Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand

Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jan 17, 2012   modified Modified on Jan 17, 2012

Facing trial over “objectionable content”, social networking websites Google India and Facebook India today sought to invoke their right to freedom of speech and expression before the Delhi High Court and contended that a “casual” approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.

Responding to the judge’s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if “such things” were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.

With the arguments remaining inconclusive, the court posted the petitions by the two companies, challenging the summoning order of the magistrate, for further hearing to Thursday.

The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown “undue haste” in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge’s mind.

When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a “motivated and malicious” complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: “This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.”

The court added: “Don’t blame the judge (magistrate). He has only done what he thought was right in the given circumstances. Am I not taking up the matter regularly even when several old cases are pending in my court? It is only because of the urgency of this matter. The magistrate would have also thought so.”

Luthra responded that he was not questioning the propriety of the order but only sought to state that in the haste, some important considerations were overlooked. He added that not only did the police report not verify any facts about the origin, author, publisher or any other significant aspect of the alleged content, the electronic records submitted in the trial court were also not proved in accordance with the Evidence Act.

Arguing for Google India, senior advocate N K Kaul gave a pictorial presentation to show that the website had nothing to do with the alleged content. “We are not the service provider, not the search engine and not the web-hosting server. There is nothing that could connect us to the content.”

When asked by court about steps taken to remove the content, Kaul said Google India was a different legal entity from Google Inc and it could do nothing on its own. “We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,” he said.

Kaul also denied that Google India was a beneficiary of Google Inc and averred that the former was only a subsidiary involved in the business of advertising.

However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors’ report of Google India showed the two companies were one and the same. Hariharan alleged that except for one share, all the shares of Google India were held by Google Inc.


The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close