[governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet

Fri Jan 13 15:21:27 EST 2012

Frank La Rue in his Report as Special Rapporteur is on record for stating
that "any restriction to freedom of expression must meet the *strict
criteria* under international human rights law". He went on to discuss at
great lengths the restrictions of content on the internet in Part IV of the
Report which can be found here:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf

La Rue was very careful to say the following:-

 *"As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an exceptional
measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, cumulative test: *
*
*
*(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone
(principles of predictability and transparency); *
*(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3,
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely: (i)
to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect national
security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of
legitimacy); and*
* (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means
required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity
and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to
freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any
political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate
safeguards against abuse,including the possibility of challenge and remedy
against its abusive application."*
*
*
Having tried to access New Delhi's Legal Database, I noted that nothing has
been published on the site as yet. However, presuming that what is reported
in the article is true that there was a Private Criminal Matter in the
District Court of New Delhi and in light of the reported unsuccessful stay
in the High Court and brief mention of India's Penal Code on on "obscene
publications".

In India's case Vinay Rai's Petition (caveat: I have not read the Petition
but based on the presumption that what was sparsely reported is true)
fulfills the first test. It will be interesting though to see how Courts
all over the world have defined "publication".

The difference between postal traffic and emails are that they have an
intended audience as opposed to having open sites etc. I am not taking
sides in this matter but am interested in seeing the rationale and various
philosophies that lie behind any decision making process.

It may be worthwhile to organise a Webinar or Debate on the matter if
someone is willing to lend their facilities for free to enable this, we can
try and get La Rue to participate and have a few volunteers etc

Sala

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Aldo Matteucci
<aldo.matteucci at gmail.com>wrote:

> Religiously objectionable material on the internet
>
> *Posted on January 13, 2012* by *Aldo Matteucci<http://deepdip.wordpress.com/author/aldomat/>
> *
>
>
>
>
> The following report from India[1]<http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/religiously-objectionable-material-on-the-internet/#_ftn1>has reached me: “
> *The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook
> India and search engine Google India that websites can be “blocked” like in
> China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable
> material from their web pages*.” (…) “*The case centres on a petition
> filed in December by a man named Vinay Rai, who referred to obscene
> depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, and various Hindu
> deities. In response, a Delhi magistrate summoned the executives of 21
> companies and suggested they face trial for criminal conspiracy*.”
>
> If the issue as described above is the whole story, what is now before the
> Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to the age old issue of the *responsibility
> of the provider* (of the transmission support) for the content that is
> transmitted. Take two equivalent cases:
>
>    - Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the *mail*. Is the
>    Post Office bound to vet the content of every letter? Would the DHC block
>    postal traffic if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to check and
>    remove objectionable material? I doubt the DHC would act in this way.
>    - Assume “objectionable” material is put in an “advertisement section”
>    of a paper. Is the newspaper bound to vet the content of each *
>    advertisement*? I suspect jurisprudence says it does.
>
> Different standards are upheld – depending on the judicially perceived
> feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d say, the prejudice of the court. If the
> Postal Office belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off
> easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. Internet providers
> are all-powerful “foreign devils”.
>
> But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually to be another one.
> In the olden days the main issue was one of (political and morals)
> censorship – the state vs. the individual. The DHC case and other similar
> cases, however, appear to refer to *Government involvement on behalf of
> privacy rights of third parties*.
>
>    - “Objectionable” material about real places and people is put into a *
>    novel* – e.g. the novel is set in sea resort, which is described as
>    “dreary”. Or a hideous crime is described as taking place in a named
>    neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet the content of the novel, lest
>    such “collateral” comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in
>    France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge it of any derogatory
>    material it may contain regarding real persons and places. I suspect that
>    Baudelaire’s quip: “*pauvre* *Belgique*” or Zola’s social novels would
>    no longer be permitted to see the printer’s ink, nowadays.
>    - A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, where GoogleMap
>    has been enjoined to blank out faces and number plates of cars in front of
>    buildings it has photographed.
>
> A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The DHC is not asked
> to protect the interests of the state (India is a secular state) but
> ostensibly to protect the rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai
> and religious people like him – in this case to have his religious feelings
> untrammeled by offensive images.
>
> Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. Protection extends,
> beyond immediate exposure to offensive material, to the very notion that
> this material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not see the
> offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and he will not, unless he
> actively seeks them. He objects to the very fact that they be there,
> protected by just a click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the
> enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue – remerges as
> conflict over private rights.
>
> The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held right to have the
> state censor religiously offensive material – which is available *on
> demand* – in order to protect “personal feelings”. If this is the case,
> then holding such material in the privacy of the home would also fall under
> the right.
>
> The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – which is legal in
> the country – could not be carried out in the privacy of a specified
> building because this activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to
> pass undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out inside
> justifies judicial intervention (would this right also extend to orgies?).
> A subsequent referendum validated the right to assisted suicide, so
> Isuspect the judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a precedent.
>
> The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is bilateral: between
> the individual and the (politically) oppressive state, but a triangular
> relation where the state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private
> right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to the extent that the
> circulation of religiously offensive images may be inflammatory.
>
> Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to protect privacy, it
> will be extended by the back door to serve politics. Darkness parading as
> white knight – an irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that the
> “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, subject to neither judicial
> nor political review, and thus likely to be much more sweeping than the
> official one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its need to
> sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will apply the “precautionary
> principle” quite broadly, given that he has no interest whatever in the
> content, and he may even provide the service for free. The state threat to
> shut the provider down is disproportionate and effective.
>
> *
>
> PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by Poincaré not to have
> a unique or absolute solution, but to be inherently chaotic.
> ------------------------------
>
> [1]<http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/religiously-objectionable-material-on-the-internet/#_ftnref1>
> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120114/64d85255/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t