Indian Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Against Posting 'Offensive' Content Online 54
palemantle writes: The Indian Supreme Court has overturned the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act which included a provision for a three-year jail term for sending "offensive" messages through a "computer resource or a communication device." In its judgement, the Supreme Court held "liberty of thought and expression as cardinal" and overturned the provision (66A) deeming it "unconstitutional." It's been in the news recently for an incident involving the arrest of a high school student for posting allegedly "offensive" content on Facebook about a local politician.
This is why... (Score:1, Insightful)
...i use slashdot and not facebook
Re:This is why... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Neither, now that it's been found unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:1)
I meant before.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd guess the general answer is: "Anything that pisses off a person in a position of authority."
The articles don't really get into specifics, but here's one example:
The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls -- Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan -- were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it.
Translated into the US equivalent (as near as I can tell), if you said "I don't think the city of Trenton, New Jersey should be shut down for a day just because Governor Chris Christie died from a heart attack." (probably worded less politely, knowing teenagers), and then your friend "liked" that statement on Facebook, you BOTH could be arrested
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it's better than that.
just being an "annoyance" was enough.
and sure enough, critique of the system was an annoyance to people in power so...
What is "offensive"... (Score:4, Interesting)
What is "offensive" is politicians who try to censor discontent with their policies and behaviour. I realize it's mere fantasy, but politicians should always be held accountable under both the law and public opinion. They're supposed to be there to represent us, not line their own pockets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But that doesn't stop the Republicans. That's why it's so hard to find porn on the Internet.
Re: (Score:1)
They're supposed to be there to represent us, not line their own pockets.
Look at the reelection rates, and tell me where is there any incentive to change anything.
Re: (Score:1)
And it's getting harder to tell India from Indiana... But hey, same problem worldwide.
Incidentally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not to say that the exercise of free
Re: (Score:2)
People who react badly to having their precious little feelings hurt rarely improve through being carefully coddled and pandered to.
A very Euro-American way to view the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there not room for multiple viewpoints, or is there only one right answer?
If we choose freedom and liberty, but can see the potential to trigger for a major escalation of armed conflict are we remiss in discussing alternatives or in failing to choose to discuss those alternatives?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mean to pretend that the right answer will necessarily fit neatly on a bumper sticker(indeed, it'd be quite a shock if it did); but a potentially complex answer is by no means the same as s
Re: (Score:2)
dunno, you kind of sound like you have no idea what the law was used for. you think it was used for banning muslim caricatures? noooope. it wasn't for that. it was more for banning you from whistleblowing that the local mayor is an asshole.
first, it wasn't even about offensive, just being annoying was enough. even if you were speaking the truth. so it was too broad of a law and used mainly for politics.
and really pakistan has enough problems of it's own without doing anything - furthermore if you were going
Re: (Score:2)
dunno, you kind of sound like you have no idea what the law was used for. you think it was used for banning muslim caricatures? noooope. it wasn't for that. it was more for banning you from whistleblowing that the local mayor is an asshole.
Given that we're both common law systems, I see no reason why it's not going to go progress beyond that point.
Whistleblowing about the local mayor (Score:2)
Back in the 60s, my father-in-law ran a weekly paper in his small town. It eventually got shut down by the police on some bogus excuse; the actual reason was that he wasn't just writing that the mayor was taking bribes, but had the bad taste to say who they were from and what for. Corruption does also exist in the US, and so does censorship. (I didn't see much censorship when I lived in New Jersey, though - just corruption.)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said freedom of the press wasn't important.
Never happened. (Score:2)
Never did - here's the Wikipedia about the Indiana Pi Bill [wikipedia.org]. The crackpot proposed a bill that would acknowledge his collection of R33lY k3wl mathematical discoveries and let Indiana schools teach them free (in return for royalties from other user, if I'm reading it right), it snuck past the Indiana House, and a Professor Waldo told the Indiana Senate how bogus it was. It was close to passing there anyway, but one senator pointed out that it's not the Senate's job to establish mathematical truth. And now
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a kernel of truth to the racist AC comment.
There are plenty of Indian immigrants in Australia, and they are mostly known as a decent law-abiding bunch, but somehow a minority keep getting in the news for sex offences. Everything from Indian cabbies having sex with drunk young female passengers to Indian doctors touching up their patients inappropriately. And of course always recent arrivals. There is something in the culture.
Re: (Score:2)
I read Fairfax, ABC, Guardian. Murdoch certainly does not have a monopoly on the salacious.
Re:rapistis is as rapist does (Score:4, Funny)
OMG, you got up voted for this?
No upvote, just Karma. But what would you Indians know about that?
Re: rapistis is as rapist does (Score:1)
USA has a broader "rape" catagory that includes "we we're drunk even though I said yes" and "I regretted it the day after". Comparing those counts to counts of real rape easily explains the difference.
The Absurdity of Taking Offense (Score:2)
I'm waiting for the day a militant Indian group rises up in the US and threatens to blow up random Denny's locations if they intend to go forward with their "Baconalia" promotion.
I'm sure, sadly, this would cause more racism than it would be a call to show how absurd being offended is.