Indian censorship of social networks: Google, Facebook, and others on trial

The firms say that the regulations are incompatible with India's Information Technology Act 2008, which should protect them from liability where user-posted material is concerned. It has also been claimed that the material Rai is citing has not been flagged as inappropriate in many cases, making it impossible for the networks to filter the content. The companies allege that Rai has complained directly to the government, rather than reporting the content to them in the first instance. Both Facebook and Google have previously removed content that has been flagged.

Civil liberties campaigners have described the case as a crackdown on free speech, while others have called upon sites to proactively monitor all content that is posted by their users. Other similar complaints are also being brought against the networks, though both Google and Facebook have petitioned the courts to dismiss the case. If the companies are found guilty, it's possible that some executives could face jail time and the firms involved hit with hefty fines.

Facebook and Google have both been forced to remove content following a court directive in India. The two companies have removed material from their Indian domains that was considered offensive to Hindus, Muslims and Christians, after a court in New Delhi ruled today that certain images were deemed objectionable. Google confirmed it had disabled some content from its Indian versions of search, YouTube and Blogger, but refused to detail the content involved. Facebook has not issued a comment on its content removal.

The issue has raised the question of censorship in India as the lawsuit demands that internet companies screen content before it is posted. 19 other companies have also been accused of violating Indian laws in the same case, after the country passed a law last year making web companies responsible for user-posted content. Most websites remain uncensored despite the rules, and the internet firms involved argue that they are not responsible for "obscene, objectionable, and defamatory" content. Nevertheless, a lower court in New Delhi has informed the companies that they must detail how they have blocked offensive content within 15 days.