<p>The Bombay high court on&nbsp;Thursday slammed rightist group for asking ban on&nbsp;Sanjay Leela directed Padmavati and sending death threats to&nbsp;artists on Thursday.</p>

<p>Referring to the threats made to them, a bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said that it was distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release it because of continued threats.</p>

<p>The bench further asked that &ldquo;In which other country do you see threats given to artists and performers? What have we come to?&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court also emphasized that this was censorship of a different kind and it is damaging India&rsquo;s image.</p>

<p>Judges added that &ldquo;In this country, we have come to a situation where people cannot voice their opinions. Every time a person says he or she wants to voice their opinion, somebody or a fringe group says they would not allow it. This does not augur well for the state.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<p>&ldquo;What concerns us is India&rsquo;s image and reputation as a democratic country. We are the largest democracy. We cannot take pride in the happenings of such incidents a day in and day out. We are cutting a very sorry figure,&rdquo; the judges said.</p>

<p>Judge also stressed on the fact that if this is happening to well-financed people and what would happen to the poor?</p>

<p>The strong remarks were made while the judges were hearing a petition filed by family members of Dabholkar and Pansare.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Family members of Dabholkar and Pansare seeking court Supervision on the murder probe of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare.</p>

<p>The court also slammed CBI and CID for not arresting the main suspects of the murder of Dabholkar who was killed in 2013 and Pansare who was killed in 2015.</p>

<p>&quot;We cannot allow such serious matters to linger for years. We cannot allow constitutional rights to be taken away. Enough damage has been caused already. Has any senior official from the two agencies bothered to find out why the probe is not getting any head away?&quot; the court asked.</p>

<p>The case has now been posted for next hearing on December 21.</p>

<p>According to reports, Padmavati may release in February after its producers decided to postpone the movie.</p>


It is distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release the film because of continued threats, Court said

The Bombay high court on Thursday slammed rightist group for asking ban on Sanjay Leela directed Padmavati and sending death threats to artists on Thursday. Referring to the threats made to them, a bench of Justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said that it was distressing to know that a person makes a feature film and several people work tirelessly towards it but are not able to release it because of continued threats. The bench further asked that “In which other country do you see threats given to artists and performers? What have we come to?” The court also emphasized that this was censorship of a different kind and it is damaging India’s image. Judges added that “In this country, we have come to a situation where people cannot voice their opinions. Every time a person says he or she wants to voice their opinion, somebody or a fringe group says they would not allow it. This does not augur well for the state.” “What concerns us is India’s image and reputation as a democratic country. We are the largest democracy. We cannot take pride in the happenings of such incidents a day in and day out. We are cutting a very sorry figure,” the judges said. Judge also stressed on the fact that if this is happening to well-financed people and what would happen to the poor? The strong remarks were made while the judges were hearing a petition filed by family members of Dabholkar and Pansare. Family members of Dabholkar and Pansare seeking court Supervision on the murder probe of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare. The court also slammed CBI and CID for not arresting the main suspects of the murder of Dabholkar who was killed in 2013 and Pansare who was killed in 2015. "We cannot allow such serious matters to linger for years. We cannot allow constitutional rights to be taken away. Enough damage has been caused already. Has any senior official from the two agencies bothered to find out why the probe is not getting any head away?" the court asked. The case has now been posted for next hearing on December 21. According to reports, Padmavati may release in February after its producers decided to postpone the movie.

Bombay High Court slams  rightist group seeking ban on Padmavati

<p>The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati&#39;s pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati&#39;s history, it is difficult to know about the controversy.</p>

<p>My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this.</p>

<p>Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. &nbsp;How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that.</p>

<p>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity.</p>

<p>Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them.</p>

<p>How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians.</p>

<p>There is this book, &#39;Khilji Kalin Bharat&#39; written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320.</p>

<p>This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah.</p>

<p>Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists.</p>

<p>700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie.</p>

<p>This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati&#39;s Jauhar and Khilji&#39;s brutality.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin&#39;s sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi&#39;s book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him.</p>

<p>Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book.</p>

<p>Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin&#39;s brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/image-1-20171124014537.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>&#39;Khalji Kaleen Bharat&#39;, a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi.</p>

<p>Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati&#39;s name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression.</p>

<p>It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)</em></p>


History must not be distorted in the name of 'Freedom of Expression', characters who have dark history, such as Alauddin Khilji must not be glamourised.

The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati's pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati's history, it is difficult to know about the controversy. My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this. Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. × Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity. Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them. How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians. There is this book, 'Khilji Kalin Bharat' written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320. This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah. Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists. 700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie. This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati's Jauhar and Khilji's brutality. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. × In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin's sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi's book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him. Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book. Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin's brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power. 'Khalji Kaleen Bharat', a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others) × On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi. Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus. If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati's name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji. There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression. It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)

Opinion: Alauddin Khilji was brutal; Bhansali should not glamourise him

<p>Facebook is challenging a gag order from a US court that prevents&nbsp;the company from talking about three government search warrants. The tech giant said these warrants&nbsp;pose a threat to freedom of speech, according to court documents.</p>

<p>Facebook said it wants to notify three users about the search warrants seeking their communications and information and give these users an opportunity to object to the warrants, according to a filing in a Washington, DC appeals court.</p>

<p>&#39;We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the government&#39;s refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events,&#39; Facebook said.</p>

<p>The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees certain rights including freedom of speech.</p>

<p>William Miller, a spokesman for US prosecutors, declined to comment.</p>

<p>Facebook decided to challenge the gag order around the three warrants because free speech was at stake and because the events underlying the government&#39;s investigation were generally known to the public already.</p>

<p>The precise nature of the government&#39;s investigation is not known. One document in the case said the timing of proceedings coincides with charges against people who protested President Donald Trump&#39;s inauguration in January.</p>

<p>More than 200 people were arrested in Washington the day Trump was sworn in. Masked activists threw rocks at police, and multiple vehicles were set on fire.</p>

<p>Tech firms comply with thousands of requests for user data annually made by governments around the world, but in extraordinary circumstances, companies such as Microsoft and Twitter have challenged government secrecy orders.</p>

<p>Facebook recently fought a secrecy order related to a disability fraud investigation, losing in April in New York state&#39;s highest court.</p>

<p>Companies and privacy advocates argue that gag orders rely on outdated laws and are applied too often, sometimes indefinitely, to bar them from notifying customers about government requests for their private online data. Facebook says about half of US requests are accompanied by a non-disclosure order prohibiting it from notifying affected users.</p>

<p>In April, a local judge in Washington denied Facebook&#39;s request to remove the gag order there, according to the document. Facebook is appealing and has preserved the relevant records pending the outcome, the document said.</p>

<p>&#39;The government can only insulate its actions from public scrutiny in this way in the rarest circumstances, which likely do not apply here,&#39;said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates for digital rights.</p>

<p>Facebook is getting support in court papers from several organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as eight tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple.</p>

<p>The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in Washington for local matters, is scheduled to hear the case in September, according to an order obtained by BuzzFeed News.&nbsp;</p>


Facebook wants to notify three users about search warrants for their communications and give them an opportunity to make legal objections

Facebook is challenging a gag order from a US court that prevents the company from talking about three government search warrants. The tech giant said these warrants pose a threat to freedom of speech, according to court documents. Facebook said it wants to notify three users about the search warrants seeking their communications and information and give these users an opportunity to object to the warrants, according to a filing in a Washington, DC appeals court. 'We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the government's refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events,' Facebook said. The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees certain rights including freedom of speech. William Miller, a spokesman for US prosecutors, declined to comment. Facebook decided to challenge the gag order around the three warrants because free speech was at stake and because the events underlying the government's investigation were generally known to the public already. The precise nature of the government's investigation is not known. One document in the case said the timing of proceedings coincides with charges against people who protested President Donald Trump's inauguration in January. More than 200 people were arrested in Washington the day Trump was sworn in. Masked activists threw rocks at police, and multiple vehicles were set on fire. Tech firms comply with thousands of requests for user data annually made by governments around the world, but in extraordinary circumstances, companies such as Microsoft and Twitter have challenged government secrecy orders. Facebook recently fought a secrecy order related to a disability fraud investigation, losing in April in New York state's highest court. Companies and privacy advocates argue that gag orders rely on outdated laws and are applied too often, sometimes indefinitely, to bar them from notifying customers about government requests for their private online data. Facebook says about half of US requests are accompanied by a non-disclosure order prohibiting it from notifying affected users. In April, a local judge in Washington denied Facebook's request to remove the gag order there, according to the document. Facebook is appealing and has preserved the relevant records pending the outcome, the document said. 'The government can only insulate its actions from public scrutiny in this way in the rarest circumstances, which likely do not apply here,'said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates for digital rights. Facebook is getting support in court papers from several organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as eight tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in Washington for local matters, is scheduled to hear the case in September, according to an order obtained by BuzzFeed News.

Facebook fights US gag order that it says kills free speech

<p>&ldquo;Can someone find me an article by Arundhati Roy on the atrocities on minorities in Bangladesh, Pakistan and situation in Tibet?&rdquo; asked one of my Facebook friends in his status. This question, needless to say, is a nonquestion. The answer &ndash; no, we haven&rsquo;t, because she never wrote one &ndash; is right there on the face of the question.</p>

<p>I tried to Google Roy&rsquo;s writing on the said issues and indeed found none. Even if she had written something, those do not get caught in Google&rsquo;s net. Her not criticising China or Pakistan for many is a tell-all sign that she is not neutral and therefore, can be ignored. Interestingly, the burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists. The jingoist newscaster&rsquo;s general silence about violence against minorities and underprivileged people does not make him any less an expert when it comes to criticising such incidences in other countries. The Nation never wants to know about Dalit massacre!&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>But that is a different question altogether. Let us rather push the question of neutrality a little further and examine why neutrality is important for an author&rsquo;s credibility. The doctrine of neutrality asserts that unless one criticises other countries (by that I mean China and Pakistan, not the US! Come on!) for their violation of human rights, her criticism of Indian state&rsquo;s human rights violation does not stand valid. In other words, one loses her credibility if she specialises in the field of human rights violation in India.</p>

<p>Such standard for judging one&rsquo;s credibility is surprising because in almost every other field specialisation is valued. In fact, if you look in other countries for people who are famous for their human rights campaigns, you find them specialising on human rights violation in one country &ndash; usually their motherland. Liu Xiaobo, for example, who won Nobel Prize for his struggle against the authoritarian regime in China, did not write much on India&rsquo;s human rights situation (a more accurate statement is that Google did not turn up any of Xiaobo&rsquo;s writing on India, as it did not any of Ray&rsquo;s writing on China). Does that make Liu&rsquo;s criticisms any less valid? I think not.</p>

<p>Why then, the neutrality argument has gained so much credibility among the public? Why does the labeling of the author rather than the critical understanding of her argument become so important? The strategy of author labeling usually becomes important when readers cannot comprehend the author&rsquo;s arguments entirely. The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it. For example, while reading a popular article on physics, I may end up believing the results without verifying the analysis, if it is written by a famous physicist.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>There is also a flip side -- readers may refuse to buy author&rsquo;s argument simply because it clashes with their long cherished values. In the latter case, the author labeling helps discredit her argument because the readers do not have enough command over the subject to discredit the argument itself. These two scenarios are the sides of the same coin. In both cases the reader does not completely understand the logic &ndash; he simply accepts or rejects the author&rsquo;s view based on the labels attached to her. In the former, he uses the author&rsquo;s label to believe in her writing, while in the latter he uses the label to discredit her.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Such labels are easily available when it comes to subjects which are taught in the universities. A reader believes in an article on a medical breakthrough if the author has a degree in medicine. The question becomes much more difficult when it comes to say, for instance, morality. Institutional labels in such cases come in a clash with people&rsquo;s value system; nobody is going to follow an author&rsquo;s sermon on morality just because she is a professor of ethics.&nbsp;</p>

<p>So it is not simply a question of whether the author&rsquo;s credential comes from an institution like university whose primary function is to label one&rsquo;s expertise. The important thing is the political intensity of the question the author raises. Of course, in a post-Foucauldian world, no knowledge system, let alone Physics, can be seen as non-political. But the disciplines differ in degree of subtlety with which they embody the knowledge politics. The discussion of Physics is less political than the discussion of the state as the latter has larger implication for the polity.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, such statement regarding subtlety of politics in physics should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it was the discussion of astrophysics which landed one man in jail (Galileo Galilei) and another on the burning&ndash;stake (Giordano Bruno) not more than five hundred years ago! Nevertheless, at least in the current context, issues such as democracy or human rights are more politically charged than say discussion of physics.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself &ndash; sometimes literally.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself ? sometimes literally. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Whenever an author takes a political position through her writing, she is bound to displease a section of the society. The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself &ndash; sometimes literally. The easiest way to take down the author is to give her a label. The label keeps changing with time as the label of heretic makes way for the label of anti-national (or China-Pak sympathiser for that matter). But the implication remains the same &ndash; label the voice of dissent as the one with vested interest. They used to be devil&rsquo;s agents discrediting the church, now they are foreign agents discrediting the Indian state.</p>

<p>This strategy of author labeling is a conscious political game &ndash; it shifts the terms of the debate from what is being said to who is saying it. This works well with a frenzied mob. Tearing down some arguments is always more difficult than labeling one in an unfavorable colour and requires intensive usage of one&rsquo;s capacity for reasoning. This is more so in a state of mass paranoia when people love to embrace jingoistic slogans over logical arguments. In the current age of information boom, this is truer than ever. The flood of unverified information in all social media makes it almost impossible for a common man to verify the authenticity of every piece of information he receives through his social media. As the line between fact and fiction gets thinner in common perception, fact-based debates become more redundant and usage of labels gets stronger.&nbsp;</p>

<p>India now stands at a critical juncture as the liberals are finding it increasingly hard to hold the line against the jingoistic fervor. Nevertheless, making the voices of dissent survive is critical for the country&rsquo;s future as a thriving democracy. Changing the terms of the debates from labeling the authors to dissecting the contents of discussion can be one small step in this big battle. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Strategy of author labeling is a conscious political game: it shifts the terms of the debate from what is being said to who is saying it

“Can someone find me an article by Arundhati Roy on the atrocities on minorities in Bangladesh, Pakistan and situation in Tibet?” asked one of my Facebook friends in his status. This question, needless to say, is a nonquestion. The answer – no, we haven’t, because she never wrote one – is right there on the face of the question. I tried to Google Roy’s writing on the said issues and indeed found none. Even if she had written something, those do not get caught in Google’s net. Her not criticising China or Pakistan for many is a tell-all sign that she is not neutral and therefore, can be ignored. Interestingly, the burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists. The jingoist newscaster’s general silence about violence against minorities and underprivileged people does not make him any less an expert when it comes to criticising such incidences in other countries. The Nation never wants to know about Dalit massacre! The burden of neutrality becomes a constraining factor for the liberals in popular discourse. Such burden somehow does not fall on the so-called nationalists. × But that is a different question altogether. Let us rather push the question of neutrality a little further and examine why neutrality is important for an author’s credibility. The doctrine of neutrality asserts that unless one criticises other countries (by that I mean China and Pakistan, not the US! Come on!) for their violation of human rights, her criticism of Indian state’s human rights violation does not stand valid. In other words, one loses her credibility if she specialises in the field of human rights violation in India. Such standard for judging one’s credibility is surprising because in almost every other field specialisation is valued. In fact, if you look in other countries for people who are famous for their human rights campaigns, you find them specialising on human rights violation in one country – usually their motherland. Liu Xiaobo, for example, who won Nobel Prize for his struggle against the authoritarian regime in China, did not write much on India’s human rights situation (a more accurate statement is that Google did not turn up any of Xiaobo’s writing on India, as it did not any of Ray’s writing on China). Does that make Liu’s criticisms any less valid? I think not. Why then, the neutrality argument has gained so much credibility among the public? Why does the labeling of the author rather than the critical understanding of her argument become so important? The strategy of author labeling usually becomes important when readers cannot comprehend the author’s arguments entirely. The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it. For example, while reading a popular article on physics, I may end up believing the results without verifying the analysis, if it is written by a famous physicist. The labels attached with an author helps the reader to decide whether he can believe what the author is saying, even if he does not fully comprehend it. × There is also a flip side -- readers may refuse to buy author’s argument simply because it clashes with their long cherished values. In the latter case, the author labeling helps discredit her argument because the readers do not have enough command over the subject to discredit the argument itself. These two scenarios are the sides of the same coin. In both cases the reader does not completely understand the logic – he simply accepts or rejects the author’s view based on the labels attached to her. In the former, he uses the author’s label to believe in her writing, while in the latter he uses the label to discredit her. Such labels are easily available when it comes to subjects which are taught in the universities. A reader believes in an article on a medical breakthrough if the author has a degree in medicine. The question becomes much more difficult when it comes to say, for instance, morality. Institutional labels in such cases come in a clash with people’s value system; nobody is going to follow an author’s sermon on morality just because she is a professor of ethics. So it is not simply a question of whether the author’s credential comes from an institution like university whose primary function is to label one’s expertise. The important thing is the political intensity of the question the author raises. Of course, in a post-Foucauldian world, no knowledge system, let alone Physics, can be seen as non-political. But the disciplines differ in degree of subtlety with which they embody the knowledge politics. The discussion of Physics is less political than the discussion of the state as the latter has larger implication for the polity. However, such statement regarding subtlety of politics in physics should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it was the discussion of astrophysics which landed one man in jail (Galileo Galilei) and another on the burning–stake (Giordano Bruno) not more than five hundred years ago! Nevertheless, at least in the current context, issues such as democracy or human rights are more politically charged than say discussion of physics. The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself – sometimes literally. × Whenever an author takes a political position through her writing, she is bound to displease a section of the society. The disgruntled polity then, rather than tearing down her arguments, mobilises to take a shot at the author herself – sometimes literally. The easiest way to take down the author is to give her a label. The label keeps changing with time as the label of heretic makes way for the label of anti-national (or China-Pak sympathiser for that matter). But the implication remains the same – label the voice of dissent as the one with vested interest. They used to be devil’s agents discrediting the church, now they are foreign agents discrediting the Indian state. This strategy of author labeling is a conscious political game – it shifts the terms of the debate from what is being said to who is saying it. This works well with a frenzied mob. Tearing down some arguments is always more difficult than labeling one in an unfavorable colour and requires intensive usage of one’s capacity for reasoning. This is more so in a state of mass paranoia when people love to embrace jingoistic slogans over logical arguments. In the current age of information boom, this is truer than ever. The flood of unverified information in all social media makes it almost impossible for a common man to verify the authenticity of every piece of information he receives through his social media. As the line between fact and fiction gets thinner in common perception, fact-based debates become more redundant and usage of labels gets stronger. India now stands at a critical juncture as the liberals are finding it increasingly hard to hold the line against the jingoistic fervor. Nevertheless, making the voices of dissent survive is critical for the country’s future as a thriving democracy. Changing the terms of the debates from labeling the authors to dissecting the contents of discussion can be one small step in this big battle.

The burden of neutrality in an intolerant age

China&#39;s Internet regulator has launched a new campaign to clean up the comments sections on websites to prevent the spread of what it calls harmful information and to encourage what it considers more helpful, well-intentioned comments to appear.<br />
<br />
The Chinese government already exercises widespread controls over the Internet and has sought to codify that policy in Law.<br />
<br />
In a statement late on Tuesday, the Cyberspace Administration of China said the crackdown on comments sections was aimed at tackling &quot;outstanding problems&quot;.<br />
<br />
Deputy head of the administration, Ren Xianliang, was quoted as saying in a statement that they wanted to carry out a large-scale &quot;cleanse&quot; of the comments sections and make it easier for people to report illegal or harmful content.<br />
<br />
&quot;Proactively foster a healthy, positive internet culture, and let cultured comment, rational posts and well-intentioned responses become the order of the day online,&quot; Ren said.<br />
<br />
Online media must make sure their stories are not simply &quot;click-bait&quot; and that they fulfil their responsibilities to society and make sure they properly control online comments to &quot;allow the Internet to better benefit the people&quot;, Ren added.<br />
<br />
Officials say internet restrictions, including the blocking of popular foreign sites like Google and Facebook, are needed to ensure security in the face of rising threats, such as terrorism.<br />
<br />
Foreign governments and business groups have pointed to restrictions on the Internet as a broader trade issue.<br />
<br />
(Reuters)

Beijing says the idea is to 'proactively foster a healthy, positive internet culture'

China's Internet regulator has launched a new campaign to clean up the comments sections on websites to prevent the spread of what it calls harmful information and to encourage what it considers more helpful, well-intentioned comments to appear. The Chinese government already exercises widespread controls over the Internet and has sought to codify that policy in Law. In a statement late on Tuesday, the Cyberspace Administration of China said the crackdown on comments sections was aimed at tackling "outstanding problems". Deputy head of the administration, Ren Xianliang, was quoted as saying in a statement that they wanted to carry out a large-scale "cleanse" of the comments sections and make it easier for people to report illegal or harmful content. "Proactively foster a healthy, positive internet culture, and let cultured comment, rational posts and well-intentioned responses become the order of the day online," Ren said. Online media must make sure their stories are not simply "click-bait" and that they fulfil their responsibilities to society and make sure they properly control online comments to "allow the Internet to better benefit the people", Ren added. Officials say internet restrictions, including the blocking of popular foreign sites like Google and Facebook, are needed to ensure security in the face of rising threats, such as terrorism. Foreign governments and business groups have pointed to restrictions on the Internet as a broader trade issue. (Reuters)

China Internet regulator to eliminate online comments

<p>At least a dozen countries are considering, or have enacted laws restricting online speech, a trend that is alarming policy-makers and others who see the internet as a valuable medium for debate and expression.<br />
<br />
Such curbs are called out as a threat to the open internet in a report on internet governance set to be released today at an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting in Cancun, Mexico.<br />
<br />
The report, reviewed by Reuters, warns of dangers for the global internet, including intrusive surveillance, rising cyber-crime and fragmentation, as governments exert control of online content.<br />
<br />
It was prepared by the London-based Chatham House think-tank and the Centre for International Governance Innovation, founded by former BlackBerry Ltd co-chief Jim Balsillie.<br />
<br />
China and Iran long have restricted online speech. Now limitations are under discussion in countries that have had a more open approach to speech, including Brazil, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bolivia, Kenya and Nigeria.<br />
<br />
Advocates said some of the proposals would criminalise conversations online that otherwise would be protected under the countries&#39; constitutions.<br />
<br />
Some use broad language to outlaw online postings that &quot;disturb the public order&quot; or &quot;convey false statements&quot; - formulations that could enable crackdowns on political speech, critics said.<br />
<br />
&quot;Free expression is one of the foundational elements of the internet,&quot; said Michael Chertoff, former US secretary of Homeland Security and a co-author of the internet governance report. &quot;It shouldn&#39;t be protecting the political interests of the ruling party or something of that sort.&quot;<br />
<br />
Turkey and Thailand also have cracked down on online speech, and a number of developing world countries have unplugged social media sites altogether during elections and other sensitive moments. In the US as well, some have called for restrictions on Internet communications.<br />
<br />
Speech limitations create business and ethical conflicts for companies like Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc&#39;s Google platforms for debate and political organising.<br />
<br />
&quot;This is the next evolution of political suppression,&quot; said Richard Forno, assistant director of University of Maryland, Baltimore County Center for Cybersecurity. &quot;Technology facilitates freedom of expression, and politicians don&#39;t like that.&quot;<br />
<br />
<strong>Fighting deliquencies</strong><br />
<br />
Tanzania and Ethiopia have passed laws restricting online speech. In other countries, including Pakistan, Brazil, Bolivia and Kenya, proposals are under discussion or under legislative consideration, according to a review of laws by Reuters and reports by Internet activist groups.<br />
<br />
In Bolivia, President Evo Morales earlier this year said that the country needs to &quot;regulate the social networks.&quot; A bill has been drafted and is ready for introduction in the legislature, said Leonardo Loza, head of one of Bolivia&#39;s coca growers&#39; unions, a supporter of the proposal.<br />
<br />
&quot;It is aimed at educating and disciplining people, particularly young Bolivians, and fighting delinquency on social networks,&quot; Loza said. &quot;Freedom of expression can&#39;t be lying to the people or insulting citizens and politicians.&quot;<br />
<br />
A bill in Pakistan would allow the government to block internet content to protect the &quot;integrity, security or defense&quot; of the state. The legislation, which has passed a vote in Pakistan&#39;s lower house of Parliament, is supposed to target terrorism, but critics said the language is broad.<br />
<br />
It comes after Pakistan blocked YouTube in 2012 when a video it deemed inflammatory sparked protests across the country and much of the Muslim world.<br />
<br />
Earlier this year, YouTube, which is owned by Google, agreed to launch a local version of its site in the country. But now, the internet report said, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority can ask the company to remove any material it finds offensive.<br />
<br />
<strong>Companies in the cross-fire</strong><br />
<br />
US internet companies have faced mounting pressure in recent years to restrict content. Companies&#39; terms of service lay out what users can and cannot post, and they said they apply a single standard globally. They aim to comply with local laws, but often confront demands to remove even legal content.<br />
<br />
The new laws threaten to raise a whole new set of compliance and enforcement issues.<br />
<br />
&quot;There&#39;s a technical question, which is, could you comply if you wanted to, and then the bigger meta question is why would you want to cooperate with this politicised drive to suppress freedom of expression,&quot; said Andrew McLaughlin, Google&#39;s former director of global policy and now leading content organisation at Medium.<br />
<br />
Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment for this story.<br />
<br />
(Reuters)</p>


A dozen countries want to enact laws that criminalise online conversations

At least a dozen countries are considering, or have enacted laws restricting online speech, a trend that is alarming policy-makers and others who see the internet as a valuable medium for debate and expression. Such curbs are called out as a threat to the open internet in a report on internet governance set to be released today at an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting in Cancun, Mexico. The report, reviewed by Reuters, warns of dangers for the global internet, including intrusive surveillance, rising cyber-crime and fragmentation, as governments exert control of online content. It was prepared by the London-based Chatham House think-tank and the Centre for International Governance Innovation, founded by former BlackBerry Ltd co-chief Jim Balsillie. China and Iran long have restricted online speech. Now limitations are under discussion in countries that have had a more open approach to speech, including Brazil, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bolivia, Kenya and Nigeria. Advocates said some of the proposals would criminalise conversations online that otherwise would be protected under the countries' constitutions. Some use broad language to outlaw online postings that "disturb the public order" or "convey false statements" - formulations that could enable crackdowns on political speech, critics said. "Free expression is one of the foundational elements of the internet," said Michael Chertoff, former US secretary of Homeland Security and a co-author of the internet governance report. "It shouldn't be protecting the political interests of the ruling party or something of that sort." Turkey and Thailand also have cracked down on online speech, and a number of developing world countries have unplugged social media sites altogether during elections and other sensitive moments. In the US as well, some have called for restrictions on Internet communications. Speech limitations create business and ethical conflicts for companies like Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google platforms for debate and political organising. "This is the next evolution of political suppression," said Richard Forno, assistant director of University of Maryland, Baltimore County Center for Cybersecurity. "Technology facilitates freedom of expression, and politicians don't like that." Fighting deliquencies Tanzania and Ethiopia have passed laws restricting online speech. In other countries, including Pakistan, Brazil, Bolivia and Kenya, proposals are under discussion or under legislative consideration, according to a review of laws by Reuters and reports by Internet activist groups. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales earlier this year said that the country needs to "regulate the social networks." A bill has been drafted and is ready for introduction in the legislature, said Leonardo Loza, head of one of Bolivia's coca growers' unions, a supporter of the proposal. "It is aimed at educating and disciplining people, particularly young Bolivians, and fighting delinquency on social networks," Loza said. "Freedom of expression can't be lying to the people or insulting citizens and politicians." A bill in Pakistan would allow the government to block internet content to protect the "integrity, security or defense" of the state. The legislation, which has passed a vote in Pakistan's lower house of Parliament, is supposed to target terrorism, but critics said the language is broad. It comes after Pakistan blocked YouTube in 2012 when a video it deemed inflammatory sparked protests across the country and much of the Muslim world. Earlier this year, YouTube, which is owned by Google, agreed to launch a local version of its site in the country. But now, the internet report said, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority can ask the company to remove any material it finds offensive. Companies in the cross-fire US internet companies have faced mounting pressure in recent years to restrict content. Companies' terms of service lay out what users can and cannot post, and they said they apply a single standard globally. They aim to comply with local laws, but often confront demands to remove even legal content. The new laws threaten to raise a whole new set of compliance and enforcement issues. "There's a technical question, which is, could you comply if you wanted to, and then the bigger meta question is why would you want to cooperate with this politicised drive to suppress freedom of expression," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's former director of global policy and now leading content organisation at Medium. Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment for this story. (Reuters)

Curb on online speech threat to open internet, says international report