dna edit: Silencing citizens

The government’s ban on 39 websites is a reminder — if one was needed — of state overreach when it comes to Internet censorship and an entrenched attitude that seems to view citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of expression as negotiable. There is more than a whiff of moral policing about the decision.

Watching pornography, after all, is not illegal in India. And while every attempt must be made to crack down on child pornography, there is no logic — save the specious variety invoking public morality — to doing so for pornography involving consenting adults.

Presumably, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) order directing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block the sites was based on the Information Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011, that instructs them to inform users of their services to refrain from dealing with any data that is pornographic in nature.

The rules compound the draconian nature of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008’s Section 66A — a minefield of vaguely worded clauses open to misinterpretation. Any information sent online that is found to be “grossly offensive”, having “menacing character”, for the “purpose of causing annoyance” and the like could open up the individual to prosecution — never mind that there is no indication of who would judge what is offensive or annoying, or the parameters for doing so.

The government and judiciary’s lack of regard for the basic tenets of transparency and accountability worsens matters. This latest order contained no reason for the ban, nor any reference to the law under which it was being promulgated. Nor, for that matter, did the courts that ordered the blocking of various Facebook pages and websites related to Afzal Guru and the Indian Institute of Planning and Management serve notice to the parties concerned; the same problem has occurred in the past as well. Thus, the architecture of cyber law consists of a highly problematic Act implemented by organs of the state in a manner that denies citizens due process of law.

Little wonder that an Act purportedly meant to protect the common man has been used in the main by the state and by powerful figures to target him — whether it is Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan’s arrests for a Facebook message criticising Bal Thackeray or Ambikesh Mahapatra’s incarceration for forwarding a cartoon about Mamata Banerjee.

India’s status as an open country has been slipping in the past few years according to watchdogs such as Reporters Without Borders and the Freedom House Report. If the IT Act is not amended again — and if the government and the judiciary do not show more circumspection and transparency in implementing it — the trend is unlikely to reverse.