For two days, I’ve watched in befuddlement both the supporters and detractors of Kapil Sibal’s ridiculous proclamations. To me, neither side seems to really address the main bloody point! Both sides skip around the real issues of this episode. So I’m laying them bare:
1. Websites are Private Property. No one forces you to visit one
Kapil Sibal and others seem to liken the Internet to a public road where someone is standing on a podium hurling obscenities. This is a laughable error. On a road, the passerbys have no choice but to listen to something offensive. Loudspeakers don’t require the permission of the listeners to get their message through. So if someone wants to avoid them, they have no choice. This is why there should be restrictions on what people can just stand up and shout in public. Because no one is obligated to listen to anyone else.
The Internet however, is totally different. Every single website on the planet is owned by someone. Is paid for by someone or the other. This blog which you’re reading is mine. It’s not public property. You’re reading this as a guest in my personal space. You choose to come here. I didn’t force you.
So if you get offended by something I write, just bloody leave. I promise my website won’t follow you. You have complete freedom to shut yourself off from offensive content. Unlike a public speech on the road, you make the choice to get offended.
If you see a Facebook page saying “I hate Muslims”, it’s not going to carry speeches from Vivekananda! You jolly well know what’s inside. If you still go in, read something and get offended, it’s your own fault. Don’t blame the creators of the content. It’s their page. You are a guest.
Let’s make this even more clear. If you deliberately go touch a hot stove and get burned, do you blame yourself or the stove? If you go to a house and see a box saying “if you open this, you will get hurt” and you open it, whom do you blame? Similarly, when someone sends you a link via email which says “OMG this will totally piss you off!” and you click on that link, guess who’s fault it is?
Yep that’s right – you. You’re an adult. Take responsibility for your actions. You type a URL, you choose to take the risk of getting offended. Your fingers click a link, it’s your job to respect the rights of the owner of that website. It’s their home. You are a guest. You don’t choose to go into someone else’s house and demand that they change the layout of their furniture.
2. We’re not “your people”, you pompous prick
Sibal’s quote saying “We have to take care of the sensibility of our people” is so outrageous, I’m shocked no one has objected to it so far.
Dear Kapil, listen to me loud and clear. You’re a politician – not fucking Moses! You are our servant. We’re not “your people”. We don’t belong to you. You’re not the caretacker of our sensibilities. You’re not our father, mother or guardian. You no right to speak for “our sensibilities”.
I’ve always had a problem with the phrase “ruling party”. India is not a monarchy where people “rule”. Parties are allowed to govern for a time – and that’s it. But in India we still look upon politicians as kings, which is why they can get away with horrific statements talking about “their people”.
So Sibal, mind your own business. We can take care of our sensibilities well enough. It’s not your job to look out for the adults of India.
As long as comments posted on the Internet are on private websites which people choose to go to, there should be no restriction on anything. Even hate speech should be allowed. Web users are smart enough to punish a website by not visiting it. We’re not drawn on strings towards hateful content.
Look at Wikipedia. It’s run entirely by the users. The government has no say in what’s put up on Wikipedia. Editors are regular people. And look at the quality! Does Sibal think the government could have done any better? Ordinary people are not stupid. We know what is offensive content and how to deal with it. We all see the “flag as offensive” buttons and we make the choice to click it or not. You’re not welcome to make that choice for us.
Apparently you have a problem with a Facebook page showing morphed pictures of Sonia Gandhi. Did you know that it would offend you even before you saw it? Yes you did – because someone would have shown you the link. Why did you open that link if you knew it would offend you? You chose to get offended. And you dare blame the creators of the site?
Just because you’re a child doesn’t mean that the rest of us don’t know how to take responsibility for our actions. So please don’t project your juvenile behavior on to the rest of us.
Bhagwad,
I have two alternative explanations:
1. Diversion (Kapil Sibal looks better in this one)
This is a successful distraction/ diversion from something else.I dont think there is any serious danger of this govt clamping down on the Net. A very smart lawyer has successfully played most of the ELM and neterati.
Only problem is I cant think of what is the major issue that is being distracted from. Are the First Family involved in the spectrum scam or something :-)
2. Sycophancy(Kapil Sibal comes off worse in this one).
With the Congress and other dynastic parties, the point with such assertions is to curry favor with the royalty -255 of the 328 sites were critical of the govt and most were directly critical of the First Family. This isnt going away anytime soon. It will only happen when the people being sucked up to react with sharp rebukes to the act of sucking up, and I think after Rajiv there isnt that kind of power…. even with the First Family.
3. Most of the internet’s explanation (Kapil Sibal looks like a dummy’s version of a dictator here).
Mr.Sibal is at his most evil in this narrative but sorry I dont believe this one.
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
Maybe Sibal has internalized the worship of the Gandhi family and his feelings were genuinely hurt and outraged! A kind of “religious sentiments” hurt in fact…
This is a pretty poor diversion I think because it makes the entire Congress party come off looking horrible. Sycophancy might indeed be a reason.
In reply to bhagwad
A substantial retraction on my part( explanation #4) and a confession
4. Trial Balloon
Mr.Sibal has a better sense of the public pulse than I thought, and censorship has more support than I imagined. This emerged in offline chats on this topic with friends. More worryingly Justice Katju has weighed in on Mr.Sibal’s side, and religious organizations have gotten into the act asking for several sites to be pulled down. Today’s paper reports that a court has summoned the heads of several online sites to explain why their content is not to be deleted.
So I was wrong in my blithe serenity with the above comment.
And finally a confession:
I have to admit that I do not totally abhor the situation of “forced free expression” which *is* a kind of censorship.
Unlike a completely free marketplace of ideas where sites get traffic or shunted out based on just popular support or interest with absolutely no controlling authority whatsoever (true FoS) this situation has a super-authority that can be invoked and the threat leads to the marketplace modifying its behavior, introducing some rules for unfriending / blocking/ deletion that may not otherwise have come into being.
It turns out I do not dislike the idea of a Damocles sword though I value its power more by its non-usage.
IOW that is my true state, my innermost belief. Absolute FoS is just me being tolerant and respectful of an idea I dont quite agree with. That last statement makes things more of a muddle :-)
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
I’m a bit more comfortable with the courts taking it up because Google/Facebook have enough resources and expertise to defend themselves and when this goes to the higher courts, I can’t see the Supreme Court weighing down on the side of censorship. It’s the political scene that I’m worried about.
I’m afraid I didn’t quite understand your concept of “forced free expression”. Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more?
*Stands up and applauds* Awesome awesome awesome post….I came here from IHM….its so true…I am surprised no one has made an issue about the ‘our’ people..as if we are nursery kids….or something…
I loved what you wrote about ‘ruling’ party…till date it never struck me that its not ‘ruling’ party”its just a governing party..so true…so very true!
I loved what you wrote :)
In reply to R’s Mom
Glad you’re upset over the “our people” and “ruling party” nonsense :) It’s so damn silly isn’t it?
The so called intellectual breed of the INC have been desperately trying to weed the public outrage off from the various scams from the recent past by sending out pointed controversial statements like the one you have blogged about and the news media waiting for their daily masala have been gobbling, digesting and excreting these innuendo’s with their own ones. Ignore should be the order of the day, especially by the media.
By the way, very nicely expressed, Kudos.
Came here from IHM’s. Brilliant post, Bhagwad!
Isn’t it patronizing: “their” people indeed! Hah! To me it reeks of a ‘raja’/’praja’ attitude where the king was supposed to treat his subjects like his children
In reply to Mandooka
Thanks for dropping by Mandooka :) . And yeah, it’s like kings dealing with their children. But the fault is ours. We don’t protest. We meekly accept these phrases and they get even bolder!
No one can disagree with what you have said and it is well said though i have some other concerns. I think you would agree regulation and regulatory bodies are important part of governance. As far as internet is concern where and how do you differentiate censorship and regulation? If there is an online content that is child pornography what should be done and who should be doing what? I agree leading social networking sites have their own mechanisms to report them but sometimes they are ineffective and unmanageable due to its cheer size.
In reply to Ham Actor
Well, anything that actually harms another person needs to be removed. Like child pornography harms the children involved. But hardly anything else “actually harms” people.
ha ha real funny. If someone is selling stolen goods online, most people will expect the government to intervene. Most governments do intervene when there is proof of something illegal happening. Even the US government regularly shuts down websites selling counterfeit brands…
So if the law is broken in India, the Indian govt will intervene. No?
In reply to requiredname
Why are you comparing stolen goods to words on a computer screen?
In reply to bhagwad
its about implementing the law. If the law prohibits talking against the current government, then the law will get implemented. Otherwise it is all hot air.
In reply to requiredname
But I’m talking about changing the law.
‘our people’ ‘ruling party’ m glad u brought it up! Bang on nail-we r no monarchy!! Why behave like one then? N i do no understand the whole hulla baloo arnd the gandhi-nehru family! No blood link to gandhi at all! N nehru was just another politician who made very diplomatically made hay while it was shining!!
Is access to your site restricted?
In reply to TG
It’s restricted in the sense that no one can come here accidentally. They have to make a choice to do so.
“You’re a politician – not fucking Moses!”
That’s just brilliant! I often wonder why our ‘rulers’ and ‘leaders’ spend so much time trying to control our morality than actually being useful for a change.
In reply to KMKH
thanks :-). That’s a great foodie blog you have there!
I think once our leaders get rid of the Moses complex things will be fine…