Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alex_smart 1810 days ago
The point is that India is a sovereign republic and has its own laws about what is illegal and is not. According to India's laws, spreading false rumours about the police shooting a farmer when there is clear evidence that the person actually died by running his tractor into a barricade is illegal. And when Twitter failed to comply with government's orders to remove these tweets, they didn't have any point of contact from the company they could turn to for accountability. That's why the need for the compliance officer.

Also, criticizing the government is not illegal according to Indian laws.
1 comments
bosswipe 1810 days ago
Who determines that their is "clear evidence". Shouldn't a judge be involved?
link
alex_smart 1810 days ago
>Who determines that their is "clear evidence".

In this case, anyone with an eye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY

link
kelnos 1810 days ago
That video is of such poor quality that it's hard to determine anything from it. Yes, a tractor hit a barrier, flipped, and caught fire. Unclear why it hit the barrier. Did the driver intentionally run it into the barrier? Did the police shoot him and then the tractor continued on into the barrier?

Not saying it wasn't the simple explanation, but that video is not really evidence of anything either way.

link
alex_smart 1809 days ago
Erm, you are requiring the kind of rigor that is needed to establish someone's guilt for establishing someone's innocence. Innocence is the null hypothesis.

The quality of evidence supporting the rumor that the person had been shot by the police was extremely sketchy and the evidence that is available points to the incident being an accident.

link