×

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!

Indian Court Orders Google To Remove Content

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the never-happened dept.

Google 477

itwbennett writes "A Court in Delhi, India has ordered Google to remove content that 'is said to mock gods worshipped in India,' according to an IDG News Service report. Mufti Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi, a private citizen, 'had filed a civil suit against Google and other Internet companies including Facebook, objecting to certain content on their websites.' While Google agreed to remove the content, citing a 'long-standing policy of responding to court orders,' other Internet companies named in the suit are likely to appeal."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

477 comments

Reasonable decision (-1)

PraFrentex (2513336) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942301)

It all depends on the extend of the mockery here.

Re:Reasonable decision (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942361)

"No person, no idea, and no religion deserves to be illegal to insult." --RMS

Re:Reasonable decision (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942687)

This. I am a deeply religious person, and sometimes offended by the insults of unbelievers, but I will defend to the death their right to insult.

Re:Reasonable decision (2)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942835)

As an unbeliever I an deeply insulted by religion, and the irrational behaviour it seems to be leading to.
If we were to ban everything which is insulting to anyone, we'd have nothing left to look at.

Again, the quote is a good one, that while I may not agree with someone, I 'll defend their right to say it.

Re:Reasonable decision (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942885)

You just censor for different things. You hate copyrighted stuff and god knows what else. According to Google, US had asked for 92 content removals requests which took out close to 800 items. India just had 400 items removed from 68 requests.

For a country with 'free speech' you sure dont sound free to me.

Fuck RMS. (1, Offtopic)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942923)

How come I agree with that fuckup RMS, everytime! He is an asshole for thinking like me. I came up with those idas too, albeit later, yet independently. Fuck that, RMS. ;)

Re:Reasonable decision (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942453)

It all depends on the extend of the mockery here.

Let's call it "The Rise Of The State"

21st cenury marked by people rising up, overthrowing unjust tyranical regimes, meanwhile democracies pare away the rights of the people. Anyone see irony here?

Re:Reasonable decision (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942677)

Let's see.

So now we've had:
-India
-China
-Saudi Arabia
-Turkey
-France
-USA

Of course, that's just the "official state reactions" trying to force some sort of speech off the internet. Then there's MafiAA goon tactics, and of course the Mohammed Cartoons stuff which was "officially stateless" (though Iran, and a few of the other terrorist groups, had a bounty on the head of cartoonists for a while if I remember right).

The one I find most disheartening is the USA. Remember when they actually believed in their whole First Amendment thing? Yeah, that hasn't been the case since Nixon apparently.

Re:Reasonable decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942785)

India has No Jurisdiction in the USA
USA is a sovereign nation. So Google can Just Mock them for another reason,
  Personally , I'd deface their Cow-dung court order and send it back to them

its not 'state' stupid. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942895)

is google obeying any orders from any north korean goverment agency or court ? no. or abu dhabi ? or, yemen ?

google and others are obeying the 'state' only in countries they are making money.

in short, its basic capitalism. and its symptom is lack of spine and principles - do no evil, until your market share is in danger.

The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people (4, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942305)

A big hardy "FUCK YOU!"

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942483)

More seriously:

1) Your god is too weak/inferior/doesn't exist thus cannot punish me... you're not serious suggesting you are more powerful/all knowing that your own god and therefore usurping his power and position to judge, are you? This is the change of venue strategy.

2) The holy texts of religion X basically mock religion Y therefore lets ban religion X before wasting time on the inter-tubes. This is the distraction strategy.

3) Share the links. Mass civil disobedience strategy. Sooo.... lets go for it. Lemme guess, its something really creative like a link to the new testament at PG...

Re:The only proper way to 'appeal' to these people (4, Insightful)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942869)

Agreed. besides why do the believers feel the need to handle insults for their deities?
I'd think that all powerful beings would be amply capable of smiting anyone they themselves deem to have insulted them, and find it quite revealing that so far none have done so.

Indian Government (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942323)

I've heard it said that the Indian Government mocks gods worshiped in India, therefor Google should delist all official Indian government sites.

When does Religion Trump our Rights? (3, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942327)

So it's ok to say anything you want, but don't offend religion? What happend to freedom of speech? I think the world is better off without Religion if you ask me!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (1, Informative)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942429)

well freedom of religion is a benefit for Americans (and i'm certain some countries of which i am unfamiliar). google is an international company and thusly subject to the laws of each country in which it intends to conduct business activities.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (5, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942431)

This is India, not the US. Although I'm not familiar with the Indian government, I they don't follow the United State's First Amendment to the same degree we pretend to follow it her and in much of the West.

Although Religion may be outdated, we can thank it for many cultural and technological advances, even in modern fields such as genetics.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (3, Interesting)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942537)

We can also thank it for the inquisition and the dark ages. While we're at it, why don't we thank it for the Bush administration and it's stifling of scientific progress. To defend religion as a friend of and benefactor to scientific advances is akin to thanking colonial slavery for having a black president.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942579)

While we're at it, why don't we thank it for the Bush administration and it's stifling of scientific progress.

You mean, by becoming the first Administration to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (1, Interesting)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942665)

I think you mean the first to completely cut all funding for embryonic stem cell research. There is a pretty broad consensus in the scientific community that these guys were not friend to advancement and if you could possibly prove otherwise I'd love to see some proof.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (5, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942853)

Before George W. Bush, the federal government provided zero funding for any embryonic stem cell research. Under George W. Bush, the federal government provided funding for some embryonic stem cell research. You may not like the restrictions he placed on such federal funding, but he was the first President to provide any such funding. This source clearly lays out the timeline [allaboutpo...issues.org] in the seond to last paragraph.
One of the things you will find is that a large portion of the "scientific community" exists within colleges and universities, which view anyone who believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions as ignorant heathens.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942671)

And we can thank science for WMDs, eugenics, pollution of the environment, human experimentation, and a list of other things far too long to put here.

Or maybe we can just put the blame where it belongs, which is on the people who actually do these evils and use science or religion as cover

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (3, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942795)

To be fair, I don't think that science really has an agenda to push other than the furthering of human understanding. WMD's and Eugenics were actually developed by science, for wars which are more often than not brought about by religious zealots.

No one's hands are clean, but it's not like these people would have come up with this stuff without the motivation of pleasing their deities.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (0)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942607)

Religion NEVER helped in the advancement of technology. Throughout history, Religion has prosecutted scientists, because their discoveries went against the Religious Doctrin! If the world Blindly followed Religious Code, we would be living in the Stone Ages still!

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942699)

Religion NEVER helped in the advancement of technology. Throughout history, Religion has prosecutted scientists, because their discoveries went against the Religious Doctrin! If the world Blindly followed Religious Code, we would be living in the Stone Ages still!

That's nothing but a faith-based statement.

Ironically.

It's wrong, too.

Worshiping at the altar of non-religion is still worshiping.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942733)

Not entirely true. A lot of early science and math came out of the Islamic world. Think of it the next time you do algebra (al jabr).

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942907)

"Out of Islamic" or "out of Arabic"?

Did mullahs and muftis watch the stars, build mathematical systems, study human anatomy and so on, or did they support this research, or did they just not impede it?

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (3, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942959)

Islamic and Arabic in that timeframe were used interchangeably. Mullahs and muftis might not have but hakims did. Under early Islam studying science was akin to studying Allah.

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (5, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942519)

It just makes me ask, as an atheist, can I file a suit that says all references to God mocks my opinion and have Google remove those links from every search?

(Disclaimer: Devils's Advocate [no pun intended] only. I have no problem what you do with your personal life... just keep it personal.)

Re:When does Religion Trump our Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942851)

A world without "religion" maybe, but a world without a spiritual element, God if you like, would be a sad world indeed.

rgds

ps. The captcha offered me "effigy" how weird is that!

cuz yknow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942347)

if we don't they will get moderately irate and insist we leave their convenience store immediately...

if they were carnivores they might be fearsome.

The guy filing the suit is a muslim (3, Interesting)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942353)

Feel free to be politically correct and mod me down.

But elections being this close, and due to the victory being uncertain because of corruption scandals, the ruling congress party in India is out to appease the muslims who vote en-masse.

And muslims have long since been against freedom of speech and expression of non-muslims. If Google complies, it gives them a tool to get those mohammed cartoons removed from internet permanently. "Gods worshiped in India" indeed. Save for some lunatic fringe groups, hindus in general, tend to usually ignore such stuff. Or at least, barring some peaceful protest, they are at least not out to kill the heretics.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (0)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942427)

Just another example of proof that the only function of Islam is to restrict freedom of those not Muslim.

Islam is so toxic that, like Communism, anyone advocating it deserves to be liquidated. The social restrictions imposed by Islam are unfit for modern man, so the only "good" Muslim is a dead one.

Too bad the Hindu didn't boot them ALL to Pakistan during the Partition or just slay them in place.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942485)

You obviously don't know the definition of Communism.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (1)

Drew_9999 (750818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942533)

Overreact much?

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942965)

But is he wrong? In europe we have people being tried for blasphemy against islam. In malaysia we have people being murdered for blasphemy against islam. In the middle east well, that's pretty common, so we'll let that slide or should we? In parts of africa where islam is coming to the front the same thing is happening. So, is he really wrong?

Or is he pointing out that burying your heads in the sand and being politically correct is signing your own death sentence in terms of free speech. Well actually it might just be signing your own death. I mean, just think of those cartoons...

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (1, Troll)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942771)

I've seen this a lot out of the Fox News crowd. I don't like X, and I don't like Y, therefore X == Y. Observe: I don't like me some Communism, I don't like Muslims, therefore Muslims are as bad as Commies. Pull yourself out of the Cold War. The only reason Capitalism has won out is that human greed is much easier to predict than human compassion.

toxic ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942919)

you probably meant capitalism aka unrestricted feudalism. or, you dont know the definition of communism.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942447)

And muslims have long since been against freedom of speech and expression of non-muslims.

You'll get modded down, but there is no concept of this, it's true.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942465)

Much of that might be true, except removing cartoons from the Internet permanently. Contrary to popular belief, Google is neither the Internet nor do they control a significant portion of the Internet. It may become more difficult to find, but content on the Internet is damned near immortal.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942489)

Christians have an equally long tradition of opposing freedom of speech when it's not in their taste. And of cause in much of Europe it is still illegal to publicly criticize the Jewish faith.

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942765)

I am an Indian (live in the US now) and am a Hindu (by birth - I really don't care much for any religion personally) and I find your description to be biased and false. Just as Hindus in general, are laid back about most things, so too are the Muslims. I had the good fortune of studying in a Jesuit run school in a relatively poor, muslim neighborhood in Mumbai, and I had several close friends across many religions. Hindus are just as "against freedom of speech and expression" as are the Muslims. You are just deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

You need no more proof than to look at cases such as the artist M.F.Husain, who was pretty much exiled from the country by Hindu fundamentalists who were outraged that he depicted some Hindu deities in the nude.

"Or at least, barring some peaceful protest, they are at least not out to kill the heretics" - Yeah, sure, tell that to all the victims of the Gujarat riots at the hands of crazed Hindu fundamentalists (with complicity from the pro-Hindu state government).

Re:The guy filing the suit is a muslim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942865)

Muslims are laid back? Really?!!! Tell it to the numerous muslim terrorist groups out to burn the world.

Name even one Hindu terrorist group operating outside India.

How many of the 911 terrorists were Hindus? Do let us know moron! Do let us know if M.F. Hussain got assassinated. And then check up on how many film makes and authors got assassinated for insulting Islam. Better still google up Salman Rushdie. If you wish to defend your muslim religion, at least stop pretending and claiming to be a Hindu.

moron (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942953)

Tell it to the numerous muslim terrorist groups out to burn the world.

all of them are either remnants of the era in which u.s. funded and armed islamist to 'counter' soviet influence, or groups propped up by usa and israel later, in order to replace the threat they lost with the warsaw pact with something else to be able to justify military spending, freedom-restriction and invasions.

if you check them out, you will find out that almost all of the leaders of those organizations have been educated neatly in either britain or usa. and their relatives have ties with cia or mossad.

If only all superstitionists had but one throat... (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942357)

...and my hands were on it.

Re:If only all superstitionists had but one throat (3, Interesting)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942575)

We need a "Artistic" rating.

Re:If only all superstitionists had but one throat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942905)

I think "Poetic" might be the better tag here. An image of Shiva clutching all eight of Superstitions throats, that would be Artist. Mocking, and eventually Filtered and Blocked, but Artistic.

Google is subject to ... (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942359)

... the long arm of Indian law. All six of them.

Re:Google is subject to ... (2)

Tweezak (871255) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942421)

counting down until /. is ordered to remove the above comment...5...4...3...2...

Re:Google is subject to ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942557)

Actually, the party involved in this lawsuit is Muslim. But don't let the facts stop your bigotry.

Re:Google is subject to ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942649)

hey.....stop that....didn't you read the headline atleast? besides, it is eight arms, not six. you just insulted thailand religion. beware the wrath of the king!

We are not all members of your religion. (3, Insightful)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942365)

If I am not a member of your religion then I don't want your stupid religious crap affecting me. In any way.

This can be applied to any religious group complaining about content offensive to their religion(I think we know the usual culprit here).

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (3, Funny)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942413)

I say we start a new religion, and have as our holy symbol a rectangle with three horizontal stripes; orange, white, and green. And we find any other use of similar symbols, especially with other iconography added in, to be deeply insulting to our beliefs. Then move to India... umm... step 4... Profit!

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942547)

orange white and green? will our holiest holiday be March 17th? because if this is what i think it is, i'm on board with a pint of Guinness!

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942655)

he said horizontal stripes and ones you are thinking of are vertical

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (2)

ElBeano (570883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942901)

Enough Guinness and who cares? One probably won't be able to tell the difference.

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942691)

I say we start a new religion, and have as our holy symbol a rectangle with three horizontal stripes; orange, white, and green.

I'm thinking more like a green square with a white diagonal slash from lower left to upper right and a white dot at the lower right corner.
Often seen flying in close formation with the skull and crossbones flag. Holy prophets are RMS, Linus and maybe the goatse guy.
Extremely heavily overstaffed with male vestal virgins. Holy sites beyond the obvious are the googleplex, apple hq, 4chan, kuro5hin, and mom's basement.
Every religion has weird restrictions and sins, our will be microsoft, all other religions, all 1% political parties (all of them?), showering or other forms of bathing, and the all forms of computerized electronic gaming are sinful and untouchable except boring FPS remakes/sequels.
Rather than a hierarchical power structure, lower UIDs are higher up in the organization (kneel before my five digits, lowly 1163751)

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (1)

Ixitar (153040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942947)

And the invokation of the holy sacrament is "Bibo ergo sum"

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942639)

It's not just religion. How many people here in the U.S. want removed from public discourse?

Re:We are not all members of your religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942927)

If I am not a member of your religion then I don't want your stupid religious crap affecting me. In any way.

This too is very similar to how the rest of the world views the United States and their opinionated reasoning that their domestic laws apply to all inhabitants of this planet. Yet the Merkins continue to attempt to exhort undue pressure upon people who are neither citizens nor residents of the country.

An American company getting a rough deal in a foreign court? Boo-hoo, my heart bleeds for you.

Quite right too (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942371)

All gods are deserving of equal protection under the law, no matter how utterly ludicrous any sane, rational mind would find the completely risible concept of worshipping magical monkeys and frilly-skirted four-armed elephant things.

Re:Quite right too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942627)

Not to mention rubbing cow piss on your neck and forehead like fucking cologne. C'mon why is anyone taking these people seriously.

Streisand Effect (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942375)

If the crusade against depictions of Muhammad is any indication, expect a round of comics around the Hindu gods to come out at any moment.

Re:Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942475)

According to wikipedia, more than one in eight Indians are muslim. The original article doesn't mention what specific content spurred this court order, but it could easily be the Muhammad cartoons that have already been going around for awhile.

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942711)

Keyword: "Mufti".
A Mufti is some kind of "Islam-Expert" who understands Islam so well he has the right to create "Fatwas". A Fatwa is something like a law or a guidance resulting from interpretations of the holy book.
For example, X drew Muhammad, and the holy book says somewhere that you must not draw Muhammad, a Mufti will issue a Fatwa saying that anyone who kills X will go straight to heaven.
Thankfully these Fatwas only happen in retarded countries with a majority of zealous idiots. But every muslim country has a Mufti who works with the government (Generally he's the Minister of Religious stuff), and most of their job resolves around announcing the dates of muslim events (Since they use the Lunar calendar and shit).

But yeah, that's basically it.

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942841)

So basically Ajiaz Arshad Qasmi won a promotion from random zealot in India to random zealot in India who gets a paycheck for saying things like this. Not much change there but I do stand corrected on which religion he's representing.

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942939)

Bingo!

Yup, it has more or less nothing to do with the Hindus, and everything to do with the easily-offended Muslims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16903765 [bbc.co.uk]

"Mr Sibal was angered by morphed photos of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi, as well as pigs running through Islam's holy city of Mecca"

They are just trying to avoid specifically referring to the Mohammed cartoons, to not kick up a shit-storm. But yeah, this is coming from the Muslims.

Why don't the gods remove it themselves? (4, Insightful)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942379)

Gods are rather powerful and knowing. Can't they just deal with this stuff without involving Google?

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves? (4, Insightful)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942497)

So Gods need protection from Google. This is priceless!

Re:Why don't the gods remove it themselves? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942651)

So Gods need protection from Google. This is priceless!

This isn't a protection of God, it's a protection of those men who claim to speak for God. Beware of anyone who claims to speak for God who believes you need to be killed for heresy, blasphemy or simply being in their way of obtaining power. All these crappy extremists, of all strips, are driven by leaders who want power - only when it is too late do the people who served them find they are the first to be oppressed.

"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess... (1)

Fortunato_NC (736786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942393)

Now that it's been firmly established that Google will remove content that courts in whatever $COUNTRY deem blasphemous, I suppose it's only a matter of time before places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Texas start to get in on the action and start censoring content they find offensive, like journal articles on evolutionary biology or pictures of women driving. Way to put (outdated) ideas over people's fundamental rights, Google.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess... (5, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942583)

Google has to comply with the laws of the countries in which it operates. Texas is prevented by the bill of rights from passing laws that limit freedom of religion and religious commentary, so Texas could not legally issue a court order demanding that Google remove such content.

Saudi Arabia and India apparently can, though. Google's choice is to either comply with the laws of those nations or simply cease operations in those nations. Considering that no nation on earth has truly unlimited freedom of speech, let alone the US, it makes sense to make occasional court-ordered concessions by removing data accessible in those countries.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" in action, I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942917)

You're a fucking idiot. They can either comply with these rulings or be held criminally liable. That means that their employees will be arrested and held prisoner.

Why do people not understand that companies are subject to the laws of the nations they're operating in?

Important Distinction (4, Interesting)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942411)

While they have agreed to take down the content in a civil suit, they still face criminal prosecution. In India you are criminally responsible for third party posts to your website, so Google India employees are still facing criminal charges. And agreeing to take it down has destroyed the Google employees' defense that they could not have preemptively taken it down because it is out of their control.

how can a unicorn be invisible AND pink?!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942467)

Your all stupid, and should to what I say.

The alternative argument (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942543)

If the court believes it must remove comments which 'mock gods worshiped in India,' then wouldn't they also have to remove comments which 'mock gods NOT worshiped in India'?

If it is offensive to you, for me to say that your gods are silly myths; why shan't it be offensive to me, for you to say that they are real? I mean, let's be honest, at least I'm right.

Re:The alternative argument (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942821)

I am not sure that there are many gods not worshiped in India. Besides having a large Hindu population, there is also still many Muslims, Buddhists (started in India and Buddha is considered even by Hindus as an incarnation of Vishnu), Christians (Christ also is considered an incarnation of Vishnu by some), and Sikhs.

Re:The alternative argument (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942951)

What I mean is, for every God worshiped, that God is also not worshiped. I thought that was clear, so I apologize for the confusion.

Woo! Hey India!!! (-1, Troll)

heptapod (243146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942591)

Krishna sucks cock and Ganesh's asshole smells like day-old curry!

Try getting all Ghandi on my candy-ass, you cock smoking teabaggers!

One shouldn't mock the religious or retarded but.. (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942645)

It is legal to do so. Otherwise, both the entertainment and news industry as we know them would be gone.

Flying Spaghetti Monster images blasphemous (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942675)

His noodly appendages are clearly drawn incorrectly as a way to mock his starchiness. I demand that /. remove them immediately.

Thank You India (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942747)

I just posted a rant on my FB page about how juvenile American culture is that so many people are upset over a musician doing a "naughty gesture" during the Superbowl half time show and how the news media is STILL talking about a woman's nipple being seen during the same show 8 years prior.

This article about India makes me feel better about the US. Ours isn't the only culture that needs to grow up.

 

Re:Thank You India (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942943)

While I have no problem with nudity - there is a time and place for sexual expression. Is it a good thing to deliberately offend people just for a little publicity? That's what Janet Jackson did. Why are you defending her? Just as it is wrong for "moral" people to prevent the "immoral" from watching lewd acts so it's wrong to inject sexuality or violence in a presumably "neutral" environment. You're missing the point. She purposefully exposed herself for publicity. It's the lame way she pretended it was a wardrobe malfunction. Wasn't she sued by the manufacturer for implying that they sold faulty merchandise? What's there to defend?

Hate to ask, but what was the content? (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942779)

Before I get offended that Google would do such a thing or that India would think that it has jurisdiction. I would like to know what the objectionable material was exactly. If it was something like someone comparing the religious leaders of India to pedophile catholic priests I would understand, but if it was just "your God sucks" then Google should have stood its ground. So does anyone have a link or something that actually describes the offence because the article did not.

Swedish Court Orders Google To Remove Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942819)

"A Court in Stockholm, Sweden has ordered Google to remove content that 'is said to mock religious truths worshipped in Sweden [slashdot.org],' according to an IDG News Service report. Jan Civilperson, a private citizen, 'had filed a civil suit against Google and other Internet companies including Facebook, objecting to certain content on their websites.' While Google agreed to remove the content, citing a 'long-standing policy of responding to court orders,' other Internet companies named in the suit are likely to appeal."

Yessss!!! Long live the official religion of Kopimism [kopimistsamfundet.se]! Finally we can get rid of that blasphemous crap put online by the RIAA/MPAA and other Copyright Devils!

Note: link to kopimistsamfundet seems to be dead; therefore:
        Copying of information is ethically right.
        Dissemination of information is ethically right.
        Copymixing is a sacred kind of copying, moreso than the perfect, digital copying, because it expands and enhances the existing wealth of information
        Copying or remixing information communicated by another person is seen as an act of respect and a strong expression of acceptance and Kopimistic faith.
        The Internet is holy.
        Code is law.

Heretical! (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942843)

I am sure I am not the only person who wishes that we had a search engine for all of the things banned by other search engines. I am glad to see that heretical.com is still up, in spite of all of the attempts to have it shut.

Removed from where? (1, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942845)

Has the content only been removed from all of Google's websites, or just Google India?

It's scary to think of what the Interenet would look like if each and every website had to follow the laws of each and every country. I know the fact that Google has facilities in India puts significant pressure on them to comply, but the thought of being bound by the numerous idiotic laws around the world is extremely worrisome.

Google is apparently adopting a strategy of censoring content on a per-country basis. That's their privilege, but I hope it doesn't become the norm.

brown penis better than yellow penis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38942861)

What happened with google?
When the chicoms told it to roll over it threw some sulky fit and pulled out.
But now it's quite willingly to assume the position and bend over to the Indians?

Crying to your mom (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38942949)

This is the same idea as crying to your mom at the age of 5 when someone's mean to you or when someone says a bad word. Just because some people offend WAY to easily shouldn't be Google's, Facebook's or anyone's issue. If your sensitive to religion that's fine, I'm not about to try and call anyone out for there person belief but realize that people have the right to mock or joke about any religion, if you can't handle that then it's not there problem, it's yours.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...