Anirudh Sridhar, 21, student, New York
Your timing of asking me this question is impeccable. In the U.S. as we speak, Wikipedia has shut down for 24 hours
in protest to the PIPA and SOPA Acts being debated in Congress. We are all being asked to write to our local congresspersons to vote against these bills. India on the other hand, is retarded. What the hell is “inflammatory”? What is “defamatory”? I’m sure this is some plot by religious fundamentalists. This new nonsense is just another attempt
to control, curb and strangle free speech. I hope there are massive protests and everyone on every social media in India posts every “defamatory” and “inflammatory” poetry they can conceive and post it at once so that everything crashes and the government officials in charge of “monitoring” it will all get strokes.

Keertana Chandrashekara, 21,
student, Bangalore
Since we live in a society that consists of people from different demographics, it isnecessary to screen content that goes on any public platform, just like movies or any form of media. But there is a fine line between censoring material and dictating what goes onto a public platform. As long as this line isn’t crossed (like how the Chinese Government crossed it so long ago that it looks like a dot now!), I think we should be fine. But to say since we live in a democracy and that we have the right to every form of information would be stupid. Because in that case we would also have to make porn legal.

Aparna Shekar, 21, student, Mysore
I think there is no point in controlling the social media because there is no way to control it. For example, pornography is illegal but still prevalent. Geniuses like Facebook and Google will always find a way around and people will always find a way to use them. The government is simply wasting its time and should concentrate on more important things that are affecting our country.

Avinash Lath, 25, banker, Mumbai
The actual extent of damages through inflammatory and defamatory content needs to be understood and weighed against the stigma attached with pre-screening before taking any such action.

Nishith Mehta, 24, artist, Mumbai
The idea of censorship is contradictory with freedom of expression. What may be considered defamatory or inflammatory is a matter of opinion. The government cannot have a paradoxical relation to such expression and accept it where it suits them. What’s more, it would be impractical and cost-prohibitive to screen content from a country whose population exceeds 2 billion—especially when there is no possibility of a set criteria to judge. The best that can be done is an effective way to report and track so called inflammatory or defamatory content.

Kukil Bora, 24, journalist, Bangalore
The government should not control cyberspace because it’s our freedom of speech. If any “inflammatory” or “defamatory” content in social media leads to an unwanted incident, then take measures to curb that. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that cyberspace must be controlled. Make such rules that require a person to give proof of his real identity while joining any social media site or anything like that, so that if anything inflammatory comes from him in later stages, proper measures could be taken.

Anjana Basu, 56, advertising consultant/writer, Kolkata
Cyber space belongs to no particular country. It exists in virtual time. So if all the governments of the world unite, it can be controlled. If not, I personally feel people should be their own judges of what is allowable and what is not.

Amrita Gupta, 26, journalist, Bangalore
Yes, within reason and limits. Our knee-jerk reaction is to defend freedom of speech and throw around big words like liberty and democracy without understanding what we’re really defending. Or what they, the government, are defending.

Aakash Kumar Agarwal, 27, sales manager, Kolkata
I don’t think it is OK for the government to try and control cyberspace. It will be much like going back to pre-independence times when the British government tried to censor the poets, writers and the like from inciting public sentiments against the government through their writings. If there is discontent against something, it will come out in a form or other. Secondly, just a few companies like Google and Facebook should not be made responsible for what people search and share. They are merely the medium to facilitate the search. If you ban these few websites there will be many more coming up.

Drishya Nair, 25, journalist, Bangalore
Well in a way, yes. The government should take measures to ensure that there is no content on the Internet that brings down its dignity and esteem, because after all, for good governance, people need to trust and respect their leaders. We Indians have chosen our own leaders. Taking the right decision at the time of elections would be any day better than making fun of them after they are elected! If one wants to bring down the government, there are better ways of doing that rather than humiliating them on social media.

Naman Agarwal, 25, student, New Delhi
Screening public content manually is like screening a 500-odd million items of content individually—that is something practically not possible and not feasible. We have the right of speech so we have all right to joke around and discuss anything we like, if a ban on Net content is fine then we should ban on SMS as well as email, record voices of all telephone conversations and see who is talking against Sibal or Sonia.

Phalgun Lolur, 22, student, Missouri
I think it’s a foolish move and definitely a step backward. We call ourselves a democratic country. People should be allowed to speak their minds. I’m not saying that people should be able to get away with whatever nonsense they come up with but this is taking it to another level. There is a very high chance that such a rule might get misused. Moral thoughts aside, who will be the one judging on what is objectionable? And is it possible to actually sit and screen all the content on Facebook?

Kaushiek Pranoo, 22, program analyst trainee, Chennai
It’s my personal opinion that there’s a certain need for content regulation. But the attitude with which it’s being dealt with makes it authoritarian. It’s more like censorship than content regulation. It’s a part of a democracy to be able to handle the chaff along with the wheat.

Swarnali Banerjee, 23, student, Connecticut
No. It’s not OK. Every single person is entitled to freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution. The internet is now the most suitable place for that, so it should not be controlled, dominated or tampered by anyone. That’s taking away someone’s freedom.

Ravi, 23, software engineer, Bangalore
I am looking at it from two different angles and finding it valid from both the sides. Social networking sites are being viewed by people ranging from 6 to 60. In that sense it’s probably a good act. The other way to look at it is, right now it started with obscene content. Later if someone expresses their view on any recent political controversy, the court might say let’s block it.

Tapopriya Datta, 25, IT worker, Kolkata
In my opinion, it would be surely absurd if the government actually imposes censorship on social media sites like Facebook and Google because that would restrict freedom of speech, prohibiting free expression of the masses. The Web is almost entirely private owned and it is this very essence of freedom of expression, which it provides, that it has become such a hugely popular mass media.

Huzefa Kapadia, 23, sales manager, Bahrain
No, it's not OK for the Indian government to control cyberspace! Social media is one of the best platforms for people to voice their opinions, and it’s important that the government acknowledge that instead of trying to suppress the people’s perspective. It might just lead to more heartburn for the government. Instead, why not just listen to what a large mass of the people of the country feel and try to fix things! Utilize the platform to connect with people and reach out to them. Don’t turn your back and play ignorant. Maybe that might save the government some face!

Sandeep Dev, 31, designer, Hyderabad
The government is trying to play big daddy here. I think the problem is that there are too many lawyers in the government and no technocrats or even anyone who bothers about freedom of speech. I think we are too inspired by America or maybe they are too scared of public figures like Anna Hazare to gain popularity. I hope the U.S. government abandons SOPA, which might inspire our government, too, to look back and understand the basic rights of a civilian.

Susheel George, 23, biologist, Sheffield
Content posted online is a natural expression of free speech. Any stance taken by the Indian government to restrict or monitor a person’s point of view is a severe interruption of the person’s fundamental freedom of expression. If the government plans to do so, they might as well establish martial law and follow China’s governing policy, where every action online is controlled.

Mrinalni Babbar, 24, visual designer, New Delhi
The Internet is too vast for the Indian government to control. It can’t control physical places, so how will it control cyberspace? As far as it being OK or not for them to “control” cyberspace, well I think if they can why not? Because there are random idiots on cyberspace who want to make “fraaandships” with you. The least they can do is stop this harassment!