Read on Twitter
I spoke today on BOOM Live about the ban of Twitter handles of some prominent entities, including @thecaravanindia . Bans on Twitter are something I've been thinking about for a while.
My thoughts on this issue are below, in a thread below:
1/
My thoughts on this issue are below, in a thread below:
1/
1. We don't know: We don't know when, how or by whom these orders were issued, or exactly why. We don't know when, how, why or by whom these ban orders were revoked. We don't know if these orders were thought through or arbitrary.
2/
2/
Point is, we should know. What is clear here is that there is no transparency, and hence there is no accountability. This arbitrariness is not new. We've seen it with website blocking: https://www.medianama.com/2015/06/223-i-dont-know/
3/
3/
2. Why the secrecy: It is likely that these orders for a ban were issued under Section 69a of the IT Act. That's the section (alongwith its rules) which allows for secret blocking. The secrecy of the blocking orders were something that we contested back in 2013-15 during
4/
4/
the Shreya Singhal case. The Supreme Court upheld Section 69 saying that because a government committee looks into this, there is due process, and it need not be struck down (like 66a was) or watered down (like Section 79a was).
I hope these orders, even though they seem to
5/
I hope these orders, even though they seem to
5/
have been revoked, will still be reviewed. Unfortunately, govt officials have a a poor track record of holding govt officials accountable, so if these orders were incorrect (given the speed with which they were revoked, seems so), we probably cant expect any repercussions.
6/
6/
Reminder: last year, Aakar Patel's twitter account was blocked and then restored. No one knows why or how.
https://www.medianama.com/2020/06/223-twitter-restricts-amnesty-aakar-patel/
7/
https://www.medianama.com/2020/06/223-twitter-restricts-amnesty-aakar-patel/
7/
3. Transparency from Twitter? Unfortunately, we can't expect any transparency from Twitter either, because the same section disallows twitter from disclosing the government order. I'm quite surprised that Twitter even disclosed the fact that they had received a legal order.
8/
8/
4. Remember the Chinese apps? Orders to block the Chinese apps in August last year were issued under Section 69a. With those orders, the Indian govt issued TWO press releases. It's funny that when the action taken is against Chinese apps,
9/
9/
we get some transparency from the Indian government. When its against Indian twitter accounts, we get NONE.
My thread on that ban: https://twitter.com/nixxin/status/1277636151763890176?lang=en
6. Account vs Tweet blocking: We're seeing more and more instances of entire accounts being blocked,
10/
My thread on that ban: https://twitter.com/nixxin/status/1277636151763890176?lang=en
6. Account vs Tweet blocking: We're seeing more and more instances of entire accounts being blocked,
10/
versus specific tweets being blocked. This perhaps needs to be challenged in court. Is an account "information"? Isn't blocking an entire account a disproportionate act of censorship, versus blocking an allegedly illegal tweet? I'm not a lawyer, but
11/
11/
I wonder if Section 69a can legally be used to block an entire account.
7. Will platforms push back? I don't expect Internet platforms to challenge the usage of Section 69a. They bow before power. We saw that in the US, where they allowed drip-feeding of hate by Trump,
12/
7. Will platforms push back? I don't expect Internet platforms to challenge the usage of Section 69a. They bow before power. We saw that in the US, where they allowed drip-feeding of hate by Trump,
12/
until it became evident that he's losing power, and especially after he lost power. Then they blocked him. This is a powerful government, and remember how Twitter has been hauled up by various committees since 2019. Also, sedition cases have been filed against
13/
13/
Twitter officials in India. So, we shouldn't expect platforms to stand up for free speech, but we should expect better from our elected government, and our government officials. TRANSPARENCY!
8. On sedition: A Sedition law is an indication of a weak and insecure state.
14/
8. On sedition: A Sedition law is an indication of a weak and insecure state.
14/
I think sedition laws should not exist in a constitutional democracy. They give too much power to the state, & lend themselves to arbitrary usage. Incitement to violence is a different story, of course. Btw, I don't think India should have a criminal defamation law either.
15/
15/
9. I've done a little more homework. As per the Shreya Singhal judgment, the Supreme Court said that there are safeguards in place while choosing to let Sec 69A remain. Specifically:
9a. Necessity: “...blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied
17/
9a. Necessity: “...blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied
17/
that it is necessary so to do.”
9b. Proportionality: “...such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2)." [Reasonable constitutional restrictions on free speech, like those mentioned in the grounds for 69A to be activated]
18/
9b. Proportionality: “...such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2)." [Reasonable constitutional restrictions on free speech, like those mentioned in the grounds for 69A to be activated]
18/
9c. Documentation:“...reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution."
9d. Review:“The Rules further provide for a hearing before the Committee set up -which Committee then
19/
9d. Review:“The Rules further provide for a hearing before the Committee set up -which Committee then
19/
...looks into whether or not it is necessary to block such information. It is only when the Committee finds that there is such a necessity that a blocking order is made. It is also clear from an examination of Rule 8 that it is not merely the intermediary who may be heard."
20/
20/
"If the "person" i.e. the originator is identified he is also to be heard before a blocking order is passed.”"
10. It appears to me that these norms aren't always being followed. The SC judgment itself said that these orders are to be written so they may be challenged.
21/
10. It appears to me that these norms aren't always being followed. The SC judgment itself said that these orders are to be written so they may be challenged.
21/
11. I would call upon an aggrieved party here, for example, @thecaravanindia, to challenge the Section 69A orders against them in the SC, so that the unfinished business of 69A being declared unconstitutional be dealt with by the SC.
It seems that Twitter reinstated the accounts and MEITY is not happy with it. Great story from @missmishma in Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/india/twitter-accounts-farmers-protest-it-ministry-notice-7172690/
23/
23/
Worth noting, a quote from a govt source: "You can’t write that the PM is carrying out a genocide on farmers and get away with it. Twitter needs to implement this. People can’t go on insulting the Prime Minister of the land like this"
24/
24/
Seems that MEITY issued an order because the PM was being insulted. This is NOT a valid ground under which a Section 69A order can be issued. This suggests that the MEITY order was illegal.
This is exactly why we need transparency, and why Section69A should be challenged.
25/
This is exactly why we need transparency, and why Section69A should be challenged.
25/
Waitaminnit, waitaminnit. Does this mean that Twitter has called MEITY's bluff? If MEITY takes twitter to court, they could lose this. If those orders aren't legitimate, that is. Fascinating to see how this plays out.
Since this issue is flaring up again, please do what my interview with @fayedsouza here
I've also addressed a few additional points, including the legitimacy of these bans under "public order".
I've also addressed a few additional points, including the legitimacy of these bans under "public order".
Update: Twitter has issued a public statement on the blocking orders here: https://blog.twitter.com/en_in/topics/company/2020/twitters-response-indian-government.html
There needs to be transparency from @GoI_MeitY on the orders that have been sent.
I hope this goes to court & Section 69a gets written down to provide more transparency from govt
There needs to be transparency from @GoI_MeitY on the orders that have been sent.
I hope this goes to court & Section 69a gets written down to provide more transparency from govt
I don't understand why @GoI_MeitY is consulting with @TwitterIndia or @rsprasad is issuing statements.
There are only 2 options:
1. If Twitter has violated the law, then Govt must take action as per Section 69A of the IT Act.
2. If the order was not in line with...
/29
There are only 2 options:
1. If Twitter has violated the law, then Govt must take action as per Section 69A of the IT Act.
2. If the order was not in line with...
/29
... Indian law, then @GoI_MeitY must come clean on it.
This naare-baazi from the Indian govt is pointless.
Or is it just meant to distract attention from the Farm Bill and protests?
TV Channels have been busy.
Another thing...
/30
This naare-baazi from the Indian govt is pointless.
Or is it just meant to distract attention from the Farm Bill and protests?
TV Channels have been busy.
Another thing...
/30
Someone I spoke with yesterday believed that under Section 69A, if Twitter doesn't comply, they lose safe harbor. Safe Harbor (which protects platforms) is under Section 79A. It is my (non-lawyerly) understanding that Section 69A doesn't have this protection.
/31
/31
The other statement that I'm hearing on TV Shows is that Twitter cannot refuse to comply with the order. As @prasanna_s pointed out: of course they can. They'll have to face the consequences, but they can choose to not follow a govt order, and challenge it in court.
/32
/32
Twitter is also taking the jurisdictional defence: that it is a US entity and not governed by Indian laws. It's a foolhardy approach, and no sovereign nation can -- and should not -- tolerate such an approach. Twitter would do better to not take such an approach.
/33
/33
