228
Asia Overview
Legal and Regulatory Framework
The regulatory and legislative capacity of states to fi lter content and prosecute individuals for online content has steadily grown. Many states in the region have increased
monitoring of content, expanded the range of content deemed unacceptable, and
prosecuted more individuals for violating content rules. This trend has not been
limited to authoritarian states in the region; democracies such as India and South
Korea have also expanded their capacities to regulate content.
Efforts undertaken by Asian states to expand the legislative, regulatory, and technical capacities for Internet fi ltering include the creation of new groups tasked with
monitoring content, new powers for existing groups to block content deemed illegal,
and expansion of governments ’ capacity to control fi ltering mechanisms. In October
2009 the Indian Parliament passed an amendment to the Information Technology
Act, expanding the powers of the central government to block Web sites considered
a threat to national security or public order.
25 This amendment also expanded the
mandate of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) to coordinate
all cyber security issues and to enhance cyber protection.
26 The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has proposed that they be given access to a centralized fi lter to
more effectively block Web sites containing offensive content rather than relying on
orders to individual ISPs.
27 Similarly, the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology began drafting a bill that includes plans for a monitoring
team tasked with ordering ISPs to block content deemed illegal.
28 Thailand has seen
already-existing legislation applied more frequently. Since the 2007 passage of the
Computer-Related Offenses Act, the number of orders to shut down Web sites has
steadily increased. While only two URLs were ordered blocked in the year the bill was
passed, nearly 44,000 were ordered blocked in 2009.
29 In 2010 the Chinese government amended the 1988 State Secrets law to include all ICT companies operating in
the country, requiring them to cooperate with the state in cases where state secrets
are allegedly leaked online.
30 The regulations would require companies to block the
distribution of such information and disclose records to state security organs.
31
Many governments have expanded rules that prohibit content deemed libelous,
hateful, blasphemous, or causing insult to religious or other social groups. This type
of legislation was instituted in Bangladesh during the period of emergency rule and
has remained in place since. The Emergency Power Rules established in 2007 forbid
the use of the Internet to publish “ provocative ” material, primarily aimed at content
critical of the ruling government or army.
32 However, since the end of emergency rule,
the Information Communication and Technologies Act still prohibits content that is
“ false and vulgar ” or that “ may harm religious feelings, ” among other restrictions.
33
A bill drafted in late 2010 sought to extend punishment for crimes related to distribution of pornography online.
34 Indonesia has similar prohibitions against defamation
Asia Overview
Legal and Regulatory Framework
The regulatory and legislative capacity of states to fi lter content and prosecute individuals for online content has steadily grown. Many states in the region have increased
monitoring of content, expanded the range of content deemed unacceptable, and
prosecuted more individuals for violating content rules. This trend has not been
limited to authoritarian states in the region; democracies such as India and South
Korea have also expanded their capacities to regulate content.
Efforts undertaken by Asian states to expand the legislative, regulatory, and technical capacities for Internet fi ltering include the creation of new groups tasked with
monitoring content, new powers for existing groups to block content deemed illegal,
and expansion of governments ’ capacity to control fi ltering mechanisms. In October
2009 the Indian Parliament passed an amendment to the Information Technology
Act, expanding the powers of the central government to block Web sites considered
a threat to national security or public order.
25 This amendment also expanded the
mandate of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) to coordinate
all cyber security issues and to enhance cyber protection.
26 The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has proposed that they be given access to a centralized fi lter to
more effectively block Web sites containing offensive content rather than relying on
orders to individual ISPs.
27 Similarly, the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology began drafting a bill that includes plans for a monitoring
team tasked with ordering ISPs to block content deemed illegal.
28 Thailand has seen
already-existing legislation applied more frequently. Since the 2007 passage of the
Computer-Related Offenses Act, the number of orders to shut down Web sites has
steadily increased. While only two URLs were ordered blocked in the year the bill was
passed, nearly 44,000 were ordered blocked in 2009.
29 In 2010 the Chinese government amended the 1988 State Secrets law to include all ICT companies operating in
the country, requiring them to cooperate with the state in cases where state secrets
are allegedly leaked online.
30 The regulations would require companies to block the
distribution of such information and disclose records to state security organs.
31
Many governments have expanded rules that prohibit content deemed libelous,
hateful, blasphemous, or causing insult to religious or other social groups. This type
of legislation was instituted in Bangladesh during the period of emergency rule and
has remained in place since. The Emergency Power Rules established in 2007 forbid
the use of the Internet to publish “ provocative ” material, primarily aimed at content
critical of the ruling government or army.
32 However, since the end of emergency rule,
the Information Communication and Technologies Act still prohibits content that is
“ false and vulgar ” or that “ may harm religious feelings, ” among other restrictions.
33
A bill drafted in late 2010 sought to extend punishment for crimes related to distribution of pornography online.
34 Indonesia has similar prohibitions against defamation