Mediaboss Marketing

The decision of the government to block 32 URLs has become a subject matter of debate and the question being asked is blocking the right way to go.

Should the government be taking down websites or web pages? Should the government be acting against the intermediaries or should it block websites as a whole? These are a few points that need to be debated and to speak with oneindia is Cyber Law expert, Pawan Duggal.

India cannot replicate China:

Internet censorship in China is the most rigid and is known as the Great Firewall of China. However can India replicate this? The answer is no as India by and large represents two models of government. The vibrant constitution of India does not let the internet laws be that rigid.

Part (3) of the Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens. It includes freedom of speech and expression. The right to have a website and say something is an intergral part of the Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 19(1) of the Constitiution.

Rights subject to reasonable restrictions:

However unlike the other fundamental rights, the right on the internet is not absolute and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions. This is in the interest of sovereignty, friendly relations, intergirty and public order to prevent a commission of offence.

Blocking is done part of the reasonable restrictions which are enshrined under Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act of 2000.

Why were the 32 URLs blocked?

I have no idea why this notification blocking the 32 URLs were issued in the first place. There are two sites in particular which draw my attention. The blocking of archive.org in particular and Vimeo. The circular does not give a rationale for blocking but makes the blocking blanket in nature.

See the original post here:
Internet censorship- Is blocking the right approach?