Can't remove objectionable words: Google & Facebook

Social networking sites Google and Facebook on Monday challenged the practicability of filtering the contents on their websites saying it would immensely impair the flow of information to billions of its users around the world. Arguing before the Delhi High Court, the defence counsels said filtering the words like 'virgin' and 'sex', which may be considered objectionable, would restrict the web users from getting vital information, including those related to the medical field.

Appearing for Facebook, senior criminal lawyer Sidharth Luthra argued that a check on the word 'sex' would even deny access to all judgements of various courts that contain this word in any context. Justice Suresh Kait, who is hearing the matter, adjourned the arguments till January 19.

Luthra questioned the authenticity of the CD containing the alleged offending contents on the basis of which the criminal complaint has been filed against Facebook and Google.

"The complaint is based on the excerpts of the recording contained in a CD. Has the magistrate in the 'so-called inquiry' sought opinion of the experts? It is an established fact that an electronic record cannot be valid evidence without proper certification. Where is the certification of the CD," he said while citing the Supreme Court judgement in the Tehelka expose case.

Regarding the alleged obscene posts on Facebook, Luthra submitted that the contents posted on it are not for public use but they are used by its registered users in a group of their own choice.

Earlier, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Google India too cited the practical impossibility of filtering the contents or blocking the sites saying India was not a 'totalitarian' regime like China. Though a pictorial representation, Kaul elaborated that the contents posted on Google were not contained by it but they were user-generated contents.

He said an online search for a word like 'virgin' has 82.30 crore search results within 0.33 seconds and the idea of blocking a word like this would deprive net-users the required information. "The queries could relate to Virgin Atlantic Airlines or for that matter 'virgin areas for inventions'," Kaul said.

He told Justice Kait that filtering the word 'sex' would further restrict the users from accessing information pertaining

to passport, ration card and airline among others where it is compulsorily found. He reiterated that Google is a search engine and it only transports the web users to their desired destination website. "The destination website is under the control of its owner and no search engine including Google has any control over its contents. However, Google can remove the objectionable materials if reported abuse by the user," he maintained.

Seeking quashing of the summons issued against the firm by a lower court, he said Google India is neither a search engine nor a web hosting site and was a distinct legal entity from its US-based holding company Google Inc, a search engine. "No criminal liability can be fastened on Google India," he said. He alleged that the trial court of acting in haste while issuing the summons. "The summons have been issued casually. They reflect complete lack of understanding as to how the system (social websites) works. There has been no application of mind in issuing the summons and even no sincere efforts were made to identify or trace the author of the objectionable contents," he added.

However, Vinay Rai, who had filed the complaint against 21 websites, opposed the plea of Google India. "Google India, like its holding firm Google Inc, is also a search engine and in fact, they are same as out of 1,91, 295 shares of Google India, 1,91, 294 shares are being held by its holding company," the counsel for Rai said. "If the corporate veil is lifted, then it would become clear that they were the same and equally culpable," he said adding the veil could be lifted for a public cause. Google India is culpable because it is earning for its US-based holding company, he added.