Google's War on Nude Photos Goes Against User Rights

Google’s War on Nude Photos Goes Against User Rights is an India Today feature article written by Sahil Mohan Gupta and published on 25 February 2015. The piece examines Google’s decision to ban sexually explicit content on its Blogger platform and explores the broader tension between private platform policies, user rights, and freedom of expression, drawing on commentary from Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society.

Contents

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

Article Details

📰 Published in:
India Today
📅 Date:
25 February 2015
👤 Author:
Sahil Mohan Gupta
📄 Type:
Feature
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online

Full Text

Yesterday, Google announced that starting March 23, 2015 users will be unable to share sexually explicit content on its blogging platform -- Blogger. In a country like India, such content generally causes a storm in a teacup, this move might be welcomed, however, experts say that it goes against the tenets of free speech.

Interestingly, Google is not alone, but all the major Internet players indulge in such draconian practices. Facebook cracks down on sexually explicit content on its platform while Apple also does not allow any app that has anything close to pornography on its iOS app store.

The bigger issue is that these companies allow anything when they are in the process of attracting users, but turn turtle the moment they attain a level of stickiness with their user-base. Their U-turns are often on frivolous grounds, which go against the very tenets of freedom of speech and human rights.

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of The Center of Internet and Society tells IndiaToday.in that legally big Internet companies like Google are well within their rights to make such modifications.

"According to US and Indian law they 'can' censor as per their own terms of use which is based on contract law," explains Abraham.

"Unfortunately, most of the networked public sphere has been privatized by near monopolies. They are able to use contract law to clamp down on human rights," he adds.

There, however, is light at the end of the tunnel. According to Abraham, the only way states can guarantee human rights is by treating these intermediaries like utilities with narrow exceptions through regulations.

That said, this approach is not without risks and advises extreme caution.

"Unfortunately, this will reduce the agile innovation that these near-monopolies contribute to our information society," says Abraham.

Alternatively, increased competition and amendments to contract law will also help in curtailing the ability of companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft to deny user rights.

In the past, Apple notoriously blocked Pulitzer Prize winner Mark Fiore's app on the App Store. It was reportedly making editorial calls on the content of the app.

"We've reviewed NewsToons and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because it contains content that ridicules public figures and is in violation of Section 3.3.14 from the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement which states:

Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory," replied an Apple iPhone developer program representative to Fiore while rejecting his app.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is a non-profit organization that helps defend digital rights, feels Apple's App Store policies are outrageous and bad for both developers and users alike. Due to this, it has not even released an iOS app.

Google for its part right now claims, "We'll still allow nudity if the content offers a substantial public benefit, for example in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts." However, there is no reason why it could not have a change of heart.

The new rules also mean that now Google will not only act as a platform owner but also an entity that will decide what is art and what is good public taste.

Facebook, the dominant force in the sphere of social networking, has been for years criticized for its draconian policies regarding terms of use. It is also known to clampdown on freedom of speech.

Last year, even Twitter cracked down on explicit sexual Vines. Though Twitter allows users to share explicit content if they properly mark such content as sensitive.

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

By early 2015, major technology platforms were tightening content policies at a pace that drew scrutiny from digital rights advocates globally. Google’s move to restrict explicit content on Blogger was part of a wider pattern in which platforms shifted from permissive policies during growth phases to more restrictive ones once they had consolidated large user bases.

Sunil Abraham’s comments in the article frame large internet platforms as privatised near-monopolies that can use contractual terms of service to restrict user rights. The argument that regulating these companies as utilities could protect rights, but at the cost of innovation, was a live tension in policy debates at the time, particularly as India was still developing its own framework for platform regulation.

The Mark Fiore case referenced in the article was a well-documented episode from 2010, in which Apple initially rejected a Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist’s app, drawing wide criticism before eventually reversing the decision.

See also

📄 This page was created on 12 March 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .