Petitioner, Vinay Rai believes this is in public interest and he has filed this complaint as ‘affected person’ who believes in a ‘secular India’. Vinay considers the content on sites like Google,Facebook , Twitter and other such sites , including blogging sites contain unfiltered materials which are dangerous for the community and peace and harmony of the nation. He does not want the sites to be banned in India but contents should be filtered by the networking sites and search engines before going public, in India.
It might be a coincidence that he raised his voice against these sites almost around the time when the Congress Minister, Kapil Sibal declared his discontent with such sites.
Well, his complaint was slightly different from his views of filtration of content. He has accused the issue as a conspiracy between authors and the respondents to defame India with clear intentions to spread communal violence in the country.
Delhi High Courts decision might have contented him temporarily by asking these sites to filter contents in the interest of country else face ban like in China.
Point is, today, World is considered a Global – Village and indeed it is. Just by removing contents considered objectionable in the interest of a country can it be guaranteed the contents wont create their impact when they would be freely shown in other parts of world. Do Indians live only in India. Given such circumstances, an Indian staying in Europe may get to see such content and may call up back in India, and discuss the same stuff with his friends and family and that may spread anyways. In such situation people would just follow others version of story and may react more badly. Isn’t that possible?
Since the internet has become prominent source of communication and expression , in India and the world, users have witnessed unlimited content which hurt religious and patriotic sentiments and most of them do not retaliate as they are literate enough to understand offender’s spineless frustration which might have forced him to talk or draw contents against a religion or country. The ones who might feel offended have the liberty to contradict, question and react. Nobody stops anyone. It is fair. How many times in India riots have taken place due to contents on the internet?
By banning sites or even by filtering contents are we not taking away an opportunity of discussion, an opportunity of debate, an opportunity of correcting and above all “freedom to speech and express” ?
Is this ban not a way of saying ‘ None speaks against me.’ Is it democracy and secular thought process or dictatorship , inside the couch of ‘being offended’?
A few group of hardliners can stop someone to speak out as it happened in case of Rushdie. Point is did his expression in his book inspire someone to change his faith and if it all it did so , he never deserved to be in the clan, good for the followers of faith that a hypocrite is gone.
It is not the content on the internet but our conscious mind which filters what to react on and how and that is how it has been happening since internet has become public. And anyways, if a content is strong enough to shake religious or patriotic faith then such faith in religion or nationality itself was fake. Do we have ‘only’ admirers in our surrounding? The answer is NO and even after knowing someone does not like us or our views or dressing, we do not go ahead and attack him. We carry on without even explaining, in most of the cases.
Moreover, if a nation has to take a decision on banning on internet or its content, it has to be put for voting, the way we elect our Government. Let the majority decide what they prefer.