India's Internet community is upset over a recent set of rules under the country's Information Technology Act of 2008 that aims to regulate content on the Web. Used as to much freedom as they are, cyber activists – who include bloggers, tweeters and free-thinking Net freaks – are understandably upset. The rules say that anything libelous, grossly harmful, hateful, racist or ethnically objectionable or disparaging will be covered by the rules....

Washington-based Freedom Institute has expressed concern over the decreasing freedom of expression on the Internet in India. The Institute, which put India in the company of states like China, Egypt and Iran which saw a deterioration of freedom of expression on the Internet since the 2009 report, highlighted the tightening of surveillance and prosecution of online posts. India’s freedom index declined from 34 in 2009 to 36 in 2011, reflecting the...

TARN TARAN, India—India's northern state of Punjab was once a symbol of the nation's economic progress, its advances in agriculture lauded world-wide as a spectacular feat that made India self-sufficient in food production. But Punjab today faces a grave economic crisis, the result of years of shoddy governance that have stunted growth and created such a mound of public debt that the state is now seeking a multibillion dollar bailout from...

-The Hindu   Whatever the intention behind them, the new rules framed last month under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are likely to have a chilling effect on the development of the Internet as a medium of communication and information in India. Apart from the unreasonable restrictions on Free speech they envisage, the rules raise serious concerns about the privacy of a citizen's personal information, including medical profile, financial position, and...

‘More information is always better than no information' Amnesty International on Thursday condemned attempts by American authorities to prosecute WikilLeaks founder Julian Assange describing it as a bid to “stifle” Free speech in the name of national security. “National security should not be used to stifle freedom of speech except in very restricted circumstances where there is clear evidence that there is a genuine threat to national security. We are committed...