Apar GuptaWithin two weeks of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) “open internet order”, a consortium of telecom and cable companies challenged it in court. The FCC, the US telecom regulator, had made the open internet order to protect network neutrality. Usually restrained in regulating internet services, it cited the overwhelming public interest from regulation.
Archives for the category Op-ed
Net Ambiguity
Delay in settling net neutrality issues helps big incumbents, entrenches bad norms.
NJAC judgment: Why the collegium system needs to go
Increasing inflation and a lack of public trust in an incumbent government linger as elections are announced. The results are surprising, not as to the victor but the scale of the victory. Some commentators term them a clear mandate for economic recovery and reform. Standing in the path of this legislative agenda is a Supreme Court that has the power to interpret a constitution and strike down legislation. Such negation comes with several positives that include judicial checks to protect constitutional freedoms. To protect against such setbacks, a popular, recently elected political principal starts an ambitious legislative plan to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who could secure it favorable rulings.
Section 144 and the power to impose an online curfew
Last month, the Patel community’s demand for job quotas dramatically caught the nation’s attention. Their agitation in Gujarat reminded of the dangers of Mandal politics, in which castes and communities stir and shake the state apparatus to secure reservations in education and government jobs.
Porn ban: Law on obscenity is a paradox unto itself
A labyrinth is one of the many metaphors employed to describe the confusion caused due to the lack of a clear path laid out by law. A recent example is India’s law on obscenity. Last weekend, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology issued directions to internet service providers to block access to 857 websites. Most hosted pornographic content, while others were comedy sites.
But what about Section 69A?
As your social media timeline is flooded with news of a pathbreaking verdict by the Supreme Court of India on freedom of speech, there is reason to pause. While holding that Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, is unconstitutional and laying down guidelines for online takedowns under the intermediary rules, the court, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, has upheld Section 69A and the blocking rules framed under it.
Lawyers ML Sharma, AP Singh rapped over India’s Daughter: Bar Council should not expel them
“Our culture is the best. In our culture there is no place for a woman.” – The above is just one line from the many remarks made by ML Sharma on camera in India’s Daughter, the controversial documentary on the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.
Charges against AIB are another sign that our hate speech laws need reform
Our goal has to be to reach legal standards that prevent any abuse. At its heart should be removing the tremendous subjectivity that permits the most easily offended to have their day in court as the author, artist or activist spends a night in jail.
Beyond Uber
India can do better than this luddite response to Uber
The Delhi transport department’s decision to ban Uber is luddite. It is reminiscent of how the first regulations concerning motor cars sought to ban them, reasoning it would scare the horses which were used to draw carriages.