'Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended'

‘Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended’ is a blog post published on The New York Times India blog on 6 December 2011, written by Heather Timmons. The article reports on Communications Minister Kapil Sibal’s public confirmation of government demands for social media platforms to pre-screen and remove offensive content, featuring critical commentary from Sunil Abraham on the technical infeasibility and constitutional implications of such prescreening requirements, alongside responses from major technology companies navigating India’s increasingly restrictive approach to internet freedom.

Contents

  1. Article Details
  2. Full Text
  3. Context and Background
  4. External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:
The New York Times (India Blog)
📅 Date:
6 December 2011
👤 Author:
Heather Timmons
📄 Type:
Blog Post
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online

Full Text

The Indian government has asked social media operators to delete information on the Internet that might offend the "sensibilities" of people in India, Kapil Sibal, India's minister of communications and information technology, said Tuesday, confirming an earlier India Ink report.

"We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people," Mr. Sibal told more than 100 reporters during a press conference on the lawn at his home in New Delhi. "Cultural ethos is very important to us."

He denied such a demand was censorship.

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said. The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.

The news conference was called in response to an India Ink blog post Monday about private meetings with executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft, in which Mr. Sibal asked the companies to prescreen content in India before it is posted. The idea caused an outpouring of criticism for Mr. Sibal on social media sites in India on Monday night that intensified after the press conference on Tuesday.

Industry analysts and activists deemed it unrealistic and unconstitutional.

"It is technically impossible and places unconstitutional limits on the freedom of expression in India," said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society, a research group based in Bangalore, India. "Shutting the Internet hasn't worked in China or Saudi Arabia, and it won't work in India," he said.

India now has an estimated 100 million Internet users, the fourth largest online population in the world behind China, the United States and Japan, and over 25 million Facebook users. Those figures are well behind India's 850 million registered mobile phone users, but Internet use is expected to mushroom in coming years as inexpensive tablet computers enter the market.

Facebook was the only company to reply publicly by Tuesday afternoon. "We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service," the company said in a statement. On Tuesday evening, Google said in a statement: "We work really hard to both follow the law and also give people as much access to information as we can." If content is legal, but controversial, the Google statement continued, "we don't remove it because people's differing views should be respected, so long as they are legal."

In recent months, the Indian government held several meetings with social media companies, and asked them to develop a "mechanism" to screen out offensive content, Mr. Sibal said. So far, he said, these companies have been uncooperative.

Mr. Sibal declined to define what, exactly, was offensive content, but said he had found on the Internet "subject matter which was so offensive that it hurt the religious sentiments of large sections of the community."

Before the news conference, he showed examples of that content to some journalists, who described it as pornography combined with images of Mecca and Hindu gods. Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were "ex facie objectionable."

The Indian government has been tightening the leash on Internet freedom, and in April issued rules demanding demanding Internet service providers delete information posted on Web sites that officials or private citizens deemed disparaging or harassing. Last year, the government threatened to shut down BlackBerry service in the country unless the smartphones' manufacturer, Research In Motion, allowed government officials greater access to users' messages.

In a meeting Monday, executives from social media companies told Mr. Sibal they believed that American law applies to them, not the Indian government's rules issued in April.

"Even if U.S. law applies, the community standards of India have to be taken into account," Mr. Sibal said. "We will not allow Internet companies to throw up their hands and say, 'We cannot do anything about it.'"

Regulation of the Internet, particularly across country boundaries, remains a murky and hard-to-define area, said Mr. Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society. "Indian law seems to state that it has global jurisdiction," he said, "but that is not really true. An Indian court might give an order that is unenforceable in the United States or anywhere else," he said.

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

Kapil Sibal’s December 2011 press conference represented a watershed moment in India’s relationship with global technology platforms. His demand for prescreening mechanisms that would filter content before publication struck at the heart of how social media fundamentally operates. Unlike traditional media, where editorial control precedes publication, platforms like Facebook and YouTube rely on post-publication review—users generate content freely, and problematic material is addressed reactively through complaints and automated detection systems. Sibal’s proposal would have required a complete architectural reimagining of these services.

Sunil Abraham’s response captured both the technical and constitutional dimensions of the controversy. His assertion that prescreening was “technically impossible” reflected the sheer scale of content generation on modern platforms—millions of posts, images, and videos uploaded daily across multiple languages and cultural contexts. No combination of automated systems and human moderators could review this volume of material before publication without creating massive delays that would render the platforms unusable. His comparison to China and Saudi Arabia positioned India’s demands within a global context of authoritarian internet control, suggesting that such measures fundamentally contradicted democratic principles.

The vagueness of what constituted “offensive” content posed another serious concern. Sibal’s invocation of “sensibilities” and “cultural ethos” provided no clear legal standard that companies could implement. His examples—religious imagery combined with pornography, objectionable images of political figures—illustrated the breadth of material the government found problematic, ranging from genuinely offensive content to politically inconvenient speech. This ambiguity created a chilling effect, as platforms faced pressure to remove content based on subjective governmental assessments rather than clear legal violations.

Sunil Abraham’s observation about jurisdictional overreach highlighted a persistent tension in internet governance. Indian law might claim global authority, but practical enforcement remained limited to Indian territory. American companies operating under US law could choose to ignore Indian demands that conflicted with their home jurisdiction. This created an ongoing negotiation where platforms balanced compliance with local regulations against their own policies and legal obligations elsewhere—a dance that would become increasingly complex as India’s internet population grew.

The article also documented the immediate backlash against Sibal’s proposals on the very platforms he sought to regulate. The irony was palpable—social media users employed these services to criticise government attempts to control those same services. This demonstrated both the political potency of digital platforms and the government’s vulnerability to public opinion mobilised through channels it couldn’t easily suppress.

📄 This page was created on 12 December 2025. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .