Expressing their inability in filtering the content posted on their websites, Google and Facebook told the Delhi high court that there was no way in which they can stop an individual from posting anything on their profile online. They asserted that the social networking sites do respect a person’s freedom of speech and expression.
Putting forth the argument on behalf of Google, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul said, “It’s easy for people to say you can use filters. If we were to block the word sex, for instance, all data on ration cards, passports etc will get blocked in one go, as the word sex figures in all this data, so what wrong we are doing if this word is being used by any individual? It is difficult to analyse as to in what sense the word is being used.”
Both companies are among 21 whose executives have been summoned to appear in person in a trial court on March 13 for allegedly hosting obscene and objectionable content.
Google said it is working as a search engine, its filtration will lead to surfers to sites they’re looking for.
“The offending material belongs to the website, controlled by the owner of the website. Google has nothing to do with it,” Kaul said.
“There are serious issues regarding freedom of speech. We have this freedom in our country unlike a totalitarian regime like China. We are proud we have this freedom,” added Kaul.
The legal trouble for companies including Orkut, Yahoo and YouTube is based on a petition filed by Vinay Rai who has objected to obscene depictions that he found online of Hindu deities, the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ.
A Delhi court has on Friday suggested the executives of these 21 companies be tried for criminal conspiracy, even when the government has sanctioned their prosecution. The companies appealed against this in the high court, which warned last week that like China, India can choose to ban these websites.
Google also said the Indian subsidiary cannot be held responsible for an act by its parent company.
However, Justice Suresh Kait was not impressed with this argument. “Are you not a beneficiary of Google Inc’s business? If some illegal activity is being carried out by a tenant and the landlord is a beneficiary, then how can the landlord not know what’s happening?”
On this, counsel for the petitioner Hariharan told the court that websites such as Google and Facebook are liable for the content, posted on their platform by users, as they benefit from the content.
“Every click on a Google- owned website gets it revenue on the content. Google India is wrong in stating that it is just an ad-collection subsidiary of Google Inc. The memorandum of association of Google India shows it is in the business of production of software, Internet products, computer-aided design, analysis, selling Internet search, engineering platforms and solutions. Thus it is not only in the business of advertising, as it states,” Hariharan added.
The arguments remain inconclusive and the court posted the matter for further hearing on January 19.
