Given India’s tragic record of communal violence, it may sometimes be reasonable to curb free speech to prevent it. No country has absolute freedom of expression. Even the most liberal nations impose limits relating to slander, copyright infringement or incitement to commit a crime.
考虑到印度种族暴力的可悲记录,通过限制言论来防止冲突有时合情合理。没有哪个国家拥有绝对的言论自由。即使最为自由的国家也会限制诽谤、侵权或诱导犯罪的言论。
Indian authorities, however, have invited criticism because of the clumsy way in which they clamped down. The government told internet companies, including Facebook and Google, to close more than 300 websites, some of which were relatively harmless. An initial instruction limiting SMS messages to just five was unnecessarily sweeping. Little by way of explanation was forthcoming.
不过,印度当局招致批评是因为实施控制的手法过于生硬。印度政府通知包括Facebook和谷歌(Google)在内的互联网企业,关闭了它们300多家网站,其中有些相对无害。政府最初还把短信数量限制在五条以内,这种不分青红皂白的做法没有必要。印度政府也没打算做出解释。
India’s freedom of speech is precious. Authorities should limit it only as a last resort and even then with much greater precision and transparency than they demonstrated this month. They should also define more carefully just what is to be controlled. The distinction should be between what produces offence and what causes harm. Inciting violence against one community or religious group passes the harm test. Criticising a community does not.
【FT社评:印度不应过度监控互联网】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15