As government doubles down on Twitter, scribes for spreading ‘fake news’, journalist organisations call it attempt to terrorise

NEW DELHI: By ‘publishing’ ‘Fake News’ meant to spread hate and cause communal disturbance, Twitter is liable for criminal prosecution under law in India, newly minted senior advisor to the ministry of information and broadcasting, Kanchan Gupta, said on Wednesday.
Gupta, also a BJP functionary, was referring to the ‘viral’ video of an elderly man alleging assault in Ghaziabad that was shared on Twitter. The man’s claim was denied by UP police, which booked Twitter, some Congress leaders and journalists who put out social media posts relating to the case.
“Media in #India is free to publish facts and even fact-free opeds. But publishing devious lies in the garb of ‘fact-check’ and using social media to amplify canards that have potential to cause social divisions and violence is NOT media freedom. It violates constitutional law,” Gupta said on Twitter.
He also hammered in that Twitter, having failed to comply with the new Digital Media Rules 2021, which mandates the appointment of officials to redress grievances, had “lost” its “intermediary platform” status. “It has chosen to be publisher,” Gupta said.
Even as the government appeared to be doubling down on political activists, journalists and Twitter for spreading what they alleged was “fake news”, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) cautioned that this may be too simplistic a reading of provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000.
“The “intermediary status” is not a registration that is granted by the Government…. The present concerns arise from Rule 7 of the IT Rules, but Rule 7 only says that the provisions of Section 79 of the IT Act won’t apply to intermediaries that fail to observe the IT Rules,” IFF said in a series of tweets on Wednesday.
It also said that even if the IT Rules are presumed to be legal and constitutional, “where alleged non-compliance is for appointment of officers etc., when companies like Twitter are prosecuted, courts will decide if it is an intermediary and not the government.”
IFF argued that government’s claims that Twitter was no longer an intermediary was not backed by any order or gazette notification rooted in a legal provision. “We clearly state. The IT Act or IT Rules do not contain any power or process for grant or revocation of an intermediary status. There is no immediate penalty which flows from non-compliance beyond loss of immunity determined by Courts on evidence and legal submissions,” IFF said.
Meanwhile, the Press Club of India referred to the police action against journalists as “vendetta politics and highhandedness against the independent media”.
“The follow up news stories and tweets on the basis of the incidents which were already in the public domain in no way violate public order, spread hatred and social tensions as alleged in the FIR. The filing of the FIR clearly shows vendetta of Ghaziabad police to create a sense of state terror in the media and society at large,” Press Club of India said in a statement.
The Indian Women’s Press Corps also demanded that the FIR against journalists and news organisations be quashed and urged all media organisations and journalists to raise their voice against “motivated attempts” to isolate and attack journalists.