SIbal and the Face Block :-

Communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal's move to regulate online content is inviting a barrage of barbs on the very social media sites -- Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus -- which he aims to muzzle.

Amid a raging controversy over policing of the internet, the government on has initiated a dialogue with leading social networking firms Google, Facebook and Twitter and sought suggestions on effective usage of these platforms. The government has called for an open dialogue with the social media firms and asked for opinions on how social media and e-governance can empower individuals and citizens of this country, Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal said after meeting representatives of these firms. "... This discussion and this dialogue is about how the social media can empower government, because under the normal processes of government, there is always a limited dialogue with representatives of society because the means are limited," he said. The government is asking leading Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook to screen alleged derogatory, defamatory and inflammatory content about religious figures and Indian leaders.

The New York Times reported that six weeks ago, Mr Sibal met with representatives from companies like Yahoo and Microsoft. The report claimed, "At the meeting, Mr. Sibal showed attendees a Facebook page that maligned the Congress Party's president, Sonia Gandhi. "This is unacceptable," he told attendees.

The reaction to this move was varied some of course in favour a large majority against this move labeling it as a violation of the individuals constitutional rights namely A14: freedom of speech.

 J&K CM Omar Abdullah tweeted saying, "I hate the idea of censorship. But have seen for myself how dangerous inflammatory content on Facebook and You-Tube can be." Hashtag #Kapilsibal and #Censorship were the hot trending topic on Twitter globally. Noted filmmaker Pritish Nandy tweeted saying "This is my country. Freedom of speech is my birthright. You can go to hell sir." Stock broker Rakesh Jhunjhunwala was upset too. "If Sibal wants to jail us for speaking our mind on the Internet, go ahead! We'll just go ahead and get bail like Kanimozhi," tweeted Jhunjhunwala. "The Internet is the only truly democratic medium. Can see why Sibal wants to gag it." said B.J.P MP Varun Gandhi.

Some others such as Shashi Tharoor sat on the fence. "Spoke to Kapil Sibal, he assured me he opposes political censorship. Concern is regarding communally inflammatory images and language which he described," Tharoor tweeted. Sibal was, however, supported by his colleague Milind Deora who tweeted: "Just as principle of free speech is sacrosanct , incendiary content must also be avoided." About 73 'hate' pages against Sibal have erupted on Facebook.

Under fire from netizens, the Union telecoms and Information Minister Kapil Sibal has earned support from the valley's separatist-turned-mainstream politician Sajad Lone, who heads his faction of the Peoples Conference. Lone, who faces unparliamentary language from Twitter and Facebook users over issues he rakes up, sees a point in having censorship on certain contents on the Internet. Lone, the son of slain separatist leader Abdul Ghani Lone, contested parliamentary polls in 2008, first separatist to contest polls arguing that he did so, to use democratic spaces to explore a solution to the Kashmir problem. His move attracted severe criticism from hardline separatists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani. "Blasphemous and obscene contents certainly need to be censored....problem in India is the obsession to imitate the west. Wake up. This is not west. different values, cultures, responses, interpretations," wrote Lone. Lone says India readers have different sensibilities thus needs a sieved content. "Not everyone understands or interprets garbage in the spirit of garbage. Some tend to take it seriously. Garbage published can mean trouble," he said.

Sibal who came under a lot of flak decided to take a comfort zone by saying he is against censorship but the contents on the net should be screened. Does he take us to be idiots? Screened and then do what? Prepare yourself for a counter attack. Counter article by the government for every article written against it or pictures mocking them?? What is the purpose of screening, if the intention is not to get rid of the material which is thought to be against them?

I myself hate some of the stuff written on the Internet, but I'd hate it even more if they were not allowed to write it. That is my plain and simple view. For a nation that has close to 121 million users, of which 43 million users are on Facebook, 3.6 million on Google plus and 3.5 million on Twitter, the move to muzzle social content understably invited ire. Besides in legal terms this is a total violation of the basic principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the Constitution of India.

For all this Facebook and Google have stuck to their guns.

Facebook's response to Sibal's 'censorship' efforts:
"We want Facebook to be a place where people can discuss things freely, while respecting the rights and feelings of others, which is why we have already have policies and on-site features in place that enable people to report abusive content. 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. We recognise the government's interest in minimizing the amount of abusive content that is available online and will continue to engage with the Indian authorities as they debate this important issue."

Google on this matter has also said that:

"When content is legal and does not violate our policies, we will not remove it just because it is controversial, as we believe that people's differing views, so long as they are legal, should be respected and protected."

According to reports Google has received government requests for removal of 358 items from its services, including YouTube and Orkut, during the January-June 2011 period, according to a report by the internet search giant. As many as 255 item removal requests cited the government criticism as the reason, said the Google Transparency Report. The government had asked Google to remove 236 items from Orkut and 19 items from YouTube for the same reason.  

Free speech has long been a hallmark of a healthy democracy and a free society. The Internet and new communications technologies have become unprecedented tools for expanding the ability for individuals to speak and receive information, participate in political and democratic processes, and share knowledge and ideas. Recognizing the potential of these technologies, courts have extended the highest level of First Amendment protection to the Internet medium. Online free expression also requires that private online service providers be protected from legal liability for content posted by users, so they will be willing to host that speech.

In a healthy democracy, politicians are very much the target of jest and joke. World over such pictorial humour is on and allowed. Most of the time the leaders, if they are democratic enough, join the laughter. It is only in a dictatorship that the leader is only hailed and not riled. If they choose to be in public life, they have to be willing to be exposed too. This also follows from my November 15 blog on “private lives of public figures is public property”.

This is a general perspective on the censorship debate as sparked off by Kapil Sibal. The legal aspects on internet censorship will follow in the next blog.