Playing Judge
I have asked several publications in order to get the idea proposed by web censorship in India, my views are not at all comprehensively represented anywhere, here is the conclusion one should be opened for the criticism.
Why not deal with defamatory in nature or something that is concerned with it. Mechanism in place where the content can be removed while the content is flagged, it violates the conditions and terms. The key problem who will play the judge. Perhaps Kapil Sibal is right person for playing judge. Is it Facebook or Twitter or Google? Do take IT rules analyzed in April, the government in India gives a judgment for the social networking sites that are in position for making a judgment or forcing to comply written requests for changing.
The method of looking at it is that I need to save my face that is why I will block it. If the networking site is not blocked then the government can pass to the ISP and then get the block access for the network site. So finally who must play judge? If there’s an issue, then take it to court, the society mandated the responsibility , Google or Sibal. Have a committee with the judges and then be transparent about the reasons.
What is happening for the present moment is the search for creating something for example a set of guidelines, the legal process is cumbersome, too long, it is impossible and unviable for someone to do it. Can you expect these people judging what kind of content people put online before it rises up? It will kill messaging system and reorganize meaningful conversations and discussions.
The IT rules usually provide safety, but they are flawed, one of my fears is that something may actually be used to make the IT rules look true too life. People will be furious about suggestions but in comparison accept arbitrary and opast post-censorship which is what the IT rules allow. The IT rules need to be amended.
How can we allow the government to settle the question about can be posted on the web and what not. I expect humans to go through what is personal message between us, it is really ridiculous. What can we tell about the privacy?
The construct of social communities can be considered into account. On Twitter every information can be visible to everyone. Using Facebook profile users can choose an image or message to friends or group. Google : one can showcase the content to different circles of audience. This space is evolving. It is private – this line gives the difference between the platforms and intentions. It should be poorly thought out how to protect the privacy.
Just target twitter, Facebook , Google? The entire web possess malicious content. What are you going to do about the entire expanse of the web? How will you stop it? It is like saying that there is a crime happened somewhere or something else, one can check the intent of every individual before he steps out.
What do they think about? Some abuse actions in the streets in India all the time, it is not the same in the net. The official representatives are using as a ruse for bringing to the web, it is taking the worst scenario and using justifying all forms of censorship. It is some kind of slippery slope that can be either made either as guidelines allowing arbitrary censorship, not transparent at all, they are not transparent at all – using national security as normal excuse.
I am not much of a lawyer but it seems to me there are laws for every single one of the concerns the government must have. Defamation is defamation and abuse is abuse. The viral nature of the web is some kind of issue, it can be an excuse for opening the web. We have a choice: according to it the adults can be responsible for the conduct and must choose the words they pronounce and also be responsible for their children.
I have some other concern and we must agree with it- we seem to have become very sensible. A certain sense of irreverence that has been lost in society and we are so touchy about it. The internet is the place where someone can start a hatshtag what is rather critique of the person.
Sibal is trying to address the wrong part of trouble – instead of the government that controls – they are trying to curtail some expression that can lead to violence, it is usually because of religious or political opportunism.
My vision of this is the Internet and its final frontier for freedom of expression, governments are now worried about organizing the opinion and activity that it allows, it is threatening the outdated ways of governing.
