[Reader-list] Gerard Oonk: Online Control - End of Free Speech? (in India)

[Patrice Riemens]

original to:
http://www.indodutchconnect.com/articles/online-control_645.html

(This site is run by and mainly intended for business people and fosters
commercial exchanges between India and the Netherlands. Its main sponsor
is the Netherlands Foreign Investments Agency, a governement outfit. So it
is the more remarkable it lend its columns to what must be a disruptive
opinion. But then business also is very much in favor of as little
government interference with the Internet as possible ...)




Online Control
Gerard Oonk (interview)

Following the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, the Indian government is
leaving no stone unturned to curb terrorism. In an effort to monitor cyber
terrorism, the new Information Technology Rules 2011 have brought out
stringent laws to eliminate website content that is deemed ‘offensive’.
This law, however, is a severe blow to supporters of free speech. Gerard
Oonk, Director of Dutch NGO, the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN)
shares his opinion.


According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, government authorities
will now be able to shut down web sites with offensive content. What, in
your opinion, will be the consequences of this new law?

The consequences will be that not only the government but everybody can
ask for certain web content to be taken down by using their own
interpretation of the present criteria which are extremely general and
broad. Criteria such as ‘disparaging’, ‘hateful’, ‘harassing’ and even
‘blasphemous’ can be interpreted very differently by different people.
Also criteria such as ‘web content that is potentially damaging to the
relations with other countries’ is so broad, that it can apply to anything
critical being written about those countries. If the government uses these
criteria loosely it can amount to a severe restriction of what is
communicated online. In this context, it also potentially very damaging as
there is no legal check on removing web content nor is there a possibility
of a legal appeal. This is not only (potential) government censorship but
censorship of one citizen to another.

How will this law affect the human rights situation in the country?

Of course it is difficult to predict how the new rules will actually be
applied, but there is a danger that individuals, organisations or the
government that is being criticised for human rights violations, will try
to silence the critics and human rights defenders. The other big risk is
that people will become afraid to put information about human rights
violations (including labour rights violations) on a website because the
web content might be taken off. And what it even more likely is that web
providers start screening their client’s content for possible information
that they perceive as being against the new rules. These rules might be
especially detrimental for ethnic, religious or caste minorities that are
‘under fire’ by certain groups in the society or even individuals.

ICN has already been involved in a defamation case owing to their website
content. With this new law in place, what measures is your NGO taking to
avoid similar cases in future?

We are not taking any new measures ourselves, but of course we will as
usual publish factual information based on good research. And of course,
our opinions remain our own. We are not going to censor ourselves because
we are afraid that a problem might arise. On the other hand we have asked
our government (and indirectly the European Union) to get more clarity on
the possible extraterritorial consequences of these new Indian rules. In
addition, we have asked our government to urge for a prior national or
European legal assessment (on the basis of international human rights
treaties and Dutch/European law) of requests from non-EU countries to
remove web content by EU-based providers. Possible co-operation with
international requests to give support to (practical and/or legal) action
against certain web content should first pass this assessment. This is to
avoid European citizens or organizations getting unwillingly and wrongly
involved in such cases.

What suggestions would you propose to the Indian government to curb cyber
terrorism and yet, allow freedom of speech online?

I am not an expert on cyber terrorism (I also do not know if there is an
expected definition of it) and cannot comment on that directly. Yet, the
way your question is phrased also sounds like we have we to sacrifice one
or the other goal. It could imply: to have democracy and (human) rights,
we have to do away with them! I think that curbing freedom of expression
in the way that is now being proposed will do little or nothing to curb
‘cyber terrorism’. On the contrary: if you do not allow people to speak
out on issues of human rights violations, for example, or construct
barriers for that, it increases the probability that people will resort to
terrorism. For fighting terrorism you have to detect the potential
perpetrators and that cannot be done by allowing everybody, including the
government, to take off web content that is not to their liking.

Stringent cyber laws are not new and are prevalent in the West, including
the Netherlands. Why is the Indian government being criticized for
implementing the same in the name of national security?

If we would be aware of such rules in The Netherlands using such broad
terms and/or without any legal appeal, we would certainly support action
to change it. But I am not aware of them.