Indian court orders FB & Google remove objectionable content

'Clean up your website': Indian court orders Facebook and Google to remove 'anti-religious' content
By ANNA EDWARDS
Last updated at 10:20 AM on 2nd January 2012

Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all 'anti-religious' and 'anti-social' content within six weeks.
On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.
Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1iPgzhwrS

Interesting - India (a mostly Hindu country) is ordering that FB and Google remove anti-religious (i.e. - anti-Islamic) content (judging by the name of the plaintiff).

Any country that practices content filtering will tell you it's nearly impossible.

CinnamonGirl wrote: 'Clean up your website': Indian court orders Facebook and Google to remove 'anti-religious' content
By ANNA EDWARDS
Last updated at 10:20 AM on 2nd January 2012

Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all 'anti-religious' and 'anti-social' content within six weeks.
On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.
Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1iPgzhwrS

This is a positive step forward for multiculturalism. This is similar to the restrictions that United States local and federal jurisdiction have placed on public displays of religious themes. And even on a more private level, a lot like malls and shopping centers that have decided to eliminate or minimize certain religious tinged holiday displays. We also see these advancements in our public schools. All in all, if this is good for our citizens, then I don't see anything wrong with India or other countries imposing these kind of rules. We already know what happens when people are insensitive to other religions. Take for instance the Danish "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". This led to Islamic protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. If there were laws in place preventing this kind of religious mockery, then this unfortunate misguided violence would have never happened.

I think India is on the right track.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote: 'Clean up your website': Indian court orders Facebook and Google to remove 'anti-religious' content
By ANNA EDWARDS
Last updated at 10:20 AM on 2nd January 2012

Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all 'anti-religious' and 'anti-social' content within six weeks.
On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.
Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1iPgzhwrS

This is a positive step forward for multiculturalism. This is similar to the restrictions that United States local and federal jurisdiction have placed on public displays of religious themes. And even on a more private level, a lot like malls and shopping centers that have decided to eliminate or minimize certain religious tinged holiday displays. We also see these advancements in our public schools. All in all, if this is good for our citizens, then I don't see anything wrong with India or other countries imposing these kind of rules. We already know what happens when people are insensitive to other religions. Take for instance the Danish "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". This led to Islamic protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. If there were laws in place preventing this kind of religious mockery, then this unfortunate misguided violence would have never happened.

I think India is on the right track.

I am hoping this is sarcasm.
Hopefully FB & Google will tell India to pound sand. What's next, let North Korea determine which anti-goverment posts must be censored?

FredHayek wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote: 'Clean up your website': Indian court orders Facebook and Google to remove 'anti-religious' content
By ANNA EDWARDS
Last updated at 10:20 AM on 2nd January 2012

Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all 'anti-religious' and 'anti-social' content within six weeks.
On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.
Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1iPgzhwrS

This is a positive step forward for multiculturalism. This is similar to the restrictions that United States local and federal jurisdiction have placed on public displays of religious themes. And even on a more private level, a lot like malls and shopping centers that have decided to eliminate or minimize certain religious tinged holiday displays. We also see these advancements in our public schools. All in all, if this is good for our citizens, then I don't see anything wrong with India or other countries imposing these kind of rules. We already know what happens when people are insensitive to other religions. Take for instance the Danish "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". This led to Islamic protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. If there were laws in place preventing this kind of religious mockery, then this unfortunate misguided violence would have never happened.

I think India is on the right track.

I am hoping this is sarcasm.

No... my comment was not sarcasm. "Tim Tebow for President" I hope that's sarcasm.

Actually Tebow cannot be President since he was born in the Phillipines, so it is more of a unrealistic hope than sarcasm.

The ability to quash condemnation of any religion would have prevented Luther from even questioning indulgences, still good with that? Arresting Luther would have prevented a lot of bloodshed, but would the world have been better off without the Reformation?

Once one gives in to pressure such as this then there will be a progressive move to squash more and more "objectionable content" . After all, what may be non-objectionable to you or I is highly objectionable to another. Why is it necessary to prevent someone from expressing their belief regardless of what that may be? For example I find it objectionable when people wear grey suits, therefore I want to see them banned, so will not have to look at them on purpose or accidentally. How very absurd is that? If India does not like the content of a web site, they are free not to use it. Isn't that simple enough? Screw them and everyone else who must insist on censorship.

Their country, up to them right?

Aren't we about to pass a law stating that we will be filtering or filtering upon request websites in this country, yes for a different reason but massive filtering none the less. SOPA? Many things are objectionable to many bottom lines.

I don't want sensorship, but I also don't feel that my opinion matters in India, unless Indians want it to.

Oh and since we are talking about laws....Tim Tebow can become president....we can change the constitution, though it is unlikley.....Tebow may just be the one.

And I will argue as I have before, that if the people want it....why SENSOR their choice of possible presidents, I mean people are considering Romney, we already have Obama, why not Tebow?

Popcorn Eater wrote: Oh and since we are talking about laws....Tim Tebow can become president....we can change the constitution, though it is unlikley.....Tebow may just be the one.

And I will argue as I have before, that if the people want it....why SENSOR their choice of possible presidents, I mean people are considering Romney, we already have Obama, why not Tebow?

The Economist recently wrote an article about Presidents coming from other countries. Currently we have as a chief executive someone with no practical experience. And any Republican elected won't have Presidential experience either. Shouldn't we also be allowed to consider Tony Blair for President or Vlad Putin. Mr. Putin wouldn't let Congress dictate terms right?