\n<\/p>\n
In June, Twitter<\/span> received an ultimatum from the Indian government to remove some 39 accounts and content<\/a> from its platform. Sources familiar with the order say it outlined that if Twitter refused to comply, its chief compliance officer could face criminal proceedings. They say it also stated that the company would lose its \u201csafe harbor\u201d protections, meaning it would no longer be protected from liability for the content created by its own users. This is an escalation of a series of \u201cblocking orders,\u201d or content removal orders, sent by the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which have increased<\/a> significantly in the past 18 months.<\/p>\n Last week, Twitter responded: It will take the Indian government to court.<\/a><\/p>\n 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 \u201cbellwether for this ongoing battle about internet freedom,\u201d says Allie Funk, research director for technology and democracy at Freedom House.<\/p>\n Twitter\u2019s lawsuit focuses particularly on section 69A of India\u2019s Information Technology laws. Passed in 2000, the laws allow the government to issue blocking orders, requiring an intermediary\u2013in this case, Twitter\u2013to remove content that the government deems a risk to India\u2019s security or sovereignty. The court filing is not yet public, but it asserts that the government\u2019s requests are excessive, sometimes targeting entire accounts, according to sources familiar with the filing.<\/p>\n Jason Pielemeier, executive director at the Global Network Initiative, says that Twitter\u2019s lawsuit has implications beyond social media platforms. \u201cIt will reverberate for all intermediaries,\u201d he said. \u201cIntermediaries as defined by Indian law include mobile network operators as well as ISPs. So it\u2019s really applicable to everyone who could be seen as a choke point for content restriction or censorship.\u201d Should Twitter lose in court, it could open the way for the government to censor whole websites, as well as media on streaming platforms like Netflix or Amazon Prime, and could make it harder for platforms and companies to push back.<\/p>\n \u201cAround 2010 or 2011, the government framed the rules for those earlier powers,\u201d says Raman Jit Singh Chima, senior international counsel and Asia Pacific policy director at Access Now. These newer additions to the law in 2009<\/a> prevented platforms from publicly disclosing the blocking orders they received. \u201cEven at that time, there was a lot of criticism saying that the rules gave all the power to the executive branch.\u201d Twitter\u2019s case does not seek to challenge the constitutionality of 69A, but instead alleges that some of the blocking orders do not meet the government\u2019s own standards for establishing why content needs to be removed, and that such orders violate users\u2019 rights to free speech.<\/p>\n Because India\u2019s IT laws allow the government to issue blocking orders in secret, it makes it particularly difficult for individual users to understand why their content is being censored or to seek to reverse the government\u2019s decision. In 2018 the government issued a blocking order for the satirical website www.dowrycalculator.com<\/a>, owned by journalist Tanul Thakur, who was not informed why the site was blocked and started a legal battle to find out. The government asserted that Thakur\u2019s site promoted dowries, which are illegal in India but persist<\/a> in many places regardless. In 2018 Thakur told Outlook India<\/a> that the site was meant to point out this \u201cprominent social evil.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n