-The Deccan Herald   Under flak for the new Internet rules which are being interpreted as an attack on privacy of a user, the government while clarifying the rules questioned the why critics were silent when the draft rules were opened for public opinion. R Chandrashekhar, Secretary in the Department of Information Technology, in an interaction with PTI said views from all stakeholders were taken and the best practices prevalent globally were incorporated...

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...

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....

-The Deccan Chronicle   India’s department of information technology that functions under the articulate and vociferous minister Kapil Sibal, has quietly pushed through an Act to censor online content. The recently drafted rules that give private arbiters a right to take down objectionable content, free speech advocates say will seriously hamper virtual communications, debate and discussions. In the past in a country, that is the largest democracy, the lawmakers have suggested bans on books,...

‘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...