It comes no surprise to me when I read the
news about Department of Telecommunication’s order to put a blanket ban on 39
websites which are used to create or distribute porn materials (See
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Govt-goes-after-porn-makes-ISPs-ban-sites/articleshow/20769326.cms)
. This was rather expected after so much hype through public interest
litigations, discussions and debates over the issue of websites catering the
need for porn. One more issue which motivated me to presume this was the
introduction of criminal law amendment act, 2013 which has brought in not only
anti-stalking regulation (solely for women) but also anti-voyeurism
legislation. The age of consent issue for rape raised lot of debates which
further put this ‘old wine in new bottle’ legislation in boiling
debates............As can be guessed, this was more than expected.
But do I really support this blanket ban?
Perhaps yes. The news that I got to read exhibits a line which is as follows “.............blanket
ban on websites that allow users to share pornographic content”. While
supporting the ban I am looking not at the issue of banning of websites, but at
the issue of preventing the users. This ban, if stands the future debates and
waves of legal criticisms, can actually prove positively historic. It would
actually prevent victimisation of women in the long run in the World Wide Web
by some vindictive users. In my latest publication titled “Examining the scope
of Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act, 1986 in the light of
cyber victimisation of women in India” published in National Law School Journal
(2013) 11NLSJ , pgs 188-218 ( the paper can be accessed @
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2270061) I have elaborately
discussed about such vindictive usage of websites by individuals. Such users
would be automatically prevented from uploading offensive contents in these
websites. This would further resolve the
issue of victim-website (non)cooperation issues in such matters. Indeed, this
is a boon for so many women victims who had lost hope for any kind of
cooperation from the US hosted websites and who feel extremely reluctant to
visit the police.
But again, my rational brain refuses to
believe in such kinds of flimsy bans. Like so many other researchers, I have my
own share on thoughts regarding pornography. I argued in my above mentioned
publication that “the concepts of obscenity and pornography overlap with each
other and the shadow of obscenity law still shrouded the indecency law” (See pg
200 in Debarati Halder(2013), Examining the scope of Indecent Representation of
Women (Prevention) Act, 1986 in the light of cyber victimisation of women in
India” published in National Law School Journal (2013) 11NLSJ , pgs 188-218).
Which materials would be considered as ‘pornographic’? .........the present law probably has no
answer. Which are the websites that would fall in the scope of this ban?
........no one actually can answer because sites like Facebook are also used to
upload materials which can fall in the category of pornography. Further, the
anonymous character of users would stand as a towering problem while detecting
privately hosted websites. One site deletion may not prevent creation of
another. How many sites would be banned then?
All these questions may need to be answered before taking up a serious
step towards implementing the ban.
Somehow I am having this ghastly feeling that
adult pornography is there to stay in India and vindictive users would outsmart
the government attempts to stop them. Hope I would be proved wrong.
Please Note:
Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations
provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article,
please cite it as “Halder D. (2013), “Banning
the websites for shunning porn”, 26th
June,2013, published in
http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com/
