Technically they lose the safe harbor granted to intermediaries in such a case.
These decisions are certainly capable of being challenged in the courts - in that once you refuse to take down such content, the offended party can complain to the police, get a court order etc to compel you to take it down. Once it goes to the courts you can challenge it there. --srs (iPad) On 18-Sep-2012, at 18:15, Biju Chacko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > <[email protected]> wrote: >> You don't need a court order or order from any competent authority which >> includes the police etc >> >> As far as I can see there's an obligation to take the content down no matter >> who notifies you about it, if it contravenes any of the provisions of sub >> rule 2 n the IT intermediaries guidelines 2011 >> >> _________ >> >> "Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011" >> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf >> >> 4. The intermediary, on whose computer system the information is stored or >> hosted or published, upon obtaining knowledge by itself or been brought to >> actual knowledge by an affected person in writing or through email signed >> with electronic signature about any such information as mentioned in >> sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, >> work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that >> is in contravention of sub rule (2). Further the intermediary shall >> preserve such information and associated records for at least ninety days >> for investigation purposes. >> >> Sub Rule 2 prohibits intermediaries from hosting, displaying, uploading, >> modifying, publishing, transmitting, updating or sharing any information that >> >> a. Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to >> >> b. Is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, >> pornographic, pedophilic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, >> or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparagng, relating or encourating >> money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatsoever >> >> c. Harm minors in any way >> >> d. Infringers any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietory rights >> >> e. Violates any law for the time being in force >> >> f. Deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or >> communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature >> >> g. Impersonate another person >> >> h. Contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs >> designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer >> resource >> >> i. Threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of >> India, friendly relations with foreign states, or or public order or causes >> incitement to the commission of any cognisable offense or prevents >> investigation of any offense or is insulting any other nation > > It seems to me that it is items (b) and (i) which can be most easily > misused to gag people. Since those would involve making a judgement > call, could a service provider punt it to the courts saying that it is > not competent to make such judgements? > > -- b >
