Act without wisdom

The new kid on the Internet block, in the form of user-generated content (also referred to as Web 2.0 sites), has been making news of late. Time recently selected "You" (a reference to the people behind user-generated content on the Internet) as its person of the year. The magazine would have recognised that user-generated content sites (which include social networking sites and blogs) like MySpace, YouTube and Digg have been getting astronomical valuations. YouTube, for instance, was bought by Google for $1.6 billion. Second, these sites give millions of Internet users a voice.

However, there's an unsavoury side to these sites, too, as seen recently when two prominent Indian TV channels were severely admonished by the government for showing a video clip (from YouTube) of Mahatma Gandhi doing a pole dance. The channels were allowed to get away with an apology. However, the government is seriously considering blocking YouTube (the clip is still on the site). Such incidents have been reported in the past too"" for instance, there was the virtual burning of the Indian flag on Orkut (again a Google-owned social networking site). In that case, though, Google India said it would remove the offensive video clip. Google's stand is that it does not endorse such "offensive" user-generated content. So should the government block such sites as it did with blogs, ostensibly for security reasons, or will it find itself forced to back out because of a public uproar?

The argument has already been kicked off about the freedom of expression, mostly unfettered on the Internet, especially if someone (in this case Google) is making money from the site? In the offline world, including the print and electronic media, there are ombudsmen and courts to regulate the media and rap on the knuckles those who stray from the straight and narrow. But the Internet is not monitored""partly since it's a relatively new medium and also because it has no boundaries and therefore jurisdictions are blurred. Who, then, should be hauled up for the "distasteful and disrespectful" Gandhi clip on YouTube?

In YouTube's case, the servers are in the US. So all that the Indian government can do is to block the site at the ISP level (it can't block individual links). But that would mean denying millions of Indian Internet users a legitimate channel of creative expression on YouTube or some such site. On the other hand, the government cannot afford to (and should not) ignore a total disregard for national icons like Mahatma Gandhi and the national flag. It's a tough call with no easy answers.

The Chinese, Iranian and Brazilian governments have tackled such issues differently. China made Yahoo part with user data and blocked Wikipedia, while YouTube has been blocked by Iran and was recently blocked by most of Brazil's operators in response to a judicial order banning a steamy video of supermodel Daniela Cicarelli. In India, even the proposed Amendments to the Indian IT Act of 2000, tabled in Parliament and then referred to a Select Committee, do not have any clear answer. The Act only mentions in passing that if websites do not remove "offensive" material, action will be taken. In sum, if sites and blogs are blocked, with the government trying to create a digital border for "suspect" reasons, the issue is cause for worry. However, websites need self-regulation as well as checks and balances. If the government is simply filling the gap, then creating a brouhaha over its action without probing the reasons may not be a wise step.