Twitter is taking on the Indian government, and the stakes are high. The company’s lodging of a lawsuit to dispute overbroad content-blocking orders could mark a pivotal moment for internet speech around the world.
Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that while Twitter has in the past resisted blocking the posts of Indian journalists, activists and politicians, the company acquiesced this month after apparently receiving a noncompliance letter. The firm geographically restricted tweets from writers including Post Opinions contributor Rana Ayyub as well as advocacy organization Freedom House. The decision reflects the difficult position Twitter found itself in: bound by the law wherever it chooses to operate, even when that law doesn’t reflect its values — and with the safety of its employees at stake. Twitter’s next move, similarly, revealed its limited avenues for recourse. The company filed a complaint in court alleging not that the government’s law is itself impermissible but that it is being impermissibly applied.
Twitter’s petition argues that the government has tried to smother more tweets than the law authorizes. That’s in line with critics’ claims that the administration has been more interested in scrubbing out dissent and unflattering reporting than in protecting anyone’s safety. The platform also contends that authorities have failed to provide justification for their demands, or to review past takedowns to ensure they remain necessary. The case is, essentially, a test of whether free expression in India will continue to thrive — whether, when an unjust law unjustly applied makes it all but impossible for a company to protect speech, the judiciary will step in to protect it.
This battle is not only about Twitter, and not only about India. Some countries have already imposed rules as restrictive as India’s revised code; others are considering it. The same goes for the so-called hostage-taking laws threatening employees that intimidate firms into closer cooperation. Not only social media companies should be resisting them. For all the responsibility Twitter may have to its users, or India’s government to its citizens, democracies around the world committed to civil liberties also have a duty to fight for the internet’s future.
The Post’s View | About the Editorial Board
Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the Editorial Board, based in the Opinions section and separate from the newsroom.
Members of the Editorial Board and areas of focus: Deputy Editorial Page Editor Karen Tumulty; Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus; Associate Editorial Page Editor Jo-Ann Armao (education, D.C. affairs); Jonathan Capehart (national politics); Lee Hockstader (immigration; issues affecting Virginia and Maryland); David E. Hoffman (global public health); Charles Lane (foreign affairs, national security, international economics); Heather Long (economics); Molly Roberts (technology and society); and Stephen Stromberg (elections, the White House, Congress, legal affairs, energy, the environment, health care).