It starts today in New Delhi, India, a major trial that has Google and Facebook as defendants. Communications regulatory authorities in the country have questioned the ability of the two Internet giants to promote effectively the censorship law determined by the legislators. Executives from Google and Facebook may be sentenced to serve time in prison, at worst.
Since last year, India has increased the terms that must pass internet censorship available to Internet sites. Just as the Great Firewall of China, a broad category of content is at the mercy of the judgment of regulators and, if so decided, should be removed from the internet. Among the categories are excluded content "ethically questionable," "grossly harmful," "defamatory" and "blasphemy."
Set
The charge part of the journalist (!) Vinay Rai, who found material "harmful" in various sites, including Facebook, YouTube and Orkut (the latter two are owned by Google). According to the journalist, was offensive or obscene material pejorative figure of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.
The Wall Street Journal gives the following examples of content that Indian law prohibits: video related to Hinduism, Islam; offensive comments about an Indian policeman who died in a helicopter crash.
By law, Internet companies are required to delete offensive content, up to 36 hours after receiving an official notification of regulators. However, the companies concerned have questioned the applicability of legislation in user-generated content, it becomes much harder to control this type of publication (whether in text, photo or video).
Some legal experts say the case is important because it highlights the controversy in the censorship imposed by the Indian government. Google and Facebook are demanding that the action is lacking, but will only be heard formally on the matter in May. The trial, in turn, begins today.
Since last year, India has increased the terms that must pass internet censorship available to Internet sites. Just as the Great Firewall of China, a broad category of content is at the mercy of the judgment of regulators and, if so decided, should be removed from the internet. Among the categories are excluded content "ethically questionable," "grossly harmful," "defamatory" and "blasphemy."
Set
The charge part of the journalist (!) Vinay Rai, who found material "harmful" in various sites, including Facebook, YouTube and Orkut (the latter two are owned by Google). According to the journalist, was offensive or obscene material pejorative figure of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.
The Wall Street Journal gives the following examples of content that Indian law prohibits: video related to Hinduism, Islam; offensive comments about an Indian policeman who died in a helicopter crash.
By law, Internet companies are required to delete offensive content, up to 36 hours after receiving an official notification of regulators. However, the companies concerned have questioned the applicability of legislation in user-generated content, it becomes much harder to control this type of publication (whether in text, photo or video).
Some legal experts say the case is important because it highlights the controversy in the censorship imposed by the Indian government. Google and Facebook are demanding that the action is lacking, but will only be heard formally on the matter in May. The trial, in turn, begins today.
