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

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."

Comments

Words are words, nothing more

[fustakrakich]

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

Re:Words are words, nothing more

[Jane Q. Public]

"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.

Re:Words are words, nothing more

[fustakrakich]

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.

Tags

[Tokolosh]

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

Re:Tags

[icebike]

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.

Re:Tags

[ebno-10db]

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.

Re:Tags

[ebno-10db]

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).

Re:Tags

[ebno-10db]

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?

Re:Tags

[bhagwad]

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.

I agree with the US on this

[Chrisq]

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.

Re:I agree with the US on this

[inglorion_on_the_net]

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.

Re:I agree with the US on this

[Trepidity]

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.

Less sensorship, more human policing, India

[adosch]

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.

Re:OK

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What about the most important minority?

[monzie]

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.

I'm glad the US is refusing

[ebno-10db]

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.

Re:The freedom to hate

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:The freedom to hate

[ebno-10db]

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.

Re:hypocrisy

[The Snowman]

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.

"provokes"

[Tom]

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.

Re: hypocrisy

[scum-e-bag]

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.

Re:hypocrisy

[werewolf1031]

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.