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!

US Officials Rebuke India's Request To Subpoena Facebook, Google

timothy posted about a year ago | from the sorry-fellas-no-can-do dept.

Censorship 96

hypnosec writes "U.S. officials have told the Indian Government that they will not be able to serve summons to the executives of companies like Google and Facebook because they are not convinced that the content hosted on these sites can cause violence and that these summons impact 'free speech principles.' The reply comes as a response to India's request to the US to help serve papers to 11 Internet companies accused of hosting content on their sites that was meant to fuel communal hatred and violence. The U.S. authorities said that there are limitations when it comes to protection on free speech — when the speech comprises a true threat or provokes imminent violence — but in this particular case there is not sufficient evidence of either of these."

cancel ×

96 comments

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

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629655)

Dear Linux Advocate,

Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html [linuxadvocates.com]

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630331)

Hey Dieter,

Please stop begging for money to fund your own personal soapbox. It's not welcome.

And it's just sad.

hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629677)

They should be commended... for their hypocrisy

Re:hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

The Snowman (116231) | about a year ago | (#43630891)

They should be commended... for their hypocrisy

It isn't hypocrisy, but it isn't what it appears on the surface. This is good old fashioned protectionism. Ain't nobody going to mess with a U.S. based company except the U.S. government.

Re: hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

scum-e-bag (211846) | about a year ago | (#43632883)

China blocks facebook with some success. Surely it's possible for other governments to only filter/block facebook ads. Even if its not 100% successful, it would be disruptive enough to facebooks revenue stream to encourage facebook to fall into line.

Re:hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

werewolf1031 (869837) | about a year ago | (#43633931)

Was going to mod, but decided to post instead.

It isn't hypocrisy, but it isn't what it appears on the surface. This is good old fashioned protectionism. Ain't nobody going to mess with a U.S. based company except the U.S. government.

This has nothing to do with protectionism, and everything to do with deflecting (figurative) bullets aimed at the wrong targets. On a site as massive as Facebook, it's absurd to hold the company accountable for every idiotic, hate-filled keyboard-vomit poured onto the site by its users. If the Indian government has a problem with something that was posted, they should take it up with the person that posted it, not the business that runs the service said user abused.

Disclaimer: I despise Facebook, and have disdain for so-called "social media" in general. But let's at least approach this rationally instead of knee-jerk "zomg protectionism!" reflexive nonsense.

Words are words, nothing more (2, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43629681)

All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629729)

Unless it's about copyrights or patents, of course...

Re:Words are words, nothing more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629973)

I hold the copyright on fucking off censors.
I hold the patent on extreme prejudice.
I got a bill of sale on an ethnic gimp.
I have a receipt from the dildo boutique.
I have a ticket for double parking a two ended dildo in a cops butt while he pumped his hot loads into his partner.
I have a subpoena for Country of India to testify about their participation in a pr0n film w/ Kim Jong-un and his wife, Ri Sol-ju.
I have a warrant to search and sieze any vagina left unoccupied in a no parking zone.
I have stock in baby seal coats.
I have licence to perform addadicktomes on consenting lesbian dwarves.
I have a permit to poop where I please.
And you have no right to censor me with mod points unless your genitalia is covered in Condylomata acuminata.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43631327)

"And you have no right to censor me with mod points unless your genitalia is covered in Condylomata acuminata."

They are, enjoy your -1.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43630953)

"All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice."

As a society, we have chosen to limit free speech to speech that does not directly threaten or "provoke imminent violence". Those are accurate statements. What people often misunderstand about this is what threats and "imminent violence" are.

A threat is illegal not because it's abhorrent speech, but because it's a threat. It's illegal to threaten someone in order to get them to behave the way you want. (Somebody please get that through some heads in Federal government!) We have many laws against this kind of behavior that have little or nothing to do with speech per se. But the courts have decided (even the U.S. Supreme Court) that your right to speech is not stronger than someone else's right to not be threatened.

The "imminent violence" language is often misunderstood. Saying "we must overthrow the government" is not provoking "imminent" violence. In fact it's protected political speech. But tweeting "let's all go outside and beat up some white guys", if you expect to be taken seriously, could be "provoking imminent violence". Here imminent means "immediate" or "close by; likely". A real provocation to violence right here, right now. That makes it different from "hate speech" or radical (or even violent) political speech.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (2, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43631109)

Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently. Censorship is just the authoritarians' attempt to control thought and conserve their power. Now, if you're saying there is no free will, well that's a another matter entirely. The only proper way to deal with 'contrary' speech is to make an effective counterpoint, more speech, not less.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43631367)

"Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently."

Yes, that's true, but words can provoke, sometimes against our better judgment or will.

The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While that's not violence, strictly speaking, under some circumstances words can cause havoc. The question is whether someone has the right to say things that do actual damage to others.

Why is it illegal (in most circumstances anyway) to punch me in the nose?

But in any case, one must keep in mind the standard: in order to be illegal, it must provoke "imminent" violence. Like standing on a soapbox and inciting an already riled crowd to riot. We know it's possible because it has happened in our lifetimes.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43633533)

"Words are absolutely powerless to compel anyone to act violently."

Yes, that's true, but words can provoke, sometimes against our better judgment or will.

The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. While that's not violence, strictly speaking, under some circumstances words can cause havoc.

In my opinion that classic example is a bad one, and I put it to you that your claims are untested hypotheses which lack any evidence to support them. What is the percentage of times that someone will lapse their better judgment due to a provocational word? No metrics? That's what I thought. Your stance is invalid. Let us test the hypothesis, or begone with laws based on bogus assumptions.

I do have some experience with being provoked and provoking others -- Any school child does. "Teasing" is a human rite of passage that better hones our judgment in the face of provocation. Sure, in extreme cases someone may be provoked to action against their judgement by words, but I'm pretty sure it's the one taking the action that is found at fault -- "Who threw the first punch?" Additionally, outliers do not a law make. In reality, it's harmful to the free society of man to make laws or take action based on a mere minor possibility of something occurring, depending on what the something is and the estimated risk. You need look no further than searching "internment camp" or "red scare" if you need some backing evidence here.

I was actually in a crowded theater once when a man shouted "FIRE!" The immediate response was an overwhelming, "WHERE?!" No one else could see or smell any smoke -- They wanted to know which way to go to escape the fire. Turns out he just though there was a fire -- It was a wisp of dust rising out of a seat cushion in front of him, as a nearby observer pointed out. "Oh, sorry, it was just dust or something, nevermind", he said, and it was on with the show.

You see, If you perceive an event, it stands to reason that others should be able to perceive it too. If he had insisted that there was a fire where there was none it probably would have caused everyone to annoyingly shuffle out of the theater -- It's not like the fire would spread faster than a human could walk away. A guy popping his head in the door and yelling fire might have spooked us more, but it should be the action that is actually caused that is weighed in all these instances of "word abuse". Actions speak louder than words, as they say.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43631377)

I should add that for the most part I agree with you, and any restrictions on speech must be only for the most extreme, most egregious cases.

Re:Words are words, nothing more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43632165)

In other words, please keep all your violent speech professional and clean. Also ensure that all of your coercive threats are of an entirely legal nature =P

If ya know what I mean...

If an accident just so happens to befall a certain someone on a certain day of the weak, you know we would never hold a party to rejoice in favor of that persons memory...

Re:Words are words, nothing more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43631257)

All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice.

Now there's the right idea ..

But how's about India disconnects itself from the Internet if it is that worried by everyday content Oh and recall all it's uninvited invaders from all countries around the world ..Maybe if Pakistan did like wise the world would be a better place ..

Re:Words are words, nothing more (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43632211)

All censors should be told to fuck off, with extreme prejudice.

Try telling that to a certain person hiding in a certain embassy and unable to leave, thanks to the US Govt.

Tags (2, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about a year ago | (#43629715)

Seems the appropriate tags should be "pot", "kettle" and "black".

Re:Tags (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43630039)

Seems the appropriate tags should be "pot", "kettle" and "black".

Really? I think you mostly misunderstand what is going on.

US Government does not routinely haul Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page into court because some user posts child porn or hate speech on Facebook or Google Plus. Nor does the US demand Pakistan or India deliver summons to the web services in those countries to appear in US courts for anti-US hate postings on their services.

In the US, there are procedures to have those types of things taken down if warranted, without demanding that the CEO appear in court and answer personally for content so massive in scope and diverse in nature that no one person or large group could possibly police it all.

And, the US, and most Western governments, would rather allow the stuff to be posted, if for no other reason than doing so provides them with a "watering hole" opportunity for observation.

Its a whole different thing to demand a court appearance by Zuckerberg simply because some guy going by the name of Tokolosh posted some hate rant on his Facebook page. Especially when there are different countries involved, and different laws about what actually is hate speech.

Apparently you are in good company in this misunderstanding of what is going on here, judging by how quickly you were modded insightful.

Re:Tags (-1, Troll)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43630167)

I would invite some Indian people to weigh in on what "hate speech" means in India. Any speech that might lead to discord between any two or more religious believers seems to qualify. And, I mean any such speech. It seems that Indians take license to be violent if they hear anything that denigrates any of their gods. And, India is also host to a number of Muslims, who we know reserve license to be violent if they hear something THEY deem offensive. Pakistan and Afghanistan both make fine examples of that stuff.

Oh yeah - in India, men also assume license to violent gang rape any time they find a woman alone, without defense. Actually, it doesn't even have to be a woman - two five year old girls have been brutally raped in recent weeks. One is dead, the other was left for dead. Until recently, the cops would just shrug and wink, on the supposition that an unattended female deserved being raped.

They have problems over there - it's a whole different world. I certainly wouldn't want to see western governments honoring these type of subpoenas.

East is east, and west is west, and despite globalization, never the twain shall meet.

Re:Tags (5, Interesting)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43630341)

It seems that Indians take license to be violent if they hear anything that denigrates any of their gods ... India is also host to a number of Muslims, who we know reserve license to be violent if they hear something THEY deem offensive ... in India, men also assume license to violent gang rape any time they find a woman alone, without defense

Generalize much? With over a billion people, there may be some minor variations amongst their attitudes and actions. Your generalizations about Indians, as though they were all the same, is precisely the sort of prejudice that leads to the problems you list.

India certainly has its problems, and I've always been amazed that with such a variety of languages, cultures, religions, etc. they manage to keep the place glued together at all. Most of the things you hear about because of the outrage in the Indian press. Do you really think American news organizations put much effort into reporting specific domestic incidents in India? Unsurprisingly, the people I hear most loudly decry these problems are Indians themselves.

Re:Tags (0, Troll)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43630905)

Generalize? Hello - here's a wake up call.

India has these draconian laws specifically BECAUSE all those various peoples have used any excuse to go wild and act violently whenever they feel like it.

All the same? Well - of course not. If everyone were the same, there wouldn't be much of an excuse to go wild, now would there?

Today, Indians are crying loudly about gross injustices. Women are crying the loudest, and they are joined by decent men who love their women. Gang rapes are COMMON in India. And, the cops don't investigate them. It is presumed that a lone woman is to be preyed upon. Some of my reading suggests that as many as 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women are assaulted in India. Especially in the cities, but it isn't uncommon out in the countryside either.

You call it generalizing if you wish. I stand by my post.

Re:Tags (3, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43631605)

You call it generalizing if you wish.

Because it is. Nowhere did I say any of the things you listed weren't problems, but that you said that everyone one of a large group - hundreds of millions of people - were guilty of it. That's like saying in the 1940's "Americans are bigots, they lynch Negroes, and the police do nothing about it". In the English language that means all Americans. Funny, my parents weren't bigots, and they never lynched anybody. Maybe they were just lying to me.

You wrote "Indians take license to be violent if they hear anything that denigrates any of their gods". If you didn't mean all Indians, then why didn't you write that?

You also wrote "Muslims, who we know reserve license to be violent if they hear something THEY deem offensive". If you didn't mean all Muslims, then why didn't you write that?

Lastly you wrote "in India, men also assume license to violent gang rape any time they find a woman alone, without defense". If you didn't mean all Indian men, then why didn't you write that?

Re:Tags (0)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43632403)

The problem was he didn't generalize enough. Much of the world allows groups to outrage, and, by doing so, activate politicians who will silence their detractors. Hell, even Europe is crossing this line with anti-blasphemy and other laws against speech sufficiently outrageous to someone, as defined by someon's ability to outrage and vote.

Something like the First Amendment is a death stroke to this sickening dynamic. The last time I can remember something like this happening in the US was 20 years ago in Chicago, where some politicians seized a painting of a popular former mayor in underpants, under the sophistry of preventing a riot. I don't know what happened, but I hope the Supreme Court shoved their fist up Chicago's ass.

They, and all politicians throughout the world deserve it. One less vector to power.
 

Re:Tags (2, Interesting)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year ago | (#43632339)

I'm an Indian. It seems that we like to be treated like children. There's no concept of "personal responsibility". If someone riots it's because they were "provoked". Not because they made the choice to go and riot!

It's all about ownership. Even though the Indian Constitution practically forces it on them, Indians are terrified of true freedom. They want to behave irresponsibly and at the same time blame someone else for "provoking" them.

The Internet has just brought this attitude to the fore. I sincerely hope Indians will grow up and behave like adults.

Re:Tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630195)

Really? I'm pretty sure that Kim Dotcom would see things differently, especially with regard the "procedures" the US goes through to get things taken down...

Re:Tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630257)

I'm sure Kim Dotcom would agree with you completely.

Re:Tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630837)

I have one name for you...Kim Dotcom
He wasn't responsible for what people uploaded to megaupload yet he was arrested in an illegal military style raid sponsored by the US.

What's the difference between facebook and megaupload you ask? Facebook cooperates with the guberment, giving away private messages and data freely.

Re:Tags (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43630887)

What Dotcom is aledged to have done was illegal in the country he did it in.
The raid was a New Zealand execute raid. Your objections should be directed to that government.

Re:Tags (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43631397)

What Dotcom is aledged to have done was illegal in the country he did it in.
The raid was a New Zealand execute raid. Your objections should be directed to that government.

new zealand isn't the one prosecuting him... the "intel" to perform the raid came from the american feds.

really, it's just a lose/lose situation to start with "USA doesn't prosecute people for things they said" though. of course, if you just shoot a hellfire missile you're technically not prosecuting.. just killing.

Memory loss.... (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | about a year ago | (#43631205)

Well said
Most people forget what happened in India in the early days of an indian auction site(similar to ebay, later sold to ebay). Somebody sold a porn cd of a schoolgirl through the auction site. When the ceo from usa was visiting India, the police arrested the ceo.

Re:Tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634569)

How about the extra-judicial harassment employed on realising that the feds had no actual laws under which Wikileaks could be prosecuted?

How about the U.S. applying pressure on countries that don't adopt "acceptable" stances on IP? Threatening trade sanctions against Spain for not having a SOPA style law?

What about the U.S. seizing hostnames for indefinite periods of time, and returning them with no charges filed?

Extraordinary rendition?

Re:Tags (0)

AngryDill (740460) | about a year ago | (#43630181)

Amen! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the hypocrisy of the Indian government accusing US companies of fueling "communal hatred", considering their treatment of their own Dalit castes!

Re:Tags (5, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43630387)

Has it ever occurred to you that there are things the Indian government does to try and prevent ill treatment of the Dalit castes? What you're saying is like going back to the 1960's and saying the US government does nothing to try to prevent ill treatment of black people.

P.S. The people I've met who most hate the caste system are Indians. I know one fellow who talked about the clashes he had with his grandparents because he brought home friends who were from "lower castes". It's exactly like the way it took generations for racial attitudes to change in this country (which obviously still aren't completely resolved).

Re:Tags (1)

NewYork (1602285) | about a year ago | (#43634999)

Casteism is taught in schools from 6th class itself in India.
http://www.greatandhra.com/viewnews.php?id=30817&cat=10&scat=25 [greatandhra.com]
http://tehelka.com/karnataka-how-a-government-job-spelt-doom-for-37-dalit-families/ [tehelka.com]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/90-per-cent-of-people-vote-on-caste-lines-Katju/articleshow/18117893.cms [indiatimes.com]
http://www.firstpost.com/india/wont-eat-in-vessels-cleaned-by-dalit-woman-say-children-in-gujarat-school-615541.html [firstpost.com]

If you really want to help them, please write to http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ [whitehouse.gov] and http://pmindia.nic.in/feedback.php [pmindia.nic.in] seeking Independent Nation for 300 million India's Untouchable People as per Congressman Trent Franks House Concurrent Resolution 139.
http://rediff.com/news/2007/may/03touch.htm [rediff.com]
http://www.change.org/petitions/independent-nation-for-300-million-india-s-untouchables [change.org]

Re: Tags (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43632639)

"Hypocrisy"
If anything, the Indian government gives lower castes "special privileges"
They have seats reserved in educational institutes, a special quota in national employment and there's a law that ensures that they get promoted faster than others in government jobs!!!

I agree with the US on this (2, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43629727)

The problem is not the speech but the Muslims, who take offence at anything. Someone says "Muhammad was not a true prophet" and they riot, while they say Jews, Christians and Hindus are animals and worse themselves.

Re:I agree with the US on this (-1, Flamebait)

Ossifer (703813) | about a year ago | (#43629789)

Mod parent bigot.

Re:I agree with the US on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43631435)

Mod you idiot.

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about a year ago | (#43638403)

Mod coward loser.

OK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629803)

I'm not a jew or muslim (atheist) but go ahead and put a site saying the holocaust never happened, showing whatever you like as proof.

Nobody will complain on that one I'm sure.

No wait. You'll get prosecuted, the site deleted and 5 new shoah museums will spring up like mushrooms.

I bet those sites on facebook (whatever they are) were put there by the CIA to cause mayhem and steal more stuff from poor who didn't catch wind of their bullshit yet.

Re:OK (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629881)

Really? [holocaustdenier.com] . Not in the USA. You can even march around with a swastika or a klan hood if you want, as long as you have the proper permit. The world doesn't end. I guess most Americans aren't as gullible as "sophisticated" Europeans. We can stand to have some freaks in our midst, and just ignore them.

Re:OK (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43631273)

No really, europeans can have freaks in their midst too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_%28Greece%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rebirth_of_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange

etc.

But I guess given your overtly wacky and unfounded pro-usa bias,
you are an american that has never left your own state or region,
or stopped watching one of CNN or Fox News, etc.

- an american

Re:OK (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43632331)

Yeah, Americans think they are Avant Garde, but damn we are about perpetually two to five decades behind the stricter and older cultures of the world.

Re:OK (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629933)

Sure in a few countries one can be prosecuted for being Holocaust deniers, but that is a historical fact not a religious one. However, I can see how you'd be sympathetic to loopy conspiracy theories.

Re:I agree with the US on this (2)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | about a year ago | (#43629817)

s/the Muslims, /people /

It's not the religion that's the problem, it's some individuals' attitudes. If you attribute this to the wrong property, you are going to both falsely accuse Muslims who aren't part of the problem and let off the hook non-Muslims who are. You can do better than that.

Re:I agree with the US on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629851)

What you want to say is that, "The problem is not the group of Muslims, but those that do not follow the faith, yet use it and claim to be part of it. Fervently so."

Correct?

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

slash.jit (2893213) | about a year ago | (#43647325)

No idiot.. what he is saying is that the problem exist with the people of every community. Today most of the religious violence in India are sponsored/supported by corrupt politicians, so we cannot really say that one religion is more violent than another in India. There is hatred and violence among different communities not just in terms religion but also in terms of caste, language, etc. There is a lot of violence against women which are committed by people of every religion. So even if you remove all the Muslims from India you will see people taking offense with caste, sex. It's a problem with people attitude.

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

Maritz (1829006) | about a year ago | (#43691879)

Peaceful religious people are generally ignoring the majority of what their religion actually says. Particularly Islam. You'd have to give the Koran an incredibly generous reading, especially in terms of what ought to be done with infidels/apostates.

Not that the Bible is much better. It's very specific on what to do with homosexuals for example; "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both." (Leviticus 20:13). I don't see much of this from Christians at present though.

Seems to me in general that the moderates are actually quite bad adherents to their own faith. I'd suggest that maybe human nature or the current social zeitgeist is a tad more gentle, and perhaps there's influence there - but that's a different question.

Re:I agree with the US on this (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43629847)

If you were familiar with the history of religious violence in India [wikipedia.org] , you would not make the ridiculous claim that it is primarily perpetrated by Muslims. Intercommunal Hindu-Muslim violence is a major problem in both directions, with extremists on both sides fanning the flames.

If anything, Muslims more often bear the brunt of the violence; many more have been killed by Hindu mobs than vice versa.

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43631303)

... and the opposite violence happening in pakistan

Re:I agree with the US on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634823)

...which is why the two are separate countries in the first place

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43650985)

... and the opposite violence happening in pakistan

Violence in Pakistan exclusively perpetrated by Muslims [wikipedia.org]

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43631393)

Unfortunately you are wrong.

Hindus have faced religious oppression and massacres at the hands of Muslims for hundreds of years in their own homeland.

Even today Hindus are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of religious violence. Unfortunately the liberal bent of the media ensures that these incidents rarely come to light, whereas anytime Muslims are the target the incident is prominently highlighted.

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43630187)

Ossifer says you're a bigot. I disagree with him. But - you are somewhat uninformed. India is home to several religions, and all of them can get violent if they feel their own gods are being denigrated. We might argue that the Muslims are the most violent - but I'd have to do some research before I actually committed myself to that position.

Re:I agree with the US on this (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#43631621)

It might be noted that when India & Pakistan were granted independence from the UK, many Muslims living in predominantly Hindu areas were massacred.

This went so far as to include the Indian Army stopping trains full of Muslims headed to Pakistan and killing everyone on board.

So, no, it's not just the Muslims causing problems....

Re:I agree with the US on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43639039)

I agree to disagree to this till you can quote reliable source of information on how you come to this conclusion. Also looking at the minority status of Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India, you could better judge who protected whom.

Less sensorship, more human policing, India (2)

adosch (1397357) | about a year ago | (#43629771)

I guess if the Indian government wants to talk about censorship and muting of violence, then I vote for them to worry less about about the minors registering on social networks like FB and alike, and more about the ones getting raped on buses in their own country as of late.

It's a bit shallow of me to exploit a circumstance such as that (and certainly not a dig at all from the wonderful Indian community at large), but it's sad what 'Big Machine' irregardless of worldly location will waste their time on. Want to do some cleanup with violence? Start within the confines of your own country boundaries first. Definitely in some need of some human filth policing.

Re:Less sensorship, more human policing, India (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630129)

Policing treats the symptoms, not the cause.

If people didn't commit crimes, you wouldn't need police at all - or at least substantially less of them. The reason we have police (in the idilic sense, not the power and control sense) is to apply force or punishment to the populace. It's primarily a reactionary measure; the best way to prevent a house from being robbed is to sufficiently educate people that doing so is wrong.

The real problem is the lack or morality (I mean this in a very non-religious sense) and respect for individual rights. This is generally a cultural or educational issue. Religion, cultural, and education often overlap, thus the common association between a particular religion and a problem, e.g. violent muslims. This is a problem that will likely take entire generations to solve through voluntary education - but a choice not to learn is a choice to live in isolation without the benefits a free society provides.

For the impatient, there's always genocide.

Re:Less sensorship, more human policing, India (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630441)

The thing is that people react to societies norms - if rape gets people punished consistently then you are not just less likely to commit rape but also more likely to think of rape as wrong, compared to a situation where rape is normal and accepted. Suppressing a behaviour by law makes you more likely to act against those who would commit it suppressing such behaviour through social means as well. In addition just forcing people to hide a behaviour such as sexually motivated violence means that it becomes socially unacceptable to profess it as permissible or to justify it. In this the police act as a kind of immune system keeping behaviour we think of as unpleasant or unacceptable from becoming normal, and keeping those who would make it so restrained.

Re: Less sensorship, more human policing, India (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630137)

I wanted to hear you, then you uttered "irregardless" and I had a stroke.

Coded message for Google and Facebook? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629885)

Hint: have a look at one list of the top software firms in India [hubpages.com] , which includes a mix of native-HQ'd and global (mostly US) companies.

Re:Coded message for Google and Facebook? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43629919)

Coded message for Google and Facebook?

Ok, what's the message?

Re:Coded message for Google and Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630757)

Coded message for Google and Facebook?

Ok, what's the message?

Come on down!

The freedom to hate (1)

arekin (2605525) | about a year ago | (#43629899)

...The only freedom no one seems interested in taking away from people in the US.

Re:The freedom to hate (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#43630087)

While hating anyone or group usually serves little use and is often as much to the detriment of the hater as the hated; I think the 'freedom to hate' is probably the most important to protect. The 'freedom to hate' is also the the very same freedom to have your own mind, form your own opinions, be truly able to love, and be a whole person with agency. Yes its shameful how many people use that agency so badly but the right answer is not to try and take it away from them.

If I don't have the freedom to say "I think the world would be better off without $GROUP" I am not really free to speak or think. We can't have go trying to have a list of approved thoughts and ideas; that will be far more anti-human than anything any hate group has ever done.

There is a big difference between having opinions and acting on them. Its action where the line should be. We should never loose site of that.

Re:The freedom to hate (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43630435)

The freedom to hate ... The only freedom no one seems interested in taking away from people in the US.

It's called Freedom of Speech. The reason it has to be Constitutionally protected is not because anybody ever had to protect popular speech. Without it there would have been a time when saying "Negroes should be equal to white people" would have been censored because it would incite hatred.

What about the most important minority? (4, Insightful)

monzie (729782) | about a year ago | (#43629935)

I am from India. My country is a democratic country ( with many, many flaws, but still democratic)

The Government is always worried about 'something which will offend the minorities' and spark communal violence.

I am a member of a minority. The most important and neglected minority in India.

I am a normal ( well not too normal, I'm on Slashdot! ) rational guy who can look at an idiot trying to make people of community A hate community B for political gains and ( very likely ) personal gains through political gains.

As simple as that.

And I'm not buying his/her/their BS on this matter and I'll gladly call it out. On his/her/their face(s)

Unfortunately I'm a member of such a minority. ( sadly rational people who want to live their lives in peace are a minority )
The Government is duty-bound to protect the rights of minorities. Protect my rights to free speech. Realize I'm grown up enough to realize when someone is trying to provoke someone in the name of religion/language/caste/color etc.

Re:What about the most important minority? (0)

avgjoe62 (558860) | about a year ago | (#43630259)

I am a normal ( well not too normal, I'm on Slashdot! ) rational guy

If I had Mod Points today, that would have been insightful.

Re:What about the most important minority? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43632487)

I am an anonymous coward from India. I am also part of a minority. In India there is no majority. If you think there is a majority and there is a minority, you are already a racist. What are you? I am Indian. Oh we know that? Are you from the north the south? Which linguistic or non linguistic state do you belong to? Do you speak one of a bizzilion languages? Do you come from this village in India. Do you belong to the least persuasive case of the century or the most powerful caste? (Even this isn't a definitive question? Read up on affirmative action where 50%(it's even 69%) of the seats in some states are reserved for some section of the minority. Do you know what reservation means, it's not affirmative action. You have to be one of the affirmative beneficiaries to even get into the 69% of the seats in collages. ) Do you think vishnu or shiva or god knows who is the most important god? Do you follow one religion or the other? Do you think your region should be a state?

If we can truly create a majority, it will be a majority of people who agree India is a nation of minorities. If and we do that I will agree with you calling out to everyone or anyone.

You know why India is what India is? It's not because you feel you are a minority. It's because everyone is a minority. It's because every hindu is just a name more divided than the muslim in India. Oh and we have the same number of muslims in India as there exist in Pakistan. There was a comment about trains full of dead people. That was a reciprocal madness. Every train full of Sikhs killed and sent from Pakistan had a train full of muslims from India. And you know what? We grew up to be a shining example of democracy of the minorities. India is a nation of minorities, deeply divided, yet united under this notion, this idea of India. An Idea which isn't 50 years old. An idea older than any other civilization in the word. And that sir is what we need to keep in mind. This is what I consider India. India is like America just on the other side of the world.

Give us another 50 years. You will have all the freedom of speech and democracy rivaling the US and the west. Until then we will set our course as country of the minorities sticked together by a democracy. I hate the exclusivity some people feel they have on the word minority. I am a minority. I speak a language which will be extinct in the next 50 years and a dying culture, but I am proud to be a majority Indian and I am not a minority! Everyone is a minority by some definition. Welcome to India and the next time someone calls themselves a minority in India they should feel ashamed. Cos it's a majority of minorities.

Re:What about the most important minority? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637461)

I speak a language which will be extinct in the next 50 years and a dying culture, but I am proud to be a majority Indian and I am not a minority!

Since you mentioned Sikhs and not Hindus, I get the impression that you are a Sikh. If so, where is your sense of charhdi-kala?

Re:What about the most important minority? (1)

NewYork (1602285) | about a year ago | (#43634971)

Indians are morally corrupt by birth (caste) for the past 3000 years.
Google "90% of corrupt money is with Forward Caste people"
Google "Companies ruined or almost ruined by Forward Caste"
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/create-independent-nation-exclusively-for-forward-caste-people-from-india [change.org]

I'm glad the US is refusing (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43629959)

I'm glad the US is refusing to serve the summons. Hypocritical? Not really. The US government is busy wiping its ass with much of the Bill of Rights (4 and 5 are claimed to be obsolete), and contends that the president has the authority to assassinate US citizens at will, but it's actually pretty good about not censoring speech. Even Noam Chomsky thinks so. More thanks to the judiciary than the legislative or executive branches, but the US government nonetheless.

Culture Shock (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629969)

A service created in a society where violence as a result of speech is considered abnormal is not compatible with a society where an insult against fundamental values of community leads might lead to massacre and cycle of retributions. Education, fundamental cultural change of 1,1 billion people and very much stronger rule of law and government authority are needed to resolve the issue. Easy as cake, piece of pie. (bonus points for the movie reference)

Talk to the hand, India (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629997)

Facebook ain't listening.

Nothing new, two face US policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43630271)

Wait, this is the same US that kidnaps citizens of other countries, flies them other side of planet to interrogated by military. Sounds pretty two faced by me. Wonder what reaction would be is some other country would kidnap US president or high ranking general and place them on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. :P

They Don't (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43630469)

The content doesn't cause the violence, the people taking the content offensively does. Over reacting is a serious issue that is usually caused by people being immature and childish, your allowed to have beliefs and freedoms as long as they don't harm others. Just because I see Jesus eating a hotdog doesn't mean I'm entitled to go and start a war or demand Google shutdown, I'm allowed to look at it and take it how I ever I want and leave it at that. If it offends me I can deal with it and realize that I'm going to be offended from time to time so just take a chill pill and calm down, which is the problem, some people take faith and belief way to far, when it starts hurting other people or effecting your life to the point your willing to go to war I think you need to readjust. I'm not saying you can't have strong beliefs and take them seriously but you need to make sure other people don't get involved. It's not Google's or Facebook's fault that you took a simple picture out of context, it's your's and you should deal with it on your own.

How free is YouTube (1)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year ago | (#43630699)

YouTube claim to stand for free speech but they also have TOS that contain the usual vague disclaimers about "hate speech". For example I'd be interested to know which people can view each of these videos (it varies by country)

Innocence of Muslims [youtube.com]

Jews Lead Gun Control Charge [youtube.com]

Re:How free is YouTube (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year ago | (#43630783)

Their sites their money there rules there's no argument.

Re:How free is YouTube (1)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year ago | (#43631139)

I am arguing with YouTube's claim that they defend freedom of speech, no matter how offensive. If they decide not to actually defend free speech by censoring certain videos, that is their right, but it invalidates their claim to stand for freedom of speech for their uploaders (although they are still defending their own freedom of speech as a company).

Re:How free is YouTube (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year ago | (#43631551)

As far as I understood it, it's in very rare circumstances, if ever, that YouTube engages in censorship. Innocence of Muslims, for example, is basically the only video censored in certain Muslim areas of the world, and it was only done in response to how badly it could affect the relationship between the US and the region.

I'm in the US, so I don't know what's censored. If YouTube is only censoring specific videos that cause YouTube to be banned in a country, or have a substantial impact on international politics, I'm alright with it. There's a thousand videos expressing the same thing for every one that causes an issue with a country's political leadership, and the good of having those thousand similar videos available outweighs the censorship of one in particular.

Re:How free is YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43637571)

have a substantial impact on international politics

This means when free speech actually changes things.

No warrant ? No problem ! (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about a year ago | (#43630731)

No problem. India and co will just drone them.

Oh wait, thats only OK one way, isn't it ?

Re:No warrant ? No problem ! (1)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about a year ago | (#43637643)

I was going to say, "If the Taliban and Al Qaeda were just saying bad things about the US, they wouldn't be on the business end of the drones."

However, the case of Anwar al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org] gave me pause. He was a fellow saying bad things about the US. However, he inspired multiple mass casualty Al Qaeda terrorists and recruited for them, so he was killed.

Seditious speech in the US has only limted protections. [wikipedia.org]

See also Hate speech and incitements to violence. [columbia.edu] They're not totally protected in the US either, from what I understand.

They already have recourse Block Google (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year ago | (#43630765)

They already have recourse Block Google and stop allowing Indian web sites to be listed on Google stop Indian company's from advertising on Google and so on They do have recourse but they cant force there morality/religious on anyone but Indians. Google doesn't force people in any country to use it.

"provokes" (2)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#43631299)

Even in the case where something "provokes immediate violence", we seem to forgot that there is still someone deciding to become violent. Other than the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, hurting or killing someone is not the immediately obvious correct action to whatever someone says.

I can relate, I definitely can. There are many things that make me want to punch the speaker in the face, or shoot him. Mostly stuff said by people like the pope, Sarah Palin types or extremist islamists or any of a long list of we-should-withdraw-your-license-to-breathe idiots.

But, I am a civilised man and keep it just a thought.

If we would apply the same "provoking violence" standard to the people who tell others to go out there and kill the unbelievers, or murder the abortion doctors, or shame the faggots - the same standard that many seem to want to imply when it comes to the blogs, FB posts and tweets of atheists, homosexuals or other non-conformants, then we could maybe have a discussion.

As it stands, the people who want to silence you and the people who want to kill you if you continue to speak are of the same kind.

Re:"provokes" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634499)

Thank you!

It's an upside-down world where you are expected to self-censor your words or ideas because they can bruise egos or sensitivities but if you react to that bruised ego with acts of violence which cause real injuries or deaths, you-re not expected to self-censor that. Very strange logic...

This doesn't mean everything is fit to be put on the internet. I'm talking about things like slander: intentionally and knowingly publishing false information about a person with the intent to damage their reputation, child pornography: because the mere existence of it means that a child was harmed. I'm sure there are other examples but not many. In most cases, it's better to allow free expression of ideas. Is it okay to write politically incorrect opinions about ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations or whatever else pushes somebody's buttons? Yes! Reading something tells you as much about the writer than about the subject of the written piece. If the writer is a jerk and wants the whole world to know it, that shouldn't be a crime.

Stepping off the soapbox now.

Free speech?? (1)

browndude (2915003) | about a year ago | (#43632871)

Blind Egyptian mullah preaching hate inciting speech against the US in the mosques VERSUS Popular websites posting hate inciting speech. I see a double standard here. It is not really free speech.

democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43633463)

democracy is the reason for existence of minorities in India ! and all other groups which can be segregated ... in large elections , these minorities ( religious/language/caste) etc . make the difference.. So they need to be created if necessary , polarized by some sort of act which puts them against each other and then controlled for political benefits ! .

If people are under the impression that democracy in India works , they are a mistaken :) .. There's no clear alternative though .. Its a royal mess

Copyright Infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43634543)

"U.S. officials have told the Indian Government that they will not be able to serve summons to the executives of companies like Google and Facebook because they are not convinced that the content hosted on these sites can cause violence and that these summons impact 'free speech principles.'

There we go. Now if it just had a hint of Copyright Infringement, and more importantly, the situation was reversed, SWAT teams with "FBI observers" on the ground would already be pushing shackled executives with black hoods over their heads into vans.

What is the problem serving them? (1)

Douglas Goodall (992917) | about a year ago | (#43639799)

The article quotes unnamed people in the US Govt, and unamed people in India. This is far too vague to suit me. As far as I am concerned, if the process servers can find them and serve them, that is fine with me. If they don't show up, they can be convicted in absentia and will have to avoid those countries in the future. None of the companies are beyond the law, however large they have become. Freedom of speech is an American issue and not guaranteed in other countries, so while IANABCL, I think sovereign countries have rights about what crosses ther borders.
Check for New 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>