It was hilarious and thought provoking to see the telecom Minister Kapil Sibal trying to browbeat Social Network forums with threats of censorship and then trying to nimbly dance away, once the uproar started. He even managed a sarcastic comment or two.
The point was when Kapil Sibal’s colleague, the Law Minister Salman Kurshid dared the Election Commission of India to hang him if it wants to, he (Kapil Sibal) says it is his (Salman Kurshid’s) opinion and he is entitled to it (presumably under the freedom of speech). But he is unwilling to extend that courtesy to bloggers, FB users or Tweeters.
On top, Kapil Sibal has attempted club the internet ‘medium’ with the TV and printed ‘media’ and asks if they (the TV and Print) can obey laws, why cannot Social networks? Note the wily way in which Kapil Sibal has tried to interlink, morph and assimilate a *medium* with *media*.
The problem is the media which he refers to are commercial organisations, out to make profit. And in today’s connected world, it has become essential for people, the general public to peruse at least one of the media to keep themselves current and aware. If they don’t they run the risk of falling behind in their career, society or economic activity. That is why people actually pay money to these media to enjoy their products or services and tend to believe what is written, reported are basically true. Even the media boast about it -
If someone doesn’t belong to a FB/Orkut page or doesn’t have a blog, Twitter or FB account, he or she isn’t going to be left behind. It is not going to hurt him or her financially, economically or educationally, if she is not able to post the funny video of her dog hunting its tail or Tweet that someone stole his slippers at the temple this morning.
Thus there are two different issues and principles at stake here. To confuse a *medium* with *media* is patently wrong and grossly unfair.
Perhaps Kapil Sibal has tried to pull this trick because another Kat with similar act is now sitting in the constitutional position of Press watchdog and barking similarly.
One more question to ask is if social forums (and blogging etc.) are to be treated as ‘media’, will the bloggers and FB/Twitters users get treated the same as journalists and reporters?
Can I also claim to belong to ‘Press’ with its privileges?
What an hogwash!
:-P
To explore the case in question itself, there is a subtle difference between what the plaintiffs want, and what the web tech companies can and actually do. I hope the courts do not lose sight of this extremely important nuance.
The plaintiff, at least from where I am sitting, are asking for pre-content-filtering, a form of censorship, against what they deem offensive content. Basically they want the web-techs to pre-screen content, before allowing them to be posted on the internet - something like the Film Censor.
Even an 8th standard student who plays Farmville or Angry Birds knows that such a thing is impossible. If anyone doesn’t understand this, or ask why it isn’t possible, they either need their head examined or should be sent back to the 1960s.
Other hand there are people who just because they’ve the freedom of the internet and the web in their hands, do undertake mischievous activity. Deliberately posting insulting images or provocative statements or outright hate posts on society, religion, race or sexuality is just not right. Thus there are take down notices, which need not be an act of any government or law enforcement agencies. The web techs do remove content when they are reported as offensive or violating their policies on these issues, even by private citizens.
Google stated somewhere that it has so far removed 5 million pages (? or is it content ?) in 2011, which is quite a job. If you want to learn more about what the Government (including state or local level government, politician or law enforcement agencies) wants and what Google has done, read its Transparency Report (http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/).
Isn’t it obvious that anything can be claimed as offensive content?
Even this post can be claimed to insult Kapil Sibal or Justice Katju, if that is the line one wants to pursue, while I am just putting up a logical point of view on their position and policies.
My Puzzled half purrs, ‘Is that Mr. ‘Neo’ Anderson or just Matrix Code?’
The point was when Kapil Sibal’s colleague, the Law Minister Salman Kurshid dared the Election Commission of India to hang him if it wants to, he (Kapil Sibal) says it is his (Salman Kurshid’s) opinion and he is entitled to it (presumably under the freedom of speech). But he is unwilling to extend that courtesy to bloggers, FB users or Tweeters.
On top, Kapil Sibal has attempted club the internet ‘medium’ with the TV and printed ‘media’ and asks if they (the TV and Print) can obey laws, why cannot Social networks? Note the wily way in which Kapil Sibal has tried to interlink, morph and assimilate a *medium* with *media*.
The problem is the media which he refers to are commercial organisations, out to make profit. And in today’s connected world, it has become essential for people, the general public to peruse at least one of the media to keep themselves current and aware. If they don’t they run the risk of falling behind in their career, society or economic activity. That is why people actually pay money to these media to enjoy their products or services and tend to believe what is written, reported are basically true. Even the media boast about it -
- ‘we were the 1st with the news’;
- ‘your channel was the one who broke the scandal;’
- ‘we are the ones who did the sting operation’,; etc.
If someone doesn’t belong to a FB/Orkut page or doesn’t have a blog, Twitter or FB account, he or she isn’t going to be left behind. It is not going to hurt him or her financially, economically or educationally, if she is not able to post the funny video of her dog hunting its tail or Tweet that someone stole his slippers at the temple this morning.
Thus there are two different issues and principles at stake here. To confuse a *medium* with *media* is patently wrong and grossly unfair.
Perhaps Kapil Sibal has tried to pull this trick because another Kat with similar act is now sitting in the constitutional position of Press watchdog and barking similarly.
One more question to ask is if social forums (and blogging etc.) are to be treated as ‘media’, will the bloggers and FB/Twitters users get treated the same as journalists and reporters?
Can I also claim to belong to ‘Press’ with its privileges?
What an hogwash!
:-P
To explore the case in question itself, there is a subtle difference between what the plaintiffs want, and what the web tech companies can and actually do. I hope the courts do not lose sight of this extremely important nuance.
The plaintiff, at least from where I am sitting, are asking for pre-content-filtering, a form of censorship, against what they deem offensive content. Basically they want the web-techs to pre-screen content, before allowing them to be posted on the internet - something like the Film Censor.
Even an 8th standard student who plays Farmville or Angry Birds knows that such a thing is impossible. If anyone doesn’t understand this, or ask why it isn’t possible, they either need their head examined or should be sent back to the 1960s.
Other hand there are people who just because they’ve the freedom of the internet and the web in their hands, do undertake mischievous activity. Deliberately posting insulting images or provocative statements or outright hate posts on society, religion, race or sexuality is just not right. Thus there are take down notices, which need not be an act of any government or law enforcement agencies. The web techs do remove content when they are reported as offensive or violating their policies on these issues, even by private citizens.
Google stated somewhere that it has so far removed 5 million pages (? or is it content ?) in 2011, which is quite a job. If you want to learn more about what the Government (including state or local level government, politician or law enforcement agencies) wants and what Google has done, read its Transparency Report (http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/).
Isn’t it obvious that anything can be claimed as offensive content?
Even this post can be claimed to insult Kapil Sibal or Justice Katju, if that is the line one wants to pursue, while I am just putting up a logical point of view on their position and policies.
My Puzzled half purrs, ‘Is that Mr. ‘Neo’ Anderson or just Matrix Code?’
No comments:
Post a Comment