• According to some sources from Iran, the internet speed has become too low and even when using ADSL, it is hard to open emails or display small size images.
• According to Emipmans blog, it seems that Yahoo messenger is inaccessible in Iran. Moreover, some proxy software such as Ultra Surf and the like are not working.
• According to Saitak, the Iranian government wanted to change the route (map) of protest by sending false emails to Iranian users.
• Also Saitak pointed out that some ISPs in Iran opened the access to Youtube and Facebook in order to identify and track users who are people upload video clips and other content.
• Saitak2 blog argued that the government has send warning SMS to people containing the following message: “by laws if you get involved in protest you will be identified and arrested.“
• According to Saitak2Mobile internet access has been blocked as well.
• More and more Iranian are reporting that a huge number of websites are being filtered. The amount of noises on foreign channel such as VOA, BBC Persian and so on is too high and they are inaccessible. People are also reporting that the SMS system does not deliver their massages, also the antenna coverage range is such low that people cannot call each other easily.

However as Balatarin shows, too many blogs and websites are being updated every second. They all try to cover the news and events. It is clearly seen that every Iranian user is trying to get involved in this event. They stay updated and organize their movement using blogs and social networking websites, such as Facebook.

Newly, the Green movement in Iran just launched a new web site called Green Chain that aims to Encourage bloggers who are supporting the movement to stay in touch with each other and guide them to publish mass texts i support for the movement.

The Iranian internet is almost filtered, proxy softwares do not work and Yahoo, MSN, G-Talk and even other sites such as meebo and so on are inaccessible. However, bunch of clips and news came out from Iran.

Here is a lis of some video clips covering the recent protest in Iran:

• >no to left no to right we want Iranian republic.
• Mehdi Karobi one of the leaders of Green Movement can be seen, was injured by Basij militants during the protest.
• Special Guard attacked people during the protest; too many people have been injured as a result of that.
• weapons and basij wouldn’t stop us anymore.
• another protest in Shiraz University
• Tehran University was also inflamed and students were protesting there as well.
• while basij tried to disperse people from the main square, protesters gathered in smaller groups in minor streets.
• Protesters shouting: “Khamenei is a murderer so his leadership is futile“.
• people helping injured youth who have been aggressed by basij.
• massive protest in Ferdowsi university in Mashhad, Khorasan .
• police officer attacking people, mostly women and students. Gunshot can be heard clearly.
• BBC: political prisoners should be freed..
• how police forces are treating Iranian people: here and here.
•  and interesting video clip about what happened on November 4th.

Display more videos on Youtube by accessing this link

Or you can search “13 آبان” in Youtube.

According to (BBC Persian, there were huge protests in Tehran and other big cities of Iran. Reports from Iran pointed that people protested from other provinces such as Rasht, Isphehan, Zahedan, Kermanshah,Tabriz, Mashhad and Shiraz.

As witnesses reported, police, special guard and basij attacked people by tear gas; also batons and electrical shocks were used.

Moreover, more reports from Iran are saying that universities and school students are covering Teheran walls with green color, the symbol of the Green Movement.

The two young activists, exemplary in their use of new media in the region, were unexpectedly detained in the early hours of 8 July after they were attacked at a restaurant in the center of Baku, the Azerbaijani capital.

On the eve of yet another hearing, Flying Carpets and Broken Pipelines blogger Arzu Geybullayeva summed up her own feelings about the case.

Tomorrow (27th October), Adnan and Emin are going to have another hearing. Its been almost two weeks since the last one and there is still hope that they will be released. At least I want to hope so! I want to see my friends free again. I want their parents to see their sons and be proud of them. I want all of us- his friends, be honored that we have friends as them.

The following morning, L4L made a similar post albeit in a much shorter form and injected with some humor, perhaps in an effort to lift the spirits of others.

I don’t want to hear anything rational right now. I don’t want to think anything rational right now. I want them out of the jail today. Adnan still owes me few rounds of beer. So, i want them back. :)

When the trial started earlier today, supporters of the two detained activists used Facebook and Twitter to spread updates from the ground worldwide.

However, as has been common throughout the case and despite significant international outcry, many seem resigned to the fact that the authorities appear intent on dragging out the court case for as long as possible rather than see it come to a speedy end.

Support Adnan and Emin yesterday listed some of the many concerns about the trial expressed by human rights and pro-democracy organizations inside Azerbaijan.

This legal trial chaired by Araz Huseynov strikingly indicates the dependence of the judicial system on the executive power and the use of trials for political pressure on dissidents and repressions, particularly against freedom of speech, thought and self-expression.

Despite likely having already resigned themselves to more of the same, the disappointment was evident in the tweets of supporters when the hearing was adjourned less than a hour after it started.

Update: Some hours after the hearing, L4L made a promised second post reflecting on the day. The blog summed up the combination of both anger, frustration and hope that supporters of the two online activists must have felt.

Well, we all witnessed what happened today. Adnan’s and Emin’s court hearing was postponed once again […]. One of the witnesses was missing, so judge decided that one hour of work is enough for his conscience to continue its state of sleep for another week and told tired audience of this spectacle that next hearing will be held on November 6, 2009(2009!). Seriously, case of hooliganism that is already under investigation for almost 4 months? Should we consider contacting Guinness World Records anytime soon? […]

[…]

[…] E&A’s smile, the way they handle themselves. Dignity, positivity, courage. Love and happiness in their eyes every time they see us. The fact that they still cheer us even being behind convoy car’s bars. That makes me hopeful. That gives me strength. And I hope that our tries to cheer them up are working, that they know how much we love them and miss them. Of course, I hope that Adnan didn’t forget about 2 beers that he still owes me :)

Full coverage of the detention and trial of Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli is available in the Azerbaijan section of Global Voices Online and on the OL! Blog (in English and Azeri). The hashtag #EminAdnan is also used on Twitter.

Gerdab gathered a professional team to observe the internet. It is aimed to catch opposition web sites and blogs by reporting and/or undermining them. This will constitute an unprecedented threat for the safety and security of Iranian bloggers and another disturbing step to undermine online free speech .

As Gerdab claims, there should be in Iran no place for web sites and blogs that do not toe the line of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. However, it is also pointed out that, after Iran's rigged election, some of the regime's privacy policies have been adapted, in an attempt to introduce a new system that hides its abuses.

Gerdab strongly stands against western ideologies. It is opposed to all kind of social networking websites such as facebook and twitter, perceived as tools conspiring to topple the regime. Moreover, by articulating a rather negative perception of the Internet, Gerdab claimes that they “we want to filter the internet in order to keep our youths clean and pure from vices.”

Gerdab noted that Western countries such as the United State and Israel are using the Internet as a tool to change people’s minds. It also claims that by focusing on Iran's internal affaires, they're strategies of using the Internet is aimed at destabilizing the country and toppling the regime.Therefor, Gerdab urges the Iranian Internet users to be very careful and not publish their critical opinions on the Net.

Generally, it can be seen that Gerdab website is running to create a climate of public fear and anxiety in order to control the use of the Internet by the people. It has too many articles to bash people about the internet and its negative effects on daily life.

Port criticized former model Lasuka Cohen in her blog-often using harsh words. A Manhattan Supreme Court Judge ordered Google to out the blogger after Cohen filed lawsuit against Port claiming libel.

At Examiner.com, technology blogger Tanya Gupta expresses concerns over the developments and questions weather the blogger's first amendment rights were violated.

“But the judgement by the court to require Google to reveal the IP address of the blog, in other words reveal the identity of the blogger raises some fundamental first amendment issues as it relates to the internet. The internet medium is quite different from the print medium, in that it allows more people to participate in the generation of news, and for the most part, the reading public is responsible for sorting out the chaff from the wheat, so to speak, and make its own determination of what is good and what is bad. This is unlike the print media where a certain level of quality is guaranteed. To allow the medium to work according to its nature, therefore, you have to allow all sorts of participants in the news generation process. Censorship restricts not just the evil bloggers but the medium itself.”

A blogger's right to anonymity and what is defined as “online decorum” is also a part of this debate. Chris Gaylord at the Christian Science Monitor says that the lawsuit “dispels the Web’s oldest tradition: anonymity” and that

“Disguised in comforting anonymity, bloggers and online commenters can type some pretty nasty things – accusations and language that they’d never say to people face-to-face. However, the masquerade ball may have just ended.

Ms. Cohen brought Google to court, demanding that the company reveal the identity of a blogger that she says defamed her. The NYC-gossip blogger mocked Cohen and called the model a “40-something” who “may have been hot 10 years ago.” Cohen was 36 at the time. The post, which ran on Google’s Blogger service, has since been removed.”

But Zennie Abraham who blogs at SFGate.com brings in an interesting look into this debate by mentioning a provision in the Violence Against Women Act which may put Rosemary Port's assertion that her free speech rights were violated into question.

Here is his commentary on this issue at YouTube.

Pakistans' Minister of Interior Rehman Malik recently announced a 14-year prison sentence for anyone found propagating SMS and emails ridiculing or making fun of the present Pakistani leadership and its elected government officials.   The statement issued by the Ministry of Interior, referenced the Cyber Crime Act of 2009 which apparently would subject the violators to a prison sentence of at least 14-years.

It has been a long time, the Government of Pakistan has been trying to enforce a cyber crime law which since 2007, when it was first initially tabled in the form of a draft by the Ministry of Information and Technology. The then Cyber Crime Ordinance of 2007 was critically evaluated by the IT community and was found to be unfair, practically giving all encompassing powers to the Federal Investigative Agency (FIA), the local intellegence agency, to be the judge jury and executor with very minimal protection to any innocent bystanders who may become prey to any unwarranted political intentions.

The civil society in 2007 was in outcry over the cyber crime draft, holding many awareness seminars and discussion panel and were successful in pushing the Ministry to accept some serious revisions of the controversial document with the hope of bringing it under proper international standards as agreed upon during the Cyber Crimes Convention in Budapest 2001. In an extensive meeting with the stakeholders the Ministry of IT were then presented with a long list of problems and it was primarily suggest to rewrite the entire document rather then accede to a patch up of a grossly irregular document which differed significantly from internationally accepted norms

Suddenly on 31st December 2007, the then President of Pakistan, General Prevaiz Musharraf quietly signed the un-revised ‘first draft' as an ordinance titling the new document as the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Ordinance of 2007. An Ordinance according to the Constitutional of Pakistan [Article 89] is a presidential injunction to force a law into effect for a period of four months [120 days] and before its expiry the bill has to be presented on the floor of the Parliament for vetting and debate before potentially voting it into a full fledged law only after a 2/3rd majority vote, historically Presidents of Pakistan have used ordinances for political intentions and for the mere continuation of the law the President merely re-signs the ordinance every four months extending its life for another 120 days without taking the time or making an effort to put it before the legislative body

Since the start of this newly elected government, the local leadership, namely the President of Pakistan Mr. Asif Zardari and Minister of Interior Rehman Malik have been at the receiving end of some very hard hitting gutt wrenching jokes, which in turn have resulted in a massive propagation of SMS's and emails, not only in Pakistan but also across the world. The local leadership have also not helped stop this flame war as they themselves provided fuel-to-the-fire with one funny blunder after another, from the God-Gaad misspelling controversy in September 2008 [while signing a guest book President Asif Ali Zardari accidentally misspelled God as ‘Gaad' and that turned out to be a serious cause of embarrassment for the President] or even the Sarah Palin gorgeous-n-hug comment in Washington [in an exclusive one-on-one meeting with Sarah Palin during her Vice-Presidential bid, Asif Zardari commented on Live TV to called her “gorgeous” and then goes on to flirt with Sarah Palin to say ‘if he’s insisting, I might hug'] such opportunities generally become the bane of all comical SMS's, emails and blog posts among Pakistanis

Seeing their local leadership at the base of many hard hitting jokes, the government decided to take such critical offenders to task. Here lies a very important problem, it is surprising to note that the Cyber Crime Act does even not exist, it is a fact that the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Ordinance of 2007 ironically had no mention of any crime related to SMS's, let alone punish a person for sending funny SMS's which may tarnish the image of the an ‘unspecified' local leadership, the maximum prison sentence in that 2007 bill for any cyber crime offense was set at a maximum of 7-years [10-years if it involved a minor].

Initially when the Minister of Interior announced the 14 year sentence people were shocked and taken aback, as it was assumed that the Pakistan Pakistan Electronic Crimes Ordinance of 2007 had lapsed, after 120 days, and there was no news about re-signing of a new Ordinance – soon APP provided us with the text of the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Ordinance of 2009 signed into effect on July 3rd 2009 which was identical word-for-word with the 2007 and there was no mention of an SMS crime let alone a 14 year sentence

The statements made by Ministry of Interior were challenged, and the only official response that has been received till now that the ‘correct draft has not yet been released to the public‘. It only seems that the politically motivated statement was more or less geared towards scaring the general public into submission and hopefully stopping political rivals from ridiculing them.

In a recent development the Supreme Court of Pakistan has nullified all actions taken by General Perzaiz Musharraf during the illegal Emergency that was imposed on November 3rd 2007, the court has in the order requested the parliament to regularize all ordinances enacted by General Pervaiz Musharraf which may actually mean that the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Ordinance of 2007 may stand to be jeopardized, the faith of its subsequent enactment by Mr. Asif Ali Zardari on July 3rd 2009 is still unknown, and hence we can assume that extensive lobbying is needed to undo this irresponsible law and help push the Ministry of IT to develop a document that adheres to the International standards across the world

As per the legal experts in Pakistan there is still no law that prevents the prorogation of funny SMS's and emails, ironically on the other hand the Government of Pakistan still chooses to say otherwise.

It seems now, however, that Internet Service Providers CLARO/TELGUA, TIGO and Turbonett, Guatemala’s most prominent Internet Service Providers (ISPs), are ignoring the laws. Guatemalan users have reported blocked access to Wordpress since Friday afternoon. El Abismo de Tux called customer service and blogged about it, stating that he had received no clear answer from them.

Demuexter reported the blocked access to many blogs hosted on Wordpress. Homo Homini Lupus denounced the censorship in Guatemala and other blogs and tweets are demanding respect for freedom of expression in Guatemala. Micha Micha also reported Wordpress blocked.

Guatemala’s largest newspapers have not yet reported the incident. Other bloggers have called the office of consumer protection, but have received few answers. This block occurs just after a political crisis last month, when social media tools were used to protest against the Government and demand justice.

Under the Twitter hashtag #bloqueowp you can find more updates, and some savvy Guatemalans are using Herdict to report the blocked site.

Let’s hope that the authorities and private companies will stop blocking websites and in the future will respect Guatemalans’ rights as consumers and citizens.

Three security sources, who are privy to the plan, revealed that Yar’adua last week approved the covert operation to stop websites and bloggers from influencing public opinion in Nigeria. The president’s Chief Economic Adviser, Tanimu Kurfi will source the funds for the operations.

On the one hand this is good news as the Nigerian government wakes up to the power of citizens media and that we are watching and reproting on their every step. On the other hand this is very dangerous for bloggers in the country and those outside who may wish to return home whether for a short holiday, work or permanently. We are all very much aware of what happened to two bloggers [Jonathan Elendu and Emeka Asiwe] last year who were met and detained by security officials as they landed at Abuja airport.

The plan by the government which sounds like something out of a spy movie [maybe there is much truth in those films] is to recruit ‘700′ Nigerians at home and abroad to ‘blog’ favorably about the President and his government. And like government agents world wide these people will be paid, in this case given “blogger allowances”.

“The government has decided to mobilize a few individuals to set up online forums that promise to extend the frontiers of online journalism,” said a security source. He added that, in the initial stages, these websites would release a few detailed and seemingly credible stories calculated to garner credibility for them as well as a wide readership. “But the ultimate objective is to fully divert the websites to the task of acting as attack dogs for the government’s online critics,” said a source. She added that the government plans to fund and roll out about 50 of such new websites between now and the beginning of serious campaigns for the next round of elections scheduled for 2011.

So what do we genuine bloggers do? First of all we will need be on the look out for these enemies of the people!. If you are a blogger writing lovely things about Yar’Adua and Goodluck, then it is possible you will be seen as a government ‘plant’ which is unfortunate as there just might be some deluded but genuine supporters of this most undemocratic of regimes. It is the pretense of democracy that is dangerous about this and the government of Obasanjo. It is therefore up to us bloggers and news sites to expose the lie of Nigeria as a democratic state with a free press. It is not. A government which sends out tanks and bombers on its own people is not a democratic govenrment. A government which sends out solidiers to attack the people and denies summary exeuctions by its armed forces which we all have witnessed on video is not democratic. What we do have is a corrupt government which is determined to dispossess the Niger Delta people of their resources and human rights.

Just as in Choba when pictures of solidiers raping women were denied by Obasanjo so too the army chooses to deny the excutuion of two young men. Would justice have not been better served if the army had chosen to investigate the exeuction by the JTF? Below is the response by the Nigeria Army Public Relations Unit to the video.

It has come to the knowledge of the Joint Task Force (JTF), Operation Restore Hope, that MEND, due to its failure in the use of violence and previous attempts in denting our names which equally failed, has embarked on yet another campaign of calumny against the security outfit and its commanders by circulating constructed and acted video clips to … Read Moredepict rape and extra-judicial killings by the JTF in the Niger Delta. These concocted clips are now being forwarded to international figures for sympathy, while the media they were using hitherto, are no longer sympathetic to their cause due to the criminality and campaign of calumny of this faceless body,” Abubakar. Col. Rabe Abubakar Commander Joint Task Force (JTF), Operation Restore Hope.

MEND [Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta] have called upon the UN to investigate the alleged extra-judicial killings and rape by the JTF during the recent miliatry operations Oporoza and other communities of Gbaramatu Kingdom, Delta State.

The teacher had tried to explain to the students the historical fact acknowledged even by official governmental historians and openly studied at schools that March 25th 1918 Belarusan National Republic had restored sovereignty after 123 years of Russian occupation.  The nationally-oriented people consider this day to be the real Independence Day of Belarus.

It was this discourse into the history of Belarus that had caused her illegal dismissal.

March 25th is a non-grata date in Belarus of Lukašenka who claims that the independence day celebrations should occur on July 3rd  when in 1944 Soviet army reclaimed Belarusan capital from the Nazis. Pro-Russian authoritarian president of the country would regularly call the attendees of Freedom Day marches ‘degenerates' and ‘grant-suckers' who ‘wish to destroy the country'.

Mrs. Hruździłovič had been allegedly fired at the collective complaint lodged by the parents of the students whom she has narrated a bit on their history. However the centre management had shown her no official paper confirming that complaint existence  the morning next day while acquainting her with their dismissal decision, Belarusan independent paper ‘Naša Niva‘ and Radio Free Europe (in Belarusan) report.

The call of bloggers to all their readers to re-post the news about illegal dismissal (apart from political factor Vanda Darmajan, the Belarusan SOL center director, has violated the Labour Act which demands at least 30-days firing notice) had resulted in more than 200 mails being received by the management of the centre in Minsk; several bloggers have addressed the UK SOL Centre with the request to investigate into the matter in question; the British ambassador in Belarus had also been informed through official website of the embassy and his blog. As a result, the Belarusan centre management had surrendered to the media pressure and contacted Marjana Hruździłovič offering to ‘investigate into the circumstances'. April 1st she was reinstated as a teacher in Belarusan SOL Center, Radio Free Europe reported.

However, the positive development had nothing to deal with the reaction of the UK organization that shares the same name, the British SOL. The relative success of the solidarity action should be attributed solely to the pressure Belarusan bloggers and media mounted on SOL Miensk. At the same time Mr. Yeo, the head of British SOL Centre, in his letter to blogger czalex insisted that the teachers were not allowed to express their political views in classes (I'm curious what he thinks the teacher should have done when one student publicly offended 30% of Belarusan citizens who acknowledge the Freedom Day?) and that she had been fired for ‘inadequate fulfillment of her professional duties', the exact formula used by Belarusan SOL management to fire the teacher.

During Alaksandar Lukašenka's governments dismissing people from their jobs and expelling from universities for expressing political beliefs contrary to those propagated by the state had become a regular practice. However, this is the first case of that kind when this occurs in the branch of a company which is based in the UK, the country for which freedom of speech and expression, I hope, are no empty words.

The Indian blogosphere is abuzz with discussions on freedom of expression after the Supreme Court refused to throw out Shiv Sena's defamation case against 19 year old computer science student Ajith D (TOI).

However, the Indian blogosphere's reactions to the controversy are mostly based on reports on the incident in Indian media and the quality of this reporting has been very mediocre, with few details and little background information. As a result, bloggers are reacting to incomplete information. As a result, bloggers are reacting to incomplete information.

So, before I do a roundup of the Indian blogosphere's reactions to the story and share my own views, let me first present the basic facts.

Shiv Sena's Tradition of Violent Protests

Let's start with Shiv Sena itself. Shiv Sena is a far right political party in Maharashtra that built a strong base amongst the Marathi community in the sixties based on its militant ideology that Maharashtra belonged to the Marathi community and migrants from other Indian states should be thrown out. Starting from the mid-seventies, the Shiv Sena shifted its focus to a strong pro-Hindutva (and anti-Muslim) ideology, a shift that solidified in the mid nineties, when it became an integral part of right wing alliance led by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The Shiv Sena has often been accused of being involved in coordinated political violence against against non-Marathis and non-Hindus. It is widely acknowledged that Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackery, who is revered amongst its supporters, has been instrumental in inciting such violence on many occasions. The Shiv Sena also has a long and well-documented history of violent protests against journalists, writers and artists who speak against its extremist ideologies (see BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, NYT 1, NYT 2, NYT 3, NYT 4, Guardian 1, Guardian 2).

It's important that we look at Shiv Sena's ire against Orkut in the context of its long history of ideological intolerance and violent protests.

Shiv Sena's Unholy Nexus With Orkut

The story started in November 2006, when Shiv Sena activists stumbled across an anti-Shivaji community on Orkut. Shivaji is a 16th century Maratha warrior, who is revered by the Marathi community. Pune police asked cyber cafe owners to block the anti-Shivaji community after violence by Shiv Sena. A public interest litigation was also filed in Bombay High Court to ban Orkut for hosting the anti-Shivaji community (TOI 1, TOI 2, Rediff 1, Rediff 2, NDTV, Financial Express).

In January 2007, the Maharashtra government requested the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), a Delhi-based regulatory body under the Ministry of Information and Technology, to remove the offensive content. According to Indian law, the CERT is responsible for investigating requests to block websites from notified officers of the Union government or the state governments. If it finds the website objectionable, it communicate its decision to the licensing and regulations cell of the department of telecommunications for passing the order to the internet service providers to block the website (Indian Express, Live Mint).

The Shiv Sena also asked its supporters to flag these communities on Orkut, so that they could be banned (Orkut discussion thread 1, Orkut discussion thread 2). This resulted in a flagging war on Orkut, where users who were part of pro-Sena and anti-Sena communities flagged each other's communities. For a short while, many pro-Sena and anti-Sena communities were banned by Google, but many of them were quickly reinstated (Orkut discussion thread).

The Shiv Sena also sent letters to Google and internet service providers in India to block these communities and even met up with Google officials, along with Maharashtra government and Mumbai police officials.

In January 2007, Google decided to cooperate with the Mumbai police and instituted an informal arrangement called the Priority Reporting Tool which enabled Mumbai police to directly report objectionable content to Google and also ask it for details of IP addresses and service providers. Based on the recommendation of Mumbai Police, Google deleted communities against Shivaji, Bal Thackeray and dalit leader B R Ambedkar (TOI, IHT, Indian Express).

However, even as Google banned some communities that contained defamatory content, it initially refused to ban several other communities that were against Shiv Sena's leaders or ideologies. As a result, Abhijit Phanse, the president of Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena, the student wing of Shiv Sena, took matters in his own hands and led a violent campaign against Orkut.

In May 2007, the Sena sent letters to internet cafes threatening attacks against their establishments, if they didn't stop their customers from accessing these Orkut communities. In June 2006, it followed up on its threats by ransacking several internet cafes in Mumbai and physically abusing cafe owners and customers. The Mumbai police also instructed internet cafe owners in Mumbai and Thane to prohibit their customers from accessing Orkut. As a result, cyber cafes in Mumbai registered a drop in traffic and were forced to put up notices asking their customers not to visit Orkut.

The Sena even announced that it was developing a special software that internet service providers could install to block any message containing certain words and phrases such as “I hate” or “I despise”.

These incidents were widely documented in Indian media (see Reuters 1, Rediff 1, Rediff 2, IBN Live, NDTV, Indian Express 1, Indian Express 2, Indian Express 3, Indian Express 4, Indian Express 5, Economic Times, Business Standard 1, Business Standard 2, TOI) and debated in the Indian blogosphere and Orkut community (The Hindu). It's especially worthwhile to see two opinion pieces by Amit Varma in LiveMint and Sevathi Ninan in The Hindu criticizing these trends.

The news stories don't give details about CERT's decision on banning Orkut, or the final settlement between Shiv Sena and Orkut, but several anti-Shiv Sena communities have been banned since then.

The Mumbai and Pune police have also put their arrangement with Google to good use since then.

In September/ October 2007, the Pune police arrested four Bangalore based software engineers — 25 year old Lakshmana Kailash, 23 year old Manjunath Betegowda, 23 year old Harish Shetty and 22 year old Kiran Reddy — for posting an obscene profile of Shivaji on Orkut, in which he was shown clad in female innerwear (Economic Times, TOI). It was later found that the arrest of Lakshmana Kailash, who was detained for 50 days, was based on wrong IP addresses provided by Bharti Airtel (TOI 1, TOI 2, TOI 3, The Hindu, Rediff). Lakshmana then sued Airtel, Maharashtra government and Mumbai police and demanded Rs 20 crore in damages (IBN Live, TOI). The status of his case isn't clear from the news reports.

In August 2008, the Mumbai Police arrested Ghaziabad based computer engineer Adarsh Sinha for posting death threats against Bal Thackeray using a fake email identity in the name of Faizab Farooqi. They also arrested Mumbai resident Suresh Shetty, a moderator of this community. (TOI)

Shiv Sena's Case Against Ajith D

Ajith D, a 19 year computer science student from Kerala, started a community called ‘I Hate Shiv Sena' on Orkut. One of the anonymous commentators on the website posted a death threat to Bal Thackeray. It seems from news reports the Mumbai police has charged Ajith for both criminal intimidation and hurting religious sentiments.

Mumbai police tracked Ajith's Orkut and GMail accounts for a week to ascertain his address and sent a team to his hometown in Cherthala, in August 2008, to nab him. However, television channels flashed news of their arrival, helping Ajith to escape and the police team could only confiscate the hard disk of his computer. The team also said that they were observing the Orkut postings and Internet activities of around 50 other members of the community (Hindu).

Subsequently, Ajith got anticipatory bail from Kerala High Court and moved the Supreme Court through counsel Jogy Scaria seeking quashing of the criminal complaint based on the ground that he hadn't posted the death threat and the community itself wasn't defamatory. The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam, however, refused to protect him and said: “if someone files a criminal action on the basis of the content, then you will have to face the case. You have to go before the court and explain your conduct.” (TOI, The Guardian, The Hindu).

Roundup of Blog Discussions on the Ajith D Case

As I mentioned above, several bloggers have reacted strongly to the Supreme Court judgment, often based on partial information (CXOToday).

Lawyer Lawrence Liang at Kafila writes a detailed post on whether a defamation case should be settled under civil law or criminal law and delineates a history of defamation cases against Indian bloggers. He also makes a pertinent point in the Ajith D case –

When organizations like the Shiv Sena and the Sri Ram Sene start using defamation laws, it smacks of chutzpah to me. The definition of Chutzpah is a person who kills his parents, and then claims clemency on the grounds that he is an orphan. What other way can we describe the bizarre situation of the violence prone macho men, who suddenly run around screaming about the violation of their legal rights and the slurring of their reputation?

Patrix thinks that the Indian legal system is biased against freedom of speech –

As you see, anything under the sun can be categorized as an restriction to your freedom of speech. If I say something innocuous and that leads to couple of weirdos smashing shop windows in the town, all it does to get me into trouble is the weirdos saying that my words made them do it. My freedom of speech will be curtailed under “public order” or “incitement to an offense” restrictions. Shouldn’t actions be punished instead of words?

Marshall Kirkpatrick at RWW thinks that the Supreme Court judgement has repercussions for bloggers in all democratic societies –

It's a good idea for us as individual web users to remember that even as new internet technology sets so much information and so many voices free, even in a celebrated democracy - online freedom may be one repressive legal ruling away from being put at serious risk. No matter where you might live - do you trust that your local judiciary would understand the issues in a case like this? We don't.

Nikhil Moro from Civic & Citizen Journalism Interest Group thinks that freedom of expression lost a case in India –

Historically India's courts have accorded a high place for expression in the hierarchy of freedoms, but as Mr. Ajit's unfortunate affair shows, social media activists should expect the state to use a myriad of laws other than libel.

Sanjukta thinks that the Supreme Court decision is good for Indian blogging –

This would help clean up a lot of #@%$ that goes around the blogsphere, will help us become more responsible and mature writers thereby establishing credibility for bloggers’ opinion and most importantly it would kill the terrible habit of writing all kinds of indecent, uncivilized, abusive things anonymously in the comments thread. This would also compel the blog owner or community discussion board owner to keep the discussion clean and abuse free. It will enforce the dicipline of self regulation on bloggers, isn’t that a great thing to achieve.

2s at Mutiny warns against a simplistic discussion on freedom of expression –

The laws of the land must find better ways to control what is being written or said in a public forum than restricting and threatening bloggers with action. Bloggers in India must together call for what I think is a more mature approach and law towards dealing with public defamatory comments on the internet. Bloggers are, after all, not “public” figures like political leaders are and to judge both by the same yardstick might not necessarily be the best method. Besides, is this restricted to just blog posts? What about comments on these posts? What about tweets?

Pramit Singh believes that the SC judgment shouldn't scare bloggers in India –

Some might think the days of free-for-all Orkut groups are over. Others will say they are in fear of treading against people with might - the politicians, big business, virtually anyone with an army of lawyers, who, in this case are trying to put fear of appearing in courts for God knows how many times and thus choosing to ‘write wisely'.

However, I have faith in our Justice system. Bloggers are not going to face a million lawsuits in India.

Dhananjay Nene thinks that the Supreme Court's judgment isn't a conclusive blow to bloggers' rights –

One important aspect which is perhaps easy to lose sight of in this debate is that the Supreme Court did not weigh in on the guilt or lack of it in this case, but on the fact that the person could not shy away from the responsibility to face the charges in a court.

Lawyer Praveen Dalal also says that we should not read too much in the Supreme Court's judgment –

With the Constitutional Protections on the side of Bloggers there must be very strong reasons to book a person for Defamation or disturbing Religious Harmony. The case is before the lower court that is also a fact finding authority. It is only after the lower court comes to a conclusion that we can proceed either to convict or acquit the accused Blogger. The Supreme Court of India did not found reasons to “Quash” the criminal proceeding against the accused and in the absence of the complete facts of the case as well as the copy of the judgment, it is very difficult to judge the correctness or incorrectness of the same. However, in all probability the accused would be either acquitted or released after admonition.

In an email reproduced in Vijay Mohanty's post, senior blogger-journalist Prem Panicker also thinks that the Supreme Court verdict is no big deal –

The SC only said that it cannot, suo moto, quash a criminal prosecution.

It did not say the case is well-founded — that is for the court to decide on the basis of existing law.

Conclusion: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant India

As for me, I see the Ajith D case as part of a larger trend, which operates at many levels.

At the very least, we should see this case as part of Mumbai and Pune police's crusade against inflammatory Orkut communities. Sixteen Orkut users have been arrested in the last two years on charges of criminal intimidation and hurting religious sentiments (Indian Express), and one of them spent 50 days in police custody based on a mistake in identifying an IP address! It's a serious crusade that will only become more intense in the foreseeable future and it raises several important questions.

To begin with, do we really want to defend a blogger, or a community owner, or a commentator, who has posted death threats against a common citizen or a public figure, or allowed these comments to be posted and then refused to remove them?

Going beyond that, should the Indian legal system apply the same standards for defamation for a common citizen and a public figure, especially a public figure as controversial as Bal Thackeray?

How can we allow a political party like Shiv Sena, which has set unprecedented standards in inflammatory religious speech (and violent action to back it up), to complain about blog posts or community comments hurting religious sentiments?

And, finally, given Google's willingness to short-circuit the Indian legal system and share Orkut and GMail personal data with Mumbai and Pune police, how comfortable should we feel in building our entire online presence on Google's services?

At another level, we should see this case as part of a trend, in India and in democratic countries internationally, where traditional institutions are fighting back against the internet and trying to limit its freedoms.

Barkha Dutt and NDTV threatening to sue blogger Chetan Kunte for defamation is a part of this trend. Shri Ram Sena beating up women in a Mangalore pub and then threatening to sue the organizers of the Pink Chaddi Campaign is a part of this trend. US senators refusing to believe that child predators aren't a big threat on the internet is part of this trend. US, UK, Australian and Indian governments introducing tough censorship and cyber crime laws are also a part of this trend.

All these actions, individually and collectively, curtail our personal and public freedoms and also our ability to fight for these freedoms. By threatening to sue a blogger NDTV has curtailed Indian media's ability to question violations of freedom of speech in India. Similarly, by closing down the internet in their own countries, US, UK, Australia and India have curtailed their ability to question violations of freedom of speech in Iran or China.

So, what happens in the case of Ajith D is important in itself, but it is also important as part of what's happening with the internet itself. It's critical that we force ourselves to open our eyes and see the bigger picture before it's too late.

Summarizing, Alberto Marques, at gJOL blog [Pt] said:

“Portugal e Botelho tiveram muita dificuldade para apresentar seu ponto de vista sobre o projeto, sofrendo intensos protestos.”

José Henrique Portugal facing the audience that protested against the privacy violations and authoritarianism presented by the Cybercrimes Bill

Meme de Carbono blog features a long post discussing the Cybercrimes Bill in the face of the new age of communication and democracy brought by the Internet, listing many reasons to agree and even more to disagree with Azeredo's Bill. He explains in a few words [Pt] why the Cybercrimes Bill has faced such strong opposition from Brazilian digital citizens:

“Caso o projeto de lei de cibercrimes seja aprovado você terá medo de se expressar.
A liberdade de expressão apoiada pela Internet é uma grande ameaça a uma estrutura de poder estabelecida entre mídia, governos e corporações.
O poder estabelecido está acostumado a comunicar e não a interagir com seu ouvinte, mas nós queremos ser interlocutores do nosso tempo.
A pressa em aprovar a criminalização dos cibercrimes não vem de um apelo popular, mas dos interesses do poder estabelecido que defende uma forma de democracia que não é mais suficiente.”

From left to right: Ronaldo Lemos, Sérgio Amadeu, the chair of the debate (in the middle), Fernando Botelho and José Portugal.

The public applauding Sergio Amadeu's speech defending web anonymity and attacking the ‘Azeredo Bill'.

Left banner: “We defend Internet Anonymity”. Right banner: “Defend the future of the Internet in Brazil and around the World”.

“Internet Freedom = Democracy”

But a few minutes before the last speaker finished his speech, event organizers informed the public that they would not be allowed to ask questions to the panelists, because the “debate” had taken too long and would have to finish due to other events scheduled in the room. Daniel Padua complains [Pt] about the lack of a real public debate on the “debate”:

“Debate sobre lei de cibercrimes poderia ter entrado para a história com a participação direta da sociedade (o que faltou à audiência pública): o evento foi interrompido pela presença do governador em exercício próximo ao debate.”

Tux, the Linux penguin, holds a banner that reads “Say no to Online Surveillance”.

Jorge Araújo, a Brazilian judge behind the Direito e Trabalho blog, criticizes [Pt] the intention to create new crimes for the already bulging Brazilian Penal Code:

“Os defensores da lei estão errados ao buscar que se emplaque mais uma norma ao nosso combalido sistema jurídico, prevendo penas de prisão, quando sabemos que ladrões e assassinos são soltos diariamente justamente em virtude da falência de nosso sistema prisional […] Por outro lado para que se criminalize um delito é necessário que ele traga à sociedade um verdadeiro clamor, do tipo que antes de ser considerado crime ele já receba a censura da sociedade. […] Não é o que ocorre com os delitos que se pretendem penalizar. Pelo contrário muitas práticas que se pretendem penalizas são adotadas pela grande maioria dos presentes na Campus Party e desconhecidas pelo restante da população para o qual o computador é, quando muito, uma máquina de escrever sem papel.”

Many people wore red clown noses and protested against being turned into criminals by the Cybercrimes Bill.

Later on in the same post, Araújo criticizes the arguments used by Sergio Amadeu in his defense of online anonymity:

“o anonimato que se permite, e até exige, em regimes de exceção, como os regimes autoritários da China, Cuba, mas também de subjugação como dos próprios países árabes, como o Iraque em face dos Estados Unidos, não se pode confundir com um anonimato interno, que se pode voltar contra os demais cidadãos. Até porque não se cogita que atue anonimamente em um regime democrático sem um propósito escuso.”

In a comment on Araújo's post, Raquel Recuero [Pt] discusses the issue of anonymity and the possible uses of all information that will be made available to the government, and to whoever else takes hold of it, if the Cybercrimes Bill is approved, forcing Internet Service Providers and LAN-houses to keep a log of user activities:

“A lei prevê a obrigação dos provedores de registrar dados de navegação de todos os usuários. TODOS. Isso é, para mim, uma invasão de privacidade por presunção de que, ao navegar, estarei cometendo um crime. Dados esses que poderiam ser usados para outras coisas - penso, por exemplo, no valor publicitário de conhecer os hábitos de navegação das pessoas (eu detesto spam); nas investigações privadas de adultério (detetives); etc. etc.”

Araújo finishes his post criticizing Eduardo Azeredo for not showing up for the debate, sending his right arm man José Portugal instead:

“achei desrespeitosa a ausência do Senador Azeredo. Não há justificativa para que um representante do povo deixe de comparecer para prestar a este os esclarecimentos sobre a sua atividade. Dificilmente o senador encontrará uma reunião com tantos interessados na sua atividade parlamentar quanto no CParty, e encará-los e ouvi-los, mais do que um ato de cortesia, seria a sua obrigação.”

A participant holds his notebook with the slogan “Did you chicken out, Azeredo?”, after the confirmation that Eduardo Azeredo wouldn't attend the debate.

At the end of the debate, on being informed that there would be no questions to José Portugal and Fernando Botelho, the audience turned their backs on the speakers and left in protest while Portugal was still delivering his final speech.

All pictures in this post, except for the first, were taken by Daniel Duende, published by Daniel Padua and are available here under a Creative Commons licence.