Free Expression

Free Expression is a Watertown Daily Times editorial published on 2 May 2011, arguing that India’s newly issued IT intermediary rules pose a serious threat to free speech and public debate. The piece quotes Sunil Abraham on how the rules favour those seeking to suppress expression.

Article Details
Full Text
Context and Background

Article Details

📰 Published in:: Watertown Daily Times
📅 Date:: 2 May 2011
📄 Type:: Editorial
📰 Publication Link:: Not available online

Full Text

Free speech and spirited public debate will be the casualties of new rules issued by India restricting Internet content.

The regulations from the country's Department of Information Technology go beyond government censorship to individual censorship of material that might be offensive. According to the New York Times, even private citizens can demand that a service provider remove content that is "disparaging," "harassing" or "blasphemous."

The terms, though, are not defined. They are vague and subject to personal interpretation. Enforcement by the government or individuals will be arbitrary.

A rule against content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" could be used by the government to block Internet debate over foreign policy or disagreement with the government's diplomatic relations with another country.

They are also subject to abuse by those who want to silence those they dislike or oppose.

India has a history of banning books and other materials considered objectionable, but the new rules go much further than a specific ban. They also require "intermediaries" such as Facebook and YouTube to remove offensive content within 36 hours of a complaint from anyone. No provisions are made for challenging the complaint.

"These rules favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," said Sunil Abraham, executive director for the Center for Internet and Society.

Such rules are not surprising in countries with repressive regimes, but they are intolerable in a nation like India that considers itself democratic.

Context and Background

The Watertown Daily Times is a regional newspaper based in Watertown, New York. Its editorial on India’s IT rules, published on 2 May 2011, was published shortly after the rules came into effect, at a time when they were drawing attention and criticism for their scope and enforcement mechanisms. The editorial refers to reporting from the New York Times and includes a quote from Sunil Abraham.

The editorial frames the rules as a question of democratic values: it frames India’s content rules not as a governance or technology policy matter but as a democratic values question, holding India to the standard it claims for itself as the world’s largest democracy. The 36-hour removal requirement and the absence of any appeal mechanism for affected users were the two features most consistently cited by critics across publications during this period.