Report Wire

Tag: freedom of speech

  • Twitter ‘intentionally’ remained defiant to legal guidelines of the land: Centre tells Karnataka HC

    By PTI

    BENGALURU: The Centre has advised the Karnataka High Court that Twitter “deliberately” remained non-compliant and defiant to the legal guidelines of the land and that the social media big has no position to play within the safety of the nation.

    The submission was made by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) in its 101-page assertion of objections on Thursday whereas opposing the micro-blogging platform’s petition earlier than the excessive courtroom in opposition to the federal government’s takedown and blocking orders.

    On the claims by Twitter that political tweets had been requested to be taken down, the Centre acknowledged that it had solely requested for unverified accounts to be blocked.

    ALSO READ | ‘Twitter knowingly allowed Indian authorities to position its brokers on firm payroll’: Whistleblower

    “The petitioner deliberately remained non-compliant and defiant to the laws of the land. Only on the diligent follow up of the respondent No.2(Centre) and upon the issuance of show cause notice dated 27.06.2022 the petitioner for reasons best known to it suddenly complied with all the blocking directions,” the Centre mentioned whereas in search of dismissal of the petition.

    Twitter has challenged blocking orders for 39 URLs.

    The listening to within the case is slated to be held on September 8.

    In its petition, Twitter had claimed that freedom of speech is affected by the takedown notices of the federal government.

    The originators of the content material on its platform weren’t issued notices earlier than their content material was requested to be taken down, it mentioned.

    However, the federal government in its objections mentioned that since Twitter was the middleman, it was the microblogging web site’s duty to tell the customers.

    ALSO READ | Twitter deliberate to earn money through monetizing porn on its platform

    “When a public order issue arises, it is the government that is responsible to take action and not the platform. Hence, whether content will cause national security or public order issues or not should not be allowed to be determined by the platforms.”

    The Centre submitted that any personal coverage or guidelines made by on-line platforms are topic to the Information Technology Act 2000.

    “Foreign platforms providing services in the country shall not be entitled to claim that the Indian laws and rules are not applicable upon them. Any such claim is legally untenable,” it mentioned.

    The objections additionally referred to as for dismissal of the petition on the bottom that Twitter isn’t entitled to hunt reduction as it’s not a citizen of India.

    “Article 21 rights are not available to artificial juristic entities, much less, to any foreign commercial entity. The present petition even if it attempts to allege breach of Article 21 rights, is therefore, not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner foreign company.”

    ALSO READ | Parliament panel grills Twitter officers over knowledge safety, privateness, says replies ‘not passable’

    The authorities mentioned it’s its duty to guard over 84 crore Indians utilizing Internet from anti-India propaganda, pretend information and hate speech content material.

    “These contents have the potential to jeopardize the peace in the country. Thus, it becomes essential to detect and block such misinformation content and fake news at the initial stage itself to prevent a public order catastrophe like situation in the country.”

    BENGALURU: The Centre has advised the Karnataka High Court that Twitter “deliberately” remained non-compliant and defiant to the legal guidelines of the land and that the social media big has no position to play within the safety of the nation.

    The submission was made by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) in its 101-page assertion of objections on Thursday whereas opposing the micro-blogging platform’s petition earlier than the excessive courtroom in opposition to the federal government’s takedown and blocking orders.

    On the claims by Twitter that political tweets had been requested to be taken down, the Centre acknowledged that it had solely requested for unverified accounts to be blocked.

    ALSO READ | ‘Twitter knowingly allowed Indian authorities to position its brokers on firm payroll’: Whistleblower

    “The petitioner deliberately remained non-compliant and defiant to the laws of the land. Only on the diligent follow up of the respondent No.2(Centre) and upon the issuance of show cause notice dated 27.06.2022 the petitioner for reasons best known to it suddenly complied with all the blocking directions,” the Centre mentioned whereas in search of dismissal of the petition.

    Twitter has challenged blocking orders for 39 URLs.

    The listening to within the case is slated to be held on September 8.

    In its petition, Twitter had claimed that freedom of speech is affected by the takedown notices of the federal government.

    The originators of the content material on its platform weren’t issued notices earlier than their content material was requested to be taken down, it mentioned.

    However, the federal government in its objections mentioned that since Twitter was the middleman, it was the microblogging web site’s duty to tell the customers.

    ALSO READ | Twitter deliberate to earn money through monetizing porn on its platform

    “When a public order issue arises, it is the government that is responsible to take action and not the platform. Hence, whether content will cause national security or public order issues or not should not be allowed to be determined by the platforms.”

    The Centre submitted that any personal coverage or guidelines made by on-line platforms are topic to the Information Technology Act 2000.

    “Foreign platforms providing services in the country shall not be entitled to claim that the Indian laws and rules are not applicable upon them. Any such claim is legally untenable,” it mentioned.

    The objections additionally referred to as for dismissal of the petition on the bottom that Twitter isn’t entitled to hunt reduction as it’s not a citizen of India.

    “Article 21 rights are not available to artificial juristic entities, much less, to any foreign commercial entity. The present petition even if it attempts to allege breach of Article 21 rights, is therefore, not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner foreign company.”

    ALSO READ | Parliament panel grills Twitter officers over knowledge safety, privateness, says replies ‘not passable’

    The authorities mentioned it’s its duty to guard over 84 crore Indians utilizing Internet from anti-India propaganda, pretend information and hate speech content material.

    “These contents have the potential to jeopardize the peace in the country. Thus, it becomes essential to detect and block such misinformation content and fake news at the initial stage itself to prevent a public order catastrophe like situation in the country.”

  • Twitter doc exhibits authorities’s requests for blocking tweets of advocacy teams, politicians 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Social community Twitter was requested by the federal government to dam a number of accounts and a few tweets from advocacy group Freedom House, journalists, politicians, and supporters of farmers’ protest final yr, in keeping with a doc filed by the platform on June 26.

    The requests from the federal government had been despatched between January 5, 2021, and December 29, 2021, in keeping with the doc filed with Lumen database.

    Leading web firms like Google, Facebook and Twitter file data with Lumen database about weblinks or accounts that they’ve been requested to dam by any entity beneath relevant legal guidelines.

    ALSO READ | Twitter accounts linked to farm motion withheld on Centre’s ‘directions’: SKM

    However, particulars about whether or not the request to dam a hyperlink or account was fulfilled will not be accessible on the database.

    According to the doc filed by Twitter, the social community was requested by the federal government to dam tweets of the worldwide advocacy group Freedom House which conducts analysis and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights together with freedom of speech and expression on the web the world over.

    An e-mail question despatched to the Ministry of Electronics and IT didn’t elicit any reply.

    Twitter complying with Indian authorities’s directive to withhold journalist @RanaAyyub’s tweet and block columnist @cjwerleman’s account in India are a part of an unacceptable new pattern of censorship on social media. This should cease! Journalists voices are important for a democracy https://t.co/jtXvHP6Nq3

    — CPJ Asia (@CPJAsia) June 27, 2022

    According to the doc, the federal government had requested Twitter to dam just a few tweets from Freedom House which talked in regards to the state of web freedom in 2020 and famous its sharp decline in India.

    The doc confirmed that the federal government requested to dam tweets belonging to members of the Indian National Congress and Aam Aadmi Party, together with MLA Jarnail Singh.

    The authorities had additionally requested Twitter to dam the account of Kisan Ekta Morcha.

    ALSO READ: Journalist Mohammad Zubair arrested for ‘hurting non secular sentiments’

    A random verify confirmed that a lot of the tweets and Twitter accounts that had been requested to be blocked had been accessible to customers.

    In a press release launched on Monday, the umbrella physique of farmers’ unions, Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), raised robust objections to the requests made by the federal government for blocking tweets of those that stood in its help.

    “Samyukta Kisan Morcha strongly opposes and condemns the withholding Twitter accounts allied with the farm movement on the instructions of the Union Government. Twitter has withheld about a dozen Twitter accounts in India, including the Twitter handle @kisanektamorcha allied with the Farm Movement, without any warning,” SKM mentioned.

    The worldwide group Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the federal government’s transfer to dam tweets of journalists– Rana Ayyub and CJ Werleman.

    “Twitter complying with the Indian government’s directive to withhold journalist @RanaAyyub’s tweet and block columnist @cjwerleman’s account in India are part of an unacceptable new trend of censorship on social media. This must stop! Journalists’ voices are essential for a democracy,” CPJ Asia tweeted.

  • Supreme Court to listen to pleas difficult constitutionality of sedition regulation on April 27

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear the 2 pleas difficult the constitutional validity of part 124A (sedition) within the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
     
    The prime courtroom can be listening to the pleas by the Editors Guild of India and a former military officer Major General SG Vombatkere.

    Last 12 months in July, The prime courtroom had agreed to look at the pleas and had requested the Central authorities why it’s not repealing the supply that was used to silence folks like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the liberty motion.

    The plea, filed on behalf of Major-General SG Vombatkere (Retd.) mentioned that Section 124A of the IPC is extremely vires Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, learn with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

    “… statute criminalizing expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech”, The plea had contended.

    Several pleas difficult the colonial regulation are pending earlier than the highest courtroom.

    In April 2021, one other bench headed by Justice UU Lalit had issued discover on the pleas filed by two journalists – Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively, had pleaded earlier than the highest courtroom to declare the supply unconstitutional.

    The petition by the journalists had mentioned that Section 124-A fails to fulfill the worldwide normal of ‘legality’ which India is below the duty meet as a celebration to the ICCPR, and  the phrases ‘intention’ and ‘tendency’ within the interpretation of Section 124-A are so subjective that the regulation is unsure and unascertainable and are an invite to abuse by authorities. 

    The plea by journos had alleged that Section 124-A is pointless to guard the pursuits of state safety and public dysfunction, and is duplicated by more moderen laws which instantly and sufficiently prevents and offers with the mischief of public dysfunction and public violence.

  • Human rights teams increase hate speech considerations after Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter

    Human rights teams on Monday raised considerations about hate speech on Twitter and the ability that its takeover by Elon Musk would give the billionaire after the self-described “free speech absolutist” clinched a deal to take the social media platform personal.

    Musk, who can be chief government of electrical automotive maker Tesla Inc (TSLA.O), has described himself as a “free speech absolutist” who has been crucial of Twitter’s insurance policies of moderating content material on the platform.

    He has mentioned Twitter must develop into a real discussion board at no cost speech. In a press release after securing the deal on Monday, Musk described free speech as “the bedrock of a functioning democracy.”

    Twitter is not only one other firm, human rights advocates famous. “Regardless of who owns Twitter, the company has human rights responsibilities to respect the rights of people around the world who rely on the platform. Changes to its policies, features, and algorithms, big and small, can have disproportionate and sometimes devastating impacts, including offline violence,” Deborah Brown, a digital rights researcher and advocate at Human Rights Watch, instructed Reuters in an e mail.

    “Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, which is why Twitter needs to invest in efforts to keep its most vulnerable users safe on the platform,” she added.

    Twitter didn’t instantly reply to a request for touch upon considerations raised by the teams.

    “While Elon Musk is an ACLU card-carrying member and one of our most significant supporters, there’s a lot of danger having so much power in the hands of any one individual,” Anthony Romero, government director on the American Civil Liberties Union, instructed Reuters after the deal was introduced.

    Amnesty International mentioned it was involved about any potential determination that Twitter might take after Musk’s takeover to erode enforcement of the insurance policies and mechanisms designed to reasonable hate speech on-line.

    “The last thing we need is a Twitter that willfully turns a blind eye to violent and abusive speech against users, particularly those most disproportionately impacted, including women, non-binary persons, and others,” Michael Kleinman, director of expertise and human rights at Amnesty International USA, mentioned on Monday.

    READ | Elon Musk now owns Twitter, all of it offered in a deal value $44 billion

    READ | Elon Musk vs Twitter: What is going on, the place it began

  • France marks one 12 months for the reason that assassination of Samuel Paty

    French leaders are holding a day of commemoration in Paris on Saturday to memorialize Samuel Paty, the schoolteacher who was killed one 12 months in the past after a lesson he taught on free speech included highlighting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
    The French authorities unveiled a plaque on the Education Ministry in Paty’s honor, and within the night a a sq. reverse the Sorbonne University within the capital’s Latin Quarter will probably be renamed after Paty in a ceremony that the Paris mayor’s workplace has described as “simple and contemplative.”
    French Prime Minister Jean Castex mentioned, “Here is a man who wanted to do his job, a demanding and sometimes thankless job, a man who only aspired to transmit the values of freedom, secularism, tolerance, free will.”
    The household deliberate to satisfy with President Emmanuel Macron on the Elysee Palace on Saturday.
    Other commemorations are anticipated to happen within the quiet suburb of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, the place Paty taught historical past and geography, and close to his residence. A mural and a statue will commemorate Paty in these places.

    Who was Samuel Paty?
    The 47-year-old instructor was stabbed after which beheaded on the night of October 16, 2020 by Abdullakh Anzorov, an 18-year-old with Russian-Chechen roots, after leaving the center faculty the place he taught. Anzorov, who was later shot lifeless by French safety companies, claimed the assault was revenge.
    Paty’s lesson on free speech had upset some mother and father and set off an internet firestorm, which snowballed right into a debate characterised by rumors and disinformation that always distorted the character of the lesson.

    His demise surprised France and French educators, who’ve lengthy emphasised France’s formally secular values. Tens of 1000’s joined nationwide rallies in assist of free speech, together with the liberty to blaspheme.
    President Macron, nevertheless, sparked a backlash in some Muslim international locations — together with Libya, Tunisia and Turkey— when he declared the nation “will not give up cartoons.”
    The investigation into Paty’s demise stays open.

    What different actions have been taken to recollect Paty?
    On Friday, colleges paused for a minute of silence to recollect Paty. Teachers devoted their classes to his reminiscence.
    Schools in at the very least three French cities have been named after Paty, together with a faculty within the various jap Paris suburb of Valenton.
    “We will not forget Samuel Paty,” mentioned Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer on a go to to a highschool in Paris on Friday.

  • Allahabad HC rejects PFI activist’s bail plea, says freedom of speech not absolute

    The Allahabad High Court has mentioned the basic proper to freedom of speech and expression in a secular state isn’t a licence to harm spiritual emotions, faiths and beliefs of fellow residents.
    Rejecting the anticipatory bail utility of Popular Front of India (PFI) member Mohammad Nadeem, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh noticed that somebody who takes the chance of “dissemination of blasphemous messages is not entitled to get the discretion of the Court exercised in his favour”.
    Nadeem was booked below IPC Section 153-A (selling enmity) by Barabanki police on a grievance filed by one Anil Kumar who had alleged that the PFI member was “propagating that every Muslim has to come forward to protect the site of Babri Masjid” in view of the foundation-laying ceremony of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
    The grievance mentioned because of the “propaganda, there was a probability of communal tension”.
    Nadeem’s counsel advised the court docket that allegations made within the FIR have been “false and fabricated” and the lodging the FIR “is nothing but off-shoot to the protest as well as the petition filed by the applicant against his illegal detention by the police”.
    The High Court noticed that prima facie, the offence punishable below IPC part 153A “is attracted to the facts of the case”.
    The court docket, nonetheless, clarified that the observations made in its order have been “only for the purpose of deciding the application for anticipatory bail” and it should have no bearing on the investigation or the trial of the case.

  • They present porn too: SC favours screening of OTT content material

    The Supreme Court on Thursday favoured “screening” of content material aired over over-the-top (OTT) media platforms and requested the Centre to provide the recently-notified tips for such providers.
    “Traditional film viewing has become obsolete. People watching films on these platforms has become common. Should there not be some screening? We feel there should be some screening… At times they are showing pornography too,” noticed Justice Ashok Bhushan, heading a two-judge bench. The courtroom was listening to a plea by Aparna Purohit, Amazon Head of India Originals, difficult the Allahabad High Court order denying her anticipatory bail in reference to FIRs lodged over the Tandav net sequence.
    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated there was “filthy” content material “with abuses” on the platforms.

    Appearing for Purohit, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi stated the High Court order rejecting her pre-arrest bail plea was not based mostly on the OTT rules however “is about freedom of speech and expression”. Calling it a “shocking case”, Rohatgi stated Purohit was solely an worker of Amazon and never the producer or actor however nonetheless has been accused in round 10 circumstances filed throughout the nation in reference to the online sequence.
    “It’s about creating balance,” stated the bench, additionally comprising Justice R Subhash Reddy.
    The courtroom then requested the SG to flow into the Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which gives for regulation of content material on OTT platforms.
    The Allahabad High Court had on February 25 rejected Purohit’s plea stating that “the fact remains that the applicant had not been vigilant and has acted irresponsibly making her open to criminal prosecution in permitting streaming of a movie which is against the fundamental rights of the majority of citizens of this country and therefore, her fundamental right of life and liberty cannot be protected by grant of anticipatory bail to her in the exercise of discretionary powers of this court”.
    “The irresponsible conduct against the inherent mandate of the Constitution of India by anyone affecting the fundamental rights of the large number of citizens cannot be acquiesced to only because of the tendering of unconditional apology after committing the alleged act of crime and indiscretion,” stated the order. It stated the reference to the disclaimer in regards to the present being fictional “cannot be considered to be a ground for absolving the applicant of permitting the streaming of an objectionable movie online”.

  • Global freedom watchdog report downgrades India from ‘free’ to ‘partly free’

    Washington-based famous assume tank Freedom House has demoted India’s freedom rating from “free” to “partly free”, saying rights and civil liberties “have been eroding since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in 2014”, particularly referring to assaults on Muslims, use of the sedition legislation, and the federal government’s coronavirus response together with the lockdown.
    India’s rating decreased from 71 to 67, with 100 being the rating for essentially the most free nation, and its rank fell from 83 to 88 out of 211 nations. In its annual report, Freedom House stated, “His (Modi’s) Hindu nationalist government has presided over increased pressure on human rights organizations, rising intimidation of academics and journalists, and a spate of bigoted attacks — including lynchings — aimed at Muslims. The decline deepened following Modi’s reelection in 2019, and the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 featured further abuses of fundamental rights.”
    In a press launch, the organisation underscored a “pattern in which the Hindu nationalist government and its allies have presided over rising violence and discriminatory policies affecting the Muslim population and pursued a crackdown on expressions of dissent by the media, academics, civil society groups, and protesters”.
    India’s rating of 67 places it on a par with Ecuador and Dominican Republic. Freedom House famous that the change in India’s standing from “Free” to “Partly Free” was essentially the most vital for 2020, “that means lower than 20 per cent of the world’s individuals now dwell in a Free nation — the smallest proportion since 1995″.
    The most free nations on the earth, with a rating of 100, are Finland, Norway and Sweden, whereas the least free with a rating of 1 are Tibet and Syria.
    The report says, “The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and its state-level allies continued to crack down on critics during the year, and their response to COVID-19 included a ham-fisted lockdown that resulted in the dangerous and unplanned displacement of millions of internal migrant workers. The ruling Hindu nationalist movement also encouraged the scapegoating of Muslims, who were disproportionately blamed for the spread of the virus and faced attacks by vigilante mobs. Rather than serving as a champion of democratic practice and a counterweight to authoritarian influence from countries such as China, Modi and his party are tragically driving India itself toward authoritarianism.”
    The organisation assesses nations on 25 totally different indicators. India’s rating fell in relation to the next questions:
    “Are individuals free to express their personal views on political or other sensitive topics without fear of surveillance or retribution?” The report states this rating declined due to “the use of sedition and other charges in recent years to deter free speech, including discussion of a discriminatory citizenship law and the Covid-19 pandemic”.
    “Is there freedom for nongovernmental organizations, particularly those that are engaged in human rights and governance-related work?” This rating declined due to amendments to the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act and the freezing of Amnesty International’s belongings, resulting in the shutdown of the organisation’s India operations.
    “Is there an independent judiciary?” This rating declined due to former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s appointment to the Rajya Sabha, “a pattern of more progovernment decisions by the Supreme Court”, and “the high-profile transfer of a judge after he ruled against the government’s political interests”.
    “Do individuals enjoy freedom of movement, including the ability to change their place of residence, employment, or education?” This rating declined as a result of migrant disaster and “violent and discriminatory enforcement by police and civilian vigilantes”.
    The Freedom House report once more listed “Indian Kashmir” individually, and retained its standing as final 12 months of “not free” (the primary time it had finished so), with the rating for it falling from 28 to 27. Between 2013 and 2019, “Indian Kashmir” was labelled as “partly free”. Its rating fell from 28 to 27.
    “Disputed territories are sometimes assessed separately if they meet certain criteria, including boundaries that are sufficiently stable to allow year-on-year comparisons,” the report stated.
    India’s Internet Freedom Score has stayed at 51. However, the report acknowledged that “internet freedom in India declined dramatically for a third straight year”, citing Internet shutdowns, blocked content material, disinformation unfold by political leaders, on-line harassment, amendments to the Foreign Direct Investment Policy, coordinated adware campaigns, and digital monitoring.
    It additionally highlights 2020 occasions such because the Northeast Delhi riots in February and September’s acquittal of 32 accused in a 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case.
    Between 2013 and 2015, India’s rating had risen twice consequently by 1 level, going up from 76 to 78. The rating had remained 77 from 2016 to 2018. It dipped to 75 in 2019 and 71 in 2020.

    Apart from India, Belarus fell eight factors, Hong Kong three, Algeria two, and Venezuela two.

    Freedom House stated the modifications in India type “part of a broader shift in the international balance between democracy and authoritarianism, with authoritarians generally enjoying impunity for their abuses and seizing new opportunities to consolidate power or crush dissent. In many cases, promising democratic movements faced major setbacks as a result.”