Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

India Moves To Censor Social Media

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the one-point-two-billion-people-dislike-this dept.

Censorship 171

An anonymous reader writes "India's Telecoms minister has prompted an uproar after it was revealed he met with executives from Google and Facebook to pressure them into screening 'objectionable' content. Critics argue it is a dangerous step down China's censorship path. 'He denied such a demand was censorship. There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said. The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.'

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But it fails (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286372)

The real story is this: India Moves TO Censor Social Media ... but it fails in the face of /. dupes./a. [slashdot.org]

Re:But it fails (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287046)

I bet the niggers and kikes are behind this! Is there anything that subhuman garbage won't do?

Re:But it fails (1)

jezwel (2451108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287438)

Mod up - I can still see the original from just yesterday.

I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286388)

people like him come to power. The only way for me not to be offended is for him to step down immediately.

Re:I'm offended (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286506)

I'm offended people like him come to power.

But that is the exact sort of character that democratic systems allow into power. The world wide, elections are won by those who are charasmatic, say the right things on camera and during conferences - then once they are in office, all of their "true" goals come to light as they try to keep themselves in power. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but have a look at this democratic election in 1932 [wikipedia.org] and have a look at how people were misguided into who and what they voted for.

Re:I'm offended (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286666)

Here's a relevant quote from the article:

Telecoms and Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal met executives from Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Monday to ask them to screen content, but no agreement with the companies was reached. Stinking of rotten body odor and unwashed genitalia, he excused himself from the streetside interview and urinated on a curb, hypocritically kicking a dog that was trying to do the same thing.

Returning to the coffee shop where the interview was taking place, spots of stray urine all over the crotch of his pants, Kapil gave both his pits a whif and resumed the interview. The representatives from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo asked him what his background was. Kapil stated that all of them should know, as Kapil is a coder for an outsourcing company with all of the big four as clients. "Hell," he stated, "it's the least you could do for me and my coworkers, we write your software." He then pointed at a pile of dog feces near the table and said, "You pay us instead of Americans to write code like that - Your country must be veddy veddy bad!"

When asked what Kapil's plans for the future were, he said, "Well, politics, obviously, but my team and I are finishing up the new Slashdot website. It works everytime, with every browser. They came to us because they couldn't make it themselves, and I am happy to say that is why people come to India for best coding practices. We are also responsible for adding all of the flashy stuff to Youtube, and for making Yahoo relevant again." After scratching his testes through his pants, Kapil coughed and said, "that's all. Thank you, come again," as he pulled a long stick of jerky out of his pocket, held it against his crotch pointing outward, and asked all of the representatives to shake it one-by-one. They all reluctantly did, as their holiday bonuses depended a lot on their sending of American jobs to Kapil's stewardship.

Re:I'm offended (0)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286904)

Hahhahhha! Somebody mod this Funny.

Re:I'm offended (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287024)

Why? It's an obvious troll based on bad stereotypes. The person who wrote it is clearly a retard.

Re:I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287110)

I took it as a mock example of the type of derogatory caricature this politician will try to censor. I don't know of a stereotype that this describes. Troll? Trolls seek a pointless argument. No-one seems to be arguing with him.

Re:I'm offended (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287548)

At first I thought you made the AC comment and then posted this as meta-humor, but you usually sign your AC posts.

violence, intimidation, + fraud is not democracy (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286678)

there were elections there, maybe, but the Sturmabteilung and other organs of the Nazi party used violence and intimidation to corrupt the voting process.

it doesn't mean they were democratic elections.

the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.

why? because he would have been voted back out of office. that is the strength of democracy... which balances its weakness.

Re:violence, intimidation, + fraud is not democrac (4, Insightful)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286932)

.. the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.

This is exactly what some of our "democratic" governments would like to do. However, they have more subtle and clever ways of subverting democracy that are far more effective.

Re:I'm offended (5, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286800)

Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.

Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?

---

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).

But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.

Re:I'm offended (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286908)

Sorry, the correct answer to 1 through 7 is yes. If it was no, we'd be libertarians or libertards.

Re:I'm offended (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286994)

the above comment proves my point.

Re:I'm offended (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287186)

Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences.

What do you expect? They're government educated by a system that is more concerned about not hurting anyone's feelings than it is with things like dialectic, critical thinking, and instilling intellectual independence. Most are far too passive (something promoted in the media by repeated example) to recognize this as a problem on their own and educate themselves despite the Information Age. This page [cantrip.org] sums it up nicely. The "lesson of dependency" is the hinge on which all the others rest.

I'll highlight the most glaring stupidity of this proposal, the unspoken and unacknowledged aspect it deliberately ignores.

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

... that you almost definitely won't see unless you are looking for it. It reminds me of people who call up a talk show to tell the host how much they hate him, his views, and his show ... yet they're quite familiar with all of it. You'd think a person would go with one of the multitude of other choices and listen to something other than whatever he finds offensive, but that would mean having nothing to bitch about. Nothing to bitch about would mean being denied their five minutes of climbing up on their high horse and feeling superior to someone else while they pontificate against them. This is very important to nothing human beings with no real sense of purpose in their lives and would be a great loss to them.

There are things I don't like so I don't watch them, listen to them, read them, etc, but it never occurs to me to feel offended. I don't get any pleasure or satisfaction from trying to force my will on others because I'm not an insecure fevered ego. If I were, I'd feel a sacred duty to work on fixing it while never making it someone else's problem. So, the fact that I don't enjoy something doesn't make me feel like no one else should (assuming it's just a matter of taste -- i.e. I don't feel that way about armed robbery -- since some of you are childish and jump all over every little thing not spelled out for you).

"I'm offended!" is a covert and thus cowardly way of saying "therefore, you should yield to me and change it to accommodate my tastes". It's an emotional appeal unconsciously designed to conceal a desire to control. The people who want to control others using this method are far too timid to try gaining any kind of domination or power to get what they want, so they go for the pity appeal instead. They try to gain the sympathy of someone who already has power or authority and by proxy obtain the control they desire. If they are thwarted, they accuse the authority of being insensitive and try to ridicule or shame (i.e. manipulate) them into doing their will.

The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like. These are the same disruptive types who aren't going to respect censorship laws. They would view them as a challenge. If anything, using Tor or some other international, jurisdiction-crossing proxy to evade censorship would only add to their thrill.

Re:I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287400)

7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

For me, it depends on the regulations. I don't care for child slave labor or dumping chemicals in rivers, for instance. I don't see why anyone would think that all regulation is bad, or that the free market is able to work around every little problem (which might not even be deemed as a problem by an ignorant populace).

But, then again, anyone with a different opinion than anyone else is automatically wrong to those people.

Re:I'm offended (2)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287426)

So how exactly do you propose to stop criminals without imposing on their civil liberties? How the heck do you propose that the constitution is even to be used if you are not going to interpret it? It's just inkblots on paper if you don't read it and convert it from ink to thoughts and concepts.

Re:I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287880)

read it and understand what it literally says. any retard can understand it. it only becomes difficult when law school educated weasel gets involved and starts twisting the words around.

Re:I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287496)

False dichotomies one one all. You are either a manipulator, or a moron. Possibly both.

Re:I'm offended (3, Insightful)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287512)

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

...

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances

...which means you have a constitution that states things so precisely that it's impossible to draw more than one conclusion about what anything it says means. Do you have an example of such a constitution? (Hint: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is not part of such a constitution - what's a "limited Time"? This is not, BTW, an idle question, given, for example, various Acts of Congress that keep extending the lifetime of copyrights.)

Re:I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287582)

Seems to me saying that a constitution isn't open to interpretation also presupposes a flawless constitution. I seem to remember a few bad things being slipped in there (like prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment and the Three-Fifths Compromise). If the Constitution were not open to interpretation and alteration, where would we be now? I'm not saying it isn't a good document, but at the same time, it shouldn't be deified. Rule of Law does not mean taking everything as absolutes set in stone.

Re:I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287650)

Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.

If the answer to the rest of your hypothetical questions is "no", then, sure, I understand the long-term "real consequences". For example, if not allowing government to enact #5 it would mean that eventually I wouldn't have access to road, fire department, border security, police, justice systems, and any number of other services commonly paid for with taxes and implemented by government. I wouldn't be able to afford them all by myself. The profit-motivated companies that ran them would focus their efforts on the richer clientele where the real money was rather than me (especially with no regulation, as in #7, they'd gouge as much as they could once a monopoly was established). I'd either be out more money than taxes would have costed or I would simply have to do without the service if my particular need wasn't profitable. And the same would be true of most of my neighbors.

I know exactly what we'd have if people thought long-term and the answer to those questions was "no": we'd roll back the state of society to something like it was several hundred years ago, which I'm sure people clueless about history would imagine to be better than it is now.

What you actually need is a citizenry that cares enough and are involved enough with government that they prevent the abuses. If citizens instead become lazy and inattentive about what their government is doing on their behalf, then it goes wrong. And it wouldn't particularly matter what the answers were to those questions if the citizens were lazy and inattentive. You'd be screwed regardless of the answers. Everyone would be too busy putting food on the table today to think at all about long-term issues.

Go back to your smug fantasy world or move to Somalia. Things aren't as simple as you imply. Or do you have a magical solution that is more efficient and will inevitably cost less for people than having a government empowered financially and legally to do something rather than let crime happen and do nothing to constrain business practices to fair competition?

Re:I'm offended (1)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287736)

Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.

Oh, its even worse than that. While interpreting the constitution should naturally be done with great care and respect, its worth noting that it is DOCUMENTED FACT, that several clauses in the constitution are intentionally vague because no more specific language could be agreed on. In other words, the founding fathers pretty much wrote several of the arguments that still exist today straight into our constitution knowingly ...

Re:I'm offended (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287708)

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

No, there is already a mechanism for it. If it's broke, amend it.

2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?

No, debt has to be paid eventually otherwise it's theft, not borrowing.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

Obviously yes; by definition money is a government construct, it exists by law otherwise business would mint their own cash or we'd barter. [Fiat currency is fiat because you can use it to pay tax, that's what makes it special compared to an "IOU"]

4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?

This is a gray question, it depends on the person. Either system is sustainable though guaranteed safety nets tend to make places more pleasant in the highly probable event something goes wrong.

5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?

Yes, automatically follows 3.

6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?

No, reducing liberty and privacy to prevent crime is also known as pre-crime. i.e. trying to arrest people because they might have been thinking about doing something illegal. Police and the court system exist to mediate disputes when they occur, not outright prevent everything before it happens. (liberty or absolute safety, pick one).

7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

Yes, businesses are government constructs that exist by law, they rely on other laws like contract law (employment, supply deals, etc) as well so are, by definition, government regulated (only legal contracts are enforceable, guess who decides what is legal). Businesses which exist outside this system are called Organized Crime Syndicates (eg. Mafia) which have their own private police (enforcers) who carry out sentences (kill you) for breaking company by-laws. It's interesting that the government-free business construct (OCS) ends up looking like a government and business rolled into one (fascist state).

The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.

I suppose, if you were prone to short term thinking about what is good for you personally right now without regard for anyone else or the long-term consequences, then "no" for everything makes sense. Other people who know anything about history, law, economics and logic might not feel the same way.

Re:I'm offended (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287764)

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?

Yes. The societal context in which the Constitution is viewed changes, as do the very meanings of words (such an "insure" in the preamble to the Constitution, which now relates almost exclusively to financial matters). As an example, consider the curtailing of "free speech" to exclude speech which causes "imminent lawless action". Falsely warning about a bomb in a crowded building is extremely likely to cause assault, theft, and vandalism as people try to escape. Merely advocating illegal behavior at an indeterminate time in the future is not imminent, and is thus not prohibited. There are, of course, other laws that can affect how speech may be presented. You can not abuse or harass others with your ideas, for example. In my opinion, nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.

2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?

Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations that are not yet fully funded, nor expected to be. If the government has said it will pay several million dollars for a new fighter jet over the next 20 years, that full several-million dollar figure is counted as debt, even though only a small part of it is actually due now. Planning for future expenses is a reasonable thing to do, no? Another large portion of debt is a financial device to free up quantities of money for other uses. More on that shortly.

3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?

Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?

According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes". A strong economy is one where money moves freely and quickly, and everyone gets what they want. In other words, "to each according to his need". When the government adds money to the economy through the Federal Reserve Bank, it also adds an equal amount of debt. Increasing the monetary supply allows the public to have more money to spend immediately, with the knowledge that said money will disappear again shortly. It enables a strong economy to be built (or rebuilt), and when the economy is running again, the money supply can be reduced gradually to improve efficiency and reduce the effects of inflation.

There is a riddle about a man dying, leaving his 19 horses to be divided among his three sons, with the eldest receiving half, the middle receiving one fourth, and the youngest receiving one fifth. After trying for several days to figure out how to divide a horse, the local wise man came and brought his own horse, adding it to the pool. The eldest received 10, the middle received 5, and the youngest received 4. The wise man then took his horse and left.

The economy works similarly. With the temporary addition of money, transactions can be processed faster and easier, and operations can go more smoothly. The rapid response of the Federal Reserve Bank reduces the effect of recessions, and speeds recovery.

4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?

Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

Deposit insurance reduces the effect of bank runs. Before 1933, when a bank was in danger of closing, customers would rush to get their money out, before it became lost in the disappearing bank. Since banks can't keep all of their holdings on hand at once, some people would inevitably lose their savings. Now, there is no need to make that rush to withdraw, because even if banks are closed, the money is protected. Less damage from bank runs means the banks keep more money available, are are less likely to actually bankrupt fully. This in turn helps to stabilize the economy, and eliminates a significant source of panic during recessions. It's definitely insuring domestic tranquility, by my reckoning.

Health insurance is also a nice example for promoting the general welfare. When someone is stabbed in a mugging, should the EMTs run a financial background check before treating the victim, or should they be concerned with saving a life more than profiting from the work? Health care providers have costs, which usually must not be considered before treating a patient. Is it right to allow someone to suffer because they cannot pay? Is it right to make hospitals pay for every homeless person who comes in with a cough looking for a warm place to spend the night?

A sufficiently large insurance system effectively puts everyone in the same boat, as far as one aspect of prosperity goes. The impact of any significant injury is reduced drastically, at the expense of raising everyone's costs slightly. Fraud is monitored by qualified people (those "death panels [blogspot.com] " that are so badly needed) so costs are kept low.

The bigger an insurance group is, the better it can provide coverage at low cost. The government has the ability to cover a large portion of the population by default (with the ability to opt out for private plans, of course), so it's an ideal choice. Of course, it will need auditing to ensure its effectiveness and reduce corruption, but that's much easier to enact on the government than on the private sector.

5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?

Yes. The government runs on money, of course. Income tax is simple: If you've prospered from the policies and programs of this country, you should help pay to keep it running. Excise taxes (Ron Paul's preferred alternatives) aren't so simple. They're taxes on people's behavior and purchases. You're taxed when you purchase alcohol because the government doesn't want you to, but outright banning it failed miserably.

6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?

Yes. Frankly, I feel much safer knowing it's illegal to murder someone. I like knowing that my house, being located on a clearly-public street, is still considered my private property and is illegal to enter without my permission (or the government's, in the form of a warrant). Of course, I suspect you meant a few specific personal liberties that you're offended have been removed in the effort to stop specific criminal activities. Perhaps you should be more clear while begging the question.

In the interest of debate, let's consider a single criminal activity (terrorism) and countermeasure (the TSA). The TSA aims to reduce terrorism, not so much by directly catching those who try, but by increasing the risk that those who try will be found. In doing so, it involves the searching of large numbers of people at public places. While certainly inconvenient, is it really a violation of a vital individual liberty? Last time I flew, the check consisted of walking through a normal metal detector, which usually goes off because of a medical device, a verification of said device with a wand, and an x-ray scan of my personal effects. Had I wanted to avoid those hassles, I could drive to my destination instead.

While I do feel that the TSA is pushing the limits of reason (especially after 10 years), I feel the government certainly should have the power to secure major targets, even if it means that those targets are somewhat less accessible.

This issue also raises the first question again: In interpreting the Constitution, who can decide what an "unreasonable" search is? Is it right for a murder suspect to decide that all searches of his garage are fine, but his car and basement are unreasonable?

7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

Yes. Businesses without regulation of any kind have a long history of seeking profit at the expense of everyone else. In the 1800s, slaves labored to feed the profits of the landowners. In the early 1900s, workers faced long hours in harsh conditions for low wages, feeding the profits of their corporate masters. Now, companies often try to sacrifice product safety and quality in pursuit of higher profit margins, and only regulation stands in their way. The "free market" isn't a viable option in most cases, because without antitrust regulations, there's nothing preventing the current market leader from simply buying out a competitor and inflating prices.

8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?

Yes. They're all attacks on the current economic policy, mostly phrased such that reform seems appealing without considering the full effect of such policies or understanding their basic in modern theory.

Ron Paul supporters are big fans of this approach, because it lets them call to emotion on several fronts, bringing up people's dislike for taxes, loss of control, and fear of complexity. Under the guise of simplifying things for freedom, Ron Paul's populist campaign seeks to reject silly things like "history" and "evidence" from economics, claiming that predicting economic action is impossible.

Re:I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287922)

Econ 101:

1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution? 2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt? 3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost? 4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)? 5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes? 6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties? 7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?

1. If we don't interpret a constitution, how will anyone know what's written in it?

2. Both individuals and governments who don't understand debt end up in trouble. First, debt is a great tool. If you have a fantastic business idea that requires a lot of money (that you don't have at the moment), borrow. If your country is in a recession and you need to kickstart the economy, spend over your budget. It works. However, debt should only be used for one time expenses that you can repay. If you use debt to fund recurring short term costs, you'll never get out of it, and you end up in trouble. If you understand debt and use it when it is supposed to be used, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with debt.

3. I don't know what exactly you mean by "control", but technically, if the government was to have no control over money supply and cost, the government would shut down completely (or almost completely). A recession would become worse if the government watched it become worse by spending less (because revenue decreases) and not changing monetary policy. By kick starting the economy, everyone benefits because the economy is moving again. The government can recover money once the economy is growing quickly. This doesn't mean, however, that government does not need to create an environment that promotes growth.

5. How else does can the government run? (You also don't want it to run on debt)

6. That you cannot steal from someone else's house is diminishing individual liberties. That you cannot kill anyone you wish is also diminishing individual liberties. We will only have true individual liberty if there is no such thing as a punishable crime and all forms of punishment, incentives and regulation are removed from the role of the government. Yet again you demonstrate a bizarre and unexplained hate towards the idea of government.

7. If you don't, they can steal from you, not give you your money back and even "money" may not exist.

Answering "no" to the questions 1-7 is effectively asking the government to shut itself down. Since I believe that the government plays an important role in society and should not be shut down, I cannot agree with you.

How is this related to censorship in India?

Re:I'm offended (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287528)

That's why I propose to establish a Sortition [wikipedia.org] system where a body of randomly selected jurors (obviously screened for violent crimes, mental health, etc) would be given governing power over the region the jurors are from. The State Jury might decide to elect one of the State Governor candidates as State Minister, but they will retain power to oversee and override his/her decisions, as well as the power to remove or add members to the Minister's Cabinet. The system could be established at any single level or number of levels but I can see it working from City Juries to Federal Juries replacing the President.

The same should be used for the legislative branch. There is no reason to select 2 rich guys to represent a million average people, specially when these 2 guys aren't even required to follow on their candidacy promises. A representative sample of the people who will actually live under the laws they pass is a much better choice. Heck, a Grand Jury is about 23 people strong and that's just to take a guy to trial.

And yes, the system isn't perfect. The Jury might turn out to be filled with racist, homophobic ass-holes. It might turn out to be composed entirely of ignorant creationist folk who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed. But we already elect people who are racist, homophobic, ignorant creationist people who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed.

And I'm sure blackmailing 23 people is harder than blackmailing just one.

India is a democratic country, right? (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286618)

If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?

Re:India is a democratic country, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286896)

This coming from someone in the US (presumably from the handle) -- the country where you were not till recently debating over the birth certificate of your president? And the land of Herman Cain and Anthony Weiner? (Granted one was not exactly nominated/elected)

Re:India is a democratic country, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287230)

This coming from someone in the US (presumably from the handle) -- the country where you were not till recently debating over the birth certificate of your president?

Sure, if by "debating" you mean "mocking everyone who seriously suggested there was even a debate to be had".

And the land of Herman Cain and Anthony Weiner? (Granted one was not exactly nominated/elected)

Neither was the other. Well, Weiner was elected as a Congressman, but you obviously meant "nominated/elected for the Presidency".

Re:India is a democratic country, right? (4, Insightful)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287084)

If military coups are so good, why is Pakistan such a hotbed of terrorism and nuclear proliferation?

Re:India is a democratic country, right? (2)

Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287274)

People with integrity rarely enter politics; the ones that do rarely rise to the top.

Re:India is a democratic country, right? (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287362)

If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?

I am not sure if you mean this as a criticism of democracy or not, but - part of the price of democracy is that people are given the power to vote stupid people in who do dumb things. (Assuming we are talking about a "real" democracy with fair elections, not one of the sham ones - I am not sure where India falls here.)

If they have a real democracy, then after this dumb idea is rolled out and fails spectacularly, then they should have the ability to vote in a new politician who promises to remove it.

I understand it doesn't always work that way in practice, even in real democracies, but that is the idea and there's not really a lot of better ones out there. I've always loved that Winston Churchill quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Re:India is a democratic country, right? (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287792)

While I'm not entirely sure how good or bad the Indian elections are... I do know that Indian people have a deep racism/classism for one of their Indian subgroups (I forget the actual name given to these people, but they get the shittiest jobs possible in their society and have been abused multiple ways over their history)... I also know that Indian government houses deep corruption where anyone with money and status can have anyone 'lesser' (basically anyone who doesn't have the means to do the same to the other person) then them hauled off to be tortured by the police with no penalty to them whether the accusations were right or wrong.

India really has always been on my list of places never to go to a jail in... The middle East and a large portion of Asia also fall into that category... Quite alot of Africa as well.

Re:India is a democratic country, right? (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287370)

If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?

Because demcracy as practiced by the western world requires that people vote for politicians.

Civil disobedience. (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286394)

The only route that is left to us at this point. in all countries, around entire world. we the people should just ignore those would-be controllers.

Re:Civil disobedience. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286490)

The only route that is left to us at this point. in all countries, around entire world. we the people should just ignore those would-be controllers.

Oh, for fuck's sake, that's your answer to everything. Social injustice? Civil disobedience. The upper class getting away with blatant fraud? Civil disobedience. Parking tickets because the spot wasn't marked? Civil disobedience. You couldn't get an Egg McMuffin because they stopped serving breakfast just two minutes before you got there? Civil disobedience. That cute girl you see at the laundromat won't go out with you? Civil disobedience. It's really just about the civil disobedience at this point, isn't it?

Re:Civil disobedience. (3, Funny)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286528)

That cute girl you see at the laundromat won't go out with you? Civil disobedience.

Absolutely. It's clearly a government conspiracy that she won't go out with you.

Re:Civil disobedience. (0)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286606)

That cute girl you see at the laundromat won't go out with you? Civil disobedience.

Nope! Chuck Testa.

Re:Civil disobedience. (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287406)

That cute girl you see at the laundromat won't go out with you? Civil disobedience.

Absolutely. It's clearly a government conspiracy that she won't go out with you.

If only there were some way of coming across as a dangerous rebel.....I know.....CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!!

Re:Civil disobedience. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286598)

at this point ?

yes. just search this site for surveillance, repression, censorship and public enemy practices by governments, corporation and even judiciary. it will be enough.

Re:Civil disobedience. (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286608)

Oh, for fuck's sake, that's your answer to everything. Social injustice?

What's the alternative? Blind social acceptance?

Censoring the Internet != Afternoon Egg McMuffin...

Re:Civil disobedience. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286988)

If they don't use CP as the bait then it's usually that old bogie Terrorism. No-one in the media has the brains or balls to understand that filtering won't do much to either of these.

Re:Civil disobedience. (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287264)

If they don't use CP as the bait then it's usually that old bogie Terrorism. No-one in the media has the brains or balls to understand that filtering won't do much to either of these.

That or, being shrewd businessmen overseeing a large flow of information (only some of which makes it to prime time), they understand very well that it won't do anything. Instead, they view rampant Statism and centralization of human life in terms of consequentialism, i.e. they believe it serves some kind of "greater good" so any evils it perpetrates are somehow worth while.

Consequentialism is simply the idea that "the ends always justify the means". It's the belief that you can do a truly good thing using evil and dehumanizing methods. It's the way fanatics and worshippers of power tend to think. There are both, in abundance, in the mainstream media. The media is always sympathetic to power grabs. They are happy to report with entire articles why it's for your own good, with maybe a sentence or two that reads "but some groups express privacy concerns" without ever covering what they are or whether they are well-founded.

They are unwise but they're simply not that stupid. Otherwise they wouldn't be so effective. At some point it has to be deliberate because they sympathize with Statism and want to bring it about, either because they believe in it whole-heartedly or because they believe it's inevitable and think they will be rewarded for their early compliance.

Re:Civil disobedience. (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287424)

Oh, for fuck's sake, that's your answer to everything. Social injustice?

What's the alternative? Blind social acceptance?

You could always join them. I'm sure you could pick up a Nazi uniform cheap on Ebay.

Censoring the Internet != Afternoon Egg McMuffin...

...and torture isn't a big mac, fries and a small coke. Your point? ;-)

Re:Civil disobedience. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287488)

...and torture isn't a big mac, fries and a small coke. Your point? ;-)

I get it; you like gherkins, don't you?

Re:Civil disobedience. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286532)

I like the idea, but in general I think the kiddie-porn card trumps it. In a poll on the Swedish (arguably one of the countries where the dislike of censorship is strongest) hardware site Sweclockers (http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/14807-telia-filtrerar-internet-for-att-blockera-barnporr) 44% thinks "filtering" the internet for kiddie porn is a good course of action, while merely 39% see it for the counter-productive slippery slope that it is.

If kiddie porn is such a strong argument for censorship in Sweden, I'd imagine it be even stronger in other countries. Sorry.

makes sense (1)

pinfall (2430412) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286410)

What will all those Indian FB and +1 social media spammers do when they are suddenly out of work?

Silencing Dissent (5, Insightful)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286450)

Silencing dissent... Yet another American "job" getting outsourced.

I jest, but it's not like the US (where I was born and live) hasn't tried this sort of thing. The Internet kill switch, taking down sites without due process, and the need to filter the whole country.

This sort of shit needs to stop. Which will only happen when the government is "for the people" again, and not "for the corporations."

Re:Silencing Dissent (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286630)

He's already getting hit with a lot of backlash: #IdiotKapilSibal [twitter.com]
This move by India probably has a lot to do with this summer's online anger over government corruption that eventually
morphed into real world protests and forced the Indian Government to pass anti-corruption laws to placate the people.

It's part of India's long term goal to be able to track and silence those they consider trouble makers and rabble rousers.

Re:Silencing Dissent (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287014)

The good news is this: with rapid economic development and relatively high birth rates (I think?), India has a youth culture boom on its hands. With luck, India will develop a mass counterculture of dissatisfied youth who will in effect say "Fuck that shit". I did say "with luck".

Re:Silencing Dissent (2)

ITConsultant (2525166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286776)

As a professional IT consultant, I feel I must disagree with you.

You joke, but you bring up a serious point that supports the idea that America continues to be a world innovator--"silencing dissent", as you so aptly put it, just happens to be the next natural step toward technological progress. It is merely a step back in order to take take two steps forward; that is, if the American people wish it to be so. Many seem content with a "not in my backyard" philosophy.

I gladly welcome "this sort of shit" because "this sort of shit" needs IT to stay afloat while also bringing the general populace closer to their breaking point; maybe one day they'll come to their own senses of whether or not they enjoy freedoms when accessing networks.

On a personal note, it is nice to know that there will be need for people with my skills back home when I decide cease the extension of my H-1B. Any network blacklisting and censorship techniques that I learn will be good practice for when my home country follows in America's footsteps.

Re:Silencing Dissent (3, Insightful)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287026)

.. maybe one day they'll come to their own senses of whether or not they enjoy freedoms when accessing networks ...

I cite the boiling frog meme. This is not the way to defend freedoms. If people sit around letting it happen, they will awake ome day as slaves.

Re:Silencing Dissent (3, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287638)

Frog boiling applies poorly to politics. People's expectations of freedom slowly increase. That's why surfdom, absolute monarchy, and slavery are no longer acceptable. I am quite certain that our current control-oriented mindset is temporary. Eventually, it will become intolerable (we're already nearing it), and the result will be greater freedom overall than before. That process might be avoidable, but history suggests oppression comes slowly, and freedom comes in greater bursts.

There is another meme that applies: to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.

Re:Silencing Dissent (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286906)

The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.

You'll notice, he said to "eliminate", not filter.

Call me paranoid, but I think that's a not-so-subtle death threat directed at Richard Gere [msn.com] .

Typical politician (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286474)

Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were ‘ex facie objectionable.’”

Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".

Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.

Re:Typical politician (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286526)

I've been saying that about the Holocaust (in Europe) for a long time.

Re:Typical politician (3, Interesting)

subreality (157447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286990)

I'm not sure it's done for self-serving reasons, but it's bullshit either way:

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by,"

I don't think I could write a better one-sentence example of institutional conformism. "Normal human beings" are a myth, and even if such a thing existed, they have no inherent right to censor the abnormal ones. Almost everyone can be offended by the words of another sane, sincere human being.

Can I claim to be a normal human being who is offended by this proposal? Perhaps HE should be censored.

Dear Telecom/Information Technology Minister Kapil (0)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286500)

Fuck You Asshole.

Re:Dear Telecom/Information Technology Minister Ka (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286522)

.. and the train you rode on the outside, in, on.

I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM! (2, Interesting)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286518)

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me unless I'm China or India. How long do these countries have to be civilized before they develop enough confidence to withstand an insult? What are we at now, 5,000 years, 8,000 years and they still can't take a few unkind words? Maybe they should think about starting again, from scratch. Scratching in the dirt with a stick, to plant some food that is, right back to the beginning.

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM! (3, Insightful)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286674)

I'd draw a small distinction between a country itself and the idiots running it. But this guy is one prize moron for sure.

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM! (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286712)

A moron, really? I don't think censorship is particularly moronic. Just evil. Do think the government doesn't know what it's doing? What would you do if you were an evil overlord?

Re:I find this minister offensive, CENSOR HIM! (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286890)

Civilization doesn't mean a constant state of progress. China and India both have newish governments that took steps backwards in some ways. Hell, this year Americans could no longer bear the sight of lovely asses in the Victoria's Secret show.

Goes to show... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286540)

Apparently, all the smart Indians have already emigrated.

Offensive content? (4, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286572)

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.

Re:Offensive content? (1)

nickmalthus (972450) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286620)

Good point. If a piece of content was universally offensive then it would never be created because the authors of the content would be offended by the idea and not manifest it into reality.

Re:Offensive content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287364)

Nope, the guy cleverly said "normal human beings". If you aren't offended by exactly the same things he is then you don't count because you aren't a normal human being (otherwise you'd agree with him).

This isn't too bad if Indians agree with this shit (they are against porn on the Internet, no?). The idea I have of Indians is they're pretty conservative, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are ok with this.

Re:Offensive content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286970)

BUT, do normal human beings frequent slashdot?

Re:Offensive content? (1)

stevenfuzz (2510476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287134)

The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs.

Re:Offensive content? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287868)

There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.

I'm offended by censorship.

Re:Offensive content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287872)

I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally

Let's see, there is the famous 3 guys, 1 hammer [bestgore.com] video. The participants in this video (except for the victim) did it for entertainment.

Here is a video of a woman being stoned to death [bestgore.com] in Pakistan, presumably for committing adultery.

Here is a leaked photo of Michael Jackson, dead on a gurney [bestgore.com] .

If the comments on this video are any indication, most people are offended by the actions of this family court judge [youtube.com] .

Here is a woman crying while being gang raped [newsfilter.org] .

Perhaps none of these things offend you. I think they offend most people.

Re:Offensive content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287906)

Politics seem to offend most people in one time or another. When the offensive political content goes too far into the realms of illegal, the offense turns into sorrow. In other words, offensive content is content which taken into extreme is saddening.

What if I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286582)

What if I am not a normal human being? Have I not the right to see content that will not offend me?

Re:What if I (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286720)

Application forms for the Catholic priesthood are available in the lobby

Who gets to decide? (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286590)

..any normal human being

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"? What's next for this jackass? Is he going to "decide" what is and is not art? *facepalm*

Re:Who gets to decide? (3, Funny)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286670)

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is

i do.... I'm normal, everyone else is weird.

Re:Who gets to decide? (0)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286696)

You go right on telling yourself that, sweetie, your naivete is utterly adorable.

Re:Who gets to decide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286886)

Your reply, directed at an obvious joke, comes off as bitter.

Re:Who gets to decide? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287374)

Your reply, directed at an obvious joke, comes off as bitter.

Re:Who gets to decide? (3, Informative)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286732)

The ministry of truth.

Re:Who gets to decide? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287434)

The ministry of truth.

Hey, great band!!!

Re:Who gets to decide? (1)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287094)

And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"?

Weeell, we usually understand this word as meaning the common, usual, average etc., but there's another, less know meaning that works quite well in this context: "normal" as that which adheres to a "norm". I doubt this politician used it in this way though. But if he did, he could answer with: "Why, ${BELIEF_SYSTEM}'s normative specialists, evidently!"

At which point you'd reply: "Good enough, yes, except for the fact that, according to ${MY_BELIEF_SYSTEM}, it's ${BELIEF_SYSTEM} that's abnormal."

Rinse, repeat, and watch the whole thing eventually collapsing in a puff of logic.

Re:Who gets to decide? (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287670)

Not to mention that what people generally see as "normal" varies widly between place and country of origin, education and religion -- if any. There is no magical norm that is world-wide unless you go to REALLY basic stuff, such as eating, sleeping and breathing. There's hardly a consensus on what's "normal" even among people from one, single nation, yet alone multiple countries. Even such a regular concept as marriage can differ a lot, like e.g. in some places marriage can be polygamous instead of monogamous, in some places it gives actual physical ownership of the partner to the other one, how one celebrates a marriage can vary from brooding alone to feasting and partying wildly and so on.

Besides, why is it even seen as a positive thing to be considered "normal" at all? Being "normal" more-or-less means you conform to expectations from people around you and their moral and ethic codes, thereby becoming just another one of the crowd. Wouldn't it be a more positive thing not to necessarily conform, to make up your own decisions and arguments and make up your own view on the world around you? Atleast I personally am totally proud to be "abnormal"; I'll promise to never conform.

go back to writing poor code (1)

bmimatt (1021295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286604)

He obviously fails to understand the core nature of the Internet.  Maybe he should go back to the spaghetti code factory he probably came from.

Great Idea! (1)

PvtVoid (1252388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286748)

Start with Slashdot dupes [slashdot.org] .

It's more childlike than evil (1)

ribbitman (262367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286798)

The idea that one guy can speak for all normal people is one thing, but when coupled with his thought that, "Yeah...we'll just stick a bunch of normal people in a room and make them delete clearly offensive material off the internet as soon as it's created" is frakking ADORABLE.

Duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286864)

I can only say, what a moron! This pinhead doesn't deserve to represent human people...

Censorship (2)

BlackHornet (2526072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38286928)

I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude. In democratic countries politicians use it to please people who chose them, so the problem is in the mindset of the majority. For politicians it is always easier to play with those things that don't require a lot of effort.

Re:Censorship (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287060)

I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude.

Right: "even though I have no good evidence whether the effects of whatever are bad or not, I don't like it so that is enough. I am told it is bad therefore it is". This is the central idea of fascism.

He's right, but it's not that simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286962)

"There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by,""

Well, yeah, but if furries can't be on the internet, then where are they going to show up instead? Maybe the public street in front of your house. And then what?

And as much as I and most other people find GOTO offensive, you're still going to need it to be on the internet in order to explain why it's a bad thing.

India wishes to censor Social media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286976)

The headline is misleading. It can move all it wants, but in the end it just a wish because they have no means to block.

follow the leader? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286992)

it is a dangerous step down China's censorship path

I dunno, China seems to be managing just fine despite our best pessimistic outlooks.
Perhaps the Indians are onto something here.

Wrong target cendored. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38286996)

They need to censor ISLAM. Why? Islam is a thing that wishes to censor YOU. Islam is a thing where worshiping the concept is more important than the people.

They're doing it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287096)

In the UK, a woman was arrested after a youtube video of her saying 'racist' things on a tram went viral.

I think the UK provides a much better model for controlling the thoughts of the population. Right now in the UK, you basically cannot say anything that the govt declares 'illegal' without this possibility of this happening. Can India say the same? In India this video would have been banned and they would never have found the woman in it (she wasn't the person taking the video).

Yay Internet Prohibition! (1)

stevenfuzz (2510476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287116)

This makes perfect sense, because offensiveness is completely objective. In fact, the terms of being offended are as woven into the human condition as being bi-pedal and having five fingers; as is apparently the humans knack for devolving society. Great stuff India, this is definitively what you should spend your time and resources enforcing.

wholesale NFL jersey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287526)

These are popular because who can make a collect as much as feasible can be suitable for every game they watches. The buyer ought to be circumspect, a duplicate was sold for a true- the cost NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] is much higher Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] than they ought to sell. You don't require to finish up paying a duplicate, will soon become obsolete by the finish of the season. Lots of stores now have their jerseys & online shop. This make it simpler for people to buy cheap NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] nfl jerseys, because they will only log in to an account to see the whole contents of the Jersey obtainable. Most of the shops are all brand, the MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] team, the fans can get state, so his hands were as lots of as feasible in the jersey.

Offended? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38287646)

And what exactly is wrong with being offended? Someone calls one an arsehole - one may get offended. So what? Maybe there was a fair reason. Maybe it's not even related to actual discussion. Forbidding to call someone retarded is retarded (offense intended).

Seeding ideas of limitation of free speech as a norm into masses is much more dangerous than posting any sort of perversion and IMHO is a more serious crime. It's only difference with trying to destroy current state is that the state is interested in protecting itself, so mostly countries around the world declare such activity as the heaviest crime, while freedom of speech is actually guarded only when there is enough people that actually consider consequences.

All modern wars start with propaganda. Killing free speech is the best that one can do to make propaganda effective. Nothing matters afterwards - one in power can turn black to white and vice-versa as much as it will. Now I'm not so extreme to consider India invading someone (yet). But war is not only about shooting.

Internet have become the most important point of defense against not so secret will of any government to "Divide and conquer". It's a holy grail. Guard it. You will fail when there will be no offended people anymore.

(kivig)

ferrous sulfate ,manganese sulfate (-1, Offtopic)

zincsulfates (2483892) | more than 2 years ago | (#38287850)

Magnesium Sulfate [rqsulfates.com] If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity? Ferrous Sulfate [rqsulfates.com] and Zinc sulfate [rqsulfates.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>