Indian Official Promises India Won't Censor The Internet... Except, You Know, When It Has To Censor The Internet
from the funny-how-that-works dept
One of the frustrating things about the SOPA/PIPA debate was the way that defenders of the bill tried so hard to dodge the censorship label. However, as Professor Derek Bambauer helpfully pointed out months ago, any form of content blocking by the government is censorship. It's just a question of whether or not it's acceptable censorship -- and, most people are comfortable with some level of censorship. But SOPA/PIPA defenders often refuse to admit this... hiding behind some claim about how since infringement is illegal, it's not censorship.But this misses the point: every form of government censorship is based on the claim that the censored content is "illegal" in some manner.
Witness the situation in India. A few months ago, we wrote about Indian Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Kapil Sibal, who had apparently been pushing internet companies to pre-screen all user-generated content to stop jerks. Then, last month, some Indian courts similarly told internet companies to block content. Apparently, recently, another official -- Minister of State for Communications & IT, Sachin Pilot, (whose title seems to overlap quite a bit with Sibal's) -- said that internet companies "must comply."
Well, now, Sibal is back, insisting that the government won't censor social media at all:
"I want to say once and for all, without any obfuscation, no government in India will ever censor social media."Except, that's not true. In clarifying his earlier remarks to those same companies, Sibal said he saw "the need for a new system to be enforced for dealing with content that is in breach of Indian law." But what is that, other than censorship? Sibal is playing the same game as SOPA/PIPA defenders -- insisting that as long as certain content is declared illegal, it can be censored, but leaving out the fact that they get to decide what is and is not declared illegal. The defenders of these kinds of things like to pretend that it's universally obvious what's "illegal" and what's not, and that it could never ever happen that legitimate content -- such as critical political commentary -- would ever get falsely flagged as being illegal. But, having seen exactly that happen too many times (including through the use of bogus copyright claims), it's a very legitimate concern.
What Sibal is really saying here is that the government won't censor content that he thinks is okay. But if people in the government don't think it's okay, it'll get declared illegal and get censored. That takes away greatly from his unequivocal statement about no censorship, doesn't it?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, inda, kapil sibal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
if you hear the same lines, it's from the same people
It's no accident that they all say the same story on the same issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if you hear the same lines, it's from the same people
I am from India and NO, he is not in pocket of MPAA/RIAA.
Actually, in India, censorship is for completely different reasons. Something similar to Egypt, Iran rather than USA.
But, in recent months, Reliance Industries have been applying SOPA like censorship in India too. So, it is not yet a problem but it will soon be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if you hear the same lines, it's from the same people
The core of the issue now is that they want to prevent this from happening again. They are taking it so far as claiming that wrongfully accusing someone of corruption is illegal. Also, demonstrating against corruption, in their minds, equals instigating rioting, which is also illegal. Now, with such censorships laws in place, next time this happens they can block all the twitter and facebook messages that go out calling people to stand up for their rights and against corruption. That's the ultimate goal here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redefining the dictionary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at the prohibition. Alcohol was illegal then, and it was removed and destroyed by the law back then.
Guess what happened?
Crime lords like Al Capone became powerful thanks to smuggling illegal alcohol around.
Anything that removes something from the internet is censorship, plain and simple.
Censorship is the blocking of information by the government, no matter how or why.
You want people to go to something legal?
Make it appealing.
The hidden truth of the free market is that people WILL get what they want and HOW they want it for the price THEY want.
If the price is too high or the product too hard to find, well...
That's why Black Markets exist.
And that's why Al Capone was able to become as powerful as he had been back in the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Limp Noodle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Limp Noodle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Limp Noodle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Censorship is the blocking of information by the government, no matter how or why.
So, your name must be pedobear, since you must want child porn to be legal, since your against blocking ANYTHING on the internet.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is, removing child porn from a website is censorship, but it is censorship I consider acceptable.
Similarly, removing copyrighted content whcih is allegedly infringing is also infringement. However, I do not think such censorship is acceptable until after an adversarial trial where a judge can determine if the use was fair etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if the private corps which have a hand in drafting and promoting such heavy-handed measures are prepared for public backlash and inevitable boycotting of all their precious 'intellectual property.' They're engaged in corporate terrorism -- they use their money and influence to deprive us of our freedoms step by step. Somehow I don't believe that the brave men and women who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms had this form of public abuse in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Prepare to be terminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
0/10
I expect more effort on your part. The music labels are paying you good money to astroturf, and this is how you perform? If I was your supervisor, you'd be out of a job at your next performance review unless I start seeing some real improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're still alive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of what, we don't know yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
since infringement is illegal, it's not censorship
And why do they always complain about Iran and China's censorship? Don't they know its illegal to make movies about Tibet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2012/01/23/when-offending-sensibilities-is-mo re-important-than-death-threats/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/mr-rush die-regrets/
Here they try the "for your own safety" method first, when what they mean is "your book is already banned anyway". One clear motivation is keeping one religious group happy in an election year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He WANTS to say, that ain't saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In some countries Nazi stuff or denying the Holocaust is illegal. In the US, child porn is illegal. I don't consider blocking child porn to be censorship. If I judged countries that block Nazi crap by US standards I'd feel it to be censorship. But is it censorship if it is consistent with the country's own law and customs? Or should there be a universal minimum right of free speech covering politics and religion?
The US routinely shows its arrogance with its notion that a representative democracy is the most highly evolved form of government. That's simply untrue and doesn't work in cultures without at least a kernel of such traditions. I think the same holds true for standards of "censorship". US-style free speech may not work for very single culture on the face of the earth.
Again, it's not that I don't believe in free speech, I simply think that the US version may not be suitable for everyone, everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the thing, though - it IS censorship. It's just censorship that we as a community agree with. There's nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of things that I'm totally OK censoring (child porn being the most obvious).
A rose is a rose is a rose. The problems come when the censorship goes too far. That's where discussions need to start happening *BEFORE* the censorship takes place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But we should (a) be very reluctant to censor anything. Only after considerable PUBLIC debate, and the presentation of compelling evidence buttressed by strong arguments, should we even consider so. And if we do, then (b) we should periodically reconsider our decisions: what made some kind of sense in 1982 may well not make any sense at all now.
And we certainly should not censor anything merely because someone, somewhere finds it offensive. That is in and of itself a compelling argument to support it adamantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Leg warmers, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's kind of my point. The majority of Americans are fine with child porn being buried and do not consider it censorship as it fits within our societal norms. I'm just suggesting that if any such censorship falls within those norms it's no big deal and we ought not to judge other civil societies by our own standard when it comes to their particular form of "censorship".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd have to correct you there, to be honest. Whether or not it fall within societal norms is irrelevant. Whether or not a majority consider it censorship is irrelevant. It's still censorship, no matter which label people wish to apply to it.
There may be cultural differences as to what it is and isn't acceptable to censor, but it's still censorship either way. We can argue the finer points of who should censor what, and where the line comes where censorship actually infringes on speech and other freedoms, but it's still censorship,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That depends on whether you think liberty is something all humans have a right to enjoy, or if you think it's just a cultural thing. If the former, then we should criticize any government for inappropriate censorship. If the latter, then it doesn't really matter as long as they're censoring in a matter consistent with their cultural beliefs. I believe in the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, it's not that I don't believe in free speech, I simply think that the US version may not be suitable for everyone, everywhere.
Ah, moral relativism. Most people grow out of it once they actually have some principles. Others...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hell Masnick, you couldn't believe it either. Otherwise you could not continue to defend those who wrongfully profit from exploiting the copyrighted the work of others without compensating the rightful owner and in violation of the law. Morally, our society holds that breaking society's laws is wrong. But you seem to believe that in certain situations related to intellectual property rights that doesn't hold. That's moral relativism too Chubby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your hypocrisy is as unflattering as the haircut your Mom gives you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except When We Do
We will not censor the internet! Except when we do.
We will never engage in corruption! Except when we do.
Next we will have this little phrase "except when we do" replaced by a silent asterisk, purely to avoid tedious repetition.
There is no way we will ever accept bribes!*
We will never lie to the people!*
It is genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except When We Do
Citizens have certain fundamental rights!! ... subject to reasonable restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promis are made to be broken
On the other hand we can say that promises are need to be broken.
Corruption in India
[ link to this | view in chronology ]