Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.