इंटरनेट पर विवादित सामग्री के प्रकाशन को लेकर धीरे-धीरे मामले सामने आएंगे, पर आश्चर्य इस बात का है कि भारतीय मीडिया में इस सवाल पर चर्चा बहुत क्षीण है। कम से कम हिन्दी अखबारों के सम्पादकों को तो लगता है कि इसकी भनक भी नहीं हैं, हालांकि लगभग सभी में अपने आप को यंगिस्तान के पहलवान साबित करने की होड़ लगी है। वस्तुतः यह अभिव्यक्ति के अधिकार और व्यवसाय चलाने की स्वतंत्रता के अंतर्विरोधों को उजागर करने का मामला है और जनता के सामने सारे तथ्य आने चाहिए। पर जैसा कि पहले होता रहा है मीडिया अपने मामलों पर विमर्श में पीछे रहता है। 18 फरवरी के हिन्दू के ऑपएड पेज पर वासुदेव मुकंठ और अनुज श्रीवास का लेख प्रकाशित हुआ। आज हिन्दू और इंडियन एक्सप्रेस ने इस मसले पर सम्पादकीय भी लिखे हैं। हिन्दू में Think beyond censorship शीर्षक सम्पादकीय में इटरनेट ब्लॉक करने की तकनीकी खामियों की ओर इशारा किया गया है। हिन्दू के सम्पादकीय अंशः-
That bruising lesson must have been learnt by all actors involved in the blocking of over 70 web pages containing content critical of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, an agency that widely advertises a variety of study courses and degrees. The online community has responded with a counter-offensive against the institution on a devastating scale, and called attention worldwide to precisely what the institute wanted purged. Moreover, the episode proves once again that the Information Technology Act is a handy censorship tool. Although the order to the Department of Telecommunications to block the web pages was issued by a Gwalior court, it is flawed, because no opportunity was provided to the websites to enter a defence. It is shocking that the court saw merit in the plaintiff’s plea to block a page of the University Grants Commission, the highest body regulating the general university system, simply because it declared that within the meaning of the UGC Act, IIPM is not a university, and does not have the right to confer or grant degrees. पूरा पढ़ें
IIPM case highlights the inept way information is blocked online
Defamation is a serious business, and quick legal recourse is everyone’s due. That said, the IIPM case has revealed the bluntness of the instrument — the way IT legislation can be misused to blank out important public information, like the UGC’s notice. Courts are meant to use interim injunctions only in extraordinary situations, because of the way they can chill free speech. What’s more, this blocking was done silently, without offering the websites a chance to explain their side of the story, without even informing them. If the IIPM’s partner was hoping that all unflattering references would be quietly effaced, he would have realised his mistake by now. As tends to happen on the internet in response to clumsy attempts at suppression, that material has now sprouted all around, as publications and individuals defiantly reposted the content. The hacker collective, Anonymous India, targeted the IIPM for a while. On Twitter, Minister of State for HRD Shashi Tharoor flagged the UGC-blocking news to his counterpart in the communications ministry, Milind Deora. This kind of selective filtering of websites, and the pressure on intermediaries to remove “offensive” content, has come to characterise the official approach in recent years. The IIPM case is still unfolding in court, but it has revealed how, by default, the internet regulation regime appears to be set against free expression. पूरा पढ़ें
20 फरवरी 2013 के हिन्दू में प्रकाशित अपर्णा विश्वनाथन के लेख का अंश। पूरा लेख यहाँ पढ़ें
On February 6, 2013, Sanjay Chaudhary was arrested under section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act for posting ‘objectionable comments and caricatures’ of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Union Minister Kapil Sibal and Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav on his Facebook wall.
This arrest follows numerous others over the past few months for political speech through social media: Manoj Oswal for having caused ‘inconvenience’ to relatives of Nationalist Congress Party chief Sharad Pawar for allegations made on his website; Jadavpur University Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for a political cartoon about West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee; businessman Ravi Srinivasan in Puducherry for an allegedly defamatory tweet against the son of Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram; two Air India employees, who were jailed for 12 days for allegedly defamatory remarks on Facebook and Orkut against a trade union leader and a politician; Aseem Trivedi, accused of violation of the IT Act for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict its ineffectiveness. However, the incident that rocked the nation was the arrest last November of two young women, Shaheen Dadha and her friend Renu Srinivasan, for a comment posted on Facebook that questioned the shutdown of Mumbai following the demise of Shiv Sena Supremo Bal Thackeray. The girls were arrested under Section 66A(a) of the IT Act for allegedly sending a ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘menacing’ message through a communication device.
कुछ यूआरएल जो बंद किए गए। पूरी सूची यहाँ देखें
कुछ वे यूआरएल जो अभी देखे जा सकते हैं
Call me ugly but don't attack my business: Arindam Caudhari