Social Media (SM) was started to provide an independent and unbiased platform for people to create independent content in order to communicate with each other and express their thoughts. As social media was free, it became an instant hit with the people and gradually emerged as the most important communication medium for the masses. However, it does come with its own set of side effects.
The moment people got addicted to SM, the technology giants revealed their true colours. Contrary to the claims of being an independent and fair platform that respects freedom of expression, it has become a prejudiced platform where the platform owners block anyone for expressing contrary views. It has turned into a medium where freedom of expression depends on the users’ religion and political preferences.
Twitter for all its tall talks about respecting Freedom of Expression (FOE), functions in exactly the opposite way. Twitter has established itself as a crucial part of the Islamo-Leftist-Liberal ecosystem that openly promotes Leftist and Islamic policies. The platform is flush with users and content that openly mock Bharat and Hindu religion with active support from Twitter.
Twitter is known for its highly biased “Community Guidelines“, which are used to harass anyone who has a contrary (read pro-Bharat, pro-Hindu) point of view. If a person questions the evil practices of Islam, Twitter straightaway blocks them using its community guidelines as an excuse but the platform never acts against the highly sinister propaganda against the Hindu religion and Hindu deities.
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court (HC) has slammed Twitter for not taking action against an account that published highly objectionable content about a Hindu Devi. Court rapped the social media giant and stated that the micro-blogging platform is not at all bothered about the sensitivities of Hindus.
Court asked Twitter to explain its blocking policy
A bench headed by acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla, directed Twitter to explain the procedure it follows to block the accounts, as there were instances of certain individuals being blocked on the platform and remarked that had such an incident happened in relation to another religion (read Islam), the Twitter would have been more sensitive and careful.
“It is ultimately boiling down to this that people you feel sensitive about… The content, you will block them. You are not bothered about sensitivities of other people in other regions of the world, of ethnicities. We dare say that if these kinds of things were done in relation to another religion, you would be much more careful, more sensitive”, the bench remarked.
The bench also directed Twitter to file a detailed response explaining its policy regarding permanently blocking an account on its platform. The bench also directed the Central government to file a counter-affidavit and place on record the SOP (standard operating procedure) with Twitter relating to blocking access to an account or information.
The court exposed the skewed policies of Twitter
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by advocate Aditya Deshwal, who submitted that a Twitter handle named “Atheist Republic” has posted several objectionable content against Maa Kali. The petitioner had claimed that Maa Kaali was represented in a highly outrageous and disgraceful manner by AtheistRepublic, and such content is a grave violation of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The complainant also submitted that despite several complaints, Twitter neither took down the offensive content nor suspended the account. In November, the High Court expressed its displeasure on Twitter’s conduct and ordered it to take down four posts.
Advocate Sidharth Luthra, who was appearing for Twitter, made an excuse that “Twitter cannot block any individual” and cannot take action against allegedly objectionable content in the absence of a court order. To which the honourable Judges exposed the double standard of Twitter and retorted “Then why have you blocked Mr (Donald) Trump?”.
The bench further stated that since Twitter did not object to the court’s earlier prima facie view in relation to the removal of the objectionable content, it should have taken action on its own in the present case when more offending material was pointed out.
Harish Vaidyanathan, who appeared for Central Government said that there is a procedure to accept the complaints and block or suspend Twitter accounts for posting obnoxious content. To which the bench directed the government to examine the objectionable content and decide if an action could be taken under the Information Technology Act. The court has listed the matter for the next hearing on September 6.
Here it is important to understand that Twitter has already lost the ‘immunity granted to intermediaries‘ under the IT Act, 2000. This was because of its failure to comply with the revised IT Intermediary Guidelines that came into effect on May 26, 2021.
As the case is already in court and the judiciary is also observing the biased approach of Twitter against the Hindus and Hindu deities, we hope that they will make Twitter fall in line and act according to the law of the land. The judiciary has the right opportunity to send the right signal to all the social media platforms and intermediaries who are offering space to spread nefarious propaganda against Hindus and Hindu Dharma.
All the technology giants must be made to realize that there would be legal and social repercussions if they allow their platform to be used against Hindu Dharma. Since Hindus have understood the underlying motives of these platforms, they have also started raising their voice against this prejudice in the name of “freedom of expression”.
(Featured Image Source: LawStreet)