![]() Initially Twitter resisted some of the government’s blocking orders and was slow to appoint an in-country representative. In February 2021 India introduced new IT rules that required social platforms to respond to government takedown requests within 15 days and appoint a local representative who could be held legally responsible if the company did not comply with blocking orders. More than most other social media companies, Twitter has consistently pushed back on censorship. “The only entities who really know the nature of the problem and the deeply troubling human rights-harming blocking orders we’re seeing are the government itself and the tech companies,” says Chima.įunk says that “strategic litigation” like Twitter’s case can be one of the most effective-and sometimes only-avenues to protect the rights of users, challenge invasive surveillance, or reverse an internet shutdown. This has left big tech companies like Twitter in the unique position of being a major bulwark against government censorship. But individual users and public interest groups have no insight into the blocking orders, and few have the time or resources to sustain a four-year legal battle for transparency, as Thakur did. In May, the Delhi High Court ruled that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had to produce a copy of the original blocking order for Thakur. “But they examined only what was on the surface.” “I wanted something funny, entertaining but which also pokes fun at the patriarchal structure of society,” he said, noting that if the government officials had gone through the site, they might have realized it was satire. While the dispute itself deals with only specific accounts and pieces of content, experts told WIRED that its outcome could have major repercussions, and serve as a “bellwether for this ongoing battle about internet freedom,” says Allie Funk, research director for technology and democracy at Freedom House. Last week, Twitter responded: It will take the Indian government to court. This is an escalation of a series of “blocking orders,” or content removal orders, sent by the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which have increased significantly in the past 18 months. ![]() They say it also stated that the company would lose its “safe harbor” protections, meaning it would no longer be protected from liability for the content created by its own users. Sources familiar with the order say it outlined that if Twitter refused to comply, its chief compliance officer could face criminal proceedings. For further information and scheduling, please visit our website.In June, Twitter received an ultimatum from the Indian government to remove some 39 accounts and content from its platform. The select mediators and arbitrators at UWWM’s Center for National Class and Mass Actions have decades of specific experience in class and mass actions and are uniquely qualified to assist you in resolving these legal disputes. UWWM will continue to monitor developments in this and other class and mass tort actions, and will publish additional bulletins and updates for the benefit of its clients and colleagues. There are also questions regarding venue, arbitration, class action bars and other provisions in these companies’ terms of service. Class-action practitioners are watching how these courts deal with traditional Rule 23 issues involving the unprecedented scenario of a former president serving as class representative, such as class definition, typicality, adequacy and superiority. Legal scholars have differing opinions on the merits of the lawsuits, some calling Trump’s theory “interesting, albeit new and questionable” while others note the steep legal obstacles standing in the way. Attorney Merrick Garland 60 days to decide whether to intervene on behalf of the federal government. All three cases are in their early stages, although Judge Moore has already entered an Order certifying that YouTube’s case poses a Constitutional question and giving U.S. Williams, and YouTube’s case is before former Chief Judge K. ![]() Scola, Facebook’s case is before Judge Kathleen M. Three different judges are presiding – Twitter’s case is before Judge Robert N. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube cases were filed in the Southern District.įormer President Donald Trump has launched three class-action lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, and Google-owned YouTube, alleging these social media behemoths of censoring him and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs in violation of the First Amendment and targeting the legality of Section 230 of the Communications Act. All three cases were filed in the Southern District of Florida.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |