Latest news with #GlobalGovernmentAffairs
Engadget
13 hours ago
- Business
- Engadget
X sues New York over hate speech disclosure law
Social media company X has filed a lawsuit against the state of New York over a law governing hate speech. The social network's Global Government Affairs account posted about the suit, claiming the law's required disclosures infringe on First Amendment protections for free speech. The Stop Hiding Hate Act, which is slated to take effect this week, would require social media companies to report on how they define and moderate content including hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, harassment and foreign political influence. X sued California in 2023 about a similar state-level law regarding content moderation. A panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a hold on the lower court's initial ruling in favor of California. While the law did endure, a settlement between the state and the company at the start of 2025 led to the elimination of the provisions that X claimed were unconstitutional.
Express Tribune
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Religion and Pakistan's relations with India
Listen to article Religion became a major factor in the recent military encounter between India and Pakistan. Analysts said that the popular mood in Pakistan was a key factor as the government weighed whether and where to retaliate against its larger, more powerful rival when India used its air force to launch attacks on Pakistan in early May. Many Pakistanis applauded the military's response to the Indian strikes. Some took to the streets to applaud actions against a country that was poorly treating its large Muslim minority. In Islamabad, authorities urged citizens to join the civil defence brigades. The United States and China called for a diplomatic solution, but it was unclear who would lead those efforts. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with both Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Jaishankar, the Indian foreign minister. "At this moment in time, there is one thing that has to stop which is a back-and-forth and a continuation, and that is what we are focused on right now," State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a news briefing on May 8. Other countries with interest in keeping peace in South Asia also got involved with both India and Pakistan as the two were drifting towards a military confrontation. Jaishankar was approached by Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia's minister of state for foreign affairs, for an unannounced visit to Delhi. He also met with the Iranian foreign minister, Syed Abbas Aragchi. The Modi government in India was using all the means at its disposal to paint a positive picture of its situation with respect to Pakistan. Modi sought to define the conflict in religious terms. It named the operation against Pakistan as Sindoor, the vermillion that adorns Hindu brides and a likely reference to Hindu women grieving over the loss of their husbands in the killings by Muslim fighters in the Indian occupied part of Kashmir who had appeared from the dense forests in the area. Pravin Sawhney, the editor of an Indian defence magazine and a former army official, said he was troubled by the religious connotation of the name of the operation which local media said was chosen by Narendra Modi himself. He said that politicising India's secular military would be harmful to unit cohesion. "A political message was being sent to the people of India, that Hindus were killed in Kashmir, so we have to take revenge." The Hindu, an Indian newspaper based in the country's more secular south, deleted a social media post on May 7 that said that three Indian jets had been downed because there was no "on record official information", fueling concerns among journalists that Modi's administration might intensify its clampdown on the media. The Global Government Affairs team on X said that it had received orders from the Indian government to block more than 8,000 accounts in the country. "To comply with the orders, we will hold the specified accounts in India alone," the post from X read but "we disagree with the Indian government's demands," characterising them "as contrary to the fundamental right of free speech." Across Kashmir - where Indian and Pakistani forces continued to exchange artillery shells across the contested border - people braced for long nights. There was considerable frustration among people on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), the name the border in Kashmir was given after an earlier confrontation. A story by its correspondents Anupreeta Das and Salman Masood in The New York Times on May 10, that covered the use of aerial drones by the two sides as the weapon of choice, was written following interviews with affected people on ground. "Speaking on Friday [May 9] morning, residents in both parts of Kashmir said they were exhausted; some said it was the worst shelling they had experienced in nearly three decades. 'We're fed up with running every time the shelling begins,' said Atta Muhammad, 70, a resident of Uri, a town on the Indian side of Kashmir. 'It's better that both countries go for a nuclear war and kill us all. At least that will rid us of this suffering'." The steps taken by India were most likely to increase resentment on the part of the way the Indian occupying force was treating the local populace. They were destroying the houses that were believed to be the residences of those who were upset about the way the Indian authorities were ruling the part of Kashmir that was under their control. New Delhi was also encouraging Hindus to move into the parts of the state that already had people of their faith in residence. This was the demographic strategy aimed at reducing the proportion of Muslims in the population. Drones manufactured at home by the two countries were a relatively new weapon in their arsenal. Early on May 10, a day after India said that Pakistan had sent waves of drones toward Indian airspace, the Pakistani military accused Indian forces of launching air-to surface missiles that targeted at least three air bases across Pakistan. Among them was a key installation near the capital Islamabad. The base is named after Air Marshal Nur Khan who had occupied several high positions in the Pakistani government. It is located on the main road that connected the cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. On May 9, Indian defence officials said Pakistan's military had attempted aerial intrusions in 36 locations with 300 to 400 drones to test India's air-defence system. Both India and Pakistan have been developing their respective drone-building industries in recent years, and both import drones from foreign allies - Pakistan from China, for instance - but neither country appears to have any that can carry nuclear warheads, according to James Patton Rogers, a drone expert at Cornell University. And while he calls the conflict "incredibly worrying", he also notes that drones generally are used as the lowest possible escalatory step in a conflict, usually to pressure and test the opponent's air defences. According to one expert, "Although many countries now have drones in their arsenals, this is the first time the unmanned aerial vehicles were used by the two countries against each other." The use of drone warfare may have been inevitable, but it could reshape the way the world views hostilities between India and Pakistan, much as it did after the two countries became nuclear powers in the 1990s.
News18
14-05-2025
- Business
- News18
India Blocks X Account Of China's Mouthpiece Global Times Days After Action Against Pakistani Handles
Last Updated: Last week, the social media platform X said that it had started blocking 8,000 accounts in India following executive orders from the government The official X account of Chinese mouthpiece Global Times has been blocked in India, days after similar action was taken against several Pakistani handles. However, the website of Global Times is still visible in the country. Last week, the social media platform X said that it had started blocking 8,000 accounts in India following executive orders from the government. In a post on X's Global Government Affairs handle, the platform said it received executive orders from the Indian government requiring it to block over 8,000 accounts in the country 'subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees".
The Wire
11-05-2025
- Business
- The Wire
‘Outlook' Has X Account Withheld, Later Restored In India
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Media 'Outlook' Has X Account Withheld, Later Restored In India The Wire Staff 2 minutes ago It is unclear what triggered the move against the magazine. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Donate now Logo of Outlook magazine. New Delhi: Outlook 's X account was withheld in India and later restored on Sunday (May 11), with the magazine saying the action was imposed without warning. It is unclear what triggered the move against Outlook, which is the latest among a string of media houses or journalists to have their X accounts withheld in India in response to a legal demand. Other accounts that X withheld from India due to legal demands are that of the BBC's Urdu service, The Kashmiriyat and Maktoob Media news outlets, and Jammu and Kashmir-based senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin. The first of these has since been restored. After its account was withheld, Outlook said in a press release that its account was 'blocked without any warning'. 'We have written to X, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to restore it immediately. We will keep the readers posted on the developments,' said Outlook. It added: ' Outlook has upheld the highest quality of objective and balanced journalism for thirty years, and will continue to do so.' Once its account was restored on Sunday evening, the magazine said: 'We appreciate the prompt response and thank our readers for their continued support.' X had announced via its Global Government Affairs division on Thursday that it received orders from the Union government to withhold no less than 8,000 accounts on its platform and that it would comply with the demands despite disagreeing with them. Subsequently, Global Government Affairs had its X account withheld and later restored in India. The Wire had its website blocked in India on government orders on Friday and restored on Saturday. The Union information and broadcasting ministry informed The Wire that its site was blocked based on a request regarding a particular article on its website. The developments occurred amid heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, which escalated into military operations by either side against the other until a ceasefire was announced on Saturday afternoon. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News 130 Content Censorship Notices Issued Under Home Ministry's Sahyog Portal Since October: Report 'Hugely Welcome': UK, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia Welcome India-Pak Ceasefire MHA Directs States and Union Territories to Hold Civil Defence Mock Drills on May 7 The Government Needs to Focus on 'Mule Accounts' to Curb Cyber Scams 'Pahalgam Attackers Communicating With Pakistan-Based Handlers, Our Response Proportionate': Govt Unravelling of Dollar Hegemony: With Capitalism's Crisis Comes China's Quiet Revolution The Deep Love Affair Between Mangoes and the Mughals The Vanquished West: 50 Years After the End of Vietnam War, a Memoir of Resistance by the Global South Will the Judiciary Counter the Sangh's Attack on the Indian Constitutional Order? About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Scroll.in
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Why India's censorship of news media online without stating reasons is unlawful
Internet censorship Vineet Bhalla MaxPixel CC BY The Indian government's move to block a news website and several social media accounts amid escalating tensions between India and Pakistan without any orders stating the reasons for this may violate the legal framework that allows online content to be taken down, experts said. The latest block was imposed on Friday morning on The Wire. The website of the media organisation's English-language section was blocked by internet service providers on orders from the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The blocking order was not communicated to The Wire . The website was restored by the government on Saturday after it took down a report flagged by the authorities. On Thursday, social media platform X's Global Government Affairs account said that the Indian government had ordered the firm to block over 8,000 accounts in India. These included 'accounts belonging to international news organisations and prominent X users', it said. Among the X accounts blocked are those belonging to news portals BBC Urdu , Maktoob Media , The Kashmiriyat and Free Press Kashmir . X's Global Government Affairs unit stated that the government had not specified which posts of the accounts in question had violated Indian law. Earlier on Thursday, the Instagram account of United States-based news portal Muslim was blocked in response to legal demands by the government. On April 29, the YouTube channel of 4 PM News, a digital news outlet, was blocked. YouTube said that the channel's page was 'unavailable in this country because of an order from the government related to national security or public order'. It is not yet clear what led the government to order the blocking of the channel. The Centre is empowered to order takedown of online content under the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the authorities can do so only after laying out their reasons for doing so in writing. The spate of blocking orders, experts warned, will hurt the free flow of information in India – and weaken democracy. X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025 The post by X's Global Government Affairs unit on the Indian government's request to block 8,000 X accounts. The Centre is empowered to order any online content to be blocked under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Such an order can be made on the grounds that the content harms India's sovereignty and integrity, national security, defence, international relations, public order or could incite a crime to be committed related to these grounds. These authorisations broadly correlate with the grounds for the freedom of speech and expression to be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The rules for blocking content are laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Under these rules, anyone can ask the government to block online content under Section 69A. If found valid, the request goes to a committee of senior bureaucrats. The platform that hosts the content is usually notified and allowed to respond. In emergencies, content can be blocked first and reviewed later. But the rules do not explain what counts as an emergency. Since there is no appellate or review provision under the rules, the only way for a blocking order to be challenged is for a writ petition to be filed before a High Court. In a 2015 judgement, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the 2009 rules. However, it made the exercise of the blocking power conditional on orders laying out the reasons for doing so in writing. This is so that the orders can be scrutinised by a High Court if they are challenged. The government's practice of issuing blocking orders without disclosing them to the affected parties violated the Supreme Court's 2015 judgement, said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director and Senior International Counsel at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. Chima had argued in the Supreme Court in the case. Technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary criticised the opacity of the government's conduct. 'The government of India has established a structure wherein it can order the blocking of content without transparency,' she said. 'Such broad powers to remove content are not envisaged under Section 69A.' Despite this, the Union government has in recent years made a practice of arbitrarily taking down online content without notifying account users. This was especially evident during the farmers' protests in North India in 2024. This power to block content critical of the authorities without any checks was bolstered by the Karnataka High Court in 2023. The court ruled that the state was empowered to issue blocking orders not only for certain posts, but for entire accounts on X. It also affirmed that the government could extend such orders indefinitely. It added that the Centre was not legally required to notify the user or owner of the content about the blocking order. It was sufficient merely to notify the online platform or website host of the order. Without such notification, it is impossible for the owner of a blocked website or social media account to know why they have been blocked and challenge such orders before a High Court. A petition challenging the confidentiality of blocking orders is pending before the Supreme Court. Choudhary pointed out that this leaves the target of a blocking order with no legal recourse. 'Because of the secrecy, they don't have enough information to appeal even if they have the resources to approach the High Court,' she said. If the blocking of 4PM News was ordered under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and its accompanying rules, then the legal order must be disclosed. Without it, we are left to guess — Was the entire channel blocked permanently? What specific content was found to be… — Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) (@internetfreedom) April 29, 2025 The Internet Freedom Foundation, a digital rights organisation, was among many civil society groups that criticised the arbitrary and opaque blocking of 4 PM News. Chima also flagged the possibility of the government circumventing the already-lax requirements of Section 69A through a path of even less resistance: the use of takedown notices under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. Section 79 states that online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, could lose their safe harbour status if they fail to remove or disable access to content that is used to commit an 'unlawful act' despite being told to do so by government authorities. Removing this status would mean that the platforms would be liable for the content in question. 'What the government does through Section 79 is that they send a platform a takedown notice for some account claiming that something is illegal,' he said. 'This is a threat to the company: You've been brought to actual knowledge about illegal content. If you don't take this down, you'll be directly legally responsible for what's happening.' If the company refuses, it may face 'potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees', as X's Global Government Affairs account stated in its statement on Thursday. 'Section 69A is an overbroad provision that doesn't have sufficient checks and balances for a constitutional democracy like India,' Chima contended. 'What the government has been trying to do very often is not even follow those checks and balances.' In March, X filed a lawsuit against the Union government in the Karnataka High Court against this provision. It argued that the government is misusing Section 79 to censor online content to bypass the requirements of Section 69A. Representative image. Credit: Reuters This trend of opaque blocking orders is especially harmful during a time of rampant disinformation and misinformation about rising tensions between India and Pakistan, experts say. Chima contended that when information is withheld, it is likely to harm India's interests. 'The lesson we've seen from conflicts is that the Constitution needs to continue operating, including during military situations because that is the only way you ensure the integrity of our institutions,' he said. 'That is what the armed forces also serve for, right? They're there to uphold the constitution and defend it.' He described the blocking orders as unconstitutional. 'It is clearly violative of India's Constitution to block an entire news service, particularly without giving them a hearing or without even telling them if their reporting was causing specific security concerns,' Chima said. 'The government seems to be trying to shut them down from saying stuff on the internet because we have a broken web censorship system that allows them more power without accountability.' Tanveer Hasan, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation, agreed. He expressed concern about the chilling effect of these blocks on free speech and the ability of journalists to report critically on the government. 'The biggest media houses, YouTube channels and the ones with the largest Instagram following are speaking for the state,' he said. 'Why does the regime want to pick on smaller and almost inconsequential players?' He added: 'The taking away of the space to have any other opinion or any other narrative that does not fit the mainstream under the guise of law – that is most alarming.' We welcome your comments at letters@
