In a subsequent court filing, the American government charged X Corp.( previously known as Twitter ) with being” routine non-complaint system.”
The government stated that” X – Corp does not follow the law of the land ,” and added that this reduced” the authority of law, courts, and executive.”
In response to X’s appeal in a court in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, the government submitted the document, which the BBC was able to access.
Regarding the processing, X has made no comment.
In an appeal, X challenges a new great court ruling that overturned its request to block specific accounts and posts from the government. In addition, the judge had fined X 5 million pounds($ 60, 208,£ 48, and 450 ) for disobeying several of these orders for more than a year.
It requested that the company deposit 2.5 million pounds, or half of the fine, and held the remaining funds until more instructions.
In a courtroom filing on August 24 in response to X’s charm, the state argued that the judge may dismiss the demands of the business. When the Reuters news agency initially reported the story earlier this year, information about the registration was made public.
According to the filing, the government claimed that all of its blocking orders were issued in accordance with legal procedures and in the best interests of India’s protection and independence. The government claimed that in a number of cases, X either disobeyed blocking orders for an extended period of time or flagged accounts and tweets after blocking them” for reasons unidentified.”
According to the government, this was intentional non-compliance and an” abetment to acts of publishing prohibited information.”
Additionally, it claimed that by submitting the plea, X attempted to” exert pressure on the government” while disobeying its directives. The government also made it clear that” the state is not seeking to block every tweet, despite the fact that there are millions of users in India and that thousands of comments are posted by Indians.”
India has been requesting X to stop information more frequently. It blocked 3, 417 Twitter URLs in 2022, compared to just eight in 2014, which was a record.
He added that it was also requested to ban government-critical journalists. According to Mr. Dorsey, the American government had threatened to close the program and search employees’ homes across the nation.
These claims were refuted by the authorities, who also charged the business with breaking local laws.
For the past few years, X and the state have been at odds. According to the government, the company runs the risk of losing its intermediary status and the” safe harbor” protection provided by law.
Platforms like Facebook and X that host user-generated information and protect them from responsibility for what users post are covered by these protections. Losing this security measure, according to experts, would be a fatal blow to any social media company that tried to work in India.
In its most recent entries, the government made this clear to the jury. For instance, it stated that in accordance with American law, X was required to appoint an” resident grievance officer” by mandate, but it didn’t do so until the jury warned that this non-compliance might result in punishment.
The government stated in its affidavit that” habitually, the Appellant platform ] X ] ensures compliance only after the court warns it of action / consequences for non-compliance.”
According to X, the government’s orders to block a number of accounts related to widespread farmer protests went against his( then Twitter ) principle of defending free speech and were not” consistent with Indian law.”
The government issued a show-cause notice to the organization after observing that X’s” conformity rates with government requests have been considerably low.”
In another instance, the federal emphasized that the business just followed the take-down order when it was brought up in court.
The government emphasized that following Hindu law cannot be seen as an” solution or barrier to business” and that if a company disobeyed, it ran the risk of losing safety and facing legal repercussions.
Platforms cannot” take the role of arbitrator / regulator of online content” and define” what free speech is ,” it further warned.
The incidents mentioned by the federal occurred prior to the 2022 acquisition of X by businessman Elon Musk. The business has followed attack orders under Musk’s direction. Mr. Musk stated that the company had to compel” follow local government rules” in order to avoid being shut down following a conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the US.
This is the first instance of a social media firm suing the American government for takedown orders, so the outcome is important.
Rights campaigners have criticized the president’s content blocking requests for being ambiguous and unclear. The judge’s decision in this case may serve as a benchmark for what constitutes free speech on the internet for users in India.
Learn more BBC stories about India here: