ISLAMABAD: The Indian government was ordered to remove critical content from Twitter after the Washington Post claimed that this would be a “pivotal moment for internet speech around the world.” However, Twitter has contested this order.
Twitter’s petition, which was filed in Bangalore’s Karnataka High Court, contests a recent directive from the Indian government ordering the company to delete content and block numerous accounts. Twitter complied with the directive but later requested legal assistance.
The Washington Post editorial board stated in an opinion piece published on Sunday that the Bharatiya Janata Party, led by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had been eroding online free speech for some time, most notably with the passage of a law last year expanding the executive’s censorship powers.
According to the law, the government has the right to request that news and information providers take down specific content within 36 hours of receiving a request, and if these demands are ignored, it has the right to file a criminal complaint against a local company grievance officer.
Armed forces once appeared at the company’s offices as part of an investigation into a matter as mundane as a tweet having been labelled “manipulated media.” Twitter’s top executive was summoned by police in one state for failing to remove a violent video using the same laws.
Tweets from authors, including Post Opinions contributor Rana Ayyub and advocacy group Freedom House, were geographically restricted by the company.
The choice put Twitter in a challenging situation where, on the one hand, local laws did not align with its values and, on the other, employee safety was at stake.
According to Twitter’s petition, the government has attempted to stifle more tweets than allowed by law. The platform further claims that authorities have not supported their demands with evidence or evaluated previous takedowns to determine whether they are still necessary.
According to reports, the case is essentially a test of whether free speech in India will continue to flourish. It will determine whether the judiciary will intervene to defend speech when an unjust law is unfairly applied and makes it nearly impossible for a company to do so.
This conflict involves more than just India and Twitter. As restrictive regulations as India’s revised code have already been enacted in some nations, and others are considering it. The same is true of alleged hostage-taking laws that intimidate businesses into closer cooperation by threatening employees.
Not just social media firms should oppose them. Democracies around the world committed to civil liberties also have a duty to fight for the future of the internet, despite any obligations Twitter may have to its users or the Indian government to its citizens.
The Indian government had instructed Twitter to delete posts about civil liberties grievances, demonstrations, press freedoms, and criticisms of the administration’s response to the pandemic, according to a New York Times article.
WhatsApp was previously informed that it would be necessary to make users’ private messages “traceable” to government agencies upon request; however, this requirement was also contested, and the case is still pending.
At a time when the government is accused of using a broad definition of what content it finds offensive to target critics, experts said the Indian government’s move to require Twitter to block accounts and posts amounted to censorship.
