It is essential to note the responsibility behind the withholding of the HindutvaWatch account has been claimed by one Indian Cyber Defender (ICD). Through their X profile, ICD took to X to inform his followers that the withholding of HindutvaWatch has allegedly resulted due to the proceedings initiated by his legal team. 

Their post can be accessed here:

Case no : 96

Accounts Withheld : @HindutvaWatchIn

78.9K Followers

INDIAN CYBER DEFENDER legal team proceedings & Reporting done for mentioned account and now withheld in India. pic.twitter.com/A3uDEmoUZX

— INDIAN CYBER DEFENDER (@IndianCDefender) January 16, 2024

An update by Raqib Hameed Naik, founder of HindutvaWatch, came a few hours after the account got withheld. Naik took to X and stated that three hours after the withholding of the HindutvaWatch account, an email was received by the team from X which notified them of this action. The notification provided that “X has received a legal removal demand from the Government of India regarding the HindutvaWatch account on claims that the following content violates India’s Information Technology Act, 2000.” No other information about the legal demands, which would have enabled the HindutvaWatch team to approach the court, have been provided yet.

Their post can be accessed here:

Update from Hindutva Watch

Today, our @X account was withheld in India following a legal demand from the Government of India.

Three hours after the withholding of our account, we received an email from X notifying us of this action. pic.twitter.com/YPAwBl1QdP

— Raqib Hameed Naik (@raqib_naik) January 16, 2024

The blocking of X accounts of those critical of the Modi government is not a new phenomenon. Many reports have highlighted the complicity that X has shown, or has been pressurised to show by the Indian government, in regards to mass censorship of its users. In October 2023, accounts of two U.S. based non-profits that frequently criticised Indian political leaders’ record on minority and caste rights issues in India, namely The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), had also been withheld owning to “legal demands”. 

During that time, Internet Freedom Foundation, an organisation working for digital rights, had hit out at the government’s methods of censorship and control by releasing a statement which said, “Of late, we have seen an increase in the instances of entire accounts being blocked on Twitter in India. This is a disproportionate measure, and may be potentially unconstitutional. Further, in nearly all cases, copies of the blocking orders are not made available publicly or even to the owners of the Twitter account. This lack of transparency is illegal, and perpetuates an environment of zero accountability.”

Related:

In a global storm of censorship, Hindus for Human Rights, IAMC and journalists accounts have been suspended

Self-censorship threat to free speech: Navroz Seervai

India’s 2023 bad laws: Impact on Individual Freedoms and Indigenous Rights in a weaponised state

Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI

The post ‘X’ account of HindtuvaWatch withheld in India owing to “legal demands” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In what seems to be a recent step emerging from a global pattern, Elon Musk’s X has seemingly muzzled the voices of journalists and organisations that argue for peace and human rights by suspending their X accounts. This move has cast a dark shadow on freedom of expression and a free and fair press for Indian citizens. The affected accounts included those of the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR). They are reportedly withheld in response a “legal demand” – allegedly by the Indian government. It is important to note a member of the HfHR was present as a recent United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) hearing took place on October, 3 2023. The hearing was held due to concerns of violence against Muslims in Christians, and other religious minorities, in India have grown. The commission sought to provide recommendations for policy measures to the US state department as the hearing was held after two important bilateral meetings that took place between the country’s top leaders, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Joe Biden.

pic.twitter.com/RpJQ883vPp

— Aakar Patel (@Aakar__Patel) October 16, 2023

Similarly, Meer Faisal, a prominent reporter known for his extensive coverage of hate crimes in the country, found that his X account was “withheld” within the boundaries of India, reportedly at the request of the Union government, according to Maktoob Media. The message displayed on his account explained that this action, once again, was taken “in response to a legal demand,” although there is no clarification by X as to what or why this move was taken, the journalist expressed his shock at the sudden restriction of his account to Maktoob, stating, “I hadn’t been active for a few days, and when I opened the app to tweet, I realised it had been withheld.” For Meer Faisal, this was not just about losing access to a social media platform, but that it was a significant blow to press freedom.

He asserted further stating, “Withholding an account or censoring a journalist’s work constitutes a violation of press freedom,” highlighting the gravity of the situation.” Describing further the situation, “I believe my account was withheld due to the stories where I speak about the rights of Muslims and marginalised communities. I can’t recall any specific story that justifies this level of suppression of expression.”

However, India is not the only place where issues of censorship, danger to a free press and journalism are looming large. At least 12 journalists have been killed, and eight wounded in the initial eight days of the Israel-Hamas war, according to media reports. As we speak, there are reports emerging that the Israeli cabinet is set to discuss a proposal to ban Al Jazeera’s coverage in Israel. Al Jazeera is a global media channel that has been reporting on ground from Gaza since the day the war was declared.

Another alarming development is the heavy-handed approach of tech giants like Meta and X in censoring content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Al Jazeera Arabic presenter Tamer Almisshal had his Facebook profile deleted just 24 hours after airing a program that ironically was slated to examine Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content. The investigative report by Almisshal delved into the disparities in how Palestinian and Israeli posts are treated by Facebook. The report had been touted to include admissions by Eric Barbing, who is former head of Israel’s cybersecurity apparatus, about efforts to track Palestinian content based on criteria as benign as “liking” a photo of a Palestinian killed by Israeli forces.

In a similar vein, social media users who post about pro-Palestinian sentiments are asserting that they are experiencing a sharp crackdown on their content in the wake of the intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Such accounts have been reportedly suspended or banned on platforms like TikTok etc. Another example is of Mondoweiss which was a news and analysis account dedicated to Palestine, which has reported that its TikTok account had been temporarily taken down. Moreover, several Instagram, which is also owned by Meta, users have also voiced their concerns about content restrictions and the inability to go on livestream. One London-based user requested anonymity for fear of harassment revealed that her Instagram stories related to Palestine received extremely low viewership. It was only when she posted a picture of a skirt that her viewership went high again.

As governments and tech giants worldwide bring their fist down on how to handle information as well as misinformation about the Israel-Palestine conflict and its digital footprint, it is evident that the silencing of voices has found its way across the globe. From BJP governments’ steps tackling voices that speak for peace to the international stage of the Middle East, the battle for free speech in the digital age has entered a new, complex phase that will seemingly define the status and safety of free speech and undeterred journalism for decades and generations to come.

Related:

A swarm of fake news hits social media from India, hatred for all that is Muslim given a fillip: Hamas-Israel conflict

Free Speech or Hate Speak?

Hate Speech is rampant while Free speech is criminalised 

Indian minorities must be protected, GOI needs to take steps: IAMC report

The post In a global storm of censorship, Hindus for Human Rights, IAMC and journalists accounts have been suspended appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The president uses his Twitter feed to make official announcements. AP Photo/J. David Ake

The appeals court’s ruling is not a surprise to me, as director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida. That’s because it, like the lower court decision it upholds, is grounded in the well-established principles of protecting political speech and barring government discrimination against people engaged in public discourse based on their viewpoints.

The district court judge found that Trump blocked Twitter followers from his account “indisputably … [as] a result of viewpoint discrimination.” The appeals court agreed, finding that Trump “engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter’s ‘blocking’ function.” In other words, Trump cannot block people simply because they criticize him or his policies.

That issue was never really in question in this case, though. The main debate was whether the president’s personal Twitter account was a public forum governed by the First Amendment. More traditional public forums are physical places owned by the government, such as sidewalks, parks and auditoriums. Peaceful public speech and demonstrations in those venues cannot be stopped based on what is being said without a compelling government interest. Twitter, however, is not a real-world space. And it’s run by a private company.

The district court’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.

Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the district court judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.

The appeals court agreed on both points, saying, “the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.”

This decision brings the Supreme Court’s longstanding free speech doctrine into the social media era.

Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published May 24, 2018.

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post Appeals court rules against Trump blocking critics on Twitter appeared first on SabrangIndia.