Delhi HC's order to remove social media content globally is bad news for the future of internet

In recent weeks, India’s High Court of Delhi put another nail in the coffin of the internet as we currently know it. The court granted an order requiring Facebook, Twitter and Google to remove certain content globally, based on that content being defamatory under local law in India.This decision underlines a worrying trend of a “race to the bottom” for internet freedom, where the scope of jurisdiction claimed by the courts is global.If widely adopted, this may result in a situation where the only content that remains online is that which complies with all the laws of every country in the world.

Another brick in the wall

Social media apps.[/caption]It also referred to a 2017 Australian case in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled Twitter must globally block any future posting by a specific user.The most recent decision referred to was a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in which the CJEU concluded the EU’s e-commerce directive doesn’t prevent courts in EU countries from ordering social media sites to block or remove information worldwide.Following the CJEU’s decision, several leading commentators argued that, while much has been made of the CJEU’s apparent green light to global takedown orders, in reality this was just a decision about the dividing line between EU law and national law.(Also read: Google, stay away from content - it's not your job)Even if this is true, headlines around the world didn’t communicate such a nuanced outcome. And with the current decision from India, we can see with complete clarity how that case is now being used by foreign courts. This shows how careful courts must be as to the messaging of their judgements.It’s, of course, possible to suggest this type of application of an EU law case is a mistake by the Indian court, rather than the CJEU — and there is certainly merit in such an argument. However, the CJEU’s decision was a missed opportunity to clearly communicate a general stance against global orders as being standard.

A missed opportunity to explain geo-location technologies

Silver linings, and the way onward

Although the above probably makes clear that I see the Indian court’s decision as a setback, there are also some positive aspects that ought to be highlighted.In its decision, the court clearly acknowledged the importance of the scope of jurisdiction issue and the implications of global orders.(Also read: India’s 'Let's ban it' approach to anything that makes it uncomfortable online is a violation of human rights)The court also devoted considerable effort to discussing case law from around the world. This is an important step if we are to see a global harmonisation in approach. That said, I’d like to add that currently harmonisation seems to be taking us in an undesirable direction, with global blocking/removal orders as standard.Given the court had taken account of the international environment, it’s disappointing, not to say odd, that it didn’t properly engage with the international law issues raised by the defendants. For instance, defendants mentioned the doctrine of comity, which demands courts take the international impact of their decisions into consideration.While the Indian court decision is currently under appeal, there’s no point denying the future of the internet looks bleak when it comes to scope of jurisdiction.(Also read: Major internet lobby group criticises govt plans to regulate social media content)The case discussed here sets an important precedent, not just for India but also the rest of the world. And much is at stake.Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Professor, Bond UniversityThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

More from News Analysis