How Free Can Freedom of Speech be?

Whether it is Kapil Sibal, the Union IT and telecom minister or Justice Suresh Kait whose opinions on reining in the social media websites through censorship fired public and TV room debates, the topic is the same: the concept of freedom of speech and expression, and that it is a constitutional right.

While there are a good many reasons to censor the web, there are many others why it should not be censored. Sibal's and Justice Kait's stance has earned a whole lot of criticism from peers, experts, people and internet users. But people who support them are also in good numbers. More than Kapil Sibal it was Justice Kait's warning to the social media websites which evoked a lot of criticism. Entertaining a petition against Facebook, Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft, etc, he warned the websites: "Like China, we will block all such websites".

Though it might seem like a calculated move from the government to regulate the internet through a private petitioner, it has brought forth certain very important questions. Is everyone allowed to make comments, objectionable or otherwise, on the web against a religion, race, sex? Should the websites which allow people to network, connect and comment be penalized? Or should the people posting indecent content be brought to justice in lieu of the websites? Questions keep piling up...

But the internet censorship debate took a new turn when the matter arrived in court. It is based on a petition filed by Vinay Rai, an editor of a Hindi tabloid who in his petition accused the social media companies of hosting pages replete with obscene depictions of Hindu deities, the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ, among others. Taking a serious note of the petition, the court sought permission from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to criminally prosecute the executives who sit in their US headquarters. To the websites' surprise, the government did not take time to do so. The decision forced the companies to move the High Court challenging the summons issued to their executives.

Given everything surrounding internet censorship, Dataquest looks into the multiple aspects of censorship, possibilities, India's readiness to deal with it, middle-path and overall impact.

It's a Bad, Bad World Across the Himalayas

To dream about a good world out there across the Himalayas in mainland China is easy, as believe many. But to face the reality is a totally different thing. When 'China Way' resounds in the air, the questions will surely emerge louder than is imagined. "We are living in a democratic set-up and should refrain from raking in matters by making undue statements. Comparatives with China are not acceptable in form," says Ankit Fadia, a 26-year-old ethical hacker.

Justice Kait's comment may have come in a context and been misunderstood. But to many, the heterogenous and thoughtless comparison does not conform with India's democratic set-up. "First of all, India is certainly not China. We respect freedom of speech and expression of every citizen. When it comes to internet censorship, due diligence should be paid in order to secure the right to freedom of speech and expression," says Navin Jindal, member of parliament, industrialist, chairman and MD, Jindal Steel & Power.

Well, the China word entered, when the counsel for Facebook and Google pointed to their global policy of non-interference even if content posted on their services are found to be obscene or objectionable. The idea is being widely ridiculed by most. "The very notion is laughable. As Indian we are a proud democratic nation, and social media is an extension of those principles. We do need our traditional laws on libel and defamation to extend in a proper manner to the virtual sphere," says Aditya Berlia, pro-chancellor & co-founder, Apeejay Stya University, Gurgaon. He further argues that rather than trying to ban or arbitrarily censor social media, the law makers should concentrate on extending the existing laws of free speech and libel to the online world.

It is, however, a discussion in the right direction, given the life that social media has lived in India. It is fairly a new medium when compared to TV, radio and print. But the discussion will only succeed when an absolute solution is discovered to deal with such matters. Right now both the law and the social media platfroms are at an immature stage to decide what to do. "Understanding the modalities and keeping every angle in view is far more significant than just making China Way statements. In my view, it is significant to allow social media or internet enough time to mature and people to be used to it. A hasty step might be harmful," suggests Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO, Data Security Council of India-a Nasscom initiative.

The statement did not get enough backing even in the government as Shashi Tharoor, Congress MP, did not favor the idea of banning the websites in India. But Sibal's undertones were reflected in his comment on a TV channel when he favored the idea of reining on these websites.

The idea of banning the internet sites is against the democratic principle of "freedom of expression". "What's with all the internet censorship talk, SOPA act in the US, censorship of social sites in India? This is favoring totalitarianism," writes Dhanya Venugopal, a blogger.

There is a lot more diversity in India than just the political one. "India and China are totally different countries in terms of economic policies, laws, culture and political set-up," shares Roopesh Agarwal, director, Advertisementindia.com.

Economically and Technically, not Possible

From economic and political standpoint, it is not feasible for India to put a whole lot of money into keeping a close eye on these sites and bar them from publishing the censored content. "Countries such as China and the UAE which do this with reasonable success, are not democracies to start with, and even then have had to put billions of dollars in state funding to marginally accomplish their censorship objectives. Quite frankly, India simply does not have resources to spare to do this, and it has the hacker population with a juggad mentality to get around it easily," argues Berlia of Apeejay Stya University.

In order to keep tab on social media sites and search engines per se, China pours billions of dollars every year and has employed close to 40,000 people to oversee and review the activities. India does not have money to deploy such numbers or even of them. Secondly hardly does it make sense, because still people in China have their ways to browse the banned websites through different means. Anonimizer.com is just one example through which people are able to hide their location and access the banned content on the internet.

The websites which have been issued summons have argued in the court expressing helplessness to pre-screen data or remove data from their international data centers owned and operated by their parent arms in the US. Their argument that technology is not available to pre-screen data before making content public also gets expert backing. "Undoubtedly, the technology is not ready to pre-screen data before it is made public. The amount of data these websites generate is immeasurable and beyond capacity to screen. Also the data lying in servers installed in the US data centers is out of jurisdiction," avers Fadia. But the court has thus got permission from the ministry of external affairs to prosecute the international executives of these websites and thus has issued summons to them.

A school of experts also believes that if websites like YouTube can remove videos deemed indecent, pornographic, why can other websites remove content that hurts the religious sentiments of Indians? "Instead what websites can do is post-screen data as YouTube does it. But it is a manual process. The websites have to be more responsible and has to be brisk in blocking or removing data that is inappropriate and hurts sentiments of a group," further suggests Fadia.

But when it comes to pre-screening data, Twitter's action of censoring country-wise tweets directs at a solution that various websites can perhaps replicate. There has to be a mechanism, which protects both the business sentiment and the religious or moral sentiments in a country.

Culture and Conflict

But there is a class of people that advocate an absolute ban on social media websites. The ban is sought on the basis that these websites have left no stone unturned in spreading evils like pornography and hatred. Well, this hardly gets any backing in the circles on various grounds. And the websites debate that they are just a medium like a courier boy and can not be held responsible for the content created by others on their platforms. Secondly, many see it in the context of the culture and class politics, just to garner publicity and emerge as heroes. In his petition, Vinay Rai has referred to several pages where, according to him, defamatory content exists against Hindu deities, Prophet Mohammed and Christians, etc.

"Type in 'High School Girls' in 'Google' and on the other hand, type the same 'High School Girls' in Bing, you will be able to see the results that both the searches have produced and while the results in Bing will be limited to the extent of being away from 'Porn/sex' and on the other hand, the results from Google will end up giving you a list of web addresses which are exclusively related to Porn/Sex etc," says Anil Kumar Singh, a social activist, applauding Vinay Rai's feat of filing a petition in the court. While his concern might be well-pointed, it would be significant to review the implications of banning these websites through different angles. Looking from a different perspective, one can easily see how social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, etc have rather united people and allowed a space to put forth their thoughts on events of national and international importance. Hence, various government agencies have resorted to social media and tried to reach out to people and peers.

But is the culture a real concern? For few, it might be, whereas for other it isn't. A large section of experts and internet users suspect something fishy and the government's or of those in authority's attempt to suppress people's voice against the trail of scams, scandals and events of national importance like anti-corruption movement. "'Unity in Diversity' cannot just be a token phrase but the feeling should seep into the everyday fabric of the Indian. We should toughen up and accept that we live in a varied, dichotomous society where every member has their own views that they should be given the freedom to express," says Sreekanth Lapala, founder & director, TenXLabs.

Contagious Content and Censorship in India

It is not the first time that the debate over censorship has surfaced. On certain occasions, the governments have a history of blocking the web for a few sensitive things. During the Kargil war in 1999, the internet service provider (ISP), blocked the website of the Pakistani newspaper Dawn. And there was no public or written instruction about it. This was the first internet censorship case in India. It happened when there was no IT Act in place. But when the Parliament passed the IT Act in 2000, it did not give outright powers to the government in order to block websites, though the Act proposed the creation of a body called the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) which saw the light of the day in 2003 and in a first case of censorship, recommended all ISPs to block the Yahoo! Group's webpage of Khasi militant group called the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council in the 3rd month of its functioning. But it might sound funny that ISPs ended up completely blocking Yahoo! Group websites.

Similarly, there has been events from time to time. In 2007, social media network Orkut was asked to take down allegedly defamatory pages. Later in 2009, the government blocked a very popular cartoon porn website, SavitaBhabhi.com. Likewise in 2011, the government inflicted ban on websites like Typepad, Mobango and Clickatell, though it was later lifted. So if the government's history of censorship is taken into account, there would be more funny instances in the absence of a proper mechanism.

Miles to Go...

Since the petition has brought into focus the issue of censoring the internet, it must not go down without finding a solution. Surely India is not a country where freedom of speech and expression is suppressed. There is need to apply more caution in making statements especially by people who are considered custodian of law and democracy in the country. If the court and the governments are keen on the petition by Vinay Rai, they must give equal weightage to appeal by another citizen Harsha Gupta who has filed a plea to be heard in the ongoing dispute. Gupta, a resident of Bengali Market, runs a school and argues that the case affects not just the parties concerned but all the citizens using internet at large. "Google and Facebook enable and facilitate citizens to the fullest to exercise their freedom of speech and expression and the right to form associations," he argues in his plea.

Therefore, the case must not be used to demean anyone rather as an opportunity to find out a proper mechanism without hurting the interests of the people and of the companies who are also giving jobs to many in the country. Or the internet must let loose to find its own way as Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO of Data Security Council of India puts it. He thinks that the medium is fairely new and needs to achieve maturity. According to him, people just make casual and not serious statements on the social platforms which do not need much attention. Slowly, people will learn to use it properly and perhaps become used to non-serious discussions.