Google,Facebook, argue against Web censorship in India

Facebook and Google told the Delhi High Court today that they cannot block offensive content that appears on their services. The two Internet giants are among 21 companies that have been asked to develop a mechanism to block objectionable material in India, and the Indian government has given the green light for their prosecution. Although India is democratic (in fact, it’s the world’s largest democracy), many fear the country will resort to censorship.
Last year, India passed a law that makes companies responsible for user content posted on their websites, requiring them to take it down within 36 hours in case of a complaint. Civil rights groups are opposed to the law but politicians argue posting offensive images in the socially conservative country with a history of violence between religious groups presents a danger to the public as Internet use grows. Both Facebook and Google have previously said they can’t and won’t censor content in the country, but now they’re asking a high court to reverse a lower court’s decision.
The case causing all this brouhaha first began with a private complaint filed by journalist Vinay Rai against “21 social networking sites.” The list features 10 foreign-based companies, and could affect websites provided by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and YouTube. He complained the websites were showing images deemed offensive to Christians, Hindus, and Muslims. Representatives of the 21 companies were thus summoned to court and a long proceeding began.
Although the case was originally filed in a lower court, the companies have appealed to the Delhi High Court, challenging the lower court’s ruling asking them to take down some content. Siddharth Luthra, one of Facebook’s lawyers, told the court it was impossible for the social network to pre-screen and monitor everything and that instead users should be held responsible for content they post.
Google argued in a similar vein. “The search engine only takes you till the website,” said Neeraj Kishan Kaul, one of Google’s lawyers, according to Reuters. “What happens after that is beyond a search engine’s control. “If you use blocks, which is very easy for people to say, you will inadvertently block other things as well. For example: the word ’sex’. Even a government document like a voter ID list or a passport has the word ’sex’.”
The lower court has its next hearing scheduled for March 13, 2012. The high court will resume hearing the case later this week on January 19, according to Justice Suresh Kait. This is the same judge who last week threatened to block the websites if they don’t comply. When the companies in question told him they have a global policy of non-interference even if content posted on their services are found to be obscene or objectionable, he responded by saying this policy won’t work in India.
Kait was quoted as saying: “Like China, we too can block such websites.” Today, Kaul replied, according to The Times of India: “The issue relates to a constitutional issue of freedom of speech and expression and suppressing it was not possible as the right to freedom of speech in democratic India separates us from a totalitarian regime like China.”

India delays Web censorship hearing against Facebook, Google

The Delhi High Court today delayed hearings on petitions by Facebook and Google to dismiss criminal proceedings against them in the country’s Web censorship case. The two Internet giants are among 21 companies that have been asked to develop a mechanism to block objectionable material in India, and the Indian government has given the green light for their prosecution. The case will continue next month.
Earlier this week, Facebook and Google told the Delhi High Court they cannot block offensive content that appears on their services. Although the case was originally filed in a lower court, the companies have appealed to the Delhi High Court, challenging the lower court’s ruling asking them to take down some content. The high court has now pushed back the case till February 2, according to NDTV. If their petitions fail, the 21 companies will have to face trial in the lower court, which has its next hearing scheduled for March 13.
The case causing all this brouhaha first began with a private complaint filed by journalist Vinay Rai against “21 social networking sites.” The list features 10 foreign-based companies, and could affect websites provided by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and YouTube. He filed a complaint last December saying the websites were showing images that seek “to create enmity, hatred, and communal violence” and “will corrupt minds.” The charge is that they’ve allowed material offensive to Christians, Hindus, and Muslims. The punishment for such offenses can be several years of jail time and financial penalties. Representatives of the 21 companies were thus summoned to court and a long proceeding began.
Siddharth Luthra, one of Facebook’s lawyers, told the court it was impossible for the social network to pre-screen and monitor everything and that instead users should be held responsible for content they post. Justice Suresh Kait, the judge in the higher court, two weeks ago threatened to block the websites if they don’t comply. When the companies in question told him they have a global policy of non-interference even if content posted on their services are found to be obscene or objectionable, he responded by saying this policy won’t work in India.
Kait was quoted as saying: “Like China, we too can block such websites.” Neeraj Kishan Kaul, one of Google’s lawyers, last week replied by saying this was a constitutional issue and not taking away freedom of speech separates democratic India from a totalitarian regime like the one in China.
Last year, India passed a law that makes companies responsible for user content posted on their websites, requiring them to take down anything deemed offensive (”ethnically objectionable,” “blasphemous,” or “grossly harmful.”) within 36 hours in case of a complaint. Civil rights groups are opposed to the law but politicians argue posting offensive images in the socially conservative country with a history of violence between religious groups presents a danger to the public as Internet use grows.
Both Facebook and Google have previously said they can’t and won’t censor content in the country, but now they’re asking a high court to reverse a lower court’s decision. The companies argue they can’t be held legally responsible under the law for content posted by third parties, regardless of offensive someone may find it.
Although India is democratic (in fact, it’s the world’s largest democracy), many fear the country will resort to censorship. The case has quickly become a major part of the debate over free speech in the country.

Google to Censor Blogger Blogs on a ‘Per Country Basis’

Google has quietly announced changes to its Blogger free-blogging platform that will enable the blocking of content only in countries where censorship is required.
Twitter announced technology last week addressing the same topic. It said it had acquired the ability to censor tweets in the countries only where it was ordered removed, instead of on an internet-wide basis.
Twitter’s announcement via its blog sparked a huge online backlash. The microblogging service was accused of becoming a censoring agent.
Yet Google’s announcement three weeks ago — buried in a Blogger help page — went unnoticed until it was highlighted by TechDows on Tuesday.
Google wrote Jan. 9 it would begin redirecting Blogger traffic to country-specific URLs, meaning whatever country you’re in, you’ll get that country’s domain for Blogger-hosted blogs.
TechDows reports that this is now happening in India, for example. So when you’re there and click on a Blogger blog, the URL will end .in.
Doing that, Google wrote, means content can be removed “on a per country basis.”
“Migrating to localized domains will allow us to continue promoting free expression and responsible publishing while providing greater flexibility in complying with valid removal requests pursuant to local law,” Google wrote.
Twitter did not announce how its new technology functions, but said Twitter has the ability to remove tweets only in countries where that content was barred.