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: 73
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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: 74
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12629,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;media,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12629,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 12509
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;media,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Responding to the judge&rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &ldquo;such things&rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &ldquo;undue haste&rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&rsquo;s mind.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &ldquo;motivated and malicious&rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court added: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&rdquo; he said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&rsquo; 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12629,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;media,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12629,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 12509
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;media,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Responding to the judge&rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &ldquo;such things&rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &ldquo;undue haste&rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&rsquo;s mind.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &ldquo;motivated and malicious&rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court added: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&rdquo; he said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&rsquo; 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ec0ee9b83-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12629,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;media,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 12509,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12629,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 12509
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;media,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Facing trial over &amp;ldquo;objectionable content&amp;rdquo;, 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 &amp;ldquo;casual&amp;rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Responding to the judge&amp;rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &amp;ldquo;such things&amp;rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &amp;ldquo;undue haste&amp;rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&amp;rsquo;s mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &amp;ldquo;motivated and malicious&amp;rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &amp;ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The court added: &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&amp;rdquo; he said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&amp;rsquo; 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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Responding to the judge&rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &ldquo;such things&rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &ldquo;undue haste&rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&rsquo;s mind.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &ldquo;motivated and malicious&rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court added: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&rdquo; he said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&rsquo; 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 12509,
		'title' => 'Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Responding to the judge&rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &ldquo;such things&rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &ldquo;undue haste&rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&rsquo;s mind.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &ldquo;motivated and malicious&rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The court added: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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. &ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&rdquo; he said.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&rsquo; 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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 12629,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 12509,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand',
	'metaKeywords' => 'media,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '



Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...',
	'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Responding to the judge&rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &ldquo;such things&rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &ldquo;undue haste&rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&rsquo;s mind.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &ldquo;motivated and malicious&rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court added: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&rdquo; he said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&rsquo; 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 12509,
	'title' => 'Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Responding to the judge&rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &ldquo;such things&rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &ldquo;undue haste&rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&rsquo;s mind.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &ldquo;motivated and malicious&rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The court added: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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. &ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&rdquo; he said.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&rsquo; 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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 17 January, 2012, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial/900426/',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'google-fb-invoke-freedom-of-speech-in-content-trial-by-utkarsh-anand-12629',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 12629,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 12509
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Google, FB invoke freedom of speech in content trial by Utkarsh Anand'
$metaKeywords = 'media,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '



Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court...'
$disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Facing trial over &ldquo;objectionable content&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;casual&rdquo; approach by a magisterial court had unjustifiably put them in the dock.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Responding to the judge&rsquo;s remark at the last date of hearing that the court would have to block websites like in China if &ldquo;such things&rdquo; were not controlled, Google India said Indian democracy and constitution considered freedom of thought, speech and expression, with required checks, as a fundamental right.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court took strong exception to Facebook India arguing that a Delhi magistrate had shown &ldquo;undue haste&rdquo; in issuing summons to them, warning the website to refrain commenting on a judge&rsquo;s mind.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">When senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Facebook, said that the magistrate had in less than a week proceeded on a &ldquo;motivated and malicious&rdquo; complaint and issued summons without a proper police report, Justice Suresh Kait said: &ldquo;This is unfair. When a judge shows promptness, then also you have problems.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The court added: &ldquo;Don&rsquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;We have no powers to do it. We can write to Google Inc and request them to remove the content,&rdquo; he said.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">However, appearing for complainant Vinay Rai, advocate N Hariharan said the memorandum of association and a directors&rsquo; 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

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

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.