Save Your Voice — A Movement Against Web Censorship

Save Your Voice — A Movement Against Web Censorship is a DNA India article published on 13 March 2012. The report covers the launch of a movement demanding repeal of the Information Technology Act after the blocking of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi’s website during the Anna Hazare anti-corruption protests.

Article Details
Full Text
Context and Background
External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:: DNA India
📅 Date:: 13 March 2012
📄 Type:: News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:: Read Online

Full Text

'Save Your Voice (SYV)' is a movement against Web censorship and its main demand is the repealing of the Information Technology Act, said SYV founders, Aseem Trivedi, a cartoonist, and Alok Dixit, a journalist, on Monday. Trivedi's website — www.cartoonistagainstcorruption.com — was banned during Anna Hazare's movement.

Trivedi said: "Mumbai police banned the website without any prior notice and cases of 'treason' were also filed. The website was banned without a judicial order and I haven't received an explanation about the crime committed."

Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, said the private sector does not protect the freedom of expression.

Context and Background

This article was published during a period of heightened public mobilisation around corruption and political accountability in India. Online platforms played a significant role in organising, documenting, and amplifying protest activity associated with the Anna Hazare movement.

The Save Your Voice campaign emerged in response to the blocking of activist websites linked to these protests. The banning of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi’s website without prior notice or judicial order became a focal example cited by campaign organisers to highlight concerns about web censorship and due process under the Information Technology Act.

By calling for repeal of the Act, the movement framed such blocks not as isolated enforcement actions but as symptoms of a broader regulatory framework that allowed administrative censorship. The article situates these concerns within ongoing debates about the protection of online speech, the role of intermediaries, and the responsibilities of both state authorities and private actors in regulating digital expression.