Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Facebook Your Rights Online

More Fuel For Facebook Censorship Advocates In India 122

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the censorship-makes-the-world-go-round dept.
thodelu writes "Close on the heels of Friday's communal clashes in a town in India that were triggered by a Facebook post which contained morphed images apparently deriding a religious place of worship, there has been another incident. City police have removed images from another similar blog post citing 'cyber criminal' laws. There has been an ongoing effort in India to censor the web which would get more backing as a result of these events. Could we be seeing another Great Firewall of China?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Fuel For Facebook Censorship Advocates In India

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ... in India, Facebook blamed. Same results probably would have occurred if dead-tree distribution was used, although it's less likely such would make Slashdot.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02, 2012 @07:35PM (#39555005)

    Really, why dont they look at the root cause, which is the communal tension and try to solve them. Oh wait, it is politicians that incite such communal hatred for political reason.

    • Go ahead, smart guy, enlighten us - who do you solve the communal tension between a country with Hindu majority and a large Muslim minority?

      • by bhagwad (1426855) on Monday April 02, 2012 @11:02PM (#39556283) Homepage
        Punish anyone who indulges in violence and ignore the religion.
        • What happens if one group disproportionately indulges in violence, and hence gets punished more?

          What happens if that's not the case, but people start perceiving it as such?

          • HR term of the day: Disparate impact. Fortunately we're not in an HR department, so we can mull over it. Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle. To argue otherwise is to lengthen the chain of causality, to say that poor nutrition -> poor childhood -> poor impulse control -> helplessly indulge in violence. Thi
            • Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle.

              You missed the point of my argument. You can argue that it's right and just and all, but it won't matter to the punished group - they will just add you to the list of "friends of our enemies", and from there on any punishment, no matter how minor, will just keep aggravating them. So this will do nothing to solve communal tension - if anything, it will further polarize it.

              • To miss means I did not see it. I did not miss it so much as reject its premise.

                A child who throws a PB&J sandwich on the carpet, and doesn't realize why they're going to timeout, has a lesson to learn. However, while we recognize the need to educate the child, how does one duplicate results to adults that do the same exact thing? Their reaction of "friends of our enemies" is driven by emotion, and it's frustrating...because they surely would not accept that argument if posited by their enemies.

                And o

          • by bhagwad (1426855)
            See there's your problem for you. You think in terms of "groups". Forget about groups and see only individuals. Punish individuals. The government or the state has to be blind to "groups".
            • No, your problem is that you think in terms of individuals, where said individuals think in terms of groups, and consider themselves part of those groups. Forget me, I'm irrelevant here - but they're not. And if you manage to convince them that you're hostile to their group (and not just themselves), they will gang up against you, and you've done nothing to relieve the aforementioned "communal tension".

              • by bhagwad (1426855)
                Unfortunately for your argument, we ARE individuals. The law doesn't try "groups" for murder. It doesn't sentence "groups" to jail. We don't marry in "groups".

                If we're discussing the law, don't talk about "groups". The government doesn't and shouldn't give a shit about who belongs to what religion or what "group". It has to ONLY look at - "Did this person act violently?" If so, jail. If no, let them go and to hell with what "group" he or she belongs to.

                Do you deny that this is how government works
                • I'm not denying that's how the law works, and I'm not denying that government should be impartial in an ideal society, and that responsibility should rest solely with the individuals.

                  However, if you have ever lived in a society that is, in fact, divided along some arbitrary lines (which is true for many of them; it's just that many Westerners living in such are trained to ignore the divides, but oftentime it's a one-way street), you know that people who make the divide don't see it that way. So long as you

                  • by bhagwad (1426855)
                    That's not true. It's not as if there are no "group divides" in a country like the US. They have republican, democrats, christians, muslims, atheists etc. The problem is HOW the groups fight each other.

                    In India unlike in other countries, people resort to violence because they KNOW they will not be punished. You say that impartial justice will never work. Has it ever been tried? Name one riot where EVERYONE who indulged in violence has ended up behind bars regardless of the political backing and affilia
                    • In my country (Russia), there are plenty of groups that resort to violence, and they are punished for it. E.g. there was a case a few years ago when a bunch of neo-Nazis went around kidnapping Asian immigrants and killing them on tape. And yes the country does has a law against such things - not just murders but also incitement of racial hatred and such - and in cases like these the law is enforced. But it doesn't help; the people you jail that way are seen as martyrs by those sharing their views.

                    • by bhagwad (1426855)
                      That's more on the lines of terrorism - which follows a completely different behavior pattern. For regular "communal tensions" as they exist in a country like India, the law is a pretty good deterrent if enforced.
          • What happens if one group disproportionately indulges in violence, and hence gets punished more?

            Ehm, justice?

            • Cool. Now get back to the first post in the thread, which spoke about "solving communal tensions". Justice doesn't do anything for that if your actions aren't perceived as just, especially by those very people you punish.

              • by bhagwad (1426855)
                A man hits another man and goes to jail. EVERYONE will call that justice. Those who don't need a civics lesson.
                • A man hits another man and goes to jail. EVERYONE will call that justice.

                  Tell that to the likes of Al Sharpton.

                  Those who don't need a civics lesson.

                  They don't care for your civics lessons. Not while you're "persecuting" them.

                  Like I said, real world is not your imaginary la-la-land. People are not rational, they are not all staunch individuals, and they love group politics and attach their identity to them. You can keep pretending it's not happening and screw it all up completely, or you can work with what you have to make things better. Your choice.

                  • by bhagwad (1426855)
                    Fear of the law is a very primal fear. Fear of getting punished is also primal not "rational". Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, it's never been tried in India. Punish everyone properly in ONE riot and then see the change

                    You say people are not rational. I say people are cowards. They riot because they can get away with it.
      • Put someone else in charge of them all?

        • We tried that - but, instead of solving the problem, the buggers were using communal tension to divide and rule, while keeping the country downtrodden.

  • by mrseth (69273)

    What we need is less religion, not more censorship...

    • by linatux (63153) on Monday April 02, 2012 @07:48PM (#39555099)

      Perhaps we just need to be more tolerant, no matter how opinionated the person next door is?

      • It depends. If the person next door is opinionated in words only, sure. When that opinion also guides them to vote that way, and they vote for intolerance towards your own beliefs (or lack thereof) - starting on local level or working upwards - that becomes a bit of a problem. When they openly say that they support cutting your head off, that's a huge problem. At which point do you cease to be tolerant?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          This is a worldwide problem involving Muslims everywhere, be it India, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, France, you name it. Why this blanket comdemnation of religion, when only ONE religion is demonstrating that it's incapable of co-existing w/ the rest, but at the same time, incists on spreading to non-Muslim countries? There are no problems between Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Shintos, Hindus and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Jains, etc. So rather than indulge in a self-sen
          • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday April 03, 2012 @06:59AM (#39558193) Journal

            There are no problems between Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Shintos, Hindus and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Jains

            Spoken like someone who hasn't been reading the news from India. Or did you just miss the stories about (Christian) nuns being attacked by Hindus trying to force them to convert? And, no doubt, you missed the people in Ireland being attacked for being the wrong flavour of Christian?

            Religion is an intrinsically intolerant idea. Any religion that claims to be the sole arbiter of truth can not coexist with others that make the same claim.

            • no doubt, you missed the people in Ireland being attacked for being the wrong flavour of Christian?

              In the Balkans too.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              Same AC as the GP

              I'm posting this from India. The incidents you refer to are one-off incidents caised by a perception that Christian missionaries were out to convert Hindus. I don't justify any violence against them, but it's hardly something that has an unlimited scope in time. Similarly, in Ireland, the problems were more political than religious - the IRA, terrorist as it was, did not have an agenda to wipe Protestants out of Ulster, but rather, wanted to end British rule there. Since there were no

          • by afeeney (719690)

            Except for all the cases where it's not.

            Almost all religious conflicts are, fundamentally, about allocation of resources and post-colonialism tensions. Muslims tend to live in previously colonized lands far more than any other religious group. Religion just makes a better-sounding cause for violence and is better as a way to influence the poor. Sure, you're suffering now, but you'll lack for nothing in Paradise if you just do what I tell you. The Crusades were as much about control of the Silk Roads and

    • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Monday April 02, 2012 @07:57PM (#39555157)
      At this point in the game, it doesn't matter. Muslims and Hindus have been at odds for centuries in India. The conflict has been internalized and institutionalized to the point where even if religion is somehow magically removed they would keep fighting. You still have the deep schism left over from the Partition. Northern, lighter skinned Indians look down on southern, darker skinned ones (look at Bollywood films for a perfect manifestation of this). And that's even assuming that you can remove religion from Indian society. Guess what, you can't. The caste system comes in part from religion. The most basic of traditions come from religion. People are violent. It's human nature. Hell, it's nature period. As long as there are 2 or more people left in the world, there will be violence.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        I agree with most of your assertions. However every thorn has its rose. India is a complex country and despite all the differences people from most religions live peacefully with each other. At one point India had the highest muslim population in the world. It is home to six religions with major population and several religions with much smaller populations. Most of these people live in harmony and despite propaganda from several extremists elements, in general population is quite tolerant.

        As for this artic

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

        A lot of the violence in India is driven by poverty, working hard every day just so you can more slow

        • by H0p313ss (811249)

          Very true, the best way to reduce tensions in India will be to educate and employ the poor.

        • Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together

          They're also programmed to compete. You can apply theory to this all day long. The bottom line is that blaming Facebook (which isn't lily-white by any measure) for this particular incident is wrong. Those people have been fighting since time imemmorial and will only quit I suspect when one side gets wiped out.

          • by umghhh (965931)
            I do not think anybody is blaming anybody here except maybe police blaming the author of the flaming post. The action 'against fb' was precaution. I suppose they weighted benefits of letting it go and causing massive riots in a process or stopping it and having trouble with fb first. I guess as long as process is visible and transparent and status quo can be restored if action was unjust it is ok. There is always a problem between freedom of expression and other freedoms. It is more difficult to resolve in
        • Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

          That's bullshit, as demonstrated by ample evidence - there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

          Sure, humans are a social species, and they together - within their society. Not within the entire species, though - someone from another society is an untrustworthy foreigner at best, an enemy at worst - again, look at our history and our culture, all these cliches are spelled out there quite explicitly. Where the boundar

          • by TheLink (130905)

            there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

            Yeah, and War has been part of humans for a very long time. My theory is that War is the real reason why humans evolved to run long distances. Not to stupidly spend hours chasing down lunch.

            When you have two different species, one predator and one prey, it is not surprising when at least one species ends up with a high top speed. But when situation is members of the same species chasing each other, evolving to be faster starts to hit diminishing returns quite early.

            In contrast, long distance running gives y

            • There's plenty good evidence for why humans evolved as long-distance runners - and remember, that was long before they were smart enough to trap their prey. Things is, from all evidence we have, humans evolved in African savanna - think vast open areas with occasional vegetation, a perfect environment for setting an ambush and then chasing your prey once it gets close - how cheetahs etc do.

              What made humans quite unique, though, is that they have little body hear, and sweat a lot (more than any other animal)

          • by rtb61 (674572)

            That's bullshit. As demonstrated by ample evidence (the truth this time) that wars were driven by the leaders, leaders who psychopathically maintained power by the narcissistic minions torturing to death anybody that disagreed and refused to fight in those wars.

            In regions where rule was by tribal elders, it tended to be all show and little violence, more arbitration and little or no war.

            That key for war, for gross human violence, the slavery of the majority to the egoistic greed of the minority, was th

          • by DrProton (79239)

            That's bullshit, as demonstrated by ample evidence - there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

            Sorry, but your claim about warlike human societies is controversial, as has been amply documented by Ryan and Jetha in "Sex at Dawn [amazon.com]." I don't have my copy at hand, but this ancient warlike humans meme is a myth they dissected and disposed of in the book. See Ch. 13, "The Never-Ending Battle over Prehistoric War." For one thing, the earth was sparsely populated in antiquity. Most human communities simply did not interact with humans from other communities. Hard to start a war without an enemy. A large part

            • I dare say that a single book contradicting a mountain of pre-existing evidence does not make for a strong point.

              That said, I can believe in the argument of "hard to make war when you don't interact with other groups". Sure, if your own group is rigidly defined, as the tribes tend to be, and you don't meet anyone else, then you can get away with lasting peace - conflicts within a group always having a strict ritualistic resolution. But, as soon as the group comes in contact with someone else who does not be

        • Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

          And they're also wired to form up into tribes or packs. Like wolves. Throughout the ages, they've compe

      • by mapkinase (958129)

        Apparently, you have succeeded in bypassing censorship, because in none of two links mentioned in ./ summary I have seen any indication on the religious identity of clashing groups.

        Care to provide a link?

    • by chrismcb (983081)
      It isn't about religion. If there was less religion it would be something else. Maybe the dictators image. It is about control, control over the population.
      • by mrseth (69273)

        All one needs to do is look at the correlation to nearly any societal metric in religious societies vs. irreligious ones. Compare the plight of women for instance in Sweden and Saudi Arabia. The effect of religion on these metrics uniformly pushes them in the direction away from human well-being. People will argue that in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and North Korea were atheistic societies, this is far from true as the leaders, as you say, become the defacto religion. This is not an irreligious society. K

  • by bennini (800479) on Monday April 02, 2012 @07:54PM (#39555143) Homepage
    The article states that a young man posted a photo on Facebook which offended several people.
    Several of those offended people decided to protest peacefully in front of a police station demanding his arrest.
    Other people decided to protest violently by burning cars, smashing in window stores and just generally acting like idiots.
    Instituting a nationwide internet censorship policy won't address the problem: impulsive, destructive people whose first course of action is violence.
    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      You can get arrested in India for offending someone? I'm glad it's not like that here (yet). I'd have a multitude of sequential life sentences.

      • by pspahn (1175617)

        Of course you can get arrested for offending someone. If you incite someone to do something criminal, you're guilty as well.

        At the day treatment school I used to work at, kids that ran their lip and incited someone into a fight got the same charges as the kid who threw the first punch.

        • Of course you can get arrested for offending someone. If you incite someone to do something criminal, you're guilty as well.

          Offending (pspahn is an asshat) and inciting criminality (death to pspahn!) are not the same thing. Law (and logic) fail.

      • Yes, you can. One has to admit that for India it really does make a lot of sense, because their society has many deep divides in it (one of which is Muslims vs others), which together make it a kind of a powder keg - it's not all that hard to incite violence between various sects, and it tends to flare up quite spectacularly from there on, with numerous victims.

      • by sauge (930823)
        It is coming to the US (assuming you are posting from the US):

        http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Arizona-law-looks-to-censor-the-internet/g-MIO8eRL0-x4SzkNtLFBA.cspx

        From the article:

        The bill would make it a crime to offend, harass, terrify or even just annoy another person online. Skordas points out a few issues, like how will law enforcement find these so-called "online trolls?" and who is going to set the basis for what is considered "offensive?"
  • Boo Hoo (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Some people got trolled on the internet and responded with violence. They don't deserve any sympathy.

  • Wouldn't it be simpler to just outlaw religion, the real cause of this and most other problems in the world?
    • Re:the real cause (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JWW (79176) on Monday April 02, 2012 @10:03PM (#39555973)

      Are you serious?

      Mao outlawed religion and while he managed to solve and get rid of a lot of his problems (people), I think he made the world's problems worse.

      I am so sick of all of this, "just get rid of religion and everything will be peachy" crap.

      The biggest killers the world has ever know killed for the nation, the party, their culture and for themselves, not for religion.

      An also, how do you plan to get rid of religions, are you going to round up the faithful and send them to camps?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Mao outlawed religion...

        Mao also developed a philosophy of the moral superiority of the downtrodden ("Blessed are the meek..."?); established a cult of personality venerating him as more than a mere man; and published a handbook of his writings that outsold the Bible, and was treated in much the same manner (as a source of divine wisdom, infallibly correct).

        It seems to be a flaw of the human psyche, that the most direct way to get rid of a religion is to invent another one to replace it.

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      It would be so easy to Godwin the thread here... so I won't. Instead, I'll just say: that statement is the fundamental justification for most (every?) instance of genocide and many instances of war and evil throughout history. And, like all of them, you are completely wrong. The problem isn't x group of people or y ideology: the problem is human nature, or to quote from Equilibrium, "man's inhumanity towards man." And as the movie points out, there isn't one single property of humanity that causes that.

      This

    • It's blind adherence to ideology that's the problem - religion is just a subset of ideology. People have killed in the name of Allah or Jesus, yes, but they have also killed in the name of racial purity, or even equality and brotherhood.

    • by chrismcb (983081)
      Because it isn't about religion. It is about control, and those in charge use religion to control people. If they didn't use religion, they'd use something else.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday April 02, 2012 @08:40PM (#39555425) Journal
    They should probably encourage facebook to keep up the good work...

    Nothing intensifies feelings of religious entitlement(that, when violated, swiftly turn to violence) like continual cringing deference and nothing dissipates those feelings like a continual bilateral exchange of ridicule.

    It bloody well took long enough; but thanks to the scoffers, freethinkers, and scurrilous pamphleteers(Oh, and those guys were scurrilous. Trolls respect your elders....) most of the western world can't even distinguish between a Lutheran and a Methodist, much less excitedly tell you why burning one of the two at stake is an immediate necessity. Heck, unitarians the last major surviving heresy(Arianism, Socinianism, and Catharism didn't do quite so well) are now considered to be risibly bland liberals, rather than barely-christian heretics. Even the good, old, Catholic/Protestant bloodbath just isn't what it might be. You've still got a few belligerent, probably whiskey-soaked, Irish fighting; but outside of that knowledge and care about the theological and doctrinal differences is probably at an all-time low, particularly when you consider that the ability to inform yourself if interested is at an all time high.

    It takes time; but success through mockery that gradually degenerates into sheer apathy is the way to go! Censorship is an attractive short-term plan; but it will have you travelling away from the slackutopia, where nobody gives enough of a fuck to go to the trouble of brutal communal violence.
    • Actually, what really is needed is self-humor, the capacity to look at yourself and see the joke. This isn't always as straight forward as it seems. Take the series, Yes Prime Minister. In it hacker does the list of how the nature of the average EU civil servant. The generosity of the dutch, the organization of the Italians, the humanity of the Germans, etc etc. But conspicuous by its absence is any reference to a British trait. The series make a lot of fun of politicians and civil servants but not of Brits

  • Could we be seeing another Great Firewall of China?

    No, this is the beginning of the great Wirewall of India: http://www.photopumpkin.com/wp-content/uploads/electric_wire_3.jpg [photopumpkin.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02, 2012 @08:51PM (#39555513)

    But I bet you little fagets can't' mod this +5 insightful

    NIGGERS

    Can you?

    Show me that you don't agree with what I say but will die for my right to say it. SHow me a +5 mod on this post. Hell, no need to die for it. Just spend some mod points.

    We won't see it. We'll see it at -1 in short order. The United States us a bunch of spineless hypocrites.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by mhogomchungu (1295308)
      any particular reason why you posted as an "Anonymous Coward"?
    • by Raenex (947668)

      You're confusing censorship with endorsement. I don't know why anybody should endorse hateful flamebait. Slashdot, however, does not censor your ability to spew such nonsense -- lots of sites would just delete it outright or not even allow it in the first place.

  • The root cause of THIS problem are badly behaved 'youths' rioting and breaking other serious laws. Like those same 'youths' of a 'certain religious group' who rioted, burnt, looted and murdered when somebody in Denmark put some rude pictures in the newspaper.

    I think we've already established the basic principle that there is no right not to be offended. The only way we'll teach people this very basic lesson, especially those belonging to a 'certain religious group', is to use force. Force is one language th

    • by Jiro (131519)

      One of the strange aspects of this case is something you obliquely pointed out: those news articles describe a "place of worship" and a "religious group", which enraged "youths" and offended the "other religious community". In the West (I don't know about India) this kind of bizarre omission of facts normally means that the incident was perpetrated by Muslims but the newspaper doesn't want people to think of Muslims as violent and is intentionally biasing their reporting. It's sometimes extended to other

      • by vinayg18 (1641855)
        This is how it is in Indian newspapers. The omission of facts is to deflect accusations of biased reporting, and prevent the possibility of inciting further violence by helping miscreants identify "enemies". While in the West, such omissions may indirectly indict Muslims, it's more complex than that because of the many religions and their sub-sects in India. There have been times when Hindu castes have attacked each other over ridiculous reasons (Boy of Caste A sitting in a park with girl of Caste B). Reaso
  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Monday April 02, 2012 @09:36PM (#39555801) Journal
    The Chinese block shit for the sole rational purpose of absolute POWER. The Indians will block shit because of some delusional religious bullshit. Which is why China will win.
  • Everywhere I look, I could decide that something that someone else has said, posted (tacked a flyer to a wall, or made a comment on the interweb) offends me. Some things I read in my local newspaper are offensive to me. A lot of things I read in comment sections are offensive. But I decided a long time ago to not feel offended by people remotely related to me. A neighbor who has a brother who lives five hundred miles away might not like me; I have found that being a decent person and defending my beliefs ha
    • Get yer shit together, 'America Fuck Yea!' We should be fighting this, not idly standing by with big screen TV's, professional college athletes, and a government that is fastly degrarding into a corporation. If you have a lot of money, hang on and profit. If you don't, learn how to grow your own food and hang on and live. Public education=government. Biggest employer=government. Decisions about your own health=government. Walking down your sidewalk? Google has the pictures, and who can access that? Governme
  • by Sqr(twg) (2126054) on Tuesday April 03, 2012 @02:27AM (#39557203)

    Try posting a picture of a woman breastfeeding. It is banned because it offends the American Puritans.

    Why shouldn't Facebook also cater to other religions? Their goal is to increase profits, so it makes sense to make the maximum number of customers happy.

  • Non of the articles linked above state
    1. The name of the politician who posted the picture on his FB Account?
    2. What was offensive about the picture.
    3. How did the riots start

    http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/109255 [deccanchronicle.com]
    http://postnoon.com/2012/03/30/sangareddy-erupts-in-violence/40619 [postnoon.com]
  • This is how it works in India...or anywhere... Some months back the Indian people decided they were going to fight corruption, they organized via facebook, twitter et. al. and caused MASSIVE headaches for the govt. The govt. realized they needed to do something about it. So they hire a couple of idiots to post some "offensive" photos, then hire some goons to start a "communal" war and then censor the net in the name of "peace". Almost ALL communal riots in India follow a similar pattern.
  • India by far as the most cry babies per population in the world, if not about muhammad eating a hotdog, it's about a picture of a temple or it's about being able to google a picture someone does like etc....

    All of India needs to grow up, this is getting out of control, they can't keep calling mom everytime someone looks at them funny or because someone makes a face. If you as a person don't want to use the internet don't use it, other wise leave the rest of the world alone, I'm sick of hearing about som
  • If this results in Internet censorship or another great firewall, that can't be too good for the Indian outsourcing industry.
    Would you let a team of outsourced programmers work on your code if they cannot access the websites they need to do their jobs? Or of they can't communicate with your on-site developers using the same sites that everybody else uses?
    Or if they can't access the website that you're developing as a company?

    Don't think so. They're just shooting themselves in the foot over there.

  • drop fucking religion.

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...