X (Formerly Twitter) Appeals Indian Court Ruling on Content Removal
X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, is appealing an Indian court ruling that it failed to comply with government orders to remove content.
The company argues the ruling could lead to more censorship in India. X filed an appeal this week against a June court decision imposing a 5 million rupee ($60,560) fine for not removing certain content. The 96-page filing warns that upholding the ruling will "embolden" the government to issue more takedown orders that violate the law.
The case dates back to before X was acquired by Elon Musk. The Tesla CEO is currently in talks over major India investments.
X says ruling gives India "unfettered" censorship powers
X argues there should be clear rules on when an entire account can be blocked, rather than specific posts. Without this, the government has "untrammeled" power to censor.
Indian authorities have previously ordered X to act on content supporting an independent Sikh state, alleged misinformation about farmer protests and criticism of the COVID-19 response.
Hearings expected soon after "landmark" filing
The appeal was filed on August 1 by law firm Poovayya & Co. Hearings typically follow within days of such landmark filings. X has major business interests in India. Musk is discussing a car factory and seeking market entry for his SpaceX venture.
The case will be closely watched for indications of India's future social media regulations. X argues "free speech is under attack" from "growing censorship". But the government insists regulation is needed to maintain order.
X (formerly Twitter) has appealed an Indian court ruling imposing a fine for not removing certain content. X argues the ruling could lead to more censorship in India.
X's filing warns upholding the ruling will "embolden" the government to issue more takedown orders that violate law.
Hearings are expected soon on the appeal. The case will be closely watched as an indicator of India's future social media regulations. X says "free speech is under attack" but the government argues regulation is needed.