Re: ACT fibrenet, Bangalore blocking Dailymotion.com etc

Surprisingly the real pain in the behind for most of the needless internet
censorship seems to be none other than Mr.Phoney-tail, and it always seems
to boil down to protecting his dubious reputation. Sigh!

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 2:33 PM, sarbajit roy <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Dear Vickram
>
> There are alarming dimensions to this matter which are not in public
> domain.
>
> I for one support aspects of this petition, though not the petitioner
> and his associates, and call for upholding of the ITGR 2011 and
> enforcement mechanisms on all foreign ISPs and hosting companies,
> especially Wikimedia, to put in place a system for content takedowns
> by a  "Grievance Officer" under Indian law for affected persons - or
> else to be blocked in India.
>
> IAC had taken the first step by getting Wikimedia's India's "Live
> search engine" effectively disabled, and we were awaiting the Supreme
> Court indications before taking further steps, which is now clear to
> us, against the foreign parents and the legal fictions they employ.
>
> BTW: You may be interested in this.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione
> in context of the 'Nichalp' {Nicholas Alphonso} discussions on Wikimedia
> India
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 1/3/15, Vickram Crishna <v1clist-/[email protected]> wrote:
> > ”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
>
> _______________________________________________
> India-gii mailing list
> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>



-- 
regards,
Banibrata
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdutta
http://twitter.com/edgeliving

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