The Internet is NOT for Porn

...says the Indian Government, as they ban a popular porn website in India called Savita Bhabhi




ContentSutra has the story. I quote (with emphasis added):


N. Vijayaditya, of the CCA, confirmed the development. “There were several complaints against the site. We have taken action under the relevant sections of the IT Act and blocked the site,” he said. When asked if the agency will give a chance to the owners of the site to defend themselves, he said nobody has come forward so far with such a request. He said he could not say if the agency will pursue legal action against the operators of the website.

....

Savitabhabhi is the 82nd-most-visited Indian website, attracting more visitors than Bseindia.com, the website of the Bombay Stock Exchange.

.....

The portrayal of a married Indian woman as wildly promiscuous raised the hackles of many in a largely conservative nation. One of them, Bangalore-based N. Vijayashankar, who describes himself as a “techno-legal information security consultant”, waged a sustained campaign against Savitabhabhi, complaining to the government’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) as well as the Director General of Police in Karnataka in October last year. “Cartoons are a more participative medium. Videos don’t do as much damage. When a child is watching a cartoon, he imagines himself as the character. This has a deeply corrupting influence on our youngsters. This, apart from the fact that an Indian name was being used in such an obscene cartoon, is what led me to make the complaint,” Vijayashankar said. “A child will see a Savitabhabhi among his relatives.” When asked if there was any scientific basis to his thesis that pornographic cartoons did more damage to young people than pornographic videos, he said that was his own psychological interpretation. (Vijayashankar has no training in psychology.)

......

In an email interview with contentSutra, the main brain behind the site, who goes by the handle Deshmukh, said they were exploring legal options. “We are talking to our lawyers and trying to figure out our options. The initial reaction is since the site does not pose any threat to India’s national security and is not illegal, it must be against some international treaty to block it. However, we are still working on the legal angle.”

Currently it seems safe to say:
1. SavitaBhabhi can't do much about the power of the Indian govt over Indian ISPs. In fact, it appears that they still haven't understood the reality of regulatory control in India. The government has fairly broad rights under Section 67 of the Indian IT Act 2000.

2. The Indian govt can't do much more about SavitaBhabhi registered in the US. However, what kind of due process bans a website first and provides review upon request afterwards? The cart appears to be before the horse.

3. N. Vijayashankar really doesn't quite get the Internet. Or psychology. Or adolescent children. Poor guy.

4. There will be more back-and-forth here. For instance, check out www.savesavita.com

As a freedom-of-speech issue, it will be interesting to see if anybody in India picks up the cause. Crates of comics to Mr. N. Vijayashankar, our favorite “techno-legal information security consultant”? I doubt it.

Toon porn doesn't have the same zing as a Consortium of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women



Meanwhile, Avenue Q explains:



Lyrics | - The Internet Is For Porn lyrics

ps. Section 67 of Indian IT Act quoted below. Young Deshmukh will do well not to announce his real name in India.


67. Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form.

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.