29 Nov 13 | Academic Freedom, Belarus, Europe and Central Asia
Last summer it was announced that the Faculty of History of the state university in Hrodna, a regional centre in the West of Belarus, ceased to exist. A school of historic science known since 1954 was united with the Faculty of Tourism and Communication. This was the final revenge the authorities took on historians who dared to present the past of their city and their nation in a way that differs from the “official line.”
In the beginning of 2013 a group of historians of Hrodna State University published a book about the history of their city. Andrei Charnikevich, one of the authors of the book, was fired from the university; his sacking wasn’t done according to proper legal procedures and took longer than Siamion Shapira, a local governor, wanted. It ended up with him sacking the rector of the university, Yauheni Rouba. The governor’s instruction to a newly appointed rector was to “pay attention” to other lecturers and professors who were considered “disloyal”; all of them named. Viachaslau Shved was the next historian fired. Ihar Kuzminich, who taught law at the same university and was on that list as well, submitted a resignation letter himself and wrote an open letter to the governor in protest at the campaign of persecution against academia in Hrodna.
That was not the first instance of “ideological clear-up” in Belarusian universities. In 1990s Aliaksandr Kazulin, then a rector of the Belarusian State University, the major university in the country, received similar instructions to prevent teachers and students from oppositional activities. The irony of history made Kozulin an oppositional candidate at the Presidential election of 2006 (and he received no support from his former university during the campaign), and later a political prisoner.
But Hrodna University has not really been a centre of political or civic movements. It has always been one of the best educational institutions in Belarus. It has been quite active in adopting and implementing European standards of higher education. The authorities did not think of its professors as “disloyal” – they liked to show the university to foreign delegations and experts as exemplary to boast of achievements of the Belarusian education system.
To understand what happened in Hrodna, one has to take into consideration peculiarities of the system of higher education and its management in Belarus. Formally, all universities report to the Ministry of Education. The current minister of education, Siarhei Maskevich, is a former rector of Hrodna University; he was the one who launched teaching innovations and consolidation of the financial situation of the university. Can a minister destroy what he himself started? In Belarus, he can.
Belarusian ministers are not independent; they just implement policies as instructed by the Presidential Administration. Just as governors, like Siamion Shapira, and down to university rectors – they are all appointed by the President of the country; all candidates for these positions are carefully chosen and checked by the KGB and other authority structures. Thus, every official in this “power vertical” depends on the head of the state. No one is elected; the institute of self-governance is destroyed as such, it is substituted on all levels by state governance. It is true with any area and sphere of activities, including education.
Universities in Belarus have no autonomy; thus, academic freedom is seriously compromised. In fact there has never been any. Even in the first half of 1990s, when universities were allowed to elect their rectors, they were financially reliant on state subsidies, so they were not independent. But even such a nominal formality as elections of rectors was eliminated. Rectors of private universities are appointed by the authorities as well. Any attempts to protest leads to disastrous effects. In 2004 the European Humanities University had to stop its operation in Belarus after its staff protested against the fact their rector had to be appointed by the country’s president. They refused even after the Ministry of Education suggested appointing Anatoly Mikhailov as the rector, the same person who was elected by the staff – it was a matter of principle, and the principle of academic freedom was the key. The EHU had to go in exile and restored its activity in 2005 in neighbouring Lithuania.
Appointed rectors can stay in their positions as long as they satisfy those who appointed them, i.e. the Presidential Administration. The way to satisfy those “employers” is not by defending academic freedoms and rights of professors and students; it is merely by obeying orders and staying “loyal” to state ideology.
Professor Rouba, a previous rector of Hrodna State University, did not reject an order to “clean up” his university – he was just not in a hurry to fulfil it. And this is how he irritated the authorities, thus losing his job as the head of the university. Because in the end it is not about an alleged “danger” any “disloyal” professor poses to the state – it is about the system that requires orders to be executed, promptly and carefully.
The authorities can see “disloyalty” in anything. Ihar Kuzminich, the law professor of Hrodna University, wrote a textbook on human rights for schools a couple of years ago. The mere topic of the textbook suggested the Ministry of Education could not approve it. The book was used during informal workshops and training sessions on human rights. But it was not the real reason for Kuzminich to end up on the “disloyalty black list” and eventually lose his job. It was because of the fairy tales he writes. Characters of his tales live in a modern city and fight for their rights. Such a metaphor appeared to be more dangerous for the regime than textbooks.
It might seem absurd, but this is a reality in Belarus. Monitoring, conducted by the Agency of Humanitarian Technologies, gives a lot of evidence of persecution for professional activities. We can talk about the employment ban in the system of education of the country. Hundreds of teachers and university professors were persecuted and lost their jobs in Belarus. Such instances cover almost every filed of learning, but most of cases are noted in humanities; the repressed academics are historians, economists, sociologists, pedagogues.
Last year Belarusian Ministry of Education attempted to join the Bologna Process that unites universities all throughout Europe, including post-Soviet region. The authorities decided to take this step as they have started to see the clear economic benefits from joining, through the export of educational services. Belarusian universities have been quite popular with foreign students, especially ones from China, Vietnam, Turkmenistan and some other, predominantly Asian countries. But recent years showed a decrease in interest in Belarusian higher education, because diplomas of Belarusian universities are not recognised in many countries. Joining the Bologna Process is supposed to solve this problem and attract more foreign students.
The Presidential Administration approved the idea, and the Ministry of Education launched the whole programme of bringing Belarusian standards of higher education in line with European ones – for the exception of two of them, namely autonomy of universities and academic freedoms. These two principles are considered by the Belarus Ministry of Education to be “insignificant”.
Infrastructural changes in Belarusian universities were quite vast and intensive; they look quite like European universities — “cheaper versions”, perhaps. But what is clear, is the absence of academic freedom and autonomy, which are the two fundamental features of a university. They distinguish it from other educational institutions, like technical schools, religious or military colleges and extension courses. Rectors got used to obeying orders; the academic community got used to abstaining from disagreeing.
A group of enthusiasts, professors, students, experts, public figures, decided to create a public Bologna Committee in Belarus. Its aim is to promote and protect academic freedoms and an idea of autonomy of universities in the country. The main paradox of the committee is that it promotes the values of the Bologna Process –- but in fact it impedes Belarus joining it, rather than fosters it. There is, however, no other way; a country that fights the dissent and suppressed free speech, and thus violates the main principles of the Bologna Process, cannot be accepted as a member of it.
There is a question if we can call Belarusian institutions of higher learning “universities” at all. A process of education seems to be going on there; this process resembles in a way the one in European universities. But it is an illusion to a great extent. Without a real academic freedom and independence there can be no university. Once this are restored Belarus will be ready to integrate into the European system of education – but not before.
21 Nov 13 | Digital Freedom, India
CONTENTS
Introduction and Recommendations | 1. Online censorship | 2. Criminalisation of online speech | 3. Surveillance, privacy and government’s access to individuals’ online data | 4. Access: obstacles and opportunities | 5. India’s role in global internet debates | Conclusion
Full report in PDF
(2) CRIMINALISATION OF ONLINE SPEECH AND SOCIAL MEDIA
The criminalisation of online speech in India is of concern as the authorities have prosecuted legitimate political comment online and personal views expressed on social media. New free speech opportunities offered by social media usage in India have been diminished after the introduction of provision 66A of the IT Act and the arrest of a number of Indian citizens for posting harmless content.[20] This chapter looks at how Section 66A constitutes a significant impediment to freedom of expression and will demonstrate the need to reform the law.
In 2011, Communications Minister Kapil Sibal asked Google, Facebook and Yahoo! to design a mechanism that would pre-filter inflammatory and religiously offensive content.[21] This request was not just, as noted at the time, technologically impossible, it was also a clear assault on free speech. The request demonstrated that even if Section 66A were reformed, further work would still be needed to prevent politically motivated crackdowns on social media usage.
Section 66A of the IT Act is both overly broad and also carries a disproportionate punishment. The section punishes the sending of “any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character” or any information meant to cause annoyance, inconvenience, obstruction, insult, enmity, hatred or ill will, among other potential grievances. The provision carries a penalty of up to three years imprisonment and a fine.
IT (Amendment) Act 2008
66A: Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, —
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Much of the 2008 law historically stems from the 1935 UK Post Office (Amendment) Act, which related to telephone calls and telegraph messages. Rather than update the law to remove this dated provisions, the Indian government decided to extend them to new technologies.
Of particular concern is that there have been a number of arrests made under Section 66A for political criticism on Facebook, Twitter and even via private email. This is a worrying trend that may indicate an intolerance towards public interest speech about politicians that ought to be protected. Criminal and civil cases have also been brought against dozens of internet companies for failing to remove content deemed by some to be defamatory or religiously offensive.[22] Indians new to social media are learning to navigate the red lines of free speech or face prosecution. This degree of censorship is unwelcome in a functioning democracy.
For example, two women were arrested in 2012 for their use of Facebook, one for criticising disruptions in Mumbai during a politician’s funeral and the other for “liking” her friend’s comment (see case study). The two women were arrested under Section 66A and their arrest soon sparked public outrage, with the Times of India newspaper denouncing “a clear case of abuse of authority” by the police.[23]
Case study: Facebook arrests
On Sunday 18 November 2012, a 21-year-old Mumbai woman, Shaheen Dhada, shared her views on Facebook on the shutdown of the city as Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s funeral was being held. Her friend Renu Srinivasan “liked” her post. At 10.30 am the following day, they were both arrested and were ordered by a court to serve 14 days in jail. Hours later, they were eventually allowed out on bail after paying two bonds of Rs. 15,000 (£145) each.
Dhada had posted, “Respect is earned, not given and definitely not forced. Today Mumbai shuts down due to fear and not due to respect”. A local Shiv Sena leader filed a police complaint and Dhada and Srinivasan were booked under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” Subsequently they were also charged under Section 505 (2) of the IPC for making “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes”, and the police added Section 66A of the IT Act to the list of charges.
After a significant public outcry, charges were finally dropped. Other recent examples include a 19-year-old, Sunil Vishwakarma, who was detained for a derogatory Facebook post against a politician.[24] “We have received a complaint that he posted some objectionable comments against Raj Thackeray”, said an officer at Palghar police station. The police did not charge the teenager. He was questioned and later taken to a special cyber-crime cell before being released. In October 2012, Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old businessman in the southern Indian city of Pondicherry, was arrested for a tweet criticising Karti Chidambaram, the son of Indian Finance Minister P Chadambaram. He was later released on bail.
Popular outrage over the police’s misuse of Section 66A led the Minister for Information and Communication Technology, Kapil Sibal, to issue a guidance to states on how to implement the controversial section of the IT Act.[25] However, there remain ongoing issues relating to political interference in law enforcement itself and to the vague wording of the law itself, with the use of the terms “annoyance” and “inconvenience” overly broad, giving the authorities a wide scope to criminalise comment and opinion.[26]
Despite top-down resistance to change, there is a push for reform of the law. Beyond the guidelines issued in late 2012 to prevent misuse of Section 66A, a revision of the law itself is still needed to prevent warrantless arrests and prosecutions. Civil society and political pressure to reform the law have recently increased. In 2012, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and journalist Alok Dixit founded Save Your Voice, a movement against internet censorship in India that opposed the IT Act and demands democratic rules for the governance of internet.[27] The Minister for Information and Communication Technology has acknowledged there is an issue over the interpretation of 66A: “It’s very difficult to interpret the act on the ground. If you give this power to a sub-inspector of police, it is more than likely to be misused”.[28] Yet, he has defended the controversial law and resisted change, justifying his decision by saying that there was “no rampant misuse”.[29]
In January 2013, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, member of the upper house of the Indian Parliament, filed a petition to the Indian Supreme Court challenging Section 66A and the Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines] Rules for being “arbitrary and uncanalized, […] and in violation of the rights available to citizens under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.” Five other petitions related to the IT Act are currently under review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has directed that pleadings will be listed before the Court in the first week of January 2014. This is a welcome step but the Supreme Court must deal with these cases as a matter of urgency and even in the case of success for the petitions, these decisions will require political will to be implemented.
The criminalisation of online speech and social media usage is a serious threat to freedom of expression in the country. The use of “offence” to silence political criticism online jeopardises free speech as a fundamental right necessary for public debate in a democracy. It is clear that there is the need and the public will to reform the law. The arrests and prosecution of citizens for innocuous messages has tarnished India’s image as the world’s largest democracy. While the 2014 General Elections offer a window of opportunity for change, the Indian authorities must undertake reform of the IT Act and end resistance to change.
CONTENTS
Introduction and Recommendations | 1. Online censorship | 2. Criminalisation of online speech | 3. Surveillance, privacy and government’s access to individuals’ online data | 4. Access: obstacles and opportunities | 5. India’s role in global internet debates | Conclusion
This report was originally posted on 21 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
[20] BBC News, ‘Outrage at India arrests over Facebook post’ (20 November 2012), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20405193 accessed on 5 September 2013.
[21] The Hindu, ‘Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content’ (6 December 2011), http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sibal-warns-social-websites-over-objectionable-content/article2690084.ece accessed on 5 September 2013.
[22] Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the Net 2012: India’, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2012/india accessed on 9 September 2013.
[23] Times of India, ‘Shame: 2 girls arrested for harmless online comment’ (20 November 2012), http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-20/mumbai/35227016_1_police-station-shiv-sainiks-police-action accessed on 5 September 2013.
[24] Indian Express, ‘Now Palghar police detain 19-year-old for Facebook post on Raj Thackeray’ (28 November 2012), http://www.indianexpress.com/news/now-palghar-police-detain-19yrold-for-facebook-post-on-raj-thackeray/1037462/ accessed on 5 September 2013.
[25] New guidelines require that no less than a police officer of a rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police will be allowed to permit registration of a case under provisions of the Information Technology Act.
[26] Some provisions in Section 66A were purportedly drafted to prevent spam – messages typically sent in bulk and unsolicited.
[27] Save Your Voice, a movement against web censorship, http://www.saveyourvoice.in/p/about.html
[28] Lakshmi Chaudhry, First Post, ‘The real Sibal’s law: Resisting Section 66A is futile’, http://www.firstpost.com/politics/the-real-sibals-law-resisting-section-66a-is-futile-541045.html?utm_source=ref_article accessed on 18 November 2013.
[29] Nikhil Pahwa, Medianama, News and Analysis of Digital Media in India, ‘Sibal defends IT Act Section 66A in Parliament: Notes’, http://www.medianama.com/2012/12/223-sibal-defends-it-act-section-66a-in-parliament-notes/ accessed on 18 November 2013.
21 Nov 13 | Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Reports, India
(Photo: Shutterstock)
CONTENTS
Introduction and Recommendations | 1. Online censorship | 2. Criminalisation of online speech | 3. Surveillance, privacy and government’s access to individuals’ online data | 4. Access: obstacles and opportunities | 5. India’s role in global internet debates | Conclusion
Full report in PDF
1. ONLINE CENSORSHIP
Since 2003, the institutional structure of internet censorship and filtering has centred on the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (ICERT), a department of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology that serves as a nodal agency for accepting and reviewing requests from a designated pool of government officials to block access to specific websites.[2] This chapter will outline how takedown requests, both with and without court orders, are commonplace, and demonstrate that corporations sometimes contribute to censorship by over-complying with government requests. Along with filtering and blocking policies, these procedures are inconsistent and often threaten freedom of expression in India. With so many methods being used to restrict online speech, there is lively debate in India around how censorship affects fundamental freedoms and society.
“There is no definition of what ‘obscenity’ and ‘incitement’ constitutes. Because of the vagueness of the law on the one hand, and the obligations of the law on the other hand [taking down offensive content], the door is opened to interpretation and subjectiveness,” says Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a member of the upper house of the Indian Parliament.[3] The vagueness of the law has led to people being arrested and charged for innocuous posts and tweets. The Information Technology Act (IT Act) and its 2008 amendments do not provide a clear legal definition of what is offensive and there is no common view in society of what can or cannot be said online and offline, leading to uncertainty. This has resulted in a growing tendency to report content deemed “offensive” and demand its removal.
Intermediaries – web companies that host content but do not produce it – tend to over-comply with takedown notices out of fear of being liable for offensive content and then prosecuted. The over-compliance of internet intermediaries with takedown notices is concerning as it removes from the internet content which is entirely legitimate.
Compounding this problem is the lack of an appeal process. Intermediaries in India are neither required to notify people when their posts or photos are censored nor give them an opportunity to appeal the decision. In practice, this situation creates an indirect form of censorship when not the government but intermediaries become censors.
(A) TAKEDOWN REQUESTS
Takedown requests, when properly regulated, implemented and subjected to judicial oversight, can be an effective way for copyright owners and aggrieved individuals to remove illegal content from the web. When takedown procedures are inconsistent or inadequately defined, as is the case in India, such requests can, and often do, chill freedom of expression.
In the 2008 amendments to the IT Act, the government acted to limit intermediary liability and standardise notice and takedown procedures under Section 79 of the IT Act. This marked a positive move to curtail the worst abuses of the law and protect intermediaries. The question of intermediary liability is particularly complex in India due to vague laws around defamation and public order. The Indian authorities have tended to prioritise control or regulation of free speech to “protect communal harmony”. The protection of communal harmony was cited as a major factor behind the move in 2011 by the Indian Central Government to issue the Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines] Rules – also called the 2011 IT Rules – requiring intermediaries to remove infringing content within 36 hours if someone reports it as offensive.
Many medium and small internet businesses have been vocal in criticising the impact of these rules, a piece of secondary legislation linked to the IT Act.[4] They denounce the onerous conditions they face as intermediaries in the event of prosecution. The confusion around intermediary liability laws encourages privatisation of censorship and causes a great deal of uncertainty for businesses which they argue hinders innovation.[5]
In 2011, the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) ran a series of tests to see how intermediaries responded to bogus takedown request within the 36-hour timeframe. Six of seven intermediaries over-complied with requests, meaning they restricted more content than legally required. Hundreds of pages were taken down at the expense of legitimate expressions.[6] This over-compliance demonstrates a real chilling effect on freedom of expression, as many intermediaries are overwhelmed with requests or do not have the legal expertise to properly handle them in a manner that protects freedom of expression.
In April 2013, the Government issued a Clarification on the Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines] Rules, under Section 79 of the IT Act. The clarification addresses the controversial 36-hour period and says that the intermediaries shall respond or acknowledge to the complainant within 36 hours of receiving the complaint/grievances, and then initiate appropriate action in line with the law rather than actually take down the content. While this clarification is helpful, the law remains flawed and still subjects intermediaries to criminal prosecution for failure to comply in a short period of time. This narrow timeframe, which does not specifically take into account public holidays or weekends, puts intermediaries in a difficult position where they are required to be overly zealous in taking down content that may be entirely legitimate.
Government requests for the removal of illegal or offensive content is steadily on the rise around the world, but this is especially the case in India. A benchmark to track this trend is the Google Transparency Report, where India leads in the number of takedown requests issued without court orders. Indian authorities cite national security concerns to justify many of their takedown requests without court orders.[7] For example, in the second half of 2012 the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team cited public order and ethnic offence laws to issue a request for “The Innocence of Muslims” video clips to be taken down. The video clips had sparked disturbances in India’s north-east regions and Google locally restricted the “Innocence of Muslims” video clips from YouTube and several other YouTube videos and comments.
While “The Innocence of Muslims” case launched a debate over how religious or cultural sensibilities balance with free expression, the lack of judicial oversight in content takedown and political interference are common practice in India.[8] The removal of “The Innocence of Muslims” demonstrated how the politics of fear is intruding into the online environment.[9]
Google is not the only company dealing with a significant number of takedown requests. For small start-ups and internet service providers, a large number of takedown requests can encourage those afraid of penalties to over-comply, removing URLs that do not link to illegal content. A consequence of the IT Act and of the over-compliance would be the delegation of essential executive function to private parties like Google, Facebook or MouthShut.com to censor and restrict free speech of citizens or else face legal challenges over user content.
Case study: MouthShut.com
On 29 April 2013, MouthShut.com, India’s leading online consumer review website, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India to nullify the 2011 IT Rules. The petition pleads that the 2011 IT Rules be declared illegal, null and void as they are ultra vires of the Constitution.[10]
Faisal Farooqui, founder of MouthShut.com, has said that the company has “been threatened with hundreds of legal notices, cybercrime complaints and defamation cases. At other times, officers from various police stations call our office, demanding deletion of various reviews or face dire consequences under the IT rules”.[11]
Under the IT rules, MouthShut is required to remove content within 36 hours of receiving a request (a request does not necessary need to be issued by a court order but can be filed by any individual). The problem is that MouthShut.com receive requests under IT Rules “to remove any negative review about a company or brand simply because they don’t like it, irrespective of the facts stated in the review.”
“It is submitted that the impugned Rules impose significant burden on it forcing it to screen content and exercise online censorship, which in turn impacts the freedom of speech and expression of its customers, thereby risking a loss of its large consumer base or incurring legal costs and facing criminal action for third party user-generated content,” Farooqui said.
(B) FILTERING AND BLOCKING
India engages in the widespread blocking and filtering of websites. The Indian Computer and Emergency Response Team is able to make executive orders to internet service providers to block websites. The range of sites that are censored is quite broad and ranges from human rights and freedom of expression content to extremism and porn.[12] This section addresses the problematic role that a government authority, the Indian Computer and Emergency Response Team (ICERT), has in being able to order internet service providers to selectively filter content, including without court instruction.
Despite an announcement to install filtering mechanisms at India’s international gateways, government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective because blocked content has quickly migrated to other websites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering.[13] However, India’s filtering and blocking policies remain problematic both because of the scale of the compliance with ICERT but also the scope of its powers. Many have argued that giving ICERT filtering power through executive order violates constitutional jurisprudence, especially since the blocking mechanism created under the IT Act provides for no direct review or appeal procedures and is a permanent block.[14]
Beyond excessive powers to filter, India’s government also holds significant and disproportionate powers to block content. Merely in order to gain a government licence to operate, internet service providers (ISPs) in India must agree to block sites and individual users when national security needs arise and to prevent the transmission of “obscene” or “objectionable” material. Since 2008, these powers have been extended to block more than just content that is “obscene”. The newly added Section 69A of the IT Act also grants power to the central government, “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order,” to issue directions to block public access to any information from any “computer resource.” This executive power is significant and should be subjected to justice oversight to avoid misuse of the law by the executive.
Only a limited number of specified individuals or institutions can make official complaints and recommendations for investigation to ICERT. These include high-ranking government officials, the police, government agencies and “any others as may be specified by the Government”. In return, ISPs have to comply with blocking orders from ICERT. Since 2006, blocking requests can also come from individuals reporting content they personally consider to be offensive or obscene. Individuals can do this by filling a Public Interest Litigation petition in order to put pressure on the government or justice authorities to issue a filtering notice.
This is having a significant impact on freedom of expression. Tests undertaken of the blocking practices of ISPs revealed variations, suggesting that ISPs go beyond direct blocking orders to pro-actively block content. This practice results from licensing agreement that require ISPs to bock internet sites as identified by the Telecom Authority but also to prevent the transmission of obscene or objectionable material. Civic society in India is concerned that the culture of blocking at ISPs is curtailing online access to content that is perfectly legal and should be protected by the Indian constitution.
(C) NETWORK DISRUPTIONS
Network disruptions are also a major concern in India. In January 2012, during a period of political unrest, telecommunication networks were pre-emptively shut down in Jammu and Kashmir amidst fears that mobile phones could be used to detonate bombs.[15] Beyond the direct disruption of networks, the government engaged in the direct censorship of the media and of expression with local television stations suspended, several Facebook pages taken down, text messages blocked and local newspapers stopped from printing in the city of Srinagar based on their political slant or content.
In August of that year, during riots in the north-eastern states, India banned the sending of bulk SMS messages across the entire country for 15 days and blocked hundreds of websites that allegedly contained inflammatory content to prevent violence.[16] This decision was undertaken without judicial oversight, as national telecom operators had to comply with an executive order from the Home Ministry.[17]
The communal riots in Jammy and Kashmir provoked one of the biggest internal migrations of recent times and fears of escalation led to heavy-handed network disruptions. The disputed territory of Kashmir is frequently the target of such disruptions and encapsulates the complexity of the use of pre-emptive censorship to prevent the very real threat of violence.[18] On the one hand, the traditional media landscape is expanding and the internet has brought new reporting opportunities for citizen journalism. Many Kashmiris now have mobile devices that allow them to capture images and videos and share information. Hundreds of videos have been uploaded and shared on the internet by people in the state. However, during times of political tension, Kashmiris are denied their right to freedom of expression when the government cuts off access to the internet. In February 2013, the Indian government suppressed all news and communications channels – including television stations, newspapers and mobile Internet service – in the Kashmir Valley when Kashmiri militant Mohammad Afzal Guru’s execution in New Delhi revived political unrest in the troubled region.[19]
There is evidence to suggest the blocking of cable TV is not just a problem in Kashmir. According to the Asian Media Barometer for India, authorities in a number of states occasionally block certain cable news channels or instruct cable operators not to carry channels based on their political views or content.
The restrictions on digital free speech in India are of great concern. The main issues are takedown and blocking policies, along with the network shutdowns and criminalisation of online speech. Amending notice and takedown procedures are key reforms necessary to provide greater clarity and certainty to intermediaries. Intermediaries should be required to alert authors and provide them a means of appeal when their content is flagged for takedown, a process that can often take longer than 36 hours. The time frame for intermediaries to respond should be extended. Codifying these reforms into law and implementing them swiftly and effectively would reduce the associated threat to freedom of expression.
CONTENTS
Introduction and Recommendations | 1. Online censorship | 2. Criminalisation of online speech | 3. Surveillance, privacy and government’s access to individuals’ online data | 4. Access: obstacles and opportunities | 5. India’s role in global internet debates | Conclusion
This report was originally posted on 21 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
[2] Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the Net 2012: India’, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2012/india accessed on 9 September 2013.
[3] Index on Censorship interview, 30 August 2013.
[4] Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, “The Information Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011”, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf accessed on 19 November 2013.
[5] The Economist Intelligence Unit, ‘Good to grow? The environment for Asia’s Internet business’ (9 July 2013), http://asiainternetcoalition.org/advdoc/2c083eb6cd1ae38cee3826e1ad6a2a6e.pdf accessed on 10 September 2013.
[6] Centre for Internet and Society, ‘Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011’, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf accessed on 4 September 2013.
[7] Indian authorities requested, without court orders, that 2,529 items be removed between July and December 2012 – a 90 percent increase over the first half of the year 2012. Google, ‘Google Transparency Report’, http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/IN/ accessed on 5 September 2013.
[8] Kenan Malik and Nada Shalout, Index on Censorship, ‘Should religious or cultural sensibilities ever limit free expression?,’ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/08/should-religious-or-cultural-sensibilities-ever-limit-free-expression/ accessed on 25 September 2013.
[9] Rebecca MacKinnon and Ethan Zuckerman, Index on Censorship, ‘Don’t feed the troll,’ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/12/dont-feed-the-trolls-muslims/ accessed on 25 September 2013.
[10] Times of India, ‘Supreme Court to Examine validity of Information Technology rules’ (30 April 2013), http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-30/internet/38929437_1_intermediaries-guidelines-accuracy-censorship accessed on 30 August 2013.
[11] Medianama, News and Analysis of Digital Media in India, ‘MouthShut Challenges the IT Rules In The Supreme Court Of India’, (29 April 2013), http://www.medianama.com/2013/04/223-mouthshut-it-rules-supreme-court-of-india/ accessed on 25 September 2013.
[12] Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski and Jonathan Zittrain, OpenNet Initiative, ‘Access Contested. Security, Identity, and Resistance in Asian Cyberspace’ (September 2011), http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontested-india.pdf accessed on 10 September 2013.
[13] In January 2007, the Department of Telecommunications announced that it would install filtering mechanism at India’s international gateways. OpenNet Initiative, ‘Country Profile: India’ (9 August 2012) https://opennet.net/research/profiles/india accessed on 10 September 2013.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the Net 2012: India’, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2012/india accessed on 9 September 2013.
[16] Times of India, ‘5 SMS per day limit comes into effect’ (18 August 2012), http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-18/telecom/33260957_1_smses-and-mmses-bulk-messages-ban-period accessed on 9 September 2013.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Sumit Galhotra, Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘In Indian Kashmir, concerns over Internet censorship’ (4 October 2012), http://www.cpj.org/blog/2012/10/in-indian-kashmir-concerns-raised-over-internet-ce.php accessed on 10 September 2013.
[19] Reporters Without Borders, ‘News media and internet totally censored in Kashmir’ (13 February 2013), http://en.rsf.org/india-news-media-and-internet-totally-13-02-2013,44066.html accessed on 10 September 2013.
20 Nov 13 | News and features, Pakistan, Politics and Society
Members of Baloch Shohada Committee lighten candles during a protest against Baloch genocide on the occasion of Youm-e-Shohada-e-Baloch. (ppiimages / Demotix)
Farzana Majeed holds Pakistani media as responsible for the disappearances of thousands of Baloch nationalists as the state security apparatus, labelling it a “very willing accomplice.”
29-year old Majeed is among the two dozen people on a long march organised by the Voice of Missing Baloch Persons (VOMBP) which has protesting for the last four years. They are demanding the return of their loved ones, who they allege have been illegally apprehended and detained by Pakistan’s intelligence and security agencies.
“The media should be the voice of the victims and report on the atrocities committed on our people; instead they are pressured into silence by the state”, she said.
The march began on October 27 from Quetta in Balochistan covering a distance of almost 700 km, and will reach Karachi, in the Sindh province, by the end of the week. There, outside the Karachi Press Club, they will hold an indefinite sit-in and hunger strike. The marchers started with covering anywhere between 35 to 40 km/day, but blisters and illness are slowing down progress to barely 25km a day.
The mineral-rich Balochistan is the largest of the four provinces of Pakistan, and was an independent state until 1947, when Pakistan annexed its eastern side and Iran its western side. For many Baloch families, since the disappearances began more than a decade back, life has not been the same.
According to Qadeer Baloch who founded the VOMBP, around 18,000 Baloch nationalists, including doctors, professors, politicians and students, have been abducted since 2001. “We have received mutilated corpses of 1,500 of them.”
Farzana Majeed’s brother Zakri was abducted four years ago from the city of Mastung. He was the vice president of the Baloch Students Organisation (Azad), a nationalist student group raising awareness of the rights of the Baloch on campuses. Despite holding a double master’s in biochemistry and Balochi language, Majeed said her life has been put on “on hold” and her three siblings and mother rendered “homeless” since Zakri’s disappearance. She hasn’t heard any news of him for three years.
Baloch’s own son Jalil Reiki, the information secretary of Baloch Republican Party, was picked up in 2009. Almost two years and eight months later, his tortured and bullet-riddled body was found.
“The disappearances started way back in 2001 during president Pervez Musharraf’s rule but this human rights abuse came on public radar in 2004-05 after the women — mothers, sisters and wives — started coming out and began protesting,” explained Malik Siraj Akbar, editor of online English newspaper The Baloch Hal. He said Baloch women hardly ever come out publicly and so when they did, they were bound to be noticed.
“Except for BBC, and a couple of English national dailies, no other media is supporting us,” said Baloch, who is leading the march. The lukewarm response, however, has failed to deter the marchers. “It is a way of teaching our coming generation the value of speaking up,” Baloch told Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper.
“Some of our friends in the media have disclosed that the intelligence agencies have warned and threatened them from covering our peaceful protest; others have been told that we are causing bad publicity internationally,” he added.
Akbar, who has taken asylum in the United States after most of his friends and colleagues were killed, said: “I know the agencies have been threatening the protesters with dire consequences and forcing them to shut down their camps and end the rally.” However, he added that he was not aware of any “threats or pressure on the media from the agencies and the government”.
But according to the chairperson of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Zohra Yusuf, “journalists in Balochistan are under pressure from the Frontier Corps [federal reserve military force], the Baloch separatists as well as the religious extremists”.
Mazhar Abbas, a former secretary general of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, speculated that the poor coverage of the march, as well as the issue of disappearances, may be due to the “influence used on media barons by the intelligence agencies”.
While he emphasised the electronic media had covered the Supreme Court hearings around the issue at length, he found it had never been tackled properly from a human rights angle. He lamented the “non-professional” attitude of the print media which did not find the issue grave enough to do investigative reporting on it.
The missing are no longer an “exciting” story so they are not covered by the national media, Akbar said. “Unfortunately, nobody seems to care much about it in a country where dozens of people are killed every day,” he said.
Zohra Yusuf also said the urban-based media did not seem particularly interested in the issue as it was more “ratings oriented”.
As for the on-going march not able to attract media’s attention, Abbas suggested that had it been led by “known political or nationalist figures”, it would have automatically lured the media to it.
A recent HRCP report, based on a fact-finding mission to Balochistan, stated that while the people of the province have pinned their hopes on the new government to address the problems, especially regarding the “grave human rights violations”, many do not see any visible policy change “within the security and intelligence agencies”, as the “kill-and-dump policy” continued.
According to Malik Siraj Akbar, while the ongoing long march isn’t any different from past demonstration, it is the “first major protest” since the new governments in the province and the centre took over the reins.
“The long march reflects the new government’s failure to resurface the missing persons and normalise the situation in Balochistan,” he pointed out.
This article was originally published on 20 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
