Re: ACT fibrenet, Bangalore blocking Dailymotion.com etc

”Everything is on the internet.  What will you hide?”

The court said, “Indian society is very mature and knows the difference between entertainment and other things.”

Clearly, both the government and the lower courts need some amount of basic education. Perhaps the Supreme Court (the CJI is being quoted here, in re the PK case) could consider running coaching classes. The money they make could be used to ensure that less frivolous cases are filed, and government officers who waste our precious time and money to pursue obscurantism are restrained with prejudice. Not extreme prejudice, that is their own exclusive domain.

I understand that the petition filed in the lower court alleges that some internet content causes rape and other violence. I don't know if the petition named these 32 sites also, or whether it had a longer list that was then whittled down by an omniscient DeITy, or we have some really smart people who are able to list the most dangerous but accessible Web sites in the world (but who might yet benefit from an education, nonetheless). 

So what do the members of this list think? Can a case be made against the petitioner (his name is public, but I see no reason to afford him even the tiniest personal publicity) that his malicious petition has resulted in palpable damage to legal entities resident in India, including programmers and AV content developers? Apparently, in Indian courts, it is not necessary to draw any rational link between cause and effect while claiming damages.

Vickram

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii