YouTube fined for not removing ‘offensive’ post
TNN | Jul 9, 2018, 12.19 AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has slapped a cost of Rs 9.5 lakh on YouTube for failure to remove offensive content against a Delhi-based doctor on its channels across the world.
Justice Najmi Waziri asked YouTube to pay Rs 50,000 for each of the nine hearings held in the past two months for wasting judicial time. The company had claimed it could only ensure no one could access the derogatory posts against the doctor from India. It maintained the posts can’t be removed.
A trial court had in June 2015 directed YouTube and Google, the parent company, both based in USA, to remove the content from YouTube channels across the world.
“The case has been listed for nine times in the last 64-odd days. On each occasion, time was sought by the appellant (YouTube/Google) to comply with the directions of the court. Today, the court is informed that the directions cannot be complied with on account of technological reasons,” Justice Waziri noted.
HC decided to levy costs when Google’s subsidiary company first argued it had complied with the trial court order since content had been disabled from its website and cannot be accessed by any person having access to the internet from India. Later, it claimed the company had no technological control to ensure that posts are permanently removed from its main server and can’t be accessed even outside India. In the end, it sought to withdraw its appeal challenging the trial court injunction.
The court allowed it to withdraw its plea on the condition that the company won’t raise any of the arguments already addressed in the order and pay cost of Rs 50,000 per hearing to the doctor who was at the receiving end of posts targeting her IVF practice on the platform.
Out of the total amount, HC said Rs 1 lakh should be paid to HC Mediation and Conciliation Centre as costs.
The bench took a dim view of YouTube’s plea of helplessness due to technical reasons. Justice Waziri observed that he is “unable to see as to how the contents being posted on the platform of the appellant can govern or steer the functioning of the platform itself.”
TNN | Jul 9, 2018, 12.19 AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has slapped a cost of Rs 9.5 lakh on YouTube for failure to remove offensive content against a Delhi-based doctor on its channels across the world.
Justice Najmi Waziri asked YouTube to pay Rs 50,000 for each of the nine hearings held in the past two months for wasting judicial time. The company had claimed it could only ensure no one could access the derogatory posts against the doctor from India. It maintained the posts can’t be removed.
A trial court had in June 2015 directed YouTube and Google, the parent company, both based in USA, to remove the content from YouTube channels across the world.
“The case has been listed for nine times in the last 64-odd days. On each occasion, time was sought by the appellant (YouTube/Google) to comply with the directions of the court. Today, the court is informed that the directions cannot be complied with on account of technological reasons,” Justice Waziri noted.
HC decided to levy costs when Google’s subsidiary company first argued it had complied with the trial court order since content had been disabled from its website and cannot be accessed by any person having access to the internet from India. Later, it claimed the company had no technological control to ensure that posts are permanently removed from its main server and can’t be accessed even outside India. In the end, it sought to withdraw its appeal challenging the trial court injunction.
The court allowed it to withdraw its plea on the condition that the company won’t raise any of the arguments already addressed in the order and pay cost of Rs 50,000 per hearing to the doctor who was at the receiving end of posts targeting her IVF practice on the platform.
Out of the total amount, HC said Rs 1 lakh should be paid to HC Mediation and Conciliation Centre as costs.
The bench took a dim view of YouTube’s plea of helplessness due to technical reasons. Justice Waziri observed that he is “unable to see as to how the contents being posted on the platform of the appellant can govern or steer the functioning of the platform itself.”
No comments:
Post a Comment