With ‘paid news' and other ills making the media vulnerable to state and corporate control, social networking sites are a countervailing force for ordinary citizens. Hence, the drive to regulate them.
Recently, the Telecom Minister was attacked by a large number of netizens for his move to screen content on social networking sites. Some bloggers called this drive idiotic. The characterisation seemed harmless till a little reflection brought The Idiot of Dostoyevsky to mind, and I felt crediting a Minister with a trusting nature as in that story might be good for our social imagination but not grounded in any evidence.
The shifting sands of his reasons for objecting to certain matter carried on social media are interesting. Apparently, he first found a page maligning Sonia Gandhi and told Facebook officials on September 5, 2011 this was unacceptable. He then wrote a letter and held meetings with Google and Facebook. In an interview on NDTV in November, he said he objected to pornographic images. Then there was a mention in newspapers that at a press conference on December 5 he was worried about things that hurt religious sentiments.
Some of us are often disturbed by the politicisation or corruption of individual personality by journalism. I remember as a ten-year-old boy, my father asked me to read The Statesman first thing in the morning to improve my English and my grandmother took me aside to advise that I start my day with thoughts about Ishwar instead of reading reports about rape and murder. Philosophers have commented that journalists make people doubly ridiculous — first by making them feel they must necessarily have an opinion on every matter and then by renting them their opinion as an object of necessity they can flaunt around. We may not agree with the first, but the second point, about the role of journalists as purveyors of public opinion is of great relevance in the present context because the internet enables the world to break through the filter of journalism and reach individuals directly.
The internet has been described as the network of networks. Through social networking, it helps isolated individuals constitute themselves as a group or a ‘public'. By playing the role of intermediation, it has helped all trades and professions expand their working communities and given us a practical source of two-way communication with the capability for everyone to hear both sides of the story. It has had a great democratising impact the world over.
In the context of the scourge of ‘paid journalism' as a means of state and corporate control of media, social networking sites are a countervailing force. Google's Transparency Report says 70 per cent of what was objected to by government agencies in 2011 related to political criticism. Only an insignificant number of items, just eight out of 352, could be termed hate speech. The Minister is obviously worried about social networking sites because he cannot control them to his advantage. How is he to regain control?
To gauge this, the sequence in his reactions to what he saw, or was caused to see, is important. He first encountered something denigrating Sonia Gandhi and colloquially cried “blasphemy”; next, he objected to extreme pornography and finally he referred to things hurtful to religious sentiments. He can well cry blasphemy even though India does not have a state religion, because blasphemy laws exist in several European countries and the U.N. too has some resolutions against defamation of religions.
Blasphemy was a canon law offence in the U.K. till the 17th century when it was made an offence against common law. When BBC staged “Jerry Springer – the Opera” in 2005 and thousands of Christians objected to scenes set in hell with Jesus and Satan, the High Court said the Theatres Act, 1968 of the U.K. prevented any prosecution for blasphemy in relation to public performances of plays. Besides, the Broadcasting Act, 1990 did not allow for any prosecution in relation to broadcasts. Blasphemy as an offence was abolished in the U.K. by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, 2008. However, the same Act introduced new offences described as ‘possession of extreme pornographic images' (Sec. 63) and ‘publication of obscene article' (Sec. 71). Hate crime could be tied to these to make a case for ‘reasonable' restriction of freedom of speech and expression.
Like people in the U.K. till 2008, we in India also happen to be very sensitive to anything irreverent about any religion. Despite this common perception of our national character, both while framing the Indian Constitution as well as when working it, Rajendra Prasad and B.R. Ambedkar staunchly defended the freedom of expression. After the famous Crossroads case, when Nehru tried to broaden the scope of restrictions to freedom of expression and framed the First Amendment, they succeeded in persuading him to allow the word ‘reasonable' qualifying the word restriction in Article 19 (2) to remain unchanged. This was due to their understanding that the Constitution is the vehicle of a nation's progress. The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951, based on the First Amendment, was itself repealed in 1957.
More recently, in 2004, the Delhi High Court dismissed the complaints against M.F. Hussain of promoting enmity between different groups. Despite this, a case was registered in Mumbai in February 2006 against the painter for “hurting sentiments of people” by painting Hindu goddesses not as deities but visual stimuli, which forced him to live and die in exile, shaming all Indians. Even during the otherwise repressive British Raj, though Sarat Chandra's novel Pather Dabi was banned, he walked around as a free man. The failures of government to provide equal protection of the law under Article 21 of the Constitution to Hussain the painter and, more recently, to Salman Rushdie the writer, are both reprehensible.
Similar law-ways appear to have been deployed in the present case as well, with a private civil suit being filed by one Vinay Rai in a District Court of Rohini in Delhi which passed an ex-parte order asking 22 networking sites to remove certain content because they amount to “defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community” and might “hurt religious sentiments”. The order did not spell out whether it is pornographic images/obscenity/hate speech that is being objected to or something blasphemous. Apparently, on another petition filed by the founder of a website FatwaOnline.org, a civil judge issued summons to Facebook and Google India, who sought relief from the Delhi High Court.
The decision of the government to sanction prosecution of the companies for offences against the state (as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is baffling. No “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs” (Sec. 295-A of IPC) or “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony” (Sec. 153 of IPC) on the part of the companies summoned appeared to be in evidence. At the hearing by the Delhi High Court on January 16, 2012, the court apparently appreciated the fact that it is not the companies themselves but third-party miscreants who may be responsible, but sought a way for the companies to screen such objectionable material. The companies incorporated in India pleaded the technical impossibility for them to screen content posted on websites by millions of internet users.
The law on the matter is yet to be settled. To begin with, we in India still have an IT Act geared more to trade and commerce and not comprehensively cast to deal with social issues of the kind that have been highlighted by this case. Any attempt to do so must bear in mind that while maintaining a respectful distance from all religions, the state in India accords a public space to them and does not relegate religious sentiments to the sphere of the individual alone. The Delhi High Court's approach — of appealing to the corporate social responsibility of the companies to creatively craft uniquely Indian secular solutions to the problem rather than harping at their non-existent legal liability — must be appreciated. The bathwater can be thrown out, not the babies Facebook and Google.
(The author is a commentator on social issues. His e-mail is: amitabh.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com)
Keywords: social networking, media regulation, religious sentiments, Press (Objectionable Matter) Act 1951, blasphemy, social media, content regulation
Everyone is well aware of the part played by social media in the latest events like Arab spring & Anna hazare movements. Through this medium, people who stayed in a state of oblivion had came out supporting for the cause. Because of the nuisance created by some, censoring these forums is a very kiddish proposal made by the govt. Mr. Sibal is talking about hurting religious sentiments of the community. Well then i have a question to ask that why incidents like Babri and Godhra accdents happened when there was no social media. This may earn him some extra browny points by his fellow politicians but sorry sir, its a complete thumbs down from all the netizens. If you really want to cure it, kindly suggest some feasible options.
Journalist should stop with collection and reporting of events. The problem starts with adding the opinions - directly or indirectly and adding venom. Take for example this sentence: " Despite this, a case was registered in Mumbai in February 2006 against the painter for “hurting sentiments of people” by painting Hindu goddesses not as deities but visual stimuli, which forced him to live and die in exile, shaming all Indians. "
All the events are true except a last joiner - "shaming all Indians". I was not ashamed? The how could this write talk fo all Indians. This were the opinions are thrusted into the readers minds. Thats why nowadays newspapers are becoing trustworthy. At the end of the day for all - its business and money and working for maximizing them. This holds good for all. If there are some, they would soon turn to this truth.
One has to admit that New Found forum to express one's feelings/opinion without any responsibility has been misused by many to launch comments which are not acceptable to a civilised society. One need to go through the comments which appear in almost all News Papers regularly in response to articles/news events to see the quality and nature of the postings. This happens even when all Newspapers have Moderators to sift through. This,however,DO NOT empower the Government to bring in rules to pre-censor the social forums like Face Book,Twitter etc in order to remove ANY comments against the policies or actions of individuals who are in public life.Any one who enter in the arena or politics or other public platforms should expect comments for and against them and they always have the option to seek legal remedies when they feel abused by contributors.Censoring these forums is NOT AN OPTION
A very accurate assessment,in these times of economic pessimism it seems
the powers that be, are getting inspired by China; not in its economic
policies but more in the repression of people, stifling of free speech
and curtailing of civil liberties.
Indian democracy gives its citizens the freedom of expression.What
is considered the proper use of this right? Definitely not maligning
or abusing someone,either out of anger or as a paid job.Everyone has
the right to express his/her opinion.Similarly,everyone has the
right to disagree with other`s opinion as well. But the expression
of disagreement ought not to be abusive or derogatory.We do see lot
of offensive or abusive usages in the comments tendered in the media
too.Civility in behavior and speech has to be regarded as the sign
of decency.Self regulation can be expected only from decent
people.All others require some sort of control.
There is no doubt that there should be freedom of expression.However,the question arises as to what should be done when there is abuse of this freedom.Even a casual perusal of some of the comments made in the media and networking sites shows total disregard for decency for religious,political and social norms.In some cases,these comments are so filled with hate and animosity that one feels disgusted and wonders what the moderators are doing.Self censorship by the media has proved a failure in many cases.There is,therefore a necessity for the Government to look into this problem and with the cooperation of the media to curb licentious comments.A task force to look into this problem is long overdue.
Hindu\Mukhopadhaya: Crediblityof print and electronic media are gradually declining because of control on the freedom of press by power-that-be.Almost all print& electronic media are being controlled by corporates and like corporate persons.They had vested interest.In the corroidor of power,these media believe in brokering-hence they cannot publish the things what are happening!Virtually there are undeclared censorship.Not only that paid news menace,has further eroded crediblity of media. Journalists are wage earners although they are getting huge amount for writing untruth.These things had affected media and social networking sites are gradually gaining ground-One will find more news and views on social networking sites particularly blogs. Hence declineof controlled media have become certain inIndia.In India there are Mudrocisation of media for enlightened interest!
my blog www.kksingh1.blogspot.com
Here the issue is awakeness of freedom expression in the era of ICT advancement and scrutinizing the content published in various platforms on internet world to avoid blashpheme and inviting defamation kind of suits to owners of media. Internet given compleletly freedom to those who having access to it by expressing their views and opinion on respective topic within their limited knowledge of anlaysis lack in presentation skills of publically acceptable without hurting anyone in order to maintaining the journalistic ethos. Mass media regulators should come out an policy of without strict screening not allowing viwers to post their comment passing their responsibility to publishing or media house.
Before giving the article a complete ANNA HAZARE support,One must look the other side of the coin too.Kapil Sibal,the new saviour of the Congress party; needs to have some favour from the Gandhis,needs to have the votes of minority and majority.Therefore he has tried every step to prevent the image of VERY SECULAR CONGRESS.The reasons he gives are already described in the article and he also says that on multiple times he had called on a meeting of those SOCIAL NETWORKING MOGULS and they have failed to do so.Therefore,he had to impose several restriction on them as there was no support from those parties.Definitely,this will incubate the latitude of ideas,emotions and awareness.But surely It will be a great help to our nation,considering that a small spark is enough for a new Godhra or may be a new Babri Masjid.Truly said.'Prevention is better than cure.'
Any participant in the Face Book/Twitter or similar social exchange forums-from now onwards- need to be careful in what he/she writes-seriously or as humorous piece. Unofficial checks will be made regularly/random by the zealots who-to get brownie points from their masters will twist even the innocuous comments as offense. I wish to have a clarification on Mr.M.F.Hussain's real reason for leaving India as an exile.Was he threatened with physical attacks or was it because of the case filed against him in a Bombay Court.In the first instant the Govt.has the responsibility to give protection and in the second he could have-along with lot of civil rights groups fought for his rights in court.Self Exile was only a last resort.Can this not be interpreted as his loss of faith in the Government and Judiciary?
Having grown in an era -like the author I was also asked by my father to read the editorials of The Hindu; have been immensely profited in the later years. Things now are pretty different. No doubt there are still papers with the same good style of informative and elegant writing. But the slant is more on worship of the establishment. Yesterday, I was aghast to read in several newspapers the same story of praising skyhigh a new official who had landed in the PMO and his swift decisions even to the point of overshadowing the PM. -It was plainly a 'Pulokooojan'. Hardly such a stand is desirable. Young people are being indirectly brainwashed. Still, the sold newspapers have their day and will contribute substantially.
'Blasphemy' according to my copy of the Webster's Dictionary means 'profane or contemptuous speech, writing or action concerning God or anything held divine.' So in applying the standard to Sonia Gandhi, was the honorable minister holding her to be 'God or someone to be held divine?' Does this mean that the 'dynasty' is to be treated now as the Holy Family?
Well written. Were Google, Facebook, Yahoo and a number of other social media responsible for the caveman to think and make weapons out of bones and stones that killed his own folks?
"The failures of government to provide equal protection of the law under Article 21"; This right is guaranteed by Article 14 rather than Article 21 .
It is sad to see India inching towards ever more suppression of speech. The ultimate consequence of this is the suppression of ideas. Free flow of ideas will be essential if India is going to mature as a democratic and secular nation. Politicians and religious groups must not be allowed to bully others into holding back from criticizing them. With the way things are going, it will be next impossible to express any kind of opinion online without hurting someone's feelings. This is almost comical, because telling others to 'shut up' seems ridiculously childish. Any online content should be left untouched unless it involves exploitation of minors or imagery of grotesque nature. If India needs to emulate one thing that the United States does right, it is the provision of liberty to express any opinion without fear of retaliation. It is a disservice to human development to force people to self-censor due to the fear of the police state gone out of control.
Please Email the Editor