Centre for Internet and Society

Vishnu

praskrishna — 2013-12-31T12:23:13Z

Vishnu Vardhan at re-release of Konkani Vishwakosh

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Vishnu.png

Vishnu

praskrishna — 2013-11-29T06:50:30Z

Vishnu

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/vishnu.png

Virtual Reality

praskrishna — 2013-07-02T07:35:28Z

Virtual Reality

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/VirtualReality.png

Virat Kohli

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T03:00:45Z

Virat Kohli

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/ViratKohli.png

Violence call key to 'sedition'

praskrishna — 2016-02-28T03:06:47Z

Words, whether spoken or shouted, that question or even malign the government cannot be labelled as sedition, unless they specifically incite violence, lawyers and human rights experts familiar with fundamental rights and sedition laws have said.

The article was published in the Telegraph on February 18, 2016

The experts say courts hearing allegations of sedition would be expected to analyse the context and intent to determine whether actions claimed by the prosecution as sedition fit its definition under the Indian Penal Code#(IPC) and various Supreme Court rulings.

Under Section 124A of the IPC, "whoever by words.... or by signs or visible representation or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred, contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India" may be punished. The section defines disaffection as "disloyalty and all feelings of enmity", but clarifies that comments that express even strong disapproval of government actions through lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection are not an offence.

"It is not the actions alone that count, they have to be seen along with the mental ingredients behind those actions - it is the motive that determines the character of the actions," N.R. Madhava Menon, honorary professor at Bangalore's National Law School, told The Telegraph.

"The court would be expected to examine the facts and the evidence presented," he said. "It would ask questions such as, is there evidence for a conspiracy, who was behind the actions, was it an organised event, was it intended to subvert a legally established government?"

Experts say Supreme Court rulings over the decades have narrowed the scope of the sedition law. In a 1995 judgment, the court held that casual raising of slogans by individuals cannot be held as exciting or attempting to excite hatred or disaffection towards the government.

The court has ruled that only speeches intended to create disorder or disturbance or call for resorting to violence could be punishable under the section, said Ravi Nair, executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, New Delhi.

In a 1962 judgment, the Supreme Court had limited the scope of Section 124A to incitement to violence or fostering public disorder, Gautam Bhatia, a Delhi-based lawyer and author of Offend, Shock, or Disturb, a book on free speech under the Indian Constitution has pointed out.

In a report for the non-government Centre for Internet and Society, Bhatia said other Supreme Court rulings had clarified#that that there needed to be a "direct and imminent degree of proximity" between the speech and expression and the breach of public order, and that the relation between the two should be like a "spark in a powder keg".

"Something the court has clearly rejected is the argument that it is permissible to criminalise speech and expression simply because its content might lower the authority of the government in the eyes of the public which, in turn, could foster a disrespect for law and the state, and lead to breaches of public order," Bhatia wrote.Human rights analysts point out historical episodes in other countries where citizens have expressed intense opposition to government actions, without having charges of sedition filed against them.

"The protests in the US against the Vietnam War during the late 1960s and protests in the UK against the Falkland War in 1982 or more recently British involvement in the Gulf war are examples," Nair said. "Supreme Court rulings in India have narrowed the scope of the section on sedition to cover only actions that actually call for violence."

Nair said sedition should be seen as an anachronism in any mature democracy. India's sedition law was written during British rule, but the UK abolished its own sedition and seditious libel law in 2009.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-telegraph-february-18-2016-violence-call-key-to-sedition

Vimmi

praskrishna — 2011-03-31T10:18:53Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/girlintern.jpg

Vimeo, DailyMotion, Pastebin Among Sites Blocked In India For 'Anti-India' Content From ISIS

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T16:43:20Z

The Indian government has convinced ISPs to block dozens of popular websites accused of hosting “anti-India” content posted by members of the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

The story was published by IB Times on December 31. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

GitHub, Pastebin, as well as the video sites Vimeo and DailyMotion were among those rendered inaccessible to many of India’s nearly 250 million Internet users.

The text repository Pastebin first tweeted on Dec. 19 that it had been blocked, confirming on Dec. 26 that the blockade was at the behest of India’s Department of Telecom. Pranesh Prakash, the policy director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, posted a list of the blocked sites Wednesday. Notice the list was issued Dec. 17.

Insane! Govt orders blocking of 32 websites including @internetarchive @vimeo @github @pastebin #censorship #FoEx pic.twitter.com/F75ngSGohJ

â€” Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) December 31, 2014

Hours later Arvind Gupta, the national head of information technology at India’s Bharatiya Janata Party, confirmed on Twitter that a block had indeed been put in place. Other than referencing “ongoing investigations,” Gupta did not provide specific details on the type of threats being made.

The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. 1/2

â€” Arvind Gupta (@buzzindelhi) December 31, 2014

The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked. 2/2

â€” Arvind Gupta (@buzzindelhi) December 31, 2014

The move comes after it was discovered that the operator of a prominent pro-ISIS Twitter account was based in Bangalore. Mehdi Masroor Biswas, 24, was arrested earlier this month after a Channel 4 News investigation determined he was behind @ShamiWitness, an account with more than 17,700 followers and 2 million tweets seen each month.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled the “Make in India” campaign earlier this year in an attempt to encourage international businesses to invest in India. The campaign specifically mentions information technology as a sector in which India wishes to improve.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ib-times-jeff-stone-december-31-2014-sites-blocked-in-india-for-anti-india-content-from-isis

Vimeo Ban: More Web Censorship

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T09:19:38Z

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

This article by Preetika Rana published in the Wall Street Journal on May 18, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

When Indian users logged on to Vimeo and some other video-sharing websites Thursday morning, they were greeted by a rather unusual message: "Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders."

The websites were blocked by private telecom operators following a ruling by Chennai’s High Court in March.

The story began when Chennai-based Copyrights Labs, a firm specializing in copyright infringement, petitioned the High Court to take pre-emptive action against people who might illegally upload two Tamil-language films: "3" and "Dammu."

The court ruled that Internet service providers, or ISPs, could block video-sharing sites where those films were illegally available.

The court named 15 prominent ISPs who were covered by the order.

But the court did not name any particular video-sharing websites to be taken down. And it remains unclear if any of those affected this week even carried the two films in question.

Two major Indian ISPs, Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications, blocked content sharing websites including U.S.-based Vimeo and France-based Dailymotion and Pastebin.

They cited the court order as a reason but without proof the sites were carrying the movies. Other ISPs named in the court order did not attempt to block any websites.

The two telecom giants offered little further clarity on why these websites were blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with Court orders,” Bharti Airtel said in a statement.

Reliance Communication’s statement said: "Under Section 79 of the IT Act, an ISP has to adhere to any copyright infringement notice and court orders."

Responding to reports of the ban, Harish Ram, chief executive of Copyrights Labs said Thursday: "We have been fighting for this for long and it seems the ISPs are finally responding."

By Friday, the ISPs had restored services for Vimeo, Dailymotion and Pastebin, although some users still reported access problems.

It is still unclear why the March order came into effect only now or why Reliance and Airtel decied to unblock the websites. The telecom firms did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Experts attacked ISPs for clamping down on free speech on the web.

"Why and how did telecom giants target select websites," said Pranesh Prakash, a program manager at Bangalore based-Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit group advocating free speech on the web. He pointed out that the High Court did not spell out the names of websites that should be blocked.

"Shutting websites merely on the basis of suspicion amounts to private crackdown on free speech of the web," he said. "Why didn’t the telecom ministry repeal or object to the move, knowing that the court didn’t spell out the websites to be blocked?"

Bhupendra Kainthola, a spokesman for the telecom ministry, noted that the "government or the telecom ministry had nothing to do with the high court ruling.” When asked why the ministry did not intervene, Mr. Kainthola responded: “What can we do? If an order has been passed, we have to follow it… that is the law of the land."

The move comes only a few months after the central government issued an official sanction to prosecute internet giants Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., alleging that they host "blasphemous" content on their websites. A criminal case against the two companies is ongoing.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/vimeo-ban