When I first read the article, “Norms soon to regulate content on social networking sites” on The Hindu, the first thing that struck my mind was Harud Literary Fest, which was cancelled when protest against it started through facebook and e-mails. I thought maybe this is a first step towards a better legal framework keeping in account the new technologies but very soon all my hopes crashed. Following is an attempt to analyze what is the motive behind Mr. Sibal’s latest move.
Article quoted Mr. Kapil Sibal that the guidelines have been necessitated because the companies that own these Web sites have refused to remove ‘objectionable' content despite several requests. So, I thought let us inquire what is ‘objectionable’ content according to Government of India. Google Transparency Report provides statistics related to the requests made by different states to remove content from Google but, this report actually confused me.
It was mentioned that in total 358 items are requested to be removed by both state and local law enforcement agencies of India during the period of January to June 2011. The report further described that out of those 358 reported items 236 items (2 out of 3) were critical of a local politician. However, the Google report have no mention of the name of that politician but, I think the following news reports from The Hindu and New York Times do give us a hint of who that politician might be.
1. “Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content”. The Hindu. December 6, 2011
2. “India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen User Content”. New York Times. December 5, 2011
Mr. Sibal further justifies his stand by saying that hate speech must be blocked. But Google Transparency Report clearly shows that in this case also government’s actions are very different from what it is saying. Out of a total of 358 items reported by Indian Government both at state and local level, a mere 8 items (2%) were requested for the reason of Hate Speech and on the other hand a total of 255 items (71%) were requested to be removed for the reason of government criticism.{1}
Only thing which I hope from this new row of controversy is that this might lead to a good discussion among intellectuals and help us get some good laws for these and similar newly arrived technologies.[2]
References
1. Google Transparency Report. Google. Retrieved on December 7, 2011.
2. “The Government’s listening to us”. The Hindu. December 1, 2011.
Article quoted Mr. Kapil Sibal that the guidelines have been necessitated because the companies that own these Web sites have refused to remove ‘objectionable' content despite several requests. So, I thought let us inquire what is ‘objectionable’ content according to Government of India. Google Transparency Report provides statistics related to the requests made by different states to remove content from Google but, this report actually confused me.
It was mentioned that in total 358 items are requested to be removed by both state and local law enforcement agencies of India during the period of January to June 2011. The report further described that out of those 358 reported items 236 items (2 out of 3) were critical of a local politician. However, the Google report have no mention of the name of that politician but, I think the following news reports from The Hindu and New York Times do give us a hint of who that politician might be.
1. “Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content”. The Hindu. December 6, 2011
2. “India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen User Content”. New York Times. December 5, 2011
Mr. Sibal further justifies his stand by saying that hate speech must be blocked. But Google Transparency Report clearly shows that in this case also government’s actions are very different from what it is saying. Out of a total of 358 items reported by Indian Government both at state and local level, a mere 8 items (2%) were requested for the reason of Hate Speech and on the other hand a total of 255 items (71%) were requested to be removed for the reason of government criticism.{1}
Only thing which I hope from this new row of controversy is that this might lead to a good discussion among intellectuals and help us get some good laws for these and similar newly arrived technologies.[2]
References
1. Google Transparency Report. Google. Retrieved on December 7, 2011.
2. “The Government’s listening to us”. The Hindu. December 1, 2011.
