By AVN
DELHI—The world had a good chuckle this week after it was revealed that the 86-year-old governor of a province in India resigned after a sex tape was released that showed him in bed with three young women, but the story veils what’s really going on in a country whose citizens search for “sex” on the internet more than any other people in the world.
Search queries for “sex” are coming back minus the sex. In fact, a recent investigation by the Guardian has uncovered an astonishing amount of censorship by some of the most trafficked portals in the world, including Flickr, Bing and Yahoo!.
“The Yahoo search engine and Flickr photo-sharing site (owned by Yahoo) altered their sites earlier this month to prevent users in India from switching off the safe-search facility. The block also applies to users in Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea,” reports the paper. “Microsoft has also barred Indian users of its Bing search engine from searching for sexual content. Users who do try to search for sexual material receive a notice informing them that ‘your country or region requires a strict Bing SafeSearch setting, which filters out results that might return adult content.’”
The restricted access is apparently the result of changes to India's Information Technology Act of 2000, which bans the publication of pornographic material. That law is based on a 150-year-old statute (section 292 of the Indian penal code) that defines obscenity as "any content that is lascivious and that will appeal to prurient interest or the effect of which is to tend to deprave or corrupt the minds of those who are likely to see, read or hear the same."
“In October,” says the Guardian, “the scope of the 2000 act was widened to enable action to be taken against a wide range of providers, from internet search engines and internet service providers to cyber-cafes. Under the new law, they are obliged to exercise due diligence and disable access to any content which contravenes the act. Failure to do so carries a three-year jail sentence and a fine of up to 500,000 rupees.” That amount converts to $10,744.60.
Such large-scale censorship in a democracy that, like America, is deeply conflicted about its attitudes toward sex should be of profound concern to civil libertarians in the United States who believe it can’t happen here or that the massive internet portals upon which we are all increasingly dependent will ultimately stand up and defend the ability of individuals to freely access the internet.
Despite the fact that Yahoo! is an American corporation, the Flickr website explains that "Flickr is a global community made up of many different kinds of people.
“What's OK in your backyard may not be OK in theirs. Each one of us bears the responsibility of categorizing our own content within this landscape. So, we've introduced some filters to help everyone try to get along.
"If your Yahoo! ID is based in Singapore, Hong Kong, India or Korea you will only be able to view safe content based on your local terms of service (this means you won't be able to turn SafeSearch off)."
What it also means is that, under the right circumstances, Flickr will block our search results in a New York minute, too.
DELHI—The world had a good chuckle this week after it was revealed that the 86-year-old governor of a province in India resigned after a sex tape was released that showed him in bed with three young women, but the story veils what’s really going on in a country whose citizens search for “sex” on the internet more than any other people in the world.
Search queries for “sex” are coming back minus the sex. In fact, a recent investigation by the Guardian has uncovered an astonishing amount of censorship by some of the most trafficked portals in the world, including Flickr, Bing and Yahoo!.
“The Yahoo search engine and Flickr photo-sharing site (owned by Yahoo) altered their sites earlier this month to prevent users in India from switching off the safe-search facility. The block also applies to users in Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea,” reports the paper. “Microsoft has also barred Indian users of its Bing search engine from searching for sexual content. Users who do try to search for sexual material receive a notice informing them that ‘your country or region requires a strict Bing SafeSearch setting, which filters out results that might return adult content.’”
The restricted access is apparently the result of changes to India's Information Technology Act of 2000, which bans the publication of pornographic material. That law is based on a 150-year-old statute (section 292 of the Indian penal code) that defines obscenity as "any content that is lascivious and that will appeal to prurient interest or the effect of which is to tend to deprave or corrupt the minds of those who are likely to see, read or hear the same."
“In October,” says the Guardian, “the scope of the 2000 act was widened to enable action to be taken against a wide range of providers, from internet search engines and internet service providers to cyber-cafes. Under the new law, they are obliged to exercise due diligence and disable access to any content which contravenes the act. Failure to do so carries a three-year jail sentence and a fine of up to 500,000 rupees.” That amount converts to $10,744.60.
Such large-scale censorship in a democracy that, like America, is deeply conflicted about its attitudes toward sex should be of profound concern to civil libertarians in the United States who believe it can’t happen here or that the massive internet portals upon which we are all increasingly dependent will ultimately stand up and defend the ability of individuals to freely access the internet.
Despite the fact that Yahoo! is an American corporation, the Flickr website explains that "Flickr is a global community made up of many different kinds of people.
“What's OK in your backyard may not be OK in theirs. Each one of us bears the responsibility of categorizing our own content within this landscape. So, we've introduced some filters to help everyone try to get along.
"If your Yahoo! ID is based in Singapore, Hong Kong, India or Korea you will only be able to view safe content based on your local terms of service (this means you won't be able to turn SafeSearch off)."
What it also means is that, under the right circumstances, Flickr will block our search results in a New York minute, too.
By PNN
Larry Flynt sued his nephews for infringing on his famous trademark when they launched their own smut business. Flynt won the suit, but could not convince the jury that his nephews invaded his privacy and were liable for the substantial attorney fees both sides rang up. In the end, it was a draw.
The trial, complete with big-screen TVs that were used repeatedly to display blown-up photos of porn DVD boxes featuring naked women on the front and people engaged in all sorts of contortions on the back, lasted only four days. The jury consisted of four men and four women.
Flynt told the LA Times that he felt there is a “thin line” to what society has come to accept in the realm of porn. He continued saying, “but if you get too trashy, people will get uncomfortable.” The Times article Continued:
Flynt took the stand Tuesday in the first day of his federal trademark infringement trial against his nephews, Jimmy Jr. and Dustin, who earlier this year launched their own line of adult films under the name “Flynt.” Calling their films “inferior products” and “knock-off goods,” the porn mogul promptly sued, accusing them of trying to ride on the coattails of his fame and muddying the quality his customers have come to expect from his products.
The younger Flynts contend that they have a right to do business under their own name and that their uncle is just trying to stomp out competition. They say they’ve built up their own name in the industry over the years by working for the Hustler empire.
The porn mogul didn’t mix words when he said, “The junk they publish hurts my reputation, which in turn hurts my revenue.”
The nephews launched their own company after their uncle fired them from executive positions at Larry Flynt Publications in November 2007. Jimmy Jr., 37, had worked there for 17 years, starting in the mailroom. His 34-year-old brother had been there 10 years.
“I felt they were doing a horrible job,” their 67-year-old uncle testified.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Flynt Jr. said he has already launched a new Web site that he believes meets the requirements of the jury’s ruling. It contains both his and his brother’s first names, as well as the disclaimer, “Larry Flynt is not affiliated with and does not endorse this.”
Dustin Flynt, said it was difficult to go into a court battle against his uncle, but contends that his films are anything but trashy.
“We’re bringing elegance back to erotica,” he told the Times.
As if the holiday get-togethers weren’t exciting enough at the Flynt family household, now they are going to be downright awkward.
Larry Flynt sued his nephews for infringing on his famous trademark when they launched their own smut business. Flynt won the suit, but could not convince the jury that his nephews invaded his privacy and were liable for the substantial attorney fees both sides rang up. In the end, it was a draw.
The trial, complete with big-screen TVs that were used repeatedly to display blown-up photos of porn DVD boxes featuring naked women on the front and people engaged in all sorts of contortions on the back, lasted only four days. The jury consisted of four men and four women.
Flynt told the LA Times that he felt there is a “thin line” to what society has come to accept in the realm of porn. He continued saying, “but if you get too trashy, people will get uncomfortable.” The Times article Continued:
Flynt took the stand Tuesday in the first day of his federal trademark infringement trial against his nephews, Jimmy Jr. and Dustin, who earlier this year launched their own line of adult films under the name “Flynt.” Calling their films “inferior products” and “knock-off goods,” the porn mogul promptly sued, accusing them of trying to ride on the coattails of his fame and muddying the quality his customers have come to expect from his products.
The younger Flynts contend that they have a right to do business under their own name and that their uncle is just trying to stomp out competition. They say they’ve built up their own name in the industry over the years by working for the Hustler empire.
The porn mogul didn’t mix words when he said, “The junk they publish hurts my reputation, which in turn hurts my revenue.”
The nephews launched their own company after their uncle fired them from executive positions at Larry Flynt Publications in November 2007. Jimmy Jr., 37, had worked there for 17 years, starting in the mailroom. His 34-year-old brother had been there 10 years.
“I felt they were doing a horrible job,” their 67-year-old uncle testified.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Flynt Jr. said he has already launched a new Web site that he believes meets the requirements of the jury’s ruling. It contains both his and his brother’s first names, as well as the disclaimer, “Larry Flynt is not affiliated with and does not endorse this.”
Dustin Flynt, said it was difficult to go into a court battle against his uncle, but contends that his films are anything but trashy.
“We’re bringing elegance back to erotica,” he told the Times.
As if the holiday get-togethers weren’t exciting enough at the Flynt family household, now they are going to be downright awkward.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)