US Officials Rebuke India's Request To Subpoena Facebook, Google 96
hypnosec writes "U.S. officials have told the Indian Government that they will not be able to serve summons to the executives of companies like Google and Facebook because they are not convinced that the content hosted on these sites can cause violence and that these summons impact 'free speech principles.' The reply comes as a response to India's request to the US to help serve papers to 11 Internet companies accused of hosting content on their sites that was meant to fuel communal hatred and violence. The U.S. authorities said that there are limitations when it comes to protection on free speech — when the speech comprises a true threat or provokes imminent violence — but in this particular case there is not sufficient evidence of either of these."
Tags (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems the appropriate tags should be "pot", "kettle" and "black".
I agree with the US on this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Words are words, nothing more (Score:0, Insightful)
Unless it's about copyrights or patents, of course...
Re:I agree with the US on this (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were familiar with the history of religious violence in India [wikipedia.org], you would not make the ridiculous claim that it is primarily perpetrated by Muslims. Intercommunal Hindu-Muslim violence is a major problem in both directions, with extremists on both sides fanning the flames.
If anything, Muslims more often bear the brunt of the violence; many more have been killed by Hindu mobs than vice versa.
What about the most important minority? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am from India. My country is a democratic country ( with many, many flaws, but still democratic)
The Government is always worried about 'something which will offend the minorities' and spark communal violence.
I am a member of a minority. The most important and neglected minority in India.
I am a normal ( well not too normal, I'm on Slashdot! ) rational guy who can look at an idiot trying to make people of community A hate community B for political gains and ( very likely ) personal gains through political gains.
As simple as that.
And I'm not buying his/her/their BS on this matter and I'll gladly call it out. On his/her/their face(s)
Unfortunately I'm a member of such a minority. ( sadly rational people who want to live their lives in peace are a minority )
The Government is duty-bound to protect the rights of minorities. Protect my rights to free speech. Realize I'm grown up enough to realize when someone is trying to provoke someone in the name of religion/language/caste/color etc.
Re:Tags (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems the appropriate tags should be "pot", "kettle" and "black".
Really? I think you mostly misunderstand what is going on.
US Government does not routinely haul Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page into court because some user posts child porn or hate speech on Facebook or Google Plus. Nor does the US demand Pakistan or India deliver summons to the web services in those countries to appear in US courts for anti-US hate postings on their services.
In the US, there are procedures to have those types of things taken down if warranted, without demanding that the CEO appear in court and answer personally for content so massive in scope and diverse in nature that no one person or large group could possibly police it all.
And, the US, and most Western governments, would rather allow the stuff to be posted, if for no other reason than doing so provides them with a "watering hole" opportunity for observation.
Its a whole different thing to demand a court appearance by Zuckerberg simply because some guy going by the name of Tokolosh posted some hate rant on his Facebook page. Especially when there are different countries involved, and different laws about what actually is hate speech.
Apparently you are in good company in this misunderstanding of what is going on here, judging by how quickly you were modded insightful.
Re:The freedom to hate (Score:5, Insightful)
While hating anyone or group usually serves little use and is often as much to the detriment of the hater as the hated; I think the 'freedom to hate' is probably the most important to protect. The 'freedom to hate' is also the the very same freedom to have your own mind, form your own opinions, be truly able to love, and be a whole person with agency. Yes its shameful how many people use that agency so badly but the right answer is not to try and take it away from them.
If I don't have the freedom to say "I think the world would be better off without $GROUP" I am not really free to speak or think. We can't have go trying to have a list of approved thoughts and ideas; that will be far more anti-human than anything any hate group has ever done.
There is a big difference between having opinions and acting on them. Its action where the line should be. We should never loose site of that.
Re:Tags (Score:5, Insightful)
Has it ever occurred to you that there are things the Indian government does to try and prevent ill treatment of the Dalit castes? What you're saying is like going back to the 1960's and saying the US government does nothing to try to prevent ill treatment of black people.
P.S. The people I've met who most hate the caste system are Indians. I know one fellow who talked about the clashes he had with his grandparents because he brought home friends who were from "lower castes". It's exactly like the way it took generations for racial attitudes to change in this country (which obviously still aren't completely resolved).
Re:The freedom to hate (Score:5, Insightful)
The freedom to hate ... The only freedom no one seems interested in taking away from people in the US.
It's called Freedom of Speech. The reason it has to be Constitutionally protected is not because anybody ever had to protect popular speech. Without it there would have been a time when saying "Negroes should be equal to white people" would have been censored because it would incite hatred.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't hypocrisy, but it isn't what it appears on the surface. This is good old fashioned protectionism. Ain't nobody going to mess with a U.S. based company except the U.S. government.
Re:Words are words, nothing more (Score:2, Insightful)
Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently. Censorship is just the authoritarians' attempt to control thought and conserve their power. Now, if you're saying there is no free will, well that's a another matter entirely. The only proper way to deal with 'contrary' speech is to make an effective counterpoint, more speech, not less.
Re:Tags (Score:4, Insightful)
You call it generalizing if you wish.
Because it is. Nowhere did I say any of the things you listed weren't problems, but that you said that everyone one of a large group - hundreds of millions of people - were guilty of it. That's like saying in the 1940's "Americans are bigots, they lynch Negroes, and the police do nothing about it". In the English language that means all Americans. Funny, my parents weren't bigots, and they never lynched anybody. Maybe they were just lying to me.
You wrote "Indians take license to be violent if they hear anything that denigrates any of their gods". If you didn't mean all Indians, then why didn't you write that?
You also wrote "Muslims, who we know reserve license to be violent if they hear something THEY deem offensive". If you didn't mean all Muslims, then why didn't you write that?
Lastly you wrote "in India, men also assume license to violent gang rape any time they find a woman alone, without defense". If you didn't mean all Indian men, then why didn't you write that?
Re: hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
China blocks facebook with some success. Surely it's possible for other governments to only filter/block facebook ads. Even if its not 100% successful, it would be disruptive enough to facebooks revenue stream to encourage facebook to fall into line.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Was going to mod, but decided to post instead.
It isn't hypocrisy, but it isn't what it appears on the surface. This is good old fashioned protectionism. Ain't nobody going to mess with a U.S. based company except the U.S. government.
This has nothing to do with protectionism, and everything to do with deflecting (figurative) bullets aimed at the wrong targets. On a site as massive as Facebook, it's absurd to hold the company accountable for every idiotic, hate-filled keyboard-vomit poured onto the site by its users. If the Indian government has a problem with something that was posted, they should take it up with the person that posted it, not the business that runs the service said user abused.
Disclaimer: I despise Facebook, and have disdain for so-called "social media" in general. But let's at least approach this rationally instead of knee-jerk "zomg protectionism!" reflexive nonsense.