Censorship of the internet - Forget the desirability issue for a minute, IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE??!!! Maybe Facebook, Google, etc will be asked to monitor/ remove offensive content, but what about the small blogs and vast numbers of websites that are too small to be checked? Jayant Chaudhary
After vehemently supporting Anna Hazare’s Jan Lokpal Bill in Parliament, Jayant Choudhary, MP (Lok Sabha) and General Secretary, Rashtriya Lok Dal today stood up for the freedom of speech and expression on the internet. Raising the issue under Rule 377 in the Lok Sabha, Jayant questioned the Government’s intent in the recent notification of Information Technology Rules. “The Google’s transparency report for Jul – Dec 2010 reports a 123% increase in demands for content removal by Indian Government and law enforcement. Google removed internet content on 22% of the Indian Government requests as opposed to 87% in USA, 100% in Turkey and so on. This indicates that a number of requests made by the Indian authorities were frivolous and aimed at propagating the ‘Government view’ rather than regulating illegal content” he stated.
The 2011 IT Rules discriminate against the medium of dispersion of information. The Intermediary Guidelines Rules prohibit sharing blasphemous, libelous, and disparaging information. These conditions are purely subjective in nature and they differ from the Press Council’s norms of journalistic conduct. A newspaper article considered ‘blasphemous’ is legal, but the same cannot be reproduced online. The Reasonable Security Practices Rules allow government agencies access to personal information from service providers through written complaints, whereas other crimes require warrants signed by magistrates.
Another draconian aspect of the rules on curbing freedom of speech is its very violation of the spirit of the IT Act, which had removed intermediary liability for content. Jayant Chaudhary stated that such expansive changes should have come through amendments in the main Act rather than being slipped through a subordinate legislation.
Though Internet users are less than 10% of India’s population, but the numbers are increasing significantly. The number of such users in the Media industry is perhaps the largest after the Infotech industry. It is important that the right of ordinary citizens to express themselves is not trampled upon by an over zealous regulatory environment. The new Indian regulations restrict Web content that, among other things, can be considered “disparaging,” “harassing,” “blasphemous” or “hateful.”
The new rules, quietly issued by the country’s Department of Information Technology in May, 2011, allow officials and private citizens to demand that Internet sites and service providers remove content they consider objectionable on the basis of a long list of criteria. The list of objectionable content is sweeping and includes anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order.” The rules highlight the ambivalence with which Indian officials have long treated freedom of expression.
Along with the new content regulations, the government also issued rules governing data security, Internet cafes and the electronic provision of government services. RLD’s National General Secretary and MP, Jayant’s stand brings out the lacunae in the subordinate legislation and points to the need for the government through its policy and legislative framework to enable an important medium like the internet to realize its potential and be accessible to the masses.
Sept 6, 2011
Information Technology Rules – Curbing Freedom of Speech
Note under Rule 377 RAISED BY SHRI JAYANT CHAUDHARY, MP, IN LOK SABHA IN THE MONSOON SESSION on Sept 6,2011
Google’s transparency report for Jul – Dec 2010 reports a 123% increase in demands for content removal by Indian Government and law enforcement. Google removed internet content on 22% of the requests as opposed to 87% - USA, 100% - Turkey. This indicates a number of requests made by the Indian authorities were frivolous and aimed at propagating the ‘Government view’ rather than regulating illegal content.
The 2011 IT Rules also discriminate against the medium of dispersion of information; the Intermediary Guidelines Rules prohibit sharing blasphemous, libelous, and disparaging information. These conditions are subjective and differ from the Press Council’s norms of journalistic conduct. A newspaper article considered ‘blasphemous’ is legal, but the same cannot be reproduced online. The Reasonable Security Practices Rules allow government agencies access to personal information from service providers through written complaints, whereas other crimes require warrants signed by magistrates.
The rules curb freedom of speech and violate the spirit of the IT Act, which removed intermediary liability for content. Such expansive changes should come through the act rather than subordinate legislation.
More Info
Jayant Chaudhary , a Member of Parliament from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, representing the Mathura Constituency, spoke out against the Indian governments draconian Internet Control Rules (IT Rules), in the recently concluded Lok Sabha session. According to a recently published transcript of the Lok Sabha session, on Tuesday, the 6th of September, Chaudhary pointed out the following:
- The 2011 Information Technology Rules also discriminate against the medium of dispersion of information
- The conditions mentioned in the rules (for removal of content), like blasphemous, libelous and disparaging information, are subjective and differ from the press Councils norms of journalistic conduct.
- The Reasonable Security Practices Rules allow Government agencies access to personal information from service providers through written complaints whereas where crimes requires warrants signed by magistrates.
- The rules curb freedom of speech and violate the IT Act which removed intermediary liability for content.
Frankly, these points have been made by us and other sections of the media for long, and even submissions by industry bodies raised some of these concerns. What Chaudhary pertinently points out is that such major changes should come through the act rather than the subordinate legislation, which leads us to the question – if these changes were to be made, why weren’t they included in the act itself? Why try and slip them in through the subordinate legislation.
Chaudhary has called for a review of the IT Rules. Given the opposition to the rules in their current form, what harm will it do for the government to put up this version of the rules for another round of consultation?
सुरेन्द्र अग्निहोत्री
मो0 9415508695
upnewslive.com
![](http://www.bundelkhandlive.com/web/wp-content/uploads/News_Logo_032-300x80-300x80.png"){kind=logo}
