Chez Roopen‎ > ‎

On the Internet, Censorship Boomerangs

 
 

On the Internet censorship boomerangs

Roopen Roy

(Views are personal)

 

The “world wide web” has become a powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary citizens of our planet. They can search for information with ease and disseminate opinions instantaneously. On the negative side, there are governments and organizations making every effort  to hide information or distort it. In several authoritarian countries, internet content is regulated and censored. However, in democratic countries like ours, brazen censorship is bound to create a public outcry. Therefore, those who wish to censor, use disingenuous means to suppress the information. The good news is : policing of the internet boomerangs.
 
In the past, unpalatable printed content was proscribed, printing presses were plundered and sealed and writers were physically attacked and harmed. In the age of internet, the writer may be publishing away from the long arms of  his potential attackers. He may be masking his identity not merely by using a nom de guerre but also using an IP address that is difficult to trace to the owner. The thought police  in modern times may be a government agency which wants to practice censorship  by asking search engine operators like Google or Bing to shut off websites or social networking sites like Facebook by  taking down conten.
 
Recently, we witnessed a strange case of a franchisee of  a private education outfit, approaching a district court in Gwalior and obtaining a court order that directed the Department of Telecommunications to block web pages .The plaintiff’s argument was  quite interesting : “Numerous parents of students who have joined the IIPM on the recommendation of the plaintiff have read the defamatory content on the websites and have been calling up and shouting on (sic) the plaintiff and his family members. He is facing hostility from society, friends, relatives due to patently false and defamatory material,” read the petition.
 
Pursuant to an ex-parte Court order, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on February 14, 2013 issued instructions to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to 78 URLs (uniform source locators, or Web addresses) . These web pages included the The Wall Street Journal, The Economic Times, The Indian Express, Outlook, Caravan and the University Grants Commission.(UGC).
 
The blocking of 78 urls naturally caused public outrage Those who had absolutely no interest in what this specific institute was doing suddenly began reading and commenting on the articles about IIPM. The court action created an Indian version of what is known in the West as the Streisand effect.
 
The Streisand Effect can be described thus:  if you try to hide or  delete  a piece of information  it  goes viral on the net. The unintended consequence of the attempted censorship is that it is  disseminated  more widely often by harnessing  the power of the internet.
 
The Effect derives its name from the American vocal musician  Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to conceal  photographs of her residence inadvertently generated  immense unintended publicity.
 
By blocking web pages pertaining to the IIPM  the curiosity of the general public was piqued. The attempt to gag criticism  boomeranged  big time. Students, parents  and employers were now seeking answers to questions like-what is the Institute’s placement record, where have the students been placed and at what salaries?  Clearly, these questions are relevant because the students and their parents are voting with their wallets and customers have a right to information. As a result of this sordid saga, the role  of the regulators have also come into sharp focus . In general, the mushrooming of institutions of higher education sans any rating mechanism has become a subject of intense debate and discussion.
 
The attempt to ban  the Kamal Haasan movie Vishwaroopam has backfired as well. Not only is it a grand success in the box office, a sequel is believed to be in the making. Recently, a Bengali movie Kangal Malsat ( War Cry of the Proletarians) was refused a certificate by the Kolkata office of Central Board of Film Certification .  Among one of the most ludicrous reasons cited by the local censor board was the film’s lack of respect for Joseph Stalin !  Both the directors had vowed to make their films visible on the net.
 
However, there is a saving grace. In a democratic country,  it is extremely difficult to ban or gag criticism. The Director of the Bengali film  appealed to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal based in Delhi dismissed most objections raised by the local Censor Board, like the depiction of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and a reference to the Tatas withdrawing from Bengal -----after it watched the film.
 
People like me who may not have gone to watch the movie Kangal Malsat  are more likely to do so now. The Censorship Board has actually applied the Streisand effect in creating a buzz  for content that it tried to censor.
 
The attempt of the cat’s paw to abuse the court processes has royally boomeranged. Not only has the court withdrawn the order to block urls,  it has put a spotlight on the activities and performance of  the Institute, which clearly could not have been  the objective of the court case. It has also alerted the government to the misuse  of the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 and woken up  the civil society . More than ever, Indian citizens are now  determined to protect the freedom of expression on the internet. And the boomerang and the Streisand effect are sweet extras.  
Comments