Google, India and Freedom of Speech

Google, which does not create original content, is being asked to exercise editorial control over the information its search engine and affiliated sites make available to Internet users in India. An article in the Jan. 4, 2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal explores the issue of free speech inside the world’s largest democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239086161213013.html?mod=djemMM). According to Indian officials quoted in the article, censoring potentially libelous or inflammatory Web sites and articles is intended to prevent violent outbursts from religious and political groups.

This is an example of how new media companies, including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, need to adapt to cultural norms and laws overseas. In the United States, Google will not remove material from its search results regardless of its defamatory or offensive nature unless it violates the company’s user agreement. This was evident in November when the top result for a search of “Michelle Obama” pulled up a photograph that depicted the first lady as a monkey. Users complained to Google and the company posted this statement above the photo: “Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree.” The Web site was eventually removed from Google’s search because it contained a virus, which is against the company’s policy. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/6737933.html).

India seems to be somewhat of a balancing act for Internet companies. On the one hand, it is a democracy that allows its citizens the right to free speech. On the other hand, speech in India can be restricted to maintain “public order, decency or morality.” Is Google at the mercy of Indian authorities? Material is preemptively removed because of what may happen, not what has happened.

From a business perspective I can understand why Google would work with Indian officials to censor information but I think it can be a slippery slope. Google is setting a precedent that it will remove any Web page, article or blog flagged by users and government officials – without argument. There is a potential for abuse there. Google’s attorney in India, Gitanjali Duggal, points out that the company’s does have a standard. “Saying ‘I hate Shiv Sena’ is one thing, but saying ‘I Hate Shiv Sena because they hate Muslims’ is another thing … (it) brings in the concept of religion.” I think that distinction is somewhat irrelevant. What other qualifiers are out there?

What responsibility does Google have to steer clear of the country’s religious and ethnic struggles? Perhaps a social one. Perhaps a financial one, should the company wish to continue business in India (and with an estimated 52 million Web users, why wouldn’t it?). I question how long Internet companies can limit information before savvy users find more and more ways to go around filters. I think this just the latest example of new media finding its way through a world that has yet to catch up.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010)