Slashdot Log In
India Joins China in Censoring Websites
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Jul 17, 2006 02:22 PM
from the keeping-up-with-the-wangs dept.
from the keeping-up-with-the-wangs dept.
cpatil writes "On the directions of the government of India, Indian ISPs have started censoring and blocking web properties. This was first noticed by Indian bloggers and upon inquiring with their respective ISPs, the actions are confirmed. Unfortunately, Blogspot and TypePad are the targets till now." There's an ongoing discussion of the censorship on GoogleGroups. The rediff.com coverage linked above indicates that the blocking is based on a list issued by India's Department of Telecommunications.
Related Stories
[+]
Indian Government Lifts Ban on Blogs 135 comments
iDope writes "The Department of Telecommunications of the Government of India has lifted the ban on blogs (reported previously on Slashdot) following pressure from the Indian blogger community and the media. Even with the lifting of the ban several bloggers from BloggersCollective are getting ready to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) (similar to a Class Action Lawsuit in US) in the Supreme Court of India against the Government censorship of the Internet."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
All your TOR are belong to us? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then they came for the religous prosthelizers. I was not a religous prosthelizer.
Then they came for the pornographers. I was not a pornographer.
Then they came for the bloggers. That day I got religion and began standing up for my right to sell p0rn.
not completely new (Score:4, Interesting)
However, censoring blog sites is a step down, why would they do this?
"The list [of censored sites] is confidential and I can't make it public"
It seems like they are trying to push some sort of hidden agenda.
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Pornography, gambling, and the rantings of idiots (Score:5, Funny)
"Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism."
They can't block 95% of the Internet! :-)
It won't last... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy sure does equal freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
What India has proved is that democratic states have no inherent moral authority. It has landed itself in the same mass of political crap that China and Saudi Arabia are in. There is no moral difference between states that censor, even if it is "benign." Either way, a state that practices official censorship of anything except for media that requires violence or fraud to be created, is a regime that directly or indirectly uses the threat of loss of life, liberty or property to silence others. There is no moral difference between a threat of prosecution and simply shooting someone in the head, when the offense is speaking out with an unpopular idea.
And by the way, has that rubbish about the Internet detecting censorship as damage and routing around been relegated to the trash heap of history where it belongs? It seems that for citizens of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India and Britain (with its hashed list of "bad sites" as if we even know whether they're all illegal under British law.) that the only routing that is being down is getting in trouble or sent to prison for non-compliance.
Censorship in India (Score:5, Insightful)
Local and Central governments will ban/reject a book/film on the pretext that it will be dangerous to religious sentiments or social harmony. An example is the James Laine's book - An Epic on Shivaji [hinduonnet.com], books by Salman Rushdie, the Peter Seller's comedy 'The Party', and even the innocuous (though a bit silly) documentaries made by Louis Malle in the late 60's.
Most of the Anand Patwardhan documentaries [patwardhan.com] were banned/not cleared and his battles with the Indian censor boards show the tolerance level for the overlords are very low. One of the documentaries (if my memory is correct 'Father, Son and Holy War' [imdb.com]) had footage of the chief minister of the state of Maharashtra and later the speaker of Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) - Manohar Joshi [wikipedia.org] - seen extolling Hindu women during a rally in a remote Maharashtrian town to give birth to more children to offset the rise in Muslim population (typical FUD by hardliners). If such utterances can be made at a political rally, I have no idea what banning the documentary will prove.
The same time, the most vulgar, sexist and reactionary Hindi (Bollywood for you), Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Malayalam or other popular cinema pass the censors with absolutely no problem.
Also the Indian Government is yet to relax its hold on radio and licenses to operate a station [wikipedia.org] - which actually reach the 100% of the Indian population (compared to 10-20% reach of the mostly urban satellite/cable.)
India and China are very different cases (Score:4, Insightful)
India's apparent censorship goal -- well, like the anti-Nazi free speech limitations in Europe, India's political censorship seems to be focused on defusing (and diffusing) racial, religious, or ethnic tensions, so that they don't erupt into violence or worse. This censorship is certainly something we should carefully monitor and worry about, but it could yet turn out to be relatively benign. E.g., as another poster suggested, it could be the work of an overzealous bureaucrat, or some incompetent ISPs panicking in the face of a sensibly limited directive and blocking much more than they were told to. Either way, the whole thing might and hopefully will soon be reverse.
And just to be clear -- I think ALL this censorship is stupid. I just think that some of it is bad enough to be my problem and yours, while some of it is benign enough it should be left to the people of the affected countries themselves to deal with as they see fit.
Related to recent Terrorist attacks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri (Score:5, Insightful)
- Pravin Lal
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:4, Insightful)
Advocating such a policy seems irresponsible, especially since we haven't yet figured out how to convince the so-called "progressive" elements of society that self-defense is, in fact, a basic human right. You're basically saying we should turn a bunch of wolves loose in a pen of sheep.
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:4, Insightful)
"War On Terror"
That is amazing! It works even for that!
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:5, Interesting)
Bearing in mind that we call such free marketeers "pirates" and "terrorists" and toruture and shoot them.
Thank you for your patronage and enjoy your Soviet style "free market." We couldn't do it without you.
The State
KFG
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:5, Insightful)
And DARPA. For some odd reason, the participants in the free market never saw building a global packet network as an opportunity.
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:5, Funny)
I've made it halfway through his post *hiccup* and I'm still stan....
*THUD*
NO CARRIER
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
And I get told I'm crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
My reasons why the State shouldn't exist is proven every day -- just spend a day at your local courthouse, take note of every law that is violated, and think about what the person did that directly harmed a specific individual with that action. I do this about 3 times a year, and so far the best day for the State is when 9 out of 600 cases had to do with a specific crime against an individual's property, body or tool. 591 cases were "The People against ABC" and ABC didn't do anything that hurt anyone directly. This was on their best day!
I'd rather live in a world where those 9 people who were hurt are still hurt, maybe 27 people even, than in a world where 591 people go to jail or lose in court because of the State's desire for more power and money and the control of the expansion of both power and money.
Parent
Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Large businesses do the same thing. The difference is that the government has to at least pretend to be acting in the interest of the voters. With private industry in power, there is no voting them out.
I'm sure you can name a few large corporations whose fiercely-guarded monopolies and influence on our governments makes them more resemble Soviet-era state-owned industries than a "free market".
Parent
Re:And I get told I'm crazy... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember when the Right in the US was against public schooling, public health care and welfare. That is no longer true. I remember when the Left in the US was against Big Business, internal improvements and war. Again, no longer true. By "center" you just mean "center-Statist." There are two sides of the political coin: those who believe in the market of competition and those who believe in the monopoly of force. Center/Left/Right-ists are aligned on the monopoly of force side of the coin.
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (Score:5, Insightful)
I also go around stealing things left unattended, like books, backpacks, and small children. This increases people's motivation to pay attention to their private property, which is good because you never know what sort of unsavory people might be around.
Anyhow, I'm doing my part to make the world a better place. What about the rest of you?
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (2) (Score:5, Interesting)
When the State decides to censor people, it comes in two ways: direct censorship ("You can't talk about subject A") and indirect censorship ("You can't talk about subject B that someone else already talked about"). Subject A is the type of censorship that China and now India are doing. Subject B covers copyright and patents -- both are censorships against words and actions a person wants to perform with his own time, on his own property, using his own body and tools.
There is only one reason for either type of censorship: to protect the interests of an elite individual or group. Subject B censorship (copyright and patents) protects distribution cartels -- the few who control the distribution of content or specific items. Subject A censorship (direct prevention of talking about a certain subject) protects the State itself -- giving major power that is usually used against "enemies" of the State. Both States are corrupt -- if you go to jail because of a corrupt system, there is little that can be done to protect your interests.
We'll hear cries for our own State to work against the States that are censoring others, even though the State we live in is no better. I guess the best defense for my black-market support around censorship is that some eggs will break in order to make the best omelet. Some people will go to jail or will just disappear -- these are those who are directly harmed by the State. Yet millions more will be given more freedoms in whatever the free/black market provides to get around the restrictions and regulations. Over time, this will make us more free in the shadow of the State -- eventually technology will get to the point that no restrictions will be possible on anything the State does. This is a _good_ thing and it is why I consider the "Internet" the most anarcho-capitalist society in existence.
Do I want to be the one to disappear in a cell (or a ditch)? Absolutely not. I was recently in China, and everyone there already has good ways around the State. The government can pretend that their censorship is working, but most Westerners are completely ignorant of the reason behind censorship by China (and India, where I also just visited for almost a month) -- jailing political opponents. The censorship has nothing to do with real topics or anonymous groups -- it is just another tool for the State to get rid of their opponents. It is no different that the "Watch your neighbor" tactics of the USSR, and the US decades ago.
Parent
Re:I support State censorship of all media (2) (Score:4, Interesting)
State sponsored health care kills thousands if not millions of people every year. Try releasing a much needed experimental drug to people who are willing to try it -- you'd go to jail. Try charging less to a poor patient than you charge the State -- you'll go to jail (the US government has an entire office dedicated to finding doctors that charge less than they charge Medicare). Try bringing more doctors to the market than the AMA/US wants -- it is illegal.
Try providing alternative water or electricity in your neighborhood -- you'll go to jail. In my previous town I spoke with various neighbors about uniting together to get a large generator installed on our block (this was pre-Y2K, and some people were concerned). We received various competing bids but were told that the local town wouldn't allow it. When we asked for a variance we were told we couldn't do it, and when we tried to do it anyway we were threatened with fines. When we asked what would happen if we didn't pay the fines we were threatened with court and jail time. True story.
Parent