Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Government Privacy Your Rights Online

Outrage In India Over Arrests For Facebook Posts 90

Posted by Soulskill
from the freedom-of-poke dept.
concealment sends in an AP report about an uproar in India over citizens arrested for their Facebook remarks. Quoting: "As India's financial capital shut down for the weekend funeral of a powerful politician linked to waves of mob violence, a woman posted on Facebook that the closures in Mumbai were 'due to fear, not due to respect.' A friend of hers hit the 'like' button. For that, both women were arrested. Analysts and the media are slamming the Maharashtra state government for what they said was a flagrant misuse of the law and an attempt to curb freedom of expression. The arrests were seen as a move by police to prevent any outbreak of violence by supporters of Bal Thackeray, a powerful Hindu fundamentalist politician who died Saturday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Outrage In India Over Arrests For Facebook Posts

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 21, 2012 @05:15PM (#42060001)

    ...that help keep online interactions civilized! (Surely there's no need for anonymous speech in my society. And of course, if you've got nothing to hide... oops, maybe we do have some things to hide because they are a bunch of NUTS out there.)

    • by Quakeulf (2650167) on Wednesday November 21, 2012 @06:19PM (#42060735)
      I like anonymity in certain cases and would defend the right to stay anonymous, but when you cannot stay anonymous anymore the "oppressors" have won. Just like calling someone here on /. "Anonymous Coward" is a sign in itself of the general view on anonymous people which is quite immature, and ready for a change into something more neutral like "Anonymous".
      • Hello. Ma name's Larry. This is ma brutha Daryl and this is ma utha brutha Daryl!

        I'd prefer something more eponymous, such as "Slashdotter" or just "Slash". <BFG>

      • by ultranova (717540) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @01:35AM (#42063943)

        Just like calling someone here on /. "Anonymous Coward" is a sign in itself of the general view on anonymous people which is quite immature, and ready for a change into something more neutral like "Anonymous".

        My real name is not ultranova. Yes, shocking I know. But really, my real name is not ultranova. It's just an online pseudonym I use here, which lets me create a narrative about my posts here, and lets other people judge that narrative as they will. And it also allows me to see how that reaction is going, and should it turn unanomously negative - should I be modded down constantly - I could perhaps analyze the criticism and see if it has a point.

        So no, the thing about "Anonymous Coward" is not that anonymity is bad in the sense that you all should know my real name, no, it's about establishing an indentity within this forum and using that to have a debate. The day might come that ultranova disappears to the annals of history, but I, the real human being behind it, will still be here. And I'll remember all the criticism ultranova encountered, whether I agree with it or not. Contrast this with the Anonymous Coward, who can't learn for the simple reason that he can't easily track answers to himself.

        Anonymity is good, but pseudonymity is even better, at least as far as the purposes of Slashdot and public debate in general go.

    • by NewYork (1602285)

      Bullying/extorting money & hiding in Matoshree is Bal Thackeray strategy.
      His contribution to development of India is zero.

  • by hawks5999 (588198) on Wednesday November 21, 2012 @05:15PM (#42060005)
    Slashdot is becoming a long list of arrests by the state for political speech on social media. The sad news is that there is so much to report. Keep bringing it to light /.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 21, 2012 @05:20PM (#42060065)

    Lots of groups and countries are pushing for laws against the defamation of religion and blasphemy.

    But when you lose the right to say "well, see, I don't believe in your god, and I see no evidence for it" -- then society has been taken over my the most vocal (and in some cases violent) people.

    But, in some places, if I said "show me the evidence that Jesus was at least a historical person, let alone the son of god" ... or "Why should I believe that Mohammed was the prophet of god" ... there would be angry mobs ready to burn and stone me because I hurt their feelings. And in many countries, the police would be there to help them.

    We will be seeing more attempts by people to enshrine in law respect for their imaginary friend.

    • by abirdman (557790) *
      Posting to clear a mistaken moderation. This is a very good point.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lucm (889690)

      But, in some places, if I said "show me the evidence that Jesus was at least a historical person, let alone the son of god" ... or "Why should I believe that Mohammed was the prophet of god" ... there would be angry mobs ready to burn and stone me because I hurt their feelings.

      You don't need to go far for that. Right here on Slashdot it happens. Granted it's only modding down, no actual burning occurs, but "Troll" is a label that appears to be applied quickly to someone who says things like: "did Obama and Gore really deserve a Nobel prize", or "if global warming is man-made, how come it also happens on Mars" even when the questions are completely in line with the thread. Same used to apply to someone saying that Apple is anything but perfect, however in recent years as it became

      • Why do the best posts only show up when I have no mod points?
      • by bhagwad (1426855)

        Moderation on slashdot allows me to ignore stuff. It doesn't remove it. Everything is still there to see. I fully support moderation as long as people still have the option to see stuff that was downmodded.

        • If there is a discussion about the theory of evolution and someone says: "carbon-14 dating is not reliable evidence because test results that don't fall in the range expected by the scientists who made the hypothesis are typically rejected" he will get modded down just the same as someone who goes on a long, weird diatribe about extra-terrestrials sex experiments and african-american homosexuals (usually in less politically-correct lingo).

          That is the flaw of the moderation system; it's mostly statements tha

          • by bhagwad (1426855)

            Again - modded down comments are still visible if one chooses to read them. And that makes all the difference in the world. Mod points preserve choice. Censorship doesn't.

          • by ultranova (717540)

            That is the flaw of the moderation system; it's mostly statements that make consensus among the voting crowd that remain visible, everything else is modded down with no distinction between actual trolls, obvious spammers and dissenting voices. This is no different from Putin sending those rocker girls to the same jail where they hold common criminals and actual terrorists.

            Well, no different except that no one is sent anywhere and nothing is removed. In other words, extremely different.

            Maybe there is a miss

            • by lucm (889690)

              Maybe there is a missing dimension in the moderation system so people who just want to read comments from people who think exactly like them can do so without preventing actual discussions to go on.

              That's a feature, not a bug. The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss, not stroke anyone's ego with confirmations about how correct they are.

              Try to ignore the reference in this thread that is making you so emotional (Obama? evolution? global warming?) and read my comment again. This time maybe you will understand that I was not advocating having only consensual comments appearing in the forum, but rather the opposite.

              The problem that I describe about the moderation system is that people have no way to express their dislike about a comment that is different from flagging a comment that is purely junk. If there was a way to say: "this comment is j

              • by ultranova (717540)

                Try to ignore the reference in this thread that is making you so emotional (Obama? evolution? global warming?) and read my comment again.

                Ah, condescension. Is it there as an attempt to provoke, or purely to prop your self-esteem?

                This time maybe you will understand that I was not advocating having only consensual comments appearing in the forum, but rather the opposite.

                Bullshit. The whole point of your proposed system is, according to yourself:

                If there was a way to say: "this comment is junk" (like rude ho

                • by lucm (889690)

                  Bullshit. The whole point of your proposed system is, according to yourself:

                  [...]

                  I've seen know-it-alls before, but it's the first time I meet someone who thinks he knows the meaning of a comment more than the person who made it (in this instance: me). You must be a hoot at dinner parties.

                  Since you bring again the concept of censorship in the discussion it is obvious you miss the whole point so I'll be the bigger man and concede that you are in your right to be wrong.

        • I still dislike not being able to post AND use mod points on the same article.

          Where, oh where, have the good-ol-days of Usenet and divine news clients like Forte Agent gone...? And why has no one been able to copy/create a similar quality threaded news/forum viewer as a browser plugin to date...? *sigh*

          Hang on - I still have v5 of Agent installed I think...[RDPs off to home PC to take a look :)]

    • by Burning1 (204959)

      A bit off topic, but on the point of evidence showing that Jesus was a historical person... There is reason to believe he is a historical person, even if there is a lot of evidence to discount the stories about him.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ [rationalwiki.org]

      • Isn't looking for historical evidence of some guy named Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago a bit like looking for historic evidence of some guy named Dave in Pittsburgh in 1972?
        • by Burning1 (204959)

          Answer is in the link. The short version is that there are references that lead scholars to believe that there was a spiritual leader named Jesus. We do not have corroboration for much of what happened in the bible, however.

    • Personally, I would just like a clear distinction to be made between organised religion and personal beliefs/faith/spirituality. One no longer has anything whatsoever to do with the other (in most cases I see), part of the reason I abandoned the institutional church many years ago.

      Freedom of speech, thought & expression should never be limited or stifled in any way by anyone else's religious beliefs or political agenda/views, more like. Separation of church and state must remain inviolate & fundamen

  • The more restricted the speech, the more violence that comes of it. Censorship actually foments a culture of violence and hate. People will be offensive no matter what. I prefer they do it verbally. The physical alternative is much uglier.

  • by Krojack (575051)

    This /. news post came right after Google Warns Against UN Net Conference [slashdot.org]

  • dual outrage! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 21, 2012 @05:46PM (#42060341)

    (1) I'm outraged that people are being arrested for shit they say on Facebook.

    (2) I'm outraged that the entire world seems so stupid as to think it's a good idea to tie real identities to everything they say online SO THAT people who want to use that speech against them are able to. (Never mind that the stupid shit you might have said at 17 will still be there nice and searchable when you are 52 and trying to become mayor).

    Report: Every Potential 2040 President Already Unelectable Due To Facebook> [theonion.com]

    • RE (2): we should actually be able to live in a world as an enlightened species, where our real names/identities never need to be hidden, for fear of any persecution, whether it be religious, political, occupational, media-related or other. So I kinda agree & disagree at the same time, but I have no practical solutions as to how our race gets from A to Z where this is possible.

      RE (1): ppl should be arrested in 2012/13 just for still being on Facebook I say! ;-p

    • At 17 you can drive. If you're reckless you can do some damage, for example running a red light or writing that Mr. John Doe is a mass murderer, and that will remain searchable. I'd rather protect Mr. Doe than the young idiot. I have to admit I'd be tempted to vote for a guy who wasn't a total jerk even at 17.

      • by tqk (413719)

        I have to admit I'd be tempted to vote for a guy who wasn't a total jerk even at 17.

        Oh, come on. Who wasn't a total jerk at times when he was 17? I was, and I'm absolutely positive you were too. Most seventeen year olds eventually grow up.

    • (2) I'm outraged that the entire world seems so stupid as to think it's a good idea to tie real identities to everything they say online SO THAT people who want to use that speech against them are able to. (Never mind that the stupid shit you might have said at 17 will still be there nice and searchable when you are 52 and trying to become mayor).

      They call you Anonymous Coward for a reason. You're outraged that some people in the world seems to have more guts than you do.

    • by bingoUV (1066850)

      Report: Every Potential 2040 President Already Unelectable Due To Facebook

      Haha, and I'll become President by default simply by not having a Facebook account.

      No ???, pure profit.

  • "the closures in Mumbai were 'due to jejune ennui, not due to piquant verisimilitude.' "
  • Religion. Religious practice. Religious law. Theocracy.

    If you practice it, you are being told what to think and what to believe. And if religious power is also the power of government, you've ALWAYS got a real problem on your hands *even* in cases where you are a practicing member of the established ruling religion.

    On top of that, religion seeks to be the presumed origin of morality and that without religion, there would be no morality. This is demonstrably false, but as with nearly everything else ass

    • Hmmm....not to be argumentative with your inferential logic, but just a couple points:

      1. there are some well known Commies who virtually abolished religion in their very large countries and the question worth asking is, did it make those a better place to live & exist...?
      2. As far as biblical 'morality' goes, I keep trying to re-educate people on this: the Holy Bible, as far as Christianity is concerned, is not a book of life or any set of teachings on morality or right vs wrong (though it has sections/

      • by erroneus (253617)

        "Commies" or "Nazis" is not the opposite of religious theism. Just be clear on what you're trying to say because it really sounds like it. The absense of religion helps. Even in religious countries, the less they actually practice the better.

        • I was referring to Stalin & Mao more specifically. "Religion is the opiate of the masses"...ring a bell? ;)

          • by erroneus (253617)

            Then that makes your argument completely non sequitur and irrelevant. To be more clear, I said "religion bad" and you countered with "anti-religion bad/worse."

            Religion harms humanity. I can think of no single instance where that statement doesn't apply. Before the 1960's, Christian theism was pretty much all hellfire and damnation. People got into peace and suddenly, god became a loving god. Before that, holidays were largely just church services and they pulled in and adjusted for some really nice hum

            • I do not think "non sequitur" means what you think it means. I was merely pointing out that the alternative examples from history shows us 2 of the greatest mass murderers were in fact trying to stamp out religion in their countries (not that that says anything at all about communism or religion necessarily). Whether Stalin was going to be a priest (as someone else pointed out) or not is only relevant if we know his motivations, fears & underlying ideological driving forces. But hey, I only grew up next

      • by dryeo (100693)

        For the average person, living in communist Russia was much better then living under the Czars. Now if they had banned religion sooner it would have even been better as the real nutcases like Stalin were religiously raised. Of course it could be argued that if they hadn't banned organized religion then Stalin would have just been another priest.

  • Bal Thackeray chose fascism/bigotry/politics as a career to make money for his family.
    In 1970's I've seen him roaming without slippers in Bombay streets.
    His contribution to development of India is zero.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...