prasad1
Active member
[h=2]The controversy surrounding the AIB roast video makes it clear that Indian law is still very prone to abuse by those who wish to exercise the heckler’s veto[/h]
An opaque system
The Indian government already has a questionable track record in the context of blocking online content. The system followed to block content under the IT Act is opaque — it neither notifies speakers and readers that content has been blocked, nor permits intermediaries to disclose what content the government has asked them to block. If speakers and readers have no way of finding out that the government has ordered the blocking of particular speech, they will not be able to challenge the government’s decision to censor before the judiciary. This means that the judiciary will not be able to check whether the government is using its power to block online content consistently with the Constitution. This lack of accountability leaves the system open to government misuse to block politically threatening speech.
The controversy surrounding the AIB roast video makes it clear that Indian law is still very prone to abuse by those who wish to exercise the heckler’s veto. Entertainers who gave viewers every opportunity to avoid potentially offensive speech are being bullied using the law. Everything ranging from the infamous 66A of the IT Act to Section 294 of the IPC (which criminalises obscene acts and songs) is being thrown at them. Worse still is that the law is being used to intimidate those who helped them, so that outrageous speakers will find it difficult to find venues and audiences. Dr. Ghuge has taken the bullying one step further and has asked for a highly regressive alteration of intermediary liability policy. Dr. Ghuge and Mr. Vaswani may destroy the free flow of information that is the soul of our democracy through their well-intentioned efforts to decide what other citizens should not see. Instead of looking for ways to leverage the freedom and endless possibilities of communication offered by the Internet, these two petitioners threaten to unravel the ‘safe harbor’ protection that keeps the Internet free and accessible.
Whether the AIB video is offensive or not has become irrelevant. The real question we should be asking is whether our sensibilities are so delicate that we would sacrifice our rich public discourse and the new media that carry our chatter, because we cannot handle being offended now and then.
Using law to bully comedians - The Hindu
An opaque system
The Indian government already has a questionable track record in the context of blocking online content. The system followed to block content under the IT Act is opaque — it neither notifies speakers and readers that content has been blocked, nor permits intermediaries to disclose what content the government has asked them to block. If speakers and readers have no way of finding out that the government has ordered the blocking of particular speech, they will not be able to challenge the government’s decision to censor before the judiciary. This means that the judiciary will not be able to check whether the government is using its power to block online content consistently with the Constitution. This lack of accountability leaves the system open to government misuse to block politically threatening speech.
The controversy surrounding the AIB roast video makes it clear that Indian law is still very prone to abuse by those who wish to exercise the heckler’s veto. Entertainers who gave viewers every opportunity to avoid potentially offensive speech are being bullied using the law. Everything ranging from the infamous 66A of the IT Act to Section 294 of the IPC (which criminalises obscene acts and songs) is being thrown at them. Worse still is that the law is being used to intimidate those who helped them, so that outrageous speakers will find it difficult to find venues and audiences. Dr. Ghuge has taken the bullying one step further and has asked for a highly regressive alteration of intermediary liability policy. Dr. Ghuge and Mr. Vaswani may destroy the free flow of information that is the soul of our democracy through their well-intentioned efforts to decide what other citizens should not see. Instead of looking for ways to leverage the freedom and endless possibilities of communication offered by the Internet, these two petitioners threaten to unravel the ‘safe harbor’ protection that keeps the Internet free and accessible.
Whether the AIB video is offensive or not has become irrelevant. The real question we should be asking is whether our sensibilities are so delicate that we would sacrifice our rich public discourse and the new media that carry our chatter, because we cannot handle being offended now and then.
Using law to bully comedians - The Hindu
