![]() "However, this is not the case here," said Pal. There have been restrictions placed on Russian state media by the European Union."Īnd while there will always be certain kinds of hateful and offensive speech that is country-specific and platforms may not have the bandwidth to control its spread. "We've seen that what is happening in India thus isn't really all that unusual. "The content it produces is funded by the British government," said Grygiel. "This essentially says that outside of those countries where free speech will not be prosecuted by the state, Musk is a free speech absolutist so long as it works within his business interests," said Pal.Ī final consideration is that it isn't uncommon for nations to ban what they essentially see as information shared by another country's "state media," in this case, the BBC. Pal further noted that since it was never objected to by the government, it was a case of unilateral action by the platform than by the law of the land, which can be used selectively by the government against its critics, while enabling those that spread hate speech that suits the position of the ruling dispensation. "What Musk has done in regard to India is open up the accounts of some of the egregious spreaders of hate speech, including the pro-government celebrity, Kangana Ranaut, who was banned by the previous Twitter administration for her use of extreme speech on the platform." "If he chose to take on that fight, the Indian government can technically shut Twitter down," Pal continued. As such, Twitter simply cannot operate in India by being in contravention of Indian regulation. ![]() The United States Constitution's First Amendment doesn't apply overseas, and free speech absolutism doesn't transcend sovereignty. In other words, for Musk to operate in India, he must follow their rules and institutions. "He isn't a child trying to open a lemonade stand." ![]() "He can say all day he is a free speech absolutist, but sovereign nations are sovereign spaces that have control of their Internet service providers and how people can access those services," Grygiel explained. "When it comes to a request from a foreign nation, Musk has less control than he probably likes," said Jennifer Grygiel, associate professor of communications at the Newhouse School at Syracuse University. ![]() Musk may also be learning the hard way – or at least the expensive way – that it is hard to balance his personal principles and convictions with the laws and demands of sovereign nations. The current laws also allow for an appointee of the government to require the platforms to take things down, so it's arguable they don't have the choice in the matter with regard to what is made available." "For one, India is the single largest subscriber base for Whatsapp, Youtube, Facebook etc. "It is not possible for the social media platforms to push back against the Indian government," suggested Pal. Perhaps the bigger part of the story is now how quickly Elon Musk, who took Twitter private last year after he acquired the social media platform for $44 billion, responded to the calls from New Delhi to remove the links.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |