Note that this law doesn't really repress "freedom of speech" so much as the way in which you can express your opinions.
i.e. the story implies that this man will go to jail because he said something bad about Sonia Ghandi. Actually, the law appears to forbid this man from posting vulgar/obscene content online. The fact that he posted it about Ghandi sounds (technically) irrelevant.
Google isn't really tossing human rights activists to the wolves on this one - sort of a stretch to consider the action "evil".
For having an outrageous law like the one this man was arrested for. Google owned or ran the site in question so they had to comply with the local law. I'm not saying I like it, but the blame should be shifted to India... I think it's more accurate to say "shared with" rather than "shifted to".
Google chose to assist police in nailing this man, rather than refusing and facing (possibly severe) penalties. Fans of human rights will probably snicker at Google's "don't be evil" rhetoric, unless they come up with a great explanation -- or a great mea culpa.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that this law doesn't really repress "freedom of speech" so much as the way in which you can express your opinions.
i.e. the story implies that this man will go to jail because he said something bad about Sonia Ghandi. Actually, the law appears to forbid this man from posting vulgar/obscene content online. The fact that he posted it about Ghandi sounds (technically) irrelevant.
Google isn't really tossing human rights activists to the wolves on this one - sort of a stretch to consider the action "evil".
Google chose to assist police in nailing this man, rather than refusing and facing (possibly severe) penalties. Fans of human rights will probably snicker at Google's "don't be evil" rhetoric, unless they come up with a great explanation -- or a great mea culpa.