The internet should be subject to the law of the land and reasonable restrictions
The Indian Express has protested government censorship firmly and dramatically. In 1942,it had suspended publication altogether,at great cost,after its founder Ramnath Goenka wrote an editorial Heart-Strings and Purse-Strings,promising to resume publication when the newspaper felt it could honestly serve readers as a newspaper. During the Emergency,The Indian Express carried a blank first editorial. This was when the newspapers offices faced raids,court cases,a long series of pre-censorship orders,stoppages of bank advances and advertisements,financial crises leading to salary delays,newsprint shortages and every kind of uncertainty (Warrior of the Fourth Estate,B.G. Verghese,2005).
The internet is a medium,like any other. If print,television,radio and public performances are subject to the laws of the land and reasonable restrictions,why should the internet (and Google) not be? In India,there are general laws these media need to follow on libel,slander,copyright,advertising,etc,as well as statutes,guidelines and regulations specific to a medium. India has statutory bodies and authorities which regulate or address grievances. Yet,India does have a free and vibrant press.
Transparency cannot be one-sided. While Google feels that it must out every government which makes a request for removal of content,Google is known to have refused to give information to individuals and does not always comply with requests from law enforcement authorities or governments to provide data or remove content. If Google really believed in transparency,why not disclose names and details of persons writing anonymous,defamatory blogs,comments and posts on request,and why not entertain requests to remove objectionable content? Or,why not disclose the identity of all bloggers and persons making posts and comments? Google is likely to consider requests from governments and courts,but not from individuals in my experience. The user data requests (government requests for disclosure of user data from Google accounts or services) and user/accounts (multiple requests) for the period July-December 2011 the transparency report says 66 per cent data requests were fully or partially complied with. These statistics reflect the number of law enforcement agency requests. What about the number of individual requests? How many were complied with?
The editorial is alarmed that there is a 49 per cent increase in removal requests from the Indian government made to Google for the period July-December 2011. But what does this mean in absolute numbers? For the period July-December 2011,101 content removal requests were made and 225 items were requested to be removed. Importantly,only 29 per cent removal requests were fully or partially complied with.
If indeed transparency on the internet is to be encouraged,then a person making a post,comment or blog ought to be identifiable. If not,one spends time and money knocking on the doors of government,enforcement agencies or courts,and if lucky,gets them to make a request to Google or pass orders,which may be fully or partially complied with. Sometimes,the authentic name,address and other details are not provided or are not traceable (for example,when accessing the internet from a cyber café). In such cases,the identity of the blogger is just not available.
Because the identity of bloggers or persons posting comments is protected some people feel free to abuse,attack,defame,hate,hurt and harm others without fear of being held accountable. Is this the purported free speech which Google is protecting?
There is no information as to who in Google decides what content can remain and what is to be removed,who reviews requests,which office to approach (for data or removal),and who to speak to,and so on. So if one writes to Google India,or tries to sue them in India,they say they are not Google Inc and cannot remove content or provide data. It is not easy to sue a foreign corporation with an address abroad in our courts.
Newspapers in India must carry imprint lines in every issue which identify the editor,printer,publisher and owner. They must file mandatory declarations before appropriate authorities. If a newspaper decides to protect a source or anonymous informant,then the paper,its editor,printer,publisher and owner hold themselves responsible,and are held responsible. But what about the internet if the identity of a blogger or person posting objectionable content is not revealed,or such objectionable content not removed,who is to take responsibility?
So to rein in mammoth corporations,is it so bad to evolve guidelines? And why say supposedly objectionable content is it this newspapers contention that there is no merit in peoples complaints about content on the internet? Is it so bad to draft a rule which gives 36 hours to decide whether or not you will remove disparaging content?
Or should we in India treat this medium (the internet) as more equal than others?
The writer is a practising advocate
