[Reader-list] Fwd: [fosscomm] Parliament debate on Internet Censorship

[A. Mani]

>From Kapil Sibal's response it is clear that it is a draconian law in
the making. He is not able to understand the gravity or nature of the
issues under consideration. Arbitrary take-down notices and mutually
contradictory laws will become the rule of day.


_____________ Forwarded message ________________

From: Senthil S <senthilsos at yahoo.com>


Hi

http://164.100.47.5/newdebate/225/17052012/12.00NoonTo13.00pm.pdf
http://164.100.47.5/newdebate/225/17052012/14.00pmTo15.00pm.pdf
http://164.100.47.5/newdebate/225/17052012/15.00pmTo16.00pm.pdf

There were detailed discussions in the house regarding the IT rules
annulment .

 P Rajeev(cpim) started out by pointing out in detail the issues, he started
by how the rules  ultra-vires the parent act and are undermining the
parliament. He stated that he was okay with regulation but not with control
of the internet. He showed the problematic and vague provisions which ultra
vires the basic act and also affect freedom of speech. He quoted the UN on
how censorship cannot be entrusted with intermediaries or private parties.
Arun Jaitely(BJP), Leader of  Opposition pointed out the difference between
other media and the internet. How the emergency of  1975 may not have been a
reality if the internet was not there.He was categorical and launched an
attack on the vague words in the act like 'blasphemous', 'defamatory' etc.
Members of other parties like NK Singh ( JDU), Tirchy Siva, D Raja(CPI)
explained the problems with the rules and how its untenable to censor the
internet. The members  also quoted international best practises and how the
current IT rules are vague. The minsiter defended the current rules and said
how these are necessary.  However he finally conceded an assurance. He
requested  to
write to him on any issues that they are concerned about,and  assured the
House, to  take those issues into account. He said he would also call the
Industry. and  have a full discussion on the subject;,He said under this new
media, there would be several challenges that this nation would face, and we
should be ready for those challenges.
That can only be done through consensus and collaboration.  P.
RAJEEVEV(cpim):  pointed out that Shri Kapil Sibal in his reply was looking
at  clause 69A. Now, clause 69A is in accordance with
article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Minister must not look at this clause
in isolation. It is specifically mentioned in clause 69A
what objectionable content is, and it is in accordance with article
19(2)(a). He submitted , while the Minister explained that, the
question is about clause 3(2). This clause, from (a) to (j),explains what an
objectionable content is. It goes beyond the
provisions of clause 69 of the Act. That is the basic question. The reply
given by the Minister is not satisfactory on that point.

ARUN JAITLEY: Can the hon. Minister give an assurance to this House that the
Rules, after this broad-based discussion, will be relooked at, and if there
are any words therein, which require to be replaced or removed, the Minister
would replace or remove
them? Are you agreeable for that?


THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL):
My assurance to this House is that I will request distinguished hon. Members
to write letters to me objecting to any
specific words. I will then call a meeting of the Members as well as the
industry and all the stakeholders. We will have a discussion
and whatever consensus emerges, we will implement it.

_______________________________________________




Best

A. Mani





--
A. Mani
CU, ASL, CLC,  AMS, CMS
http://www.logicamani.co.cc