Cannot unilaterally monitor or block porn websites, ISPs tell SC

Those who enjoy watching pornography on the internet in sex-starved India have some reason to cheer, as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have refused to take immediate steps to ban such sites. But the cheer should be muted, as things could change if the government or the courts give a direct order for such a ban.

The ISPs on Monday told the Supreme Court that it is practically and technically impossible for them to block pornographic sites without orders from the courts or the government; and moreover the very definition of the word pornography was unclear.

In its reply to a public interest litigation (PIL) requesting the apex court to pass an order to block websites with pornographic content in the country, the ISPs' association submitted that they cannot be made liable for the objectionable contents of the sites, and there is a need to define the term pornography as its boundaries are ''amorphous''.

''There is no unanimously accepted definition of pornography and the boundaries of the same are amorphous. Would medical or AIDS awareness websites be pornography? Would photographs of the Khajuraho Temple (with famous erotic sculpture) be so termed? One man's pornography is another man's high art,'' the association said.

''It is neither legally nor technically nor practically possible for ISPs on their own to block pornographic sites unless a direction is received from a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law or from DoT (Department of Telecommunications),'' it said, adding, ''It is impossible for them to carry out pro-active monitoring of the content in absence of any mandate by the DoT.''

It said that service providers are obligated to block only those contents which are deemed objectionable to the government.

''ISPs neither create content of any sort nor do they own, promote, modify or edit it. They are merely authorised service providers who provide their customers with access to the internet. They are merely conduits and cannot be made liable for the contents,'' it said.

''Such blocking would tantamount to pre-censorship of contents without authority of law and could unfairly limit the fundamental rights of the customers and may expose them to liability under civil laws.''

The bench headed by Justice B S Chauhan granted three weeks' more time for the DoT to file its response on how to block websites with pornographic content in the country, particularly those with child pornography.

The petitioner, Indore-based Kamlesh Vaswani has made the controversial contention - which could be disputed by many psychologists - that porn sites are one of the major causes for the rise in crimes against women.

The union government had earlier told the Supreme Court that it was difficult to block international porn sites in the country and sought time to consult various ministries in order to find a solution.