We read:
"Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all 'anti-religious' and 'anti-social' content within six weeks.
On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.
Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.
Qasmi had objected to a number of images on the websites which he complained would cause 'irreparable loss and injury to the people who are offended by them'. He argued that some of the images defamed Hindu gods, Prophet Mohammed and other religious figures, India Today website reported.
The order will raise serious questions about how users' posts and opinions will be edited, censorship and freedom of expression.
On December 22 Judge Kumar had issued summonses to the social networking sites, demanding they remove photographs, videos or texts that might offend religious sentiments, the Hindustan Times website reported.
The order comes a day after a criminal court issued summonses to the sites for facing trial for allegedly webcasting objectionable contents.
Source
Even if the companies removed stuff from their Indian sites, people could still locate most of the material on sites in the USA -- where Indian courts have no jurisdiction.
Following the Gutnick case, Indian courts could still however award damages for a libel of an Indian citizen that appeared on a U.S. site. It cost the pre-Murdoch Dow Jones half a million dollars to find that out. The Gutnick case was over defamation of an Australian citizen but both Indian and Australian law are based on British law so there is no doubt that the Gutnick case would be a secure precedent.
But this furore does not appear to be about defamation, which has always been a separate area of law.
5 comments:
Perhaps the furore is about all the damage these so-called "social sites" are causing to peoples around the world. We see peoples lives being destroyed every day, and they also represent an ongoing invasion of privacy on many, many, levels.
@Anon 346, So the govts of the world should control what we see, what we communicate, what we express? Sounds rather Fascist doesn't it?
Socialists the ultimate in intollrence and evil
Okay, so we've heard from Judge Kumar. Let's see what Judge Harold has to say, , ,
While an Indian Court may find the Gutnick case persuasive (it is based on well established common law principles regarding locus for the tort) that case was about defamation.
It seems that the present mandatory injunction is based on much more general obscenity or denigration of religion grounds so not sure its all that relevant.
Post a Comment