9 ms·

Man faces 3 years in prison for tweeting about finance minister in India

167 points by ashray 14y ago

peteretep 14y ago
As a European, it can sometimes be hard to appreciate America's guarantees of free speech, especially as you only really ever hear about the "negative" aspects of it - Citizens United, for example. But more and more it seems that countries that have nominally vibrant democracies are making certain types of speech criminal - I wonder if there'll be a groundswell of activism to get free speech retroactively enshrined as a right in countries where such a thing never really seemed needed before.
- Nursie 14y ago
  I don't know if there's a groundswell, but people in the UK are certainly talking about it. In particular the libel laws here are utterly crazy, frequently you'll see two Americans, or two Russians, suing each other in UK courts over things printed or put up on the internet in their respective countries. Nothing to do with the UK really, but because there is no 1st amendment, and the courts consider it their jurisdiction if the material was ever available over here, they go for it. And because most countries have agreements on collecting money owed due to lawsuits, a judgement in the UK (where it's easy to get one) can affect the defendant wherever they are. I believe that this sort of things is starting to be recognised and the US (possibly Obama himself) have put an exception on their legal reciprocity - UK libel judgements don't count in the US any more.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    This recently came up in the world of gaming: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mcvs-lauren-wainwright-english-libel-law-and-the-gaming-press-why-this-stor http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mcvs-lauren...
- rayiner 14y ago
  Citizens United often gets brought up when people over here talk about limiting political speech, but one thing I like to remind people is that: 1) Citizens United was about a movie criticizing a Presidential candidate--the exact kind of political speech that should be most protected; 2) the Soliciter General put his foot in his mouth in the most terrible way when he basically admitted that the law would allow book banning. I also like to point out that in the very next term the Supreme Court struck down California's violent video game law, which was widely lauded by liberals even though had Citizens United gone the other way, Rockstar Games would have no free speech rights to raise in that case. Free speech really is the real deal here, and I find it upsetting how much flak the Supreme Court has gotten for staying true to their line of decisions. This is a Supreme Court that in the midst of Vietnam protected a protestor who said that if the government ever made him carry a rifle (to go to war), the first person in his sights would be President Johnson.
  - pstuart 14y ago
    The movie was paid speech - it was a commercial.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      A commercial or advertisement is defined as something that "poses nothing more than a commercial transaction." E.g. "Buy this iPad it's great!" There is no way to shoe-horn "Hilary: The Movie" into the "just a commercial" mold. Here are a list of other movies produced by Citizens United: "ACLU: At War with America" (this one is ironic); "Broken Promises: The UN at 60"; "Rediscovering God in America." Now, you might not like the organization's political message, but I don't see a principled way to distinguish them from some of my Sierra Club favorites like "Coal Country" and "Oil on Ice." What is "paid speech" even supposed to mean? What movies don't cost money to make? Or for that matter books or pamphlets or newspapers? Both Citizens United and the Sierra Club are not-for-profit corporations. They are created for the express purpose of getting out a particular message, and that costs money. Their message should not be taken out of the protection of the First Amendment just because of that fact. It should be noted that Grand Theft Auto not only cost money, but it was a for-profit product...
- spindritf 14y ago
  > As a European, it can sometimes be hard to appreciate America's guarantees of free speech As a European, it's hard NOT to appreciate America's guarantees of free speech, especially as limits on it only seem to have negative effects like silencing criticism of government and powerful public figures, quelling reports of corruption, and penalising beliefs unpopular among current political elite. Their guarantees include not just the fifth amendment but also little bits like truth being an absolute defence against libel, and courts unwilling to chase the smallest slip-ups in their race to convict for libel. And as much as American seem to get offended over what other people say, their government is not imprisoning historians telling wacky stories, or chasing memorabilia.
- skrebbel 14y ago
  Strongly agree. The fact that in most European countries, there's some freedom of speech, apparently makes it much easier for legislators to add some things to the taboo list here and there, and for the public to suck it up. In the US, where freedom of speech is a much more absolute right, it is also much easier to defend.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- smsm42 14y ago
  Of course, it's easy to appreciate free speech when it is done by people you sympathize with. It's much harder to do it in case where it's done by people you disagree with. That's why US has First Amendment and that's why, so far, the Supreme Court was very reluctant to allow any restrictions, even in case where political pressure is massive - such as the CU case. Unfortunately, the executive branch is not as adamant in protecting the Constitution as the SCOTUS are - see the recent case of Hillary Clinton promising to arrest and prosecute the maker of the infamous "Innocence of Muslims" flick. It is by now a demonstrable fact that free speech restrictions are a slippery slope. You start with the laws that prohibit "bad" speech or political speech by "bad" people - and voila, in short time you get bloggers arrested and filmmakers jailed because somebody powerful didn't like what they said. The law is always written against "bad" people, but whoever gets to enforce it may have very different definitions of "bad" than you do.
- namank 14y ago
  What do you (guys) think of Julian Assange?
nsomaru 14y ago
Sad, and typical. I have lived in India for the last 3 years and at first I was angry, then disgusted, but now it's just sadness. To see a country with so much potential throw themselves into such a quagmire of ridiculousness stirs my soul to mutiny! There is a culture of corruption, and this article just highlights one of thousands of daily acts of corruption that happen on macro and micro scales. India needs a cultural revolution, someone to suck the apathy out of the people and make them demand responsibility from their leaders.
- gnufied 14y ago
  There is something like that underway currently and the guy who was arrested for tweeting was part of it - India Against Corruption(http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/ http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/). Like every common Indian, they have my support and money and when time comes I am willing to take it to the streets as well. The litmus test will be, how much interest it can get from people beyond big cities.
  - kamaal 14y ago
    Actually there was a time in the past two years, where a street revolution was inevitable. Especially last year and this year, both during Anna Hazare's fast. But some how they couldn't hold on and fire died soon. Last year the fever was really high.
    - hashpipe 14y ago
      A radical change is not gonna happen with any fire or so that you mention. The path to achieve it is what Mr. Kejriwal is doing right now, and the time to get there will be the next decade or so. You think a street revolution is gonna help India right now, or a structured approach with a long-term vision..
- dharmach 14y ago
  When the corrupt politicians take anti-democratic action like this one against the free speech, people en masse should repeat the same act in defiance. At least, all the Indians living outside should do it.
denzil_correa 14y ago
What an arcane law! Section 66-A deals with messages sent via computer or communication devices which may be “grossly offensive,” have “menacing character,” or even cause “annoyance or inconvenience.” For offences under the section, a person can be fined and jailed up to three years. If you cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience" to someone, you can be fined or jailed up to three years! Edit - He has also clarified that he has just cited media reports and not made any new revelation. He just has 16 followers on Twitter. His arrest has got more to do with his involvement with IAC(India against Corruption) than anything else.
- Deestan 14y ago
  > If you cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience" to someone, you can be fined or jailed up to three years! Only if you do it via electronic communication. Books, leaflets, etc have no corresponding laws.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    If that is the extent of the law, then what is lacking is the concept of intent.
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>If you cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience" to someone, you can be fined or jailed up to three years! This doesn't even begin to describe ridiculous. Ever heard of IPC 498a? For those who don't what it is- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry_law_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry_law_in_India The law is such, you might even repent being a born a boy in India.
  - damncabbage 14y ago
    (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.[8] Could you elaborate on your objections to the above? I am not familiar with its use or misuse.
andyjohnson0 14y ago
Section 66-A deals with messages sent via computer or communication devices which may be “grossly offensive,” have “menacing character,” or even cause “annoyance or inconvenience.” Sounds similar to the laws we have here in the UK. Section 127(2) of the Communications Act 2003 [1] states: (2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b)causes such a message to be sent; or (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network. The act allows for imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine. It was the legal basis for the "Twitter Joke" trial [2]. In my opinion it is worryingly broad in its scope. [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
- experiment0 14y ago
  Great speech from Rowan Atkinson about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gciegyiLYtY http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g...
  - tetomb 14y ago
    Thanks for posting this. http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/ Looks interesting.
  - drucken 14y ago
    This case, especially in the context of Rowan Atkinson's very eloquent speech, illustrates clearly why it is the West that has to set the standards for free speech. By contrast, given what the UK has done in the past around Internet speech, the Indian case does not look unreasonable!
- jagira 14y ago
  Certain sections of Indian laws and its constitution were blindly lifted from UK's laws and its constitution.
ananthrk 14y ago
The tweet was not even about the finance minister (Mr. Chidambaram) but about the finance minister's son (Karthi Chidambaram)
- ashray 14y ago
  Yeah I got confused by the article because it mentioned something about the tweets being about P Chidambaram. Other such tweets reportedly made references to Mr. P. Chidambaram. The fact that the tweet is about an even more low profile guy (although he IS the son of said finance minister) makes this even worse.
leephillips 14y ago
India also has a law against “deliberately hurting religious feelings,” which was exploited recently[1] by the Catholic Church. [1] http://lee-phillips.org/IndiaNoDemocracy/ http://lee-phillips.org/IndiaNoDemocracy/
solutionyogi 14y ago
Sad and proves once again that India has no freedom of speech. Great article on the topic by Amit Varma. Don't Insult Pasta: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/dont-insult-pasta/ http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/dont-insult-pasta/ One of the most impressing thing about USA is that they have true freedom of speech and majority of people defend it furiously. I can't help but think but this is one of the major factor America is one of the leading nations in the world.
poundy 14y ago
“If you write a book that annoys or inconveniences me, even deliberately, I have no civil or criminal recourse. But if you send an e-mail message, or post a tweet, you could face three years in jail,” says Mr. Prakash. “That’s higher than the two-year imprisonment for causing death by negligence.”
- sageikosa 14y ago
  That's when you start looking for tweets that promote the book...
denzil_correa 14y ago
This is going to be interesting actually. Article 19 of the Indian constitution grants right to freedom of speech. *All citizens shall have the right* — to freedom of speech and expression; to assemble peaceably and without arms; to form associations or unions; to move freely throughout the territory of India; to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. *These rights are limited so as not to effect*: The integrity of India The security of the State Friendly relations with foreign States Public order Decency or morality Contempt of court Defamation or incitement to an offence http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc
- kamaal 14y ago
  Their aim is not to send him to prison, but to trouble him and give him so many hassles with police and courts that he finally gives up. By that way, they get to 'teach him the lesson' and 'make him example' to deter others from doing it.
  - TopTrix 14y ago
    That is exact point, the ruling party trying to do. Because most of the internet is flooding with articles against this govt.
  - denzil_correa 14y ago
    > By that way, they get to 'teach him the lesson' and 'make him example' to deter others from doing it. I think it's going to back fire as it has done in the recent past.
- makomk 14y ago
  That has enough loopholes to drive a small dictatorship through, though.
TopTrix 14y ago
India is not a country, where constitution works for Common man You have to have money power, muscle power and much more to use the rights give by constitution of India. Most of the peoples always try to not to go to judiciary in whole life, because it will take your whole life time to get the results and you have to pour all your income, time in visiting dates of trial. No one -common people- believe the law and are realized it and get used to it. There are millions of cased pending in courts which are more than 70 60 yrs old and I feel the British rule was much better than this. may i get punished to say all this, though this is the case with everyone and anything can happen with anyone.
sergiotapia 14y ago
Reminds me heavily of our Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera (Bolivia) going on record saying: "I'm reading every negative post on Facebook that speaks ill of the government and writing down names. Names are being written down." What horseshit! Scary thought; North Americans seem to take their free-speech for granted, as an inalienable right when in fact many countries in the world don't have such a thing. Enjoy it while you can.
- TopTrix 14y ago
  Your should be thankful to God that you live in America.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    God had nothing to do with anything. We only have our First Amendment protections because some Americans believed in them strongly enough to die and/or kill for them.
shrikant 14y ago
https://twitter.com/ravi_the_indian https://twitter.com/ravi_the_indian According to the article, he had 16 followers as of Wednesday evening. Now he has 869 and growing. Great work, Mr. Politico, you would get along fabulously with Barbra Streisand.
suprgeek 14y ago
Everybody on this thread is focusing (possibly rightly) on the issue of how badly drafted the law is and how broad it is. What people in the forum might not appreciate is how completely the Police in India is under the thumb of of the politically connected and the Rich. Having stayed in India for the last 5 years, the modern version of the Police force is a very scary to behold. Imagine that this is the result of an EMAIL from the son of the Union minister. In India even in very serious cases involving common people such as Murder, Arson, Rape etc the police always make a show of waiting for a WRITTEN compliant before they can even start investigation. The politicians cynically abuse the Police force to openly stifle dissent and hassle the common man - India is descending into a Banana republic at an alarming speed - very sad.
- namank 14y ago
  India is descending into a Banana republic at an alarming speed - very sad. To be fair, India is rising up from it; used to be a lot worse.
  - easternmonk 14y ago
    India is already a banana republic.
- thewisedude 14y ago
  I for one think that if the law was drafted "properly", there is very little police can do about it even if the ministers (who supposedly use them) are pissed off and want the police to do something about it. Such cases happen even in USA, where certain people are charged for misdemeanor's which are not uniformly enforced across the population. An example I can think of is the Eliot Spitzer-Call Girl in DC scandal.
  - namank 14y ago
    ...if the law was drafted "properly", there is very little police can do about it even if the ministers (who supposedly use them) are pissed off and want the police to do something about it. That doesn't fit in with the nature of gov't corruption or politics. These actions usually have hidden agendas that are instigated and planned at the party level. At the risk of oversimplifying, while one member sees the law made, another one acts on it.
known 14y ago
"Diverse society is bound to fail" --Robert Putnam. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
savrajsingh 14y ago
Here's an article in NYT that gives you insight into the Indian Justice System: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/01/world/in-india-the-wheels-of-justice-hardly-move.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/01/world/in-india-the-wheels-... And here's an example of an organization fighting for justice against state crimes: http://www.ensaaf.org http://www.ensaaf.org
known 14y ago
Caste = Corrupt by birth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_in_India
jeyaganesh 14y ago
This is outrageous.Wont we have the freedom of expression?
fredBuddemeyer 14y ago
does anyone have any ideas on what we could do to help this person?
- swamy_g 14y ago
  Follow him on Twitter, use a hash tag (#SupportRaviSrinivasan or whatever), if you are outside India, tweet to your local/national news papers. Or just bomb @KartiPC with your complaints.
known 14y ago
Campaign Against Arrest of Ravi Srinivasan for a Tweet http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/ http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/
denzil_correa 14y ago
There is now a "Campaign Against Arrest of Ravi Srinivasan for a Tweet" [0]. This issue is getting a lot of attention in the international media too [1]. [0] http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/ http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/ [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/31/in-india-a-tweet-can-land-you-in-jail/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/31...

167 points by ashray 14y ago

As a European, it can sometimes be hard to appreciate America's guarantees of free speech, especially as you only really ever hear about the "negative" aspects of it - Citizens United, for example. But more and more it seems that countries that have nominally vibrant democracies are making certain types of speech criminal - I wonder if there'll be a groundswell of activism to get free speech retroactively enshrined as a right in countries where such a thing never really seemed needed before.

Nursie 14y ago
I don't know if there's a groundswell, but people in the UK are certainly talking about it. In particular the libel laws here are utterly crazy, frequently you'll see two Americans, or two Russians, suing each other in UK courts over things printed or put up on the internet in their respective countries. Nothing to do with the UK really, but because there is no 1st amendment, and the courts consider it their jurisdiction if the material was ever available over here, they go for it. And because most countries have agreements on collecting money owed due to lawsuits, a judgement in the UK (where it's easy to get one) can affect the defendant wherever they are. I believe that this sort of things is starting to be recognised and the US (possibly Obama himself) have put an exception on their legal reciprocity - UK libel judgements don't count in the US any more.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  This recently came up in the world of gaming: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mcvs-lauren-wainwright-english-libel-law-and-the-gaming-press-why-this-stor http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mcvs-lauren...
rayiner 14y ago
Citizens United often gets brought up when people over here talk about limiting political speech, but one thing I like to remind people is that: 1) Citizens United was about a movie criticizing a Presidential candidate--the exact kind of political speech that should be most protected; 2) the Soliciter General put his foot in his mouth in the most terrible way when he basically admitted that the law would allow book banning. I also like to point out that in the very next term the Supreme Court struck down California's violent video game law, which was widely lauded by liberals even though had Citizens United gone the other way, Rockstar Games would have no free speech rights to raise in that case. Free speech really is the real deal here, and I find it upsetting how much flak the Supreme Court has gotten for staying true to their line of decisions. This is a Supreme Court that in the midst of Vietnam protected a protestor who said that if the government ever made him carry a rifle (to go to war), the first person in his sights would be President Johnson.
- pstuart 14y ago
  The movie was paid speech - it was a commercial.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    A commercial or advertisement is defined as something that "poses nothing more than a commercial transaction." E.g. "Buy this iPad it's great!" There is no way to shoe-horn "Hilary: The Movie" into the "just a commercial" mold. Here are a list of other movies produced by Citizens United: "ACLU: At War with America" (this one is ironic); "Broken Promises: The UN at 60"; "Rediscovering God in America." Now, you might not like the organization's political message, but I don't see a principled way to distinguish them from some of my Sierra Club favorites like "Coal Country" and "Oil on Ice." What is "paid speech" even supposed to mean? What movies don't cost money to make? Or for that matter books or pamphlets or newspapers? Both Citizens United and the Sierra Club are not-for-profit corporations. They are created for the express purpose of getting out a particular message, and that costs money. Their message should not be taken out of the protection of the First Amendment just because of that fact. It should be noted that Grand Theft Auto not only cost money, but it was a for-profit product...
spindritf 14y ago
> As a European, it can sometimes be hard to appreciate America's guarantees of free speech As a European, it's hard NOT to appreciate America's guarantees of free speech, especially as limits on it only seem to have negative effects like silencing criticism of government and powerful public figures, quelling reports of corruption, and penalising beliefs unpopular among current political elite. Their guarantees include not just the fifth amendment but also little bits like truth being an absolute defence against libel, and courts unwilling to chase the smallest slip-ups in their race to convict for libel. And as much as American seem to get offended over what other people say, their government is not imprisoning historians telling wacky stories, or chasing memorabilia.
skrebbel 14y ago
Strongly agree. The fact that in most European countries, there's some freedom of speech, apparently makes it much easier for legislators to add some things to the taboo list here and there, and for the public to suck it up. In the US, where freedom of speech is a much more absolute right, it is also much easier to defend.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
smsm42 14y ago
Of course, it's easy to appreciate free speech when it is done by people you sympathize with. It's much harder to do it in case where it's done by people you disagree with. That's why US has First Amendment and that's why, so far, the Supreme Court was very reluctant to allow any restrictions, even in case where political pressure is massive - such as the CU case. Unfortunately, the executive branch is not as adamant in protecting the Constitution as the SCOTUS are - see the recent case of Hillary Clinton promising to arrest and prosecute the maker of the infamous "Innocence of Muslims" flick. It is by now a demonstrable fact that free speech restrictions are a slippery slope. You start with the laws that prohibit "bad" speech or political speech by "bad" people - and voila, in short time you get bloggers arrested and filmmakers jailed because somebody powerful didn't like what they said. The law is always written against "bad" people, but whoever gets to enforce it may have very different definitions of "bad" than you do.
namank 14y ago
What do you (guys) think of Julian Assange?

nsomaru 14y ago

Sad, and typical. I have lived in India for the last 3 years and at first I was angry, then disgusted, but now it's just sadness. To see a country with so much potential throw themselves into such a quagmire of ridiculousness stirs my soul to mutiny! There is a culture of corruption, and this article just highlights one of thousands of daily acts of corruption that happen on macro and micro scales. India needs a cultural revolution, someone to suck the apathy out of the people and make them demand responsibility from their leaders.

gnufied 14y ago
There is something like that underway currently and the guy who was arrested for tweeting was part of it - India Against Corruption(http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/ http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/). Like every common Indian, they have my support and money and when time comes I am willing to take it to the streets as well. The litmus test will be, how much interest it can get from people beyond big cities.
- kamaal 14y ago
  Actually there was a time in the past two years, where a street revolution was inevitable. Especially last year and this year, both during Anna Hazare's fast. But some how they couldn't hold on and fire died soon. Last year the fever was really high.
  - hashpipe 14y ago
    A radical change is not gonna happen with any fire or so that you mention. The path to achieve it is what Mr. Kejriwal is doing right now, and the time to get there will be the next decade or so. You think a street revolution is gonna help India right now, or a structured approach with a long-term vision..
dharmach 14y ago
When the corrupt politicians take anti-democratic action like this one against the free speech, people en masse should repeat the same act in defiance. At least, all the Indians living outside should do it.

denzil_correa 14y ago

What an arcane law! Section 66-A deals with messages sent via computer or communication devices which may be “grossly offensive,” have “menacing character,” or even cause “annoyance or inconvenience.” For offences under the section, a person can be fined and jailed up to three years. If you cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience" to someone, you can be fined or jailed up to three years! Edit - He has also clarified that he has just cited media reports and not made any new revelation. He just has 16 followers on Twitter. His arrest has got more to do with his involvement with IAC(India against Corruption) than anything else.

Deestan 14y ago
> If you cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience" to someone, you can be fined or jailed up to three years! Only if you do it via electronic communication. Books, leaflets, etc have no corresponding laws.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  If that is the extent of the law, then what is lacking is the concept of intent.
kamaal 14y ago
>>If you cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience" to someone, you can be fined or jailed up to three years! This doesn't even begin to describe ridiculous. Ever heard of IPC 498a? For those who don't what it is- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry_law_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry_law_in_India The law is such, you might even repent being a born a boy in India.
- damncabbage 14y ago
  (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.[8] Could you elaborate on your objections to the above? I am not familiar with its use or misuse.

andyjohnson0 14y ago

Section 66-A deals with messages sent via computer or communication devices which may be “grossly offensive,” have “menacing character,” or even cause “annoyance or inconvenience.” Sounds similar to the laws we have here in the UK. Section 127(2) of the Communications Act 2003 [1] states: (2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b)causes such a message to be sent; or (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network. The act allows for imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine. It was the legal basis for the "Twitter Joke" trial [2]. In my opinion it is worryingly broad in its scope. [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

experiment0 14y ago
Great speech from Rowan Atkinson about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gciegyiLYtY http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g...
- tetomb 14y ago
  Thanks for posting this. http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/ Looks interesting.
- drucken 14y ago
  This case, especially in the context of Rowan Atkinson's very eloquent speech, illustrates clearly why it is the West that has to set the standards for free speech. By contrast, given what the UK has done in the past around Internet speech, the Indian case does not look unreasonable!
jagira 14y ago
Certain sections of Indian laws and its constitution were blindly lifted from UK's laws and its constitution.

ananthrk 14y ago

The tweet was not even about the finance minister (Mr. Chidambaram) but about the finance minister's son (Karthi Chidambaram)

ashray 14y ago
Yeah I got confused by the article because it mentioned something about the tweets being about P Chidambaram. Other such tweets reportedly made references to Mr. P. Chidambaram. The fact that the tweet is about an even more low profile guy (although he IS the son of said finance minister) makes this even worse.

leephillips 14y ago

India also has a law against “deliberately hurting religious feelings,” which was exploited recently[1] by the Catholic Church. [1] http://lee-phillips.org/IndiaNoDemocracy/ http://lee-phillips.org/IndiaNoDemocracy/

solutionyogi 14y ago

Sad and proves once again that India has no freedom of speech. Great article on the topic by Amit Varma. Don't Insult Pasta: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/dont-insult-pasta/ http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/dont-insult-pasta/ One of the most impressing thing about USA is that they have true freedom of speech and majority of people defend it furiously. I can't help but think but this is one of the major factor America is one of the leading nations in the world.

poundy 14y ago

“If you write a book that annoys or inconveniences me, even deliberately, I have no civil or criminal recourse. But if you send an e-mail message, or post a tweet, you could face three years in jail,” says Mr. Prakash. “That’s higher than the two-year imprisonment for causing death by negligence.”

sageikosa 14y ago
That's when you start looking for tweets that promote the book...

denzil_correa 14y ago

This is going to be interesting actually. Article 19 of the Indian constitution grants right to freedom of speech. *All citizens shall have the right* — to freedom of speech and expression; to assemble peaceably and without arms; to form associations or unions; to move freely throughout the territory of India; to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. *These rights are limited so as not to effect*: The integrity of India The security of the State Friendly relations with foreign States Public order Decency or morality Contempt of court Defamation or incitement to an offence http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc

kamaal 14y ago
Their aim is not to send him to prison, but to trouble him and give him so many hassles with police and courts that he finally gives up. By that way, they get to 'teach him the lesson' and 'make him example' to deter others from doing it.
- TopTrix 14y ago
  That is exact point, the ruling party trying to do. Because most of the internet is flooding with articles against this govt.
- denzil_correa 14y ago
  > By that way, they get to 'teach him the lesson' and 'make him example' to deter others from doing it. I think it's going to back fire as it has done in the recent past.
makomk 14y ago
That has enough loopholes to drive a small dictatorship through, though.

TopTrix 14y ago

India is not a country, where constitution works for Common man You have to have money power, muscle power and much more to use the rights give by constitution of India. Most of the peoples always try to not to go to judiciary in whole life, because it will take your whole life time to get the results and you have to pour all your income, time in visiting dates of trial. No one -common people- believe the law and are realized it and get used to it. There are millions of cased pending in courts which are more than 70 60 yrs old and I feel the British rule was much better than this. may i get punished to say all this, though this is the case with everyone and anything can happen with anyone.

sergiotapia 14y ago

Reminds me heavily of our Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera (Bolivia) going on record saying: "I'm reading every negative post on Facebook that speaks ill of the government and writing down names. Names are being written down." What horseshit! Scary thought; North Americans seem to take their free-speech for granted, as an inalienable right when in fact many countries in the world don't have such a thing. Enjoy it while you can.

TopTrix 14y ago
Your should be thankful to God that you live in America.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  God had nothing to do with anything. We only have our First Amendment protections because some Americans believed in them strongly enough to die and/or kill for them.

shrikant 14y ago

https://twitter.com/ravi_the_indian https://twitter.com/ravi_the_indian According to the article, he had 16 followers as of Wednesday evening. Now he has 869 and growing. Great work, Mr. Politico, you would get along fabulously with Barbra Streisand.

suprgeek 14y ago

Everybody on this thread is focusing (possibly rightly) on the issue of how badly drafted the law is and how broad it is. What people in the forum might not appreciate is how completely the Police in India is under the thumb of of the politically connected and the Rich. Having stayed in India for the last 5 years, the modern version of the Police force is a very scary to behold. Imagine that this is the result of an EMAIL from the son of the Union minister. In India even in very serious cases involving common people such as Murder, Arson, Rape etc the police always make a show of waiting for a WRITTEN compliant before they can even start investigation. The politicians cynically abuse the Police force to openly stifle dissent and hassle the common man - India is descending into a Banana republic at an alarming speed - very sad.

namank 14y ago
India is descending into a Banana republic at an alarming speed - very sad. To be fair, India is rising up from it; used to be a lot worse.
- easternmonk 14y ago
  India is already a banana republic.
thewisedude 14y ago
I for one think that if the law was drafted "properly", there is very little police can do about it even if the ministers (who supposedly use them) are pissed off and want the police to do something about it. Such cases happen even in USA, where certain people are charged for misdemeanor's which are not uniformly enforced across the population. An example I can think of is the Eliot Spitzer-Call Girl in DC scandal.
- namank 14y ago
  ...if the law was drafted "properly", there is very little police can do about it even if the ministers (who supposedly use them) are pissed off and want the police to do something about it. That doesn't fit in with the nature of gov't corruption or politics. These actions usually have hidden agendas that are instigated and planned at the party level. At the risk of oversimplifying, while one member sees the law made, another one acts on it.

known 14y ago

"Diverse society is bound to fail" --Robert Putnam. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...

savrajsingh 14y ago

Here's an article in NYT that gives you insight into the Indian Justice System: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/01/world/in-india-the-wheels-of-justice-hardly-move.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/01/world/in-india-the-wheels-... And here's an example of an organization fighting for justice against state crimes: http://www.ensaaf.org http://www.ensaaf.org

known 14y ago

Caste = Corrupt by birth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_in_India

jeyaganesh 14y ago

This is outrageous.Wont we have the freedom of expression?

fredBuddemeyer 14y ago

does anyone have any ideas on what we could do to help this person?

swamy_g 14y ago
Follow him on Twitter, use a hash tag (#SupportRaviSrinivasan or whatever), if you are outside India, tweet to your local/national news papers. Or just bomb @KartiPC with your complaints.

known 14y ago

Campaign Against Arrest of Ravi Srinivasan for a Tweet http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/ http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/

denzil_correa 14y ago

There is now a "Campaign Against Arrest of Ravi Srinivasan for a Tweet" [0]. This issue is getting a lot of attention in the international media too [1]. [0] http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/ http://getup4change.org/rti/support-free-speech/ [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/31/in-india-a-tweet-can-land-you-in-jail/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/31...