@BombayNinja

Amen to that!

@naavi Since your very first comment the discussion here has evolved into a much broader "freedom of expression" topic above and beyond just savitabhabhi.com. I do appreciate your effort to bring back the attention to savitabhabhi. Also extra points to you for suggesting a solution. The only problem is that your argument has numerous flaws. And most of the points you have brought up has already been discussed.

1. "We are also part of the society and if we think the site is damaging the society, I feel that the other school of thought must tolerate the view"
We do. Did anybody here say we don't? See the quote by Voltaire in prior discussion.

2. "Both groups will contribute their divergent views and there is a need for finding a solution acceptable to the majority in the society."
Majority should never be allowed to infringe on human rights. See prior discussion. Examples were provided as well.

3. "The Government’s role here is as a representative of the people"
This is such a cliché that I doubt anybody beyond 6th grade believes this. Government is the representative of the majority. That too it is not a good representative. Going by your logic there should be no opposition to government actions. Never forget that Hitler was at the helm of the government in Nazi Germany.

4. "The law as it stands is also a codification of what the majority in the society seem to think as correct" Again wrong. You think majority of the population in Saudi Arabia think that women should expose nothing but their eyes? And now they are trying to pass a law that only one eye can be exposed. Who needs depth perception? It is the law of the land.

5. "...whether SB constitutes violation of Section 67 of ITA 2000 or not…"
Nobody is advocating breaking the law. We are talking about throwing out laws that erode your human rights.

About the solution you propose:
To me your solution sounds impractical and full of holes.

1. Did you just recommend UID for age verification on porn sites? I don’t even know where to start about the foolishness of doing this.

2. How about a government program where the government issues a locker to every citizen and all your books and DVDs will be locked up in there. When you want to watch Basic Instinct you have to call a government number and they will issue you a one time key (of course after verifying your age by asking you… wait for it… your UID) that you can use to open the locker and get the DVD out. I'm sure you will be thrilled by this solution to keep Basic Instinct out of the reach of your kid. What? You are not so thrilled? You think it is totally unnecessary and you could just lock up the DVD out of the kids reach yourself? Plus you think the solution proposed is full of execution impossibilities? Well… I don't know… I was just following your logic.

3. Link to opposing view point? Well I don't want to link to opposing view point. How about that? If my readers want opposing view point they will look for it. You sure you want to kill freedom of press over it?

Finally, I don’t know why people getting an erection in the privacy of their own home is such a big problem for a section of the society that they would rather sacrifice civil liberties and human rights to forward their personal agenda. If you have a kid be a responsible parent and learn parent control features on all devices. And learn to mind your own business and don’t try to police what other adults are watching/reading especially when it makes no difference in your life. Is that too much to ask? Live and let live.

Dear Joshua, hats off to your very reasoned comments and persistence. Please carry on.

I would like to add the following points towards a debate for a solution.
1. To decide whether SB is a desirable site or not, me or Joshua have as much right as Bombay Ninja or others. We are also part of the society and if we think the site is damaging the society, I feel that the other school of thought must tolerate the view. Both groups will contribute their divergent views and there is a need for finding a solution acceptable to the majority in the society.

2. The Government's role here is as a representative of the people. The law as it stands is also a codification of what the majority in the society seem to think as correct. While there is a possibility that the thinking may be wrong, the law as it exists can be presumed as the majority view. The Government has no choice but to implement it.  Blocking of SB is a decision which we can presume has been taken by the relevant authorities after due deliberation. It is incorrect to single out the executive who signed the order as imposing his view on the society.
3. There can be a separate debate on whether SB constitutes violation of Section 67 of ITA 2000 or not. I belive so and am entitled to belive so and entitled to seek invoking of any remedy tha the law provides. This is my right as a member of the society which also has the other supporters of SB who view it as a desirable entertainment.
4. The resolution of some of these can happen in the Court of law and we can wait for the same. We can however think if we have any solution that would make the controversy resolve itself. I have in the past put up three suggestions which I would like to briefly allude here. For those who want a more detailed information on the same, the details are available at www.naavi.org.
1. The first suggestion concerns the managing of adult content. I feel that instead of debating on freedom to view whatever is available, we should move to a concious adult decision making on what to view. i.o.w, I advocate that let us place a massive filter like an anti virus filter and seggregate all SB like sites into "Restricted Sites" which are generally bolcked for view. Those who consider themselves as "Adults" can seek an "Access Content Access Pass" to view the content.  The pass would be issued only on request and only to real adults after age verification, obviously by a legal authroity. Once the UID kind of devices come up, they can be used as age indicators.
2. In order to ensure that the powers under iTA 2000/2008 are not misused, I have suggested constitution of a Netizen Rights Commission (or Advisory Body) consisting of representatives from all stake holders who would addrss complaints. If the Government blocks any content this body should have the right to review. At present a mechanism of this sort is being put in place but the review board consists only of public servants. This is good for the review from the "Security" point of view but not for reviewing objections related to "Obscenity" or "Privacy" or "Political " .
3. As regards political dissidence on the Internet, I had also suggested a thought that when a site is having "Objectionable Content", it should be mandatory for the site owner to display a sort of "Disclaimer" and a hyperlink to the "opposing view point". For example if there is an article against the Government, a hyperlink should be provided from the article to another site where the objections are answered by the supporters of the Government. By presenting an opportunity for diverse viw points to be present in the same platform as we see in this blog article, there is a balancing of divergent view points to an uncommitted third party.

I hope there may be other solutions that others may suggest. Instead of thinking "Why should I seek an adult pass?" or "Why should I provide publicity to the opposing view?" etc, if we consider these suggestions, we may perhaps move towards resolution of the problem. If some want to view SB , let them view if they are "Adults" . But let the sociologists continue to have the right to block the content to the minors and also advise the "Adults" from time to time that what they are doing may not be correct.. just lile the statutory warning on a pack of cigarettes.

LOL @M thank god it is not blocked down under either!

Adam from the <a href="http://idigibuzz.com/wind-powered-generators/domestic-wind-turbines/">domestic wind turbines</a> hub.

Yeah I can't see the problem with banning sites like these I think their is enough going on in the world that we can't control. We should definitely control what we can.

Ben
CEO
http://idigibuzz.com

PS: @Shanth B I couldn't agree more. it's fantastic we can debate a topic like this regardless.

small correction to the last post….it should have read in paragraph 5…..up on my web browser or my kids’ web browser…..

Hi Shanth and Naresh

I said in my last post that I rest my case, but I think some clarifications may still be required.

I agree with you that nobody can have an objection to the private dissemination of pornography or cigarettes. It is entirely each individual's business, provided it is with consent, and the persons are adult.

I think we should object to the public display of these, and the perception that we have a right to do it, regardless of what are the consequences to society.

If www.savitabhabhi.com were a "by invitation" site, blocked to others, I don't think anybody would object to it.

The pity is that in the name of freedom of expression any purveyor of smut or other undesirable stuff can show up on my web site or my kids' web site, or on the streets, and claim to be the culture of day.

I don't believe that government should handle this, but people should.

I don't object to legalizing homosexuality. I have only suggested in my blog a more gradualist approach to legalizing it, so that others have time to adjust and accomodate. Meanwhile homosexuals are free to have it out in private.

@BombayNinja: Exactly! I agree totally with what you said.

@Joshua: I agree with you that there are certain cases where free speech doesn't hold in a libertarian sense (libelous slander, incitement to hate crimes etc) but I don't think that means that we "as a society [should] decide what has a right to be there [and what doesn't]".  It only means that what can be harmful in the sense of the infringing upon another citizen or community's rights should be restricted.  It doesn't give society the right to infringe on others' rights, no matter how depraved it may seem, until it harms someone else. 

That is the thing I do not understand about all the religious leaders protesting the Delhi HC decision on 377.  I mean these leaders are free to say that homosexuality is un-Islamic, or un-Hindu or un-Christian behaviour frowned upon by the religion.  Practicing Hindus, Muslims and Christians can heed their advise and refrain from gay sex.  Noone is forcing them at gunpoint.  However, someone who doesn't believe in their viewpoint of religion should be free to do what he or she wants.  This sort of blanket ban on pornography or homosexuality or anything is no different from France's ban on the burkha or Islamic countries' forceful imposition of the same.  You will certainly agree that the Indian policy of women being free to decide whether or not to cover themselves is right.  Then why this different view on "morality" issues?  The only legitimate concern is for it to be kept out of public view where people will be unwillingly forced to see it, which is already the case.

@everyone: By the way, this is one of the most decorous and sensible debates I have ever had on the internet.  Regardless of you agreeing or disagreeing with me, I think it is wonderful that we can debate these issues and perhaps agree to disagree without resorting to an ugly flame war and name calling :)

@Joshua:

Taking the example of a country such as US which has its own share of conservative bigots to compare with ours doesn't really make a point.

A 1973-case, which ends up saying "what is obscene is based on community standards" doesn't fit into the case we have here. I fail to understand why a material used by, say, Ram in his privacy (which may or may not be offensive) be the community's problem.

In the same spirit, why can't smoking "tobacco" fall into the same category and be banned alike? It causes more damage than savitabhabhi and is an activity done in private.

Bombay Ninja we are it seems in agreement that freedom of speech is not absolute. What we are not in agreement with is whether the people, the community has any role in law making and interpretation. It seems it does, for example, in the US, in the definition of obscenity.

In Miller vs. California (1973) the US Supreme Court decided that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, and that the definition of what is obscene is based on community standards, that vary from state to state.

I think that this is a recognition that freedom is not absolute and what is free is defined and given by each community according to its standards. In secular democracies, the law has to in the final analysis flow from the people. Which is why constitutions emphasize "We the people".

I rest my case with all thanks to you and other folks for a stimulating discussion, where we all learnt a lot.

Thank god its not blocked in US.

@ Sruthijith This is one of the best round of debate I have had in a long time. The readers of this blog appear to be mature, intelligent, responsible and at the same time able to respect a point of view different than their own. Make sure you point that our to your advertisers and charge them a premium CPM ;)

@ Garishma WTF is <a >yatraflights</a>?

@Sukumar Sorry that it appeared that I'm saying you advocate absolute free speech. You do not. You: "Free speech should be as close to an absolute right as possible…". Completely agree. I didn't intentionally use the phrase "there has to be some exceptions" because it would appear that I'm contradicting myself and then the debate would go off on a tangent.

@Sukumar "It is another matter that the Indian Constitution institutes a number of other exceptions… which are dubious and open to multiple interpretations " Thanks for this piece of info. This is serious. This means that Indian constitution doesn't really protect freedom of expression as anything can be interpreted as the government seems fit. Tomorrow if Taliban gets elected the courts will rule that not wearing a hijab is immoral.

@ Joshua My comment got approved which responds to some of your points. Regarding your first point about bomb. If the website obviously leads to violence it should be taken down. In this case the author is expressing himself, but it leads to death or destruction of property. Not acceptable.  From my post : "... the content [should] not lead to violence or other crimes."

@Joshua Regarding your second point: "If you were to file a writ petition in court, it probably would get shot down because of the laws on pornography." I'm not saying it will not. All I'm saying is that we should stand against unnecessary censorship and get the laws re-written so that when you file a writ petition it will not get shot down.

@Shanth Couldn't agree with you more. It is amazing to me why the government should have a problem with people jacking off in the privacy of their home. And it beats me as to why people are demanding unnecessary censorship.

@Joshua "...then we can as a society decide what has a right to be there…"
I'm sorry but I completely and strongly disagree. This also happens to touch on the main point that I was trying to make. Freedom of speech/expression is an individual human right and should be protected as such. Say I live in a community of 100 people, all God fearing and devote, and 98 people think that my book questioning their faith should be banned, according to you that decision should override my human right just because I'm not subscribing to the majority. Many constitutions are specifically written to protect the individual rights from a majority.

Finally, to me it all boils down to this quote:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Voltaire

@Joshua: There can never be enough good debate. The pleasure is entirely ours. :)

Thanks Shanth. Once we are decided that there cannot be absolute freedoms, then we can as a society decide what has a right to be there, and what may just be there because it is relatively harmless.

Which is the point I make in an earlier post that civil society may come around to the view that "http://www.savitabhabhi.com should be tolerated as an undesirable necessity, just as the small town brothel which is reviled but seen as a necessary evil".

My objection in my blog was to people that claim absolute freedoms with scant regard to the repurcussions, or without concern about what freedom of expression they are arguing for.

Again I don't expect governments to make a nuanced call as to what is appropriate. It is the people, and my plea throughout is get the people involved, including the intellectuals, the folks we consider rabid and cranked, the majority who are uncommited, all of whom make up civil society.

The Internet is a great opportunity to mobilize civil society not only on smut but a whole variety of issues. We can influence policy if only we as a people will take a stand.

Take this opportunity to thanks Sruthijith and the other folks at ContentSutra for offering to let us continue to argue on their site.

@Joshua:  I agree that the completely libertarian idea of free speech is somewhat impractical, especially considering your example of information regarding construction of weaponry, but more generally to hate speech.  For instance, the holocaust denial laws in several European countries make it illegal to deny that horrible historical truth.  So I agree that absolutely free speech is probably an idealistic impossibility.

However, in the case of pornography or vice there is no negative impact on anyone else, except at most the viewer himself wasting time, which is a personal choice.  The argument regarding minors does not make sense, because if you are a parent giving your child unsupervised time on the computer the least you can do is install some sort of Nanny software. 

In the case of weapons related information or incitement to hate there is the harm that such a person will cause to others who never asked to be blown up.  That is not the cas with pornography or erotica.  All these websites have a lead page which warns you that the content is sexual in nature, and if that offends your tastes then don't go to such sites.

Then there is the argument I have heard from some people that such pornography will lead people to have "immoral" thoughts and increase the incidence of rapes and other sexual crimes.  However, the reverse has been shown to be the case in reality.  Just search for "pornography rape negative correlation" or some such keyword and you will see.  If you can't find studies to that effect I can point some links to you.

This is an interesting exchange between BombayNinja and Joshua and I note that Savitabhabhi has inspired no fewer than 26 posts already on the ContentSutra site.
Doubt if any other story has. So mark that to Savitabhabhi's credit.
Contrary to her creators' intent, she does get people thinking.
BombayNinja at one point credited me with the view that free speech is an absolute right. Let me set the record straight: I have never said that either in this forum or elsewhere.
Free speech should be as close to an absolute right as possible, but I believe that the two exceptions normally granted (hate-speech and obscenity) are well-founded.
It is another matter that the Indian Constitution institutes a number of other exceptions, including public order, morality, friendly relations with a foreign state, and such-like, which are dubious and open to multiple interpretations.
What I was saying really, is that it is much better to determine these issues through a judicial process, rather than allow further room for summary administrative action.
There have been a number of cases in which the judiciary has sat in judgment on matters of hate-speech and obscenity. We can go back and study these, but to just broadly summarise: in the case of "hate-speech", there is a burden of proof on the prosecution to establish that the accused person had the intent to cause harm.
In the case of "obscenity", liability is strict. There is no need to establish intent to deprave. But exceptions are available in cases where the impugned material is of high artistic and aesthetic quality.
But here, we are really grappling with the issue of applying these standards to Savitabhabhi. A little difficulty there, I think.
The nature of the media, in my humble opinion, is immaterial. How can we say that the standards of book publishing cannot be applied to the web? Buying a book is a matter of personal discretion, just as visiting a website, or going to an art gallery is.
So the two tests to be applied seem to be: intent and aesthetic quality. Admittedly very subjective, but evolving. Just as media and community tastes change, so do these standards.

Hi

<a >yatraflights</a>

thanks

@Joshua: So long as you guys are being civil and not getting personal, which admirably you have so far, we are happy to host these discussions. Debate on!

To Bombay Ninja:

1) If one goes by your view of absolute freedom of speech, it can lead to incongruous situations where, for example, a guy can put up a web site, have a tutorial on how to make bombs, assist readers on how to choose and plan targets, and even congratulate successful bombers, but not get arrested for any crime. He didn’t plant the bomb of course ! He didn’t force the terrorists to look through his web site ! He only expressed himself ! You should have installed parental controls for your son !

2) Moving on to your question about your rights and those of the owners of www.savitabhabhi.com, you don’t seem to me to have a lot going in your favor. If you were to file a writ petition in court, it probably would get shot down because of the laws on pornography.

"Revolutionary" thinking almost always starts at the margins or on the wrong side of the law.

3) Which is why folks decided to appeal to civil society through www.savesavita.com. Yes, you need a movement to mobilize opinion on the issue that freedom of speech is more important and absolute than curbing pornography.

Civil society may support or may not, or may ignore. Or it may just come around to the view that www.savitabhabhi.com should be tolerated as an undesirable necessity, just as the small town brothel which is reviled but seen as a necessary evil. Strange are the ways of civil society and its attempts to create a consensus. 

As this discussion is now almost entirely between you and me, I suggest we don’t over-use ContentSutra’s generous hospitality and move the discussion to our blogs.

@Joshua I wrote a long reply, but it got caught in the spam filter and someone at contentsutra will have to manually approve it.

Basically the post was a question for you:

How do you, Joshua, propose that my rights and savitabhabhi's author's rights are not violated since we don't believe that the content leads to violence or any other harmful consequence?

@Joshua

To keep it tangible for the readers lets use the situation at hand as an example.

Assumptions:
BombayNinja is a responsible citizen of India who pays taxes and contributes significantly to the community. He understands that allowing the government to block websites that "they think" is smut is against the principles of free speech and will be misused. BombayNinja discovered savitabhabhi.com and enjoys the content. He, like many others, think the content is not smut. But many people along with the government thinks otherwise and blocks the website.

BombayNinja knows that this is against freedom of speech/expression.

Authors of savitabhabhi.com thinks their rights has been violated.

Everybody knows that allowing the website to be up is not harming anyone and does not lead to a violent crime.

Question: How do you, Joshua, propose to protect the rights of BombayNinja and the savitabhabhi.com? Remember, you think savitabhabhi.com is smut, not me or many others like me.

Note: I have simplified the problem for you. According to me even if it is smut (which I believe in this conversation stands for pornographic and adult material) it should not be blocked because web is not a broadcast medium in traditional sense. The user has to make a conscious decision to visit the website. No one is forcing anyone to go to savitabhabhi.com. Also the content does not lead to violence or other crimes. Don't like the website? Don't visit it.

@Joshua.  Every human have different idea about what is right and what is wrong.  Take an example of khajurao itself. I am not sure if you view them as some brazen show of nudity or an artful master collection but India have seen people who wanted to destroy it or get it buried under cowdung.  Have you seen them yourself btw. You will amazed what different kind of style there are.  Now for you that may also be wrong but it may not be same for countless others.  Now you are free to visit khajurao. Nobody can force you to go there.  Then why should government/you/anybody try to decide which places/site I am suppose to see and which I am not.

To Bombay Ninja:

As this quote from my blog post shows we are in agreement on one count:

"I am not comfortable with the government deciding what should be made available to readers online, because the mandarins may misuse it, and they are not sophisticated enough to take a nuanced view."

But I prefer a more involved role for civil society than the hands off approach you recommend:

"Instead of relying on the liberal reflex, people worldwide have to take a serious view of the proliferation of smut and other things dangerous on the Internet." 

As humans we are able to distinguish and say what is right or wrong, what is in good or bad taste. This is not about saying what is legal and what is not. (The law comes in when everything else has failed). It is the ability to distinguish between what is decent and quality and what is not.

Governments cannot take this call, but we as people can.

@Joshua Let me lay it out for you

"Your freedom to stretch your hand stops where the next person’s nose starts". This is accurate but completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Let me explain how it works. If I punch your face I'm violating your fundamental right of peaceful existence and not to be punched. I should be arrested, tried and imprisoned for that. If I tie you up in front of your computer, keep your eye lids open with duct tape and force you to watch savitabhabhi.com, I should be sent away to prison. Do you see what is at work here? I'm not allowed to violate one of your fundamental rights. "Cannibalism is bad under any circumstance even if some freaky gourmand somewhere thinks otherwise". Same argument. You can support cannibalism if you want to. You can start a blog about it. Write about it. Express your desire to be a cannibal. But the moment you start practicing it you will be in deep trouble because you are violating someone's freedom/right.

"Smut is smut and not art under any circumstance". The problem here is, who gets to decide what is smut? you? me? the government? If you ask my dad he will say fashion TV is smut. If you ask me I will say, it is.. fashion. If you let the government make this decision for you you will be going down a slippery slope. When some day a religious intolerant extremist party gets elected you will see that they use the powers you granted the government to censor everything based on what they think is smut. Maybe girls wearing anything that is shorter than their ankles is smut for them.

The popularity of savitabhabhi.com proves that there is a large section of the population that wants to enjoy the content. Let them. Don't try to police them and enforce your sense of morality on them. They are as much citizens of India as you are. If you are offended by the content, don't visit the concerned website. If you are concerned about your children getting to it, please install parental control software.

Internet is one of the last frontiers of free speech. Please let it be. As the author points out try to follow the examples set by Europe and US and don't take us down the path of China, Iran and North Korea.

And finally, freedom of expression is a fundamental right and it is absolute.

Hi

Very Very Beautiful Blog post
<a >mycleartrip</a>

Thanks

Hi
This is Alka Panday Your Blog Post are Very Nice

Thank you

Bombay Ninja writes: Smut for you could be art to someone else.

This moral relativism is dangerous.  Smut is smut and not art under any circumstance. Something gross is in bad taste under an circumstance. Cannibalism is bad under any circumstance even if some freaky gourmand somewhere thinks otherwise.

Again freedom of speech or any other freedom can never be absolute. Your freedom to stretch your hand stops where the next person's nose starts.

uncorrect

This is the first time I ventured into the comments sections. I'm hurt to see how majority of the people who have commented here just don't get it:

@ naavi: "... purveying thoughts that are likely to be damaging the society…" It is not for you, or the government or any other individual to determine what is damaging to the society. Last time I checked looking at pussy didn't damage the society. Stop policing the crowd and imposing your views on others.

@salil: "The site in question has clearly violated the rules laid down by the government." It is for responsible citizens to question, debate and have such stupid rules overturned.

@Sukumar: You have made some very valid points. Freedom of speech is absolute. Either you have it in entirety or you don't.

@Joshua: From the article you linked "While we all stand for freedom of speech, I am not sure that we should extend it to the right to publish smut." I'm sure it should be extended. Else you won't know where to draw the line. Smut for you could be art to someone else.

@Pankaj: If the subject is a minor it is the responsibility of the parent to keep the child away from porn. Failed parenting is no reason to take away freedom of expression.

A good move. There are more of them.. indian porn .com blah blah. These sites purvey our youn innocent teenagers by exposing mms scandels and more pervert stuff. It is right time to take action.

hi there folks, india bans a porn website!!!!.
what does india do when women are rapped and sexually assualted. just seven yrs of imprisonment. The best part, if the rappist is able to prove that the character of the victim is not good, he can go free. This was recently changed!!! grow up people live and let live!!!!

Hello
This is really beautiful blog post.
<a >goairtickets</a>

Thank You

Nothing cute about a sister-in-law that has the hots ! Freedom of speech is not an undiluted right. Think of our kids and our own sanity. See http://justanordinarycitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/savitabhabhi-and-the-right-to-smut/

The Indian government just revived the debate on the limits of free expression, though it is trying hard to pretend that nothing really has happened. Most, except the most ardent libertarians, are a little too embarrassed to say very much about this.  Banning any form of free speech of course needs to be preceded by appropriate process. Summary administrative action is the least preferred option in all such matters—in fact, one to be actively opposed. But does the Indian judiciary have the capacity to handle a case like this? I kind of doubt it. Ideally, we'd like this case to be an occasion for an authoritative statement from the bench on what constitutes depraved and inadmissible content and how far artistic licence can go. Consider the case of M.F. Husain and the multiple petitions he has had to face for supposed obscenity. The Delhi High Court dismissed one such case last year with a quite authoritative judgment. But that took a decade and the Delhi High Court's judgment has still not acquired the authority to be accepted wisdom in numerous other cases that Husain faces. Ideally, we'd like something in the case of Savita Bhabhi that goes up there with all the historic landmarks in obscenity trials: the banning of Lady Chatterley's Lover; the conviction of Lenny Bruce; the acquittal of Larry Flynt.. But somehow, I kind of doubt if Savita Bhabhi is a cause that we really can fight credibly for…

This is a good move and a eye opener for all the porn sites.
http://www.hindlist.com

Such ban has never worked and it will never in the future. But it is going to be a good publicity for the site.  Any publicity is good one.

I am stunned at the ignorance of all these worthies that have commented on how the internet works and why the ban simply won't work.

yes, this type of websites should be banned to save our young generation from nudity.

Ridiculous. The site in question has clearly violated the rules laid down by the government. Acting upon existing laws does *not* amount to censorship, the writer should be advised.
The law is very clear with regard to pornography and it’s shocking that the writer even suggested that “the owners be given a chance to defend”. In the extreme case that the writer is a proponent of absolutely free speech, he’d be advised to question the provisions of the IT Act and not it’s rightful application.
Also, Sevanti Ninan’s concerns over banning websites unilaterally was in a wholly different context. She was purportedly referring to ban on blogs and other websites which the govt deems as a threat to itself and the country. I doubt very much if Ms Ninan would oppose the ban on a porn site. Her concerns have been taken out of context and applied carelessly in this case.
In the end, the facts are simple – Savitabhabhi.com is a porn site, has been blocked by the govt as per rules which have existed for 9 years now. Why the fuss?

@Naavi: Apologies for the error. Have corrected.

First the correction. The name Vijaykumar in the above article should read as Vijayashankar.
I would like to state that the banning of Savitabhabhi.com has no relation to "Censorship". There is no freedom of expression when it comes to purveying thoughts that are likely to be damaging the society and therefore expressly considered as "offence" under law.
The content of the site savitabhabhi.com eminently qualifies as information that "..tends to deprave and corrupt the minds of persons.. who are likely to view".
The comparision with Khajurao and Kamasutra is alo misplaced since Indian law gives weightage to the context in which a given content can be considered as objectionable. In this respect the content of this website is different from the Khajurao or kamasutra.
I welcome the ban and am confident that even if challenged, the ban will be upheld by the judiciary.

Are these guys for real?