were from "lower castes". It's exactly like the way it took generations for racial attitudes to change in this country (which obviously still aren't completely resolved).

    4. Re:Tags by icebike · · Score: 1

      What Dotcom is aledged to have done was illegal in the country he did it in.
      The raid was a New Zealand execute raid. Your objections should be directed to that government.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Tags by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      What Dotcom is aledged to have done was illegal in the country he did it in.
      The raid was a New Zealand execute raid. Your objections should be directed to that government.

      new zealand isn't the one prosecuting him... the "intel" to perform the raid came from the american feds.

      really, it's just a lose/lose situation to start with "USA doesn't prosecute people for things they said" though. of course, if you just shoot a hellfire missile you're technically not prosecuting.. just killing.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Tags by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You call it generalizing if you wish.

      Because it is. Nowhere did I say any of the things you listed weren't problems, but that you said that everyone one of a large group - hundreds of millions of people - were guilty of it. That's like saying in the 1940's "Americans are bigots, they lynch Negroes, and the police do nothing about it". In the English language that means all Americans. Funny, my parents weren't bigots, and they never lynched anybody. Maybe they were just lying to me.

      You wrote "Indians take license to be violent if they hear anything that denigrates any of their gods". If you didn't mean all Indians, then why didn't you write that?

      You also wrote "Muslims, who we know reserve license to be violent if they hear something THEY deem offensive". If you didn't mean all Muslims, then why didn't you write that?

      Lastly you wrote "in India, men also assume license to violent gang rape any time they find a woman alone, without defense". If you didn't mean all Indian men, then why didn't you write that?

    7. Re:Tags by bhagwad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm an Indian. It seems that we like to be treated like children. There's no concept of "personal responsibility". If someone riots it's because they were "provoked". Not because they made the choice to go and riot!

      It's all about ownership. Even though the Indian Constitution practically forces it on them, Indians are terrified of true freedom. They want to behave irresponsibly and at the same time blame someone else for "provoking" them.

      The Internet has just brought this attitude to the fore. I sincerely hope Indians will grow up and behave like adults.

    8. Re: Tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Hypocrisy"
      If anything, the Indian government gives lower castes "special privileges"
      They have seats reserved in educational institutes, a special quota in national employment and there's a law that ensures that they get promoted faster than others in government jobs!!!

    9. Re:Tags by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Casteism is taught in schools from 6th class itself in India.
      http://www.greatandhra.com/viewnews.php?id=30817&cat=10&scat=25
      http://tehelka.com/karnataka-how-a-government-job-spelt-doom-for-37-dalit-families/
      http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/90-per-cent-of-people-vote-on-caste-lines-Katju/articleshow/18117893.cms
      http://www.firstpost.com/india/wont-eat-in-vessels-cleaned-by-dalit-woman-say-children-in-gujarat-school-615541.html

      If you really want to help them, please write to http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ and http://pmindia.nic.in/feedback.php seeking Independent Nation for 300 million India's Untouchable People as per Congressman Trent Franks House Concurrent Resolution 139.
      http://rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm
      http://www.change.org/petitions/independent-nation-for-300-million-india-s-untouchables

      --
      Casteism
  3. I agree with the US on this by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is not the speech but the Muslims, who take offence at anything. Someone says "Muhammad was not a true prophet" and they riot, while they say Jews, Christians and Hindus are animals and worse themselves.

    1. Re:I agree with the US on this by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 2

      s/the Muslims, /people /

      It's not the religion that's the problem, it's some individuals' attitudes. If you attribute this to the wrong property, you are going to both falsely accuse Muslims who aren't part of the problem and let off the hook non-Muslims who are. You can do better than that.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:I agree with the US on this by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you were familiar with the history of religious violence in India, you would not make the ridiculous claim that it is primarily perpetrated by Muslims. Intercommunal Hindu-Muslim violence is a major problem in both directions, with extremists on both sides fanning the flames.

      If anything, Muslims more often bear the brunt of the violence; many more have been killed by Hindu mobs than vice versa.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    3. Re:I agree with the US on this by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Ossifer says you're a bigot. I disagree with him. But - you are somewhat uninformed. India is home to several religions, and all of them can get violent if they feel their own gods are being denigrated. We might argue that the Muslims are the most violent - but I'd have to do some research before I actually committed myself to that position.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:I agree with the US on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... and the opposite violence happening in pakistan

    5. Re:I agree with the US on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you are wrong.

      Hindus have faced religious oppression and massacres at the hands of Muslims for hundreds of years in their own homeland.

      Even today Hindus are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of religious violence. Unfortunately the liberal bent of the media ensures that these incidents rarely come to light, whereas anytime Muslims are the target the incident is prominently highlighted.

    6. Re:I agree with the US on this by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It might be noted that when India & Pakistan were granted independence from the UK, many Muslims living in predominantly Hindu areas were massacred.

      This went so far as to include the Indian Army stopping trains full of Muslims headed to Pakistan and killing everyone on board.

      So, no, it's not just the Muslims causing problems....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:I agree with the US on this by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      Mod coward loser.

    8. Re:I agree with the US on this by slash.jit · · Score: 1

      No idiot.. what he is saying is that the problem exist with the people of every community. Today most of the religious violence in India are sponsored/supported by corrupt politicians, so we cannot really say that one religion is more violent than another in India. There is hatred and violence among different communities not just in terms religion but also in terms of caste, language, etc. There is a lot of violence against women which are committed by people of every religion. So even if you remove all the Muslims from India you will see people taking offense with caste, sex. It's a problem with people attitude.

    9. Re:I agree with the US on this by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      ... and the opposite violence happening in pakistan

      Violence in Pakistan exclusively perpetrated by Muslims

    10. Re:I agree with the US on this by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Peaceful religious people are generally ignoring the majority of what their religion actually says. Particularly Islam. You'd have to give the Koran an incredibly generous reading, especially in terms of what ought to be done with infidels/apostates.

      Not that the Bible is much better. It's very specific on what to do with homosexuals for example; "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both." (Leviticus 20:13). I don't see much of this from Christians at present though.

      Seems to me in general that the moderates are actually quite bad adherents to their own faith. I'd suggest that maybe human nature or the current social zeitgeist is a tad more gentle, and perhaps there's influence there - but that's a different question.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  4. Less sensorship, more human policing, India by adosch · · Score: 2

    I guess if the Indian government wants to talk about censorship and muting of violence, then I vote for them to worry less about about the minors registering on social networks like FB and alike, and more about the ones getting raped on buses in their own country as of late.

    It's a bit shallow of me to exploit a circumstance such as that (and certainly not a dig at all from the wonderful Indian community at large), but it's sad what 'Big Machine' irregardless of worldly location will waste their time on. Want to do some cleanup with violence? Start within the confines of your own country boundaries first. Definitely in some need of some human filth policing.

  5. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really?. Not in the USA. You can even march around with a swastika or a klan hood if you want, as long as you have the proper permit. The world doesn't end. I guess most Americans aren't as gullible as "sophisticated" Europeans. We can stand to have some freaks in our midst, and just ignore them.

  6. The freedom to hate by arekin · · Score: 1

    ...The only freedom no one seems interested in taking away from people in the US.

    --
    Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
    1. Re:The freedom to hate by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While hating anyone or group usually serves little use and is often as much to the detriment of the hater as the hated; I think the 'freedom to hate' is probably the most important to protect. The 'freedom to hate' is also the the very same freedom to have your own mind, form your own opinions, be truly able to love, and be a whole person with agency. Yes its shameful how many people use that agency so badly but the right answer is not to try and take it away from them.

      If I don't have the freedom to say "I think the world would be better off without $GROUP" I am not really free to speak or think. We can't have go trying to have a list of approved thoughts and ideas; that will be far more anti-human than anything any hate group has ever done.

      There is a big difference between having opinions and acting on them. Its action where the line should be. We should never loose site of that.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:The freedom to hate by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The freedom to hate ... The only freedom no one seems interested in taking away from people in the US.

      It's called Freedom of Speech. The reason it has to be Constitutionally protected is not because anybody ever had to protect popular speech. Without it there would have been a time when saying "Negroes should be equal to white people" would have been censored because it would incite hatred.

  7. Re:Coded message for Google and Facebook? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Coded message for Google and Facebook?

    Ok, what's the message?

  8. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure in a few countries one can be prosecuted for being Holocaust deniers, but that is a historical fact not a religious one. However, I can see how you'd be sympathetic to loopy conspiracy theories.

  9. What about the most important minority? by monzie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am from India. My country is a democratic country ( with many, many flaws, but still democratic)

    The Government is always worried about 'something which will offend the minorities' and spark communal violence.

    I am a member of a minority. The most important and neglected minority in India.

    I am a normal ( well not too normal, I'm on Slashdot! ) rational guy who can look at an idiot trying to make people of community A hate community B for political gains and ( very likely ) personal gains through political gains.

    As simple as that.

    And I'm not buying his/her/their BS on this matter and I'll gladly call it out. On his/her/their face(s)

    Unfortunately I'm a member of such a minority. ( sadly rational people who want to live their lives in peace are a minority )
    The Government is duty-bound to protect the rights of minorities. Protect my rights to free speech. Realize I'm grown up enough to realize when someone is trying to provoke someone in the name of religion/language/caste/color etc.

    1. Re:What about the most important minority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am an anonymous coward from India. I am also part of a minority. In India there is no majority. If you think there is a majority and there is a minority, you are already a racist. What are you? I am Indian. Oh we know that? Are you from the north the south? Which linguistic or non linguistic state do you belong to? Do you speak one of a bizzilion languages? Do you come from this village in India. Do you belong to the least persuasive case of the century or the most powerful caste? (Even this isn't a definitive question? Read up on affirmative action where 50%(it's even 69%) of the seats in some states are reserved for some section of the minority. Do you know what reservation means, it's not affirmative action. You have to be one of the affirmative beneficiaries to even get into the 69% of the seats in collages. ) Do you think vishnu or shiva or god knows who is the most important god? Do you follow one religion or the other? Do you think your region should be a state?

      If we can truly create a majority, it will be a majority of people who agree India is a nation of minorities. If and we do that I will agree with you calling out to everyone or anyone.

      You know why India is what India is? It's not because you feel you are a minority. It's because everyone is a minority. It's because every hindu is just a name more divided than the muslim in India. Oh and we have the same number of muslims in India as there exist in Pakistan. There was a comment about trains full of dead people. That was a reciprocal madness. Every train full of Sikhs killed and sent from Pakistan had a train full of muslims from India. And you know what? We grew up to be a shining example of democracy of the minorities. India is a nation of minorities, deeply divided, yet united under this notion, this idea of India. An Idea which isn't 50 years old. An idea older than any other civilization in the word. And that sir is what we need to keep in mind. This is what I consider India. India is like America just on the other side of the world.

      Give us another 50 years. You will have all the freedom of speech and democracy rivaling the US and the west. Until then we will set our course as country of the minorities sticked together by a democracy. I hate the exclusivity some people feel they have on the word minority. I am a minority. I speak a language which will be extinct in the next 50 years and a dying culture, but I am proud to be a majority Indian and I am not a minority! Everyone is a minority by some definition. Welcome to India and the next time someone calls themselves a minority in India they should feel ashamed. Cos it's a majority of minorities.

    2. Re:What about the most important minority? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Indians are morally corrupt by birth (caste) for the past 3000 years.
      Google "90% of corrupt money is with Forward Caste people"
      Google "Companies ruined or almost ruined by Forward Caste"
      https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/create-independent-nation-exclusively-for-forward-caste-people-from-india

      --
      Casteism
  10. I'm glad the US is refusing by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    I'm glad the US is refusing to serve the summons. Hypocritical? Not really. The US government is busy wiping its ass with much of the Bill of Rights (4 and 5 are claimed to be obsolete), and contends that the president has the authority to assassinate US citizens at will, but it's actually pretty good about not censoring speech. Even Noam Chomsky thinks so. More thanks to the judiciary than the legislative or executive branches, but the US government nonetheless.

  11. Culture Shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A service created in a society where violence as a result of speech is considered abnormal is not compatible with a society where an insult against fundamental values of community leads might lead to massacre and cycle of retributions. Education, fundamental cultural change of 1,1 billion people and very much stronger rule of law and government authority are needed to resolve the issue. Easy as cake, piece of pie. (bonus points for the movie reference)

  12. They Don't by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    The content doesn't cause the violence, the people taking the content offensively does. Over reacting is a serious issue that is usually caused by people being immature and childish, your allowed to have beliefs and freedoms as long as they don't harm others. Just because I see Jesus eating a hotdog doesn't mean I'm entitled to go and start a war or demand Google shutdown, I'm allowed to look at it and take it how I ever I want and leave it at that. If it offends me I can deal with it and realize that I'm going to be offended from time to time so just take a chill pill and calm down, which is the problem, some people take faith and belief way to far, when it starts hurting other people or effecting your life to the point your willing to go to war I think you need to readjust. I'm not saying you can't have strong beliefs and take them seriously but you need to make sure other people don't get involved. It's not Google's or Facebook's fault that you took a simple picture out of context, it's your's and you should deal with it on your own.

  13. How free is YouTube by PhamNguyen · · Score: 1

    YouTube claim to stand for free speech but they also have TOS that contain the usual vague disclaimers about "hate speech". For example I'd be interested to know which people can view each of these videos (it varies by country)

    Innocence of Muslims

    Jews Lead Gun Control Charge

    1. Re:How free is YouTube by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Their sites their money there rules there's no argument.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:How free is YouTube by PhamNguyen · · Score: 1

      I am arguing with YouTube's claim that they defend freedom of speech, no matter how offensive. If they decide not to actually defend free speech by censoring certain videos, that is their right, but it invalidates their claim to stand for freedom of speech for their uploaders (although they are still defending their own freedom of speech as a company).

    3. Re:How free is YouTube by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      As far as I understood it, it's in very rare circumstances, if ever, that YouTube engages in censorship. Innocence of Muslims, for example, is basically the only video censored in certain Muslim areas of the world, and it was only done in response to how badly it could affect the relationship between the US and the region.

      I'm in the US, so I don't know what's censored. If YouTube is only censoring specific videos that cause YouTube to be banned in a country, or have a substantial impact on international politics, I'm alright with it. There's a thousand videos expressing the same thing for every one that causes an issue with a country's political leadership, and the good of having those thousand similar videos available outweighs the censorship of one in particular.

  14. No warrant ? No problem ! by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

    No problem. India and co will just drone them.

    Oh wait, thats only OK one way, isn't it ?

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    1. Re:No warrant ? No problem ! by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, "If the Taliban and Al Qaeda were just saying bad things about the US, they wouldn't be on the business end of the drones."

      However, the case of Anwar al-Awlaki gave me pause. He was a fellow saying bad things about the US. However, he inspired multiple mass casualty Al Qaeda terrorists and recruited for them, so he was killed.

      Seditious speech in the US has only limted protections.

      See also Hate speech and incitements to violence. They're not totally protected in the US either, from what I understand.

  15. They already have recourse Block Google by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    They already have recourse Block Google and stop allowing Indian web sites to be listed on Google stop Indian company's from advertising on Google and so on They do have recourse but they cant force there morality/religious on anyone but Indians. Google doesn't force people in any country to use it.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  16. Re:hypocrisy by The+Snowman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They should be commended... for their hypocrisy

    It isn't hypocrisy, but it isn't what it appears on the surface. This is good old fashioned protectionism. Ain't nobody going to mess with a U.S. based company except the U.S. government.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  17. Memory loss.... by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    Well said
    Most people forget what happened in India in the early days of an indian auction site(similar to ebay, later sold to ebay). Somebody sold a porn cd of a schoolgirl through the auction site. When the ceo from usa was visiting India, the police arrested the ceo.

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  18. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No really, europeans can have freaks in their midst too:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_%28Greece%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rebirth_of_Poland
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange

    etc.

    But I guess given your overtly wacky and unfounded pro-usa bias,
    you are an american that has never left your own state or region,
    or stopped watching one of CNN or Fox News, etc.

    - an american

  19. "provokes" by Tom · · Score: 2

    Even in the case where something "provokes immediate violence", we seem to forgot that there is still someone deciding to become violent. Other than the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, hurting or killing someone is not the immediately obvious correct action to whatever someone says.

    I can relate, I definitely can. There are many things that make me want to punch the speaker in the face, or shoot him. Mostly stuff said by people like the pope, Sarah Palin types or extremist islamists or any of a long list of we-should-withdraw-your-license-to-breathe idiots.

    But, I am a civilised man and keep it just a thought.

    If we would apply the same "provoking violence" standard to the people who tell others to go out there and kill the unbelievers, or murder the abortion doctors, or shame the faggots - the same standard that many seem to want to imply when it comes to the blogs, FB posts and tweets of atheists, homosexuals or other non-conformants, then we could maybe have a discussion.

    As it stands, the people who want to silence you and the people who want to kill you if you continue to speak are of the same kind.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  20. Re:OK by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Americans think they are Avant Garde, but damn we are about perpetually two to five decades behind the stricter and older cultures of the world.

  21. Free speech?? by browndude · · Score: 1

    Blind Egyptian mullah preaching hate inciting speech against the US in the mosques VERSUS Popular websites posting hate inciting speech. I see a double standard here. It is not really free speech.

  22. Re: hypocrisy by scum-e-bag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    China blocks facebook with some success. Surely it's possible for other governments to only filter/block facebook ads. Even if its not 100% successful, it would be disruptive enough to facebooks revenue stream to encourage facebook to fall into line.

    --
    Does it go on forever?
  23. Re:hypocrisy by werewolf1031 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Was going to mod, but decided to post instead.

    It isn't hypocrisy, but it isn't what it appears on the surface. This is good old fashioned protectionism. Ain't nobody going to mess with a U.S. based company except the U.S. government.

    This has nothing to do with protectionism, and everything to do with deflecting (figurative) bullets aimed at the wrong targets. On a site as massive as Facebook, it's absurd to hold the company accountable for every idiotic, hate-filled keyboard-vomit poured onto the site by its users. If the Indian government has a problem with something that was posted, they should take it up with the person that posted it, not the business that runs the service said user abused.

    Disclaimer: I despise Facebook, and have disdain for so-called "social media" in general. But let's at least approach this rationally instead of knee-jerk "zomg protectionism!" reflexive nonsense.

  24. When will US ban Casteism by NewYork · · Score: 1

    http://dsnuk.org/2013/04/25/the-uk-parliament-outlaws-caste-based-discrimination/

    --
    Casteism
  25. Include Caste in visa diversity lottery by NewYork · · Score: 1

    http://www.dvlottery.state.gov/ as per http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm

    --
    Casteism
  26. Serving summons is NOT the solution by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Implementing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award will protect minorities in India.
    http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/indian-parliament-apologize-to-muslims-christians-anglo-indians-sikh-untouchable-people

    --
    Casteism
  27. What is the problem serving them? by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    The article quotes unnamed people in the US Govt, and unamed people in India. This is far too vague to suit me. As far as I am concerned, if the process servers can find them and serve them, that is fine with me. If they don't show up, they can be convicted in absentia and will have to avoid those countries in the future. None of the companies are beyond the law, however large they have become. Freedom of speech is an American issue and not guaranteed in other countries, so while IANABCL, I think sovereign countries have rights about what crosses ther borders.