Facebook and YouTube told the court – Government can ban access of AIMIM supporter if ordered

0

Mumbai: Facebook and YouTube have said that they can ban the access of AIMIM (AIMIM) supporter. Social media platforms Facebook and YouTube on Monday told the Bombay High Court that if the central government or the court orders, they will ban the AIMIM supporter’s access to their website, on which to post inflammatory content which creates communal tension Is charged. Also Read – Hate Speech Controversy: Facebook’s top officer Aankhi Das received threats to kill her, complaint filed in Delhi cyber cell

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutt and Justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing an application filed by Mumbai resident Imran Khan. In this application, it has been requested to instruct the police to take action to upload hate speeches against Abu Faizal on social media. Also Read – Facebook Reaction on BJP leaders ‘Ignore Hate Speech’, said this thing …

Counsel for the petitioner had earlier said that Faizal is a supporter of Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). The petition requested removal of the videos uploaded by Faizal and a permanent ban on his access to all social media websites. In May this year, the High Court ordered YouTube and Facebook to remove the videos uploaded by Faisal. Also Read – How Facebook detects harmful content, what is artificial intelligence, learn

On Monday, Facebook advocate Darius Khambata and YouTube advocate Naresh Thakar informed the court that the videos uploaded by the user (Faisal) have been removed. Advocate of the petitioners Vivek Shukla told the court that Faisal has uploaded the videos even after his earlier clips were deleted.

Khambata said, “We (Facebook) can ban access to the site for this user (Faizal) if the central government passes an order as per the procedure laid down under the Information Technology Act or the court gives us such an order.” Thacker, appearing on behalf of YouTube, said that the URLs of earlier videos uploaded by the user (Faizal) have been removed.

The bench sought to know from Shukla whether the petitioner had approached the nodal officer appointed by the government under Section 69 (A) of the IT Act. Chief Justice Dutt said, “A procedure has been prescribed under the IT Act, under which a person can contact the nodal officer if he has a complaint about any material posted on the Internet. Why should the court intervene and pass the order. “The bench reserved its order on the petition.

(input language)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here