FT社评：印度不应过度监控互联网

It’s a familiar tale. State censors in this huge Asian country crack down on websites with no explanation. Citizens’ ability to share information is subject to draconian restrictions. But this is not China, a country where we have grown wearily used to heavy handed censorship. This is India.

这听上去是个熟悉的故事：这个巨大的亚洲国家的政府审查员打击取缔网站，没有任何理由，公民分享信息的能力受到严格限制。但这里说的不是中国——对于中国，我们早已习惯、厌倦了高压手段的审查制度。这里说的是印度。

To be fair, this blunt summary does not do justice to the complexity of the issue. This month, curbs on the internet and texting were imposed because of a doubtless well-meaning intention to prevent communal violence. Thousands of north-easterners were fleeing the southern high-tech hub of Bangalore after inflammatory rumours spread across the internet about Hindu-Muslim violence. The exodus followed violence in the north-eastern state of Assam between Muslim settlers and native Bodos, who are mostly Hindus, in which nearly 80 people died and 400,000 were displaced.

平心而论，做这样简单地概括，没有公平地对待问题的复杂性。本月，印度为了防止种族暴力，对互联网和短信实施限制，毫无疑问是出于善意意图。关于印度教徒与穆斯林之间发生暴力的煽动性谣言在互联网上散播开来以后，数千名东北人逃离了南方高科技中心班加罗尔。此前，印度东北部阿萨姆邦的穆斯林定居者与多数为印度教徒的原住民波多人之间发生暴力冲突，在这场冲突中，80人遇害，40万人流离失所。

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.

印度的言论自由弥足珍贵。当局应该把限制言论当作最后的手段，而且即使要限制言论，采取的措施也应更加精准透明。政府还应该更加小心地明确需要控制哪些内容。什么是小过错、什么会造成伤害之间应该有清晰的界限。诱导人们对一个社区或者宗教团体实施暴力，属于造成伤害的范畴。而批评一个社区则不算。

There is a broader, even more important question. More than protection from hate on the internet, Indians want to be safe from real-life violence. A lack of trust in the state to protect communities makes what appears in blogs and text messages more dangerous. Upholding the rule of law on the streets is more important than policing the internet. If all Indians felt safer, they could be more relaxed about what goes on in cyberspace.

此外还有更为广泛、甚至更加重要的问题。除了在互联网上防止仇恨以外，印度人更希望能够在现实生活中免受暴力侵袭。对国家保护社区的力度缺乏信任，使博客和短信中传播的信息更加危险。维持街道上的法治比监控互联网更加重要。如果所有的印度人都感到更加安全了，就会以更加放松的心态看待网络空间上出现的信息。