I joined Orkut* a couple of months ago. I'm not sure why I did this, and it terrifies me with its ability to expose me to people I thought had vanished from my life years ago. It is strangely addictive though.
Somewhere on Orkut there is a community called 'we hate India' or something to that effect. How do I know this? Because certain people send messages to everyone they're remotely connected with to inform them of this outrage and ask that this evil community be taken down. I've received two such messages this past week and one about a month ago.
I am unable to understand the problem. Is it that people who hate India exist? Should they not be allowed such an opinion? Should they not be allowed to express that opinion? Should they not be allowed to express that opinion on orkut.com? Many more people seem to be members of an 'I hate Himesh Reshammiya' community. Is this wrong too? Are the situations different because after all one cannot be a citizen of Himesh Reshammiya?
Of course I'm talking about rather immature school and college students here. Inability to take criticism of one's country (to deny that criticism has a right to exist) is immature, to me. But it has no connection with the Indian government or any of this week's memorable events, right?
The phrase 'anti national activities' has popped up a lot in connection with the blogban. It seems the reason we should avoid these evil blogs-to-be-banned is that they are run/perused by people who indulge in said anti-national activities. Unfortunately, a more precise description is unavailable. Plotting to murder Indians to make a political point is an anti-national activity. So is drug smuggling, apparently. So is draping the national flag over the body of an attractive woman. Having a blog with a url that includes the words "exposing the left" when the Indian left form a part of the government.
Forget the randomness of the blogs they chose to block, forget their technological incompetence. What matters is that our government believe they have a right/duty to protect us all from anti-national activities, and "anti-national" covers a wide range of activities and includes both terrorism and whatever offends us.
And we ('we' in general, not a we that includes me) think this is okay. I've seen bloggers going "well some blogs needed to be banned, of course, but not all", because there must be a limit to free speech, right? We can't have those evil fascist types blogging, or those horrible India-haters talking about India-hatred on orkut.
There isn't. The whole point of supporting free speech is that you accept the possibility of being horrified, angered, nauseated by other people. Not to support what they say but defend to the death their right to say it. And it does involve maturity. I know this because I still haven't reached a point where I can accept certain ideologies. I still have kneejerk emotional reactions, I still wish the people who hold those opinions would die the most graphic, horrific deaths.
But I'm a grown up and I believe in free speech and I would never suggest that those opinions be suppressed. Apparently our government is not.
*Orkut is a strange networking site thingumajig.
[Unrelated, Arka draws a Famous Person into the cause]
Thursday, 20 July 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Aishwarya: Three things:
1) Can we please stop calling it a blogban? No one is blocking blogs. The people behind this don't even know what a blog is. They're blocking websites. I know it seems like a trivial difference to you and me, but it isn't to the larger universe of people who don't know what a blog is, and I think it's time we started calling a spade a spade.
2) Free speech is not just about defending other people's right to state their opinion. It's also about recognising that the only way to attack them for saying it is to refute their arguments, not to suppress them. And that upholding free speech means defending your right to explain to other people why they're wrong.
3) For the record: I'm not for 'defending to death their right to say it'. I'll stop at grevious bodily harm. (Sorry, but I bruise easy) Till then I'm entirely with you though. I might even forgive you for Orkut.
Aishwarya,
I support free speech, too, but I agree with Falstaff that it is also about disagreeing in words, not trying to suppress the others or indulging in violence.
Even in the liberal West, neo-Nazi and other fascist sites invoke a lot of alarm. It's not just about an I-hate-so-and-so view. Some impressionable people actually get sucked into that ideology and think nothing of murdering innocent people. Websites/blogs/books/cinema/any means of propoganda that actually incite violence against a particular race/religion/ethnic group, etc. are potentially dangerous to society. There is a very thin dividing line between expressing dislike for a country/race/religion
and expressing outright hatred and malicious intent and cooking up false theories to support it.
Rational people can see through harmful propoganda but unfortunately, the Internet is far more unregulated and chaotic than any other medium. Even an immature 11-year old can access such sites. And that is even more dangerous.
But, this does not mean I support the banning of blogs per se (although I don't think the GOI actually tried to 'ban' blogs).
OK. Let the idiot NRI thru.
Hold on hold on hold on, ek minute yaar...
I say this all the time, having stolen it from possibly the greatest magician of all times:
Freedom means the freedom to do stupid things.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to allow people to say things that you disagree with. Period.
The american founders didn't put in the first amendment so that they could say whatever they want, they put it in the constitution so they could say whatever they wanted against the king and against england and not have to pay (monetarily or physically or however) for it.
Please, please give the i hate india blogs and websites all the freedom and all the publicity they want. Because if we truly are "free" and this is the free marketplace of ideas, then I know which blog I'm shopping at. I may occasionally give the i hate india blogs a once-over, but I'm just browsing thank you very much.
What if there was a war, and nobody came?
"Some impressionable people actually get sucked into that ideology and think nothing of murdering innocent people." (ref. Lakshmi)
If people can be impressed upon by ideologies that seem fascist and anti-social then there is a flaw in the way the society functions. Its because the goodness of a good society isn't impressive enough. There are societies and, I daresay, countries that have very a open and understanding social structure where the concept of a personal safety guard, the police, is redundant.
Agree with Aishwarya on all points.
By the way the government wanted the ISPs to blank out particular blogs but these guys didn't have the technical know how, so they ended up blocking the entire domain.
Falstaff: It's bigger than that. It isn't just about websites or blogs. I still haven't seen Paanch, a movie on the underground rock scene in Pune, because it had been banned. WTF should be we governed by the supposed lowest common denominator of intelligence?
As Aishwarya and I were discussing yesterday, individual votes and voices do not matter in a democracy. Consequently groups and communities form vote-banks, and hence individual right suppressed. From the state's side, neither justice (social or otherwise) nor punishment must be community based.
Anangbhai got it right - freedom to do even stupid things must be allowed, and there should be individual accountability. The problem is that that would require a state that stays vigil, and no state is willing to make that effort, least of all the Indian one.
Unrest cure: Fair enough - I was just trying to clarify that there is no such thing as a blogban, there is a ban on websites, but I agree entirely that that's not the only form of censorship that we need to fight.
I agree entirely that freedom to say stupid things should be allowed, but notice that doesn't actually mean a state that stays vigil, it only implies a state / society that remains vigilant and chooses to respond to the things people are saying that it perceives as dangerous, rather than trying to stop them from being said. There's a difference between needing to know what someone is saying about us (which is all the vigilance implies) and stopping them from saying it. There's no reason why the state can't be an important player in anangbhai's free marketplace of ideas. It's only when it tries to supercede the market, as it's doing here, that we need to fight it.
Falstaff -
1) You're right. It isn't just a blog ban.
2) I'm not suggesting that we just allow people to say what they want and ignore it. I simply prefer debate and proving them wrong to gagging them. You do too.
3) I probably wouldn't last much beyond a stubbed toe, myself. ;)
Lakshmi - "some impressionable people" obviously need to be exposed to the other side of things rather than shutting down propoganda altogether. If people are making up false theories, prove them false. Are you suggesting that anything that anyone might find objectionable be stopped? Because if so, your first statement that you believe in free speech is meaningless. And if you have an immature 11 year old at home, it's your duty to regulate his/her internet activities, it is not the internet's duty to be childsafe. I would think the immature 40 year olds far more worrying.
And I'm sick of the "they do it in the West too!" argument. The West really isn't that liberal, and not everything they do is right.
Anang - *grin* Yes, in many cases I DO believe that if you ignore them they'll go away. In others, I think it's necessary to challenge them and prove them wrong. Not to ban them.
Mithun - Amazingly, I agree with you too!
Nikhil, Falstaff - That argument probably needs a whole other post. :)
Falstaff: I think the headmistress has unfairly attempted to cut our discussion short, telling us to wait for a new post. But I shall...rebel and shout "I agree" and move towards detention. One can't outrun a headmistress who's also a state level runner and likes pineapples with chocolate ice-cream.
(Runs)
Unrest cure: :-). Of course, vigilant free speech can also include saying, sure, sure, of course we can talk about this...just some other time.
And chocolate with pineapples. Aaarrggghhh! Now that's the kind of thing the GoI should be censoring, if it really wants to be useful.
Nikhil! Where'd you get that from? I do NOT like chocolate ice cream with pineapples. The combination is quite horrifying. In fact, I shall post on this too.
(I'm not a state level runner anymore. I got too fat, remember?)
Falstaff - Don't believe everything you read. I think slanderous comments such as Nikhil's should be censored.
"The whole point of supporting free speech is that you accept the possibility of being horrified, angered, nauseated by other people. Not to support what they say but defend to the death their right to say it."
thats a tricky statement youve made, very very thin ice is what you are on
Aishwarya:
"Are you suggesting that anything that anyone might find objectionable be stopped?"
No. Not at all. I do concede that it is the duty of parents to draw the line for their kids and it's not the Internet that is expected to be childsafe.
It is not about blocking "objectionable" content. As you have mentioned in your post, it is not wrong to have an I-hate-India opinion. You can have a website that says "I hate India because... blah ..blah.. (list of rants against this country). That should be tolerated. But, should you have a website that has false propoganda against India AND actually calls for violent means to disintegrate this country? Should we allow terrorist organisations to run their websites unhindered?
Freedom of any sort has also to be accompanied by responsibility.
Also, one person's freedom should not encroach on another person's freedom and basic rights. If your freedom of speech is posing a threat to someone's right to life, law enforcement does have a right to curb you. Of course, the government should not be trusted completely with disallowing any sort of expression . This whole thing is a very grey area.
The sites such I was talking about earlier are not some harmless rabble-rousing ones. They have sinister designs that are harmful to a civilised society.
My example of the liberal West was not meant to defend everything that they do. Usually, certain Western countries have a better record of tolerating offensive paintings/books/movies as compared to others. What I meant to say is that even in countries where there are serious debates about freedom of speech and efforts to preserve it, there are some things that are..well, beyond a line.
For the record, I firmly believe in the right to criticise, even deride ideas, personalities and the establishment, be it religious, political, economic or whatever. I do not support misusing this right to explicitly call for committing crimes.
I have a lot more to say but I shall do so on my blog. Can I link to this post?
imhunt: It would be nice to live in the sort of ideal society you have written about. Unfortunately, for most of us in this world, it is not yet a reality.
I guess it ultimately gets down to 'do we want censorship' debate and that opens up whole new conundrms and paradoxes. Like somebody said 'You cant be a lil pregnant', who draws the line here?
Free speech is one thing that we should fight for and aspire too. But we as a society are too cynical and wouldnt want to discuss things that are considered 'politically incorrect' and it is a condition that has afflicted most of us..including you and me. In an ideal society, yes we wouldnt need to censor...but societies reach that state thru constant debates and arguments about the merits and demerits of social issues.
And, Aishwarya...democracy is the only solution that we have now...yes it caters to teh lowest common denominator..but does anyone have a real workable solution besides this..unless you want to call it quites and go back into a the wild...but there darwinism will strike and free speech is not something that is priority where we are on the 'survival of the fittest mode'.
The sense of moral right and wrong doesnt begin at the societal level, but rather with the individual...what a kid watches at home should be decided by the parents. Morality cannot be imposed by any state...it agains goes back to the individual. he must be made capable of taking moral decisions that affect the society at large. Therein lies the key.
Sorry if this doesnt make sense...:)
not lookin at the bigger picture....orkut got me in tch with frndz i though i wud nvr meet agn...
btw how 2 catch ya on orkut ;)
Jhantu - Not at all. I stand by everything I said.
ReadNRight - Ah, the democracy debate. I do agree it's the best of the available political systems, but it's certainly far from ideal.
Kapil - If you must find me on orkut (I barely use it though) do a search for my name
Today itself I decided I’d never log in into my Orkut account again in remaining life. It’s very addictive, and sucks away my whole day. Every now and then I used to type those shitty five words on a browser O—R–K—U—T, to check if someone desirable just scrapped in. Moreover, there’s nothing caled privacy. You have to think twice before getting intimate with people you want to (read GIRLS), without inviting unwanted attention from all sorts of people (some happen to be your irritating friends).
One thing that really pisses me is the unruly nature of Orkut users. Those having 500-600 FRIENDS (I had only 80 until yesterday, and it was so difficult to manage). All that repeated “Kaisa hai” (”Mar gaya main!!! Leave me alone for God’s sake”). “Kya chal raha hai”? (”Why the fuck should I tell you?”) “What’s latest?” (”Just because you have nothing to do, I work in a prestigious company, I like to stay busy in my job, and be happy with that. I don’t PRETEND to have doing LATEST things every now and then.”)
Also, there are users who are involved in 100+ communities. Gimme a break, all those social kind, I like to spend time with myself alone when it suits me.
Trust me guys, ORKUT is a community of all kinds of losers. The more you let them eat your brains, the more you sink beneath. Wake up, and get back to good ol’ emails, and instant messaging. Get Skype, make international calls. Even mobile phones cost just 7.2 to call in US and Europe. Better still, make personal visits. Just ignore this fucking medium.
BYE BYE Orkut.
bloody nonsense and bullshit
stop this useless chootiyapan
Post a Comment