The demand by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal that global internet companies should block controversial content from their sites has come at a time when the country is seeing a growth in the number of internet users. The issues of provocative material being posted on some social networking sites are indeed a matter of concern. The problem has been increasing with time. There are many sites that posted a warning but it fell on deaf ears. The problem is that such unsocial things are unfettered. It is good that the Minister is taking note of it. Freedom of speech does not mean that we can hurt the feelings of others. The government and internet companies should sit together and find a solution. Every right comes with reasonable restrictions. Although, the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is also our duty to observe restraint in the interest of decency and public order. One cannot irresponsibly malign the reputation of public figures in the name of democracy. The dangerous trend needs to be curbed as it is not based on genuine analysis and feeds the sadistic tendencies of the youth. Mr. Sibal's concern is understandable. The freedom to publish anything online is not exactly wise. Democracy may mean freedom of expression but that freedom comes with responsibility. If a stream of potential inflammable material is going to appear online on a constant basis, it would invariably result in uncontrollable violence. How can anyone expect the government to maintain law and order? We are living in the real, not the virtual world.
Sometimes, I feel like asking Sibal that his party General Secretary Rashid Alvi can make statement on the communal sentiments even after the 19 years of Babri Masjid incidence, just like divide and rule policy. Congress party is power-hungry. Is it not offensive here to instigate the communal feelings of the two larger communities of the country? What is your answer on this Mr. Sibal? When political parties hurts the sentiments, people are suppose to tolerate them, but when people call them corrupt, then these politicians are not feeling ok. Politicians should stop corruption instead of banning people on net.
Why only public should follow the democratic rule, why not you people, Mr. Sibal. Does democracy means that the politicians have all the rights to loot and fill their foreign banks accounts? Decency in words comes naturally. The respect for someone comes naturally and not by force. Why it happened, just look into the matter, Mr. Sibal? Has anybody disrespected Amitabh Bachchan or Sachin Tendulkar on the net? People have shed tears on Dev Anand's death. Politicians like you only get cursed. If they want to be loved by the people, then they need to be the heroes for the public. They need to do well for the country, which they are not doing. Instead, they want respect from the voters. You are curbing the freedom of expression, is it a democracy?
This entire ruckus created on screening and censoring is getting nowhere. Let barking dogs do what they are best at. Howling at the moon is the freedom the dog and wolf. The moon has the freedom for to shine across the earth. Censoring Facebook or twitter will only create more trouble and it is best to ignore comments that are in poor taste. Imagine a ruckus in a campus and the students union rebelling against the management and faculty. They win the battle and take over the running of the college. Power and authority are like fire and water if you can’t control it, you would get consumed by it.
Living in a free country and having democracy and freedom of speech does not allow anyone, howsoever, mighty to use this freedom to the disadvantage and disregard of others sentiment, create disharmony or instigate ill feeling, riots and mislead others. Those opposing Kapil Sibal and the need to ensure deletion of couloirs writing, does not amount to censorship. It exists in the print media and electronic media. Under existing laws too, no one can make offensive comments or writings and such acts are punishable. Even though, there are many reasons removing content from web is not possible. The Internet cannot be edited: Duh! In an early Dilbert strip, the pointy-haired boss demanded that Dilbert "download" the Internet and fax it to him. A decade down, it's not so funny anymore. The Internet is not traditional media. India's 1975 emergency and the media clampdown were possible because of the linear, broadcast nature of the old media. New media is distributed. No copy desk or censor board can "fix" it. There is no editor to arrest. And, most content is hosted outside India's jurisdiction. User-generated content cannot be filtered: That would slow down the global Internet to a crawl, with posts appearing after days -- even assuming so many "editors" could be hired by, say, a Facebook or a Twitter. Are phone operators responsible for "content" carried on their networks -- or their CEOs arrested if someone made a terror threat over a phone call? No, the telco is simply asked to help with the investigation -- into who made the call. Yes, Internet content has the permanence and public-impact potential that a phone call does not, but equally, it lends itself brilliantly to self-regulation. Wikipedia is the best example. Who could have imagined that a user-created encyclopedia could be so objective, and comprehensive? Yes, anyone can go in and edit anything. If you make an inappropriate change, someone will come in and correct it. And so it is on Facebook or Twitter. Abusive posts will be reported, blocked, and the individuals knocked out of the site.
Draconian controls are not necessary: In this age of global cooperation on terror, companies cooperate. A rational request from India to Google or Facebook to bring down offensive content will be heard -- regardless of jurisdiction. There are precedents for Internet control, but such censorship is in countries like India will place this country on the row of China, Pakistan, Myanmar or Saudi Arabia. Pakistan became a laughing stock when it issued a list of banned words for SMS messages. The big daddy of "regulation" is China, where everything is filtered, and if you break those filters, you are charged with treason. What a role model. Kapil Sibal knows all this, right? So, why is this bright star from Harvard Law School and St. Stephen's college now sounding so anachronistic in the Internet age?
Journalist Vaidehi Sachin's Journey as Hacker "cat techie" in cyber space,you can read more on cattechie.com
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Say No To Censorship
The demand by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal that global internet companies should block controversial content from their sites has come at a time when the country is seeing a growth in the number of internet users. The issues of provocative material being posted on some social networking sites are indeed a matter of concern. The problem has been increasing with time. There are many sites that posted a warning but it fell on deaf ears. The problem is that such unsocial things are unfettered. It is good that the Minister is taking note of it. Freedom of speech does not mean that we can hurt the feelings of others. The government and internet companies should sit together and find a solution. Every right comes with reasonable restrictions. Although, the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is also our duty to observe restraint in the interest of decency and public order. One cannot irresponsibly malign the reputation of public figures in the name of democracy. The dangerous trend needs to be curbed as it is not based on genuine analysis and feeds the sadistic tendencies of the youth. Mr. Sibal's concern is understandable. The freedom to publish anything online is not exactly wise. Democracy may mean freedom of expression but that freedom comes with responsibility. If a stream of potential inflammable material is going to appear online on a constant basis, it would invariably result in uncontrollable violence. How can anyone expect the government to maintain law and order? We are living in the real, not the virtual world.
Sometimes, I feel like asking Sibal that his party General Secretary Rashid Alvi can make statement on the communal sentiments even after the 19 years of Babri Masjid incidence, just like divide and rule policy. Congress party is power-hungry. Is it not offensive here to instigate the communal feelings of the two larger communities of the country? What is your answer on this Mr. Sibal? When political parties hurts the sentiments, people are suppose to tolerate them, but when people call them corrupt, then these politicians are not feeling ok. Politicians should stop corruption instead of banning people on net.
Why only public should follow the democratic rule, why not you people, Mr. Sibal. Does democracy means that the politicians have all the rights to loot and fill their foreign banks accounts? Decency in words comes naturally. The respect for someone comes naturally and not by force. Why it happened, just look into the matter, Mr. Sibal? Has anybody disrespected Amitabh Bachchan or Sachin Tendulkar on the net? People have shed tears on Dev Anand's death. Politicians like you only get cursed. If they want to be loved by the people, then they need to be the heroes for the public. They need to do well for the country, which they are not doing. Instead, they want respect from the voters. You are curbing the freedom of expression, is it a democracy?
This entire ruckus created on screening and censoring is getting nowhere. Let barking dogs do what they are best at. Howling at the moon is the freedom the dog and wolf. The moon has the freedom for to shine across the earth. Censoring Facebook or twitter will only create more trouble and it is best to ignore comments that are in poor taste. Imagine a ruckus in a campus and the students union rebelling against the management and faculty. They win the battle and take over the running of the college. Power and authority are like fire and water if you can’t control it, you would get consumed by it.
Living in a free country and having democracy and freedom of speech does not allow anyone, howsoever, mighty to use this freedom to the disadvantage and disregard of others sentiment, create disharmony or instigate ill feeling, riots and mislead others. Those opposing Kapil Sibal and the need to ensure deletion of couloirs writing, does not amount to censorship. It exists in the print media and electronic media. Under existing laws too, no one can make offensive comments or writings and such acts are punishable. Even though, there are many reasons removing content from web is not possible. The Internet cannot be edited: Duh! In an early Dilbert strip, the pointy-haired boss demanded that Dilbert "download" the Internet and fax it to him. A decade down, it's not so funny anymore. The Internet is not traditional media. India's 1975 emergency and the media clampdown were possible because of the linear, broadcast nature of the old media. New media is distributed. No copy desk or censor board can "fix" it. There is no editor to arrest. And, most content is hosted outside India's jurisdiction. User-generated content cannot be filtered: That would slow down the global Internet to a crawl, with posts appearing after days -- even assuming so many "editors" could be hired by, say, a Facebook or a Twitter. Are phone operators responsible for "content" carried on their networks -- or their CEOs arrested if someone made a terror threat over a phone call? No, the telco is simply asked to help with the investigation -- into who made the call. Yes, Internet content has the permanence and public-impact potential that a phone call does not, but equally, it lends itself brilliantly to self-regulation. Wikipedia is the best example. Who could have imagined that a user-created encyclopedia could be so objective, and comprehensive? Yes, anyone can go in and edit anything. If you make an inappropriate change, someone will come in and correct it. And so it is on Facebook or Twitter. Abusive posts will be reported, blocked, and the individuals knocked out of the site.
Draconian controls are not necessary: In this age of global cooperation on terror, companies cooperate. A rational request from India to Google or Facebook to bring down offensive content will be heard -- regardless of jurisdiction. There are precedents for Internet control, but such censorship is in countries like India will place this country on the row of China, Pakistan, Myanmar or Saudi Arabia. Pakistan became a laughing stock when it issued a list of banned words for SMS messages. The big daddy of "regulation" is China, where everything is filtered, and if you break those filters, you are charged with treason. What a role model. Kapil Sibal knows all this, right? So, why is this bright star from Harvard Law School and St. Stephen's college now sounding so anachronistic in the Internet age?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)