The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on March 28, took cognizance of a petition filed by YouTube journalist String’s M Vinod Kumar against the alleged arbitrary suspension of its accounts by Google LLC, the owner of YouTube. The plea was brought before a bench presided over by Justice B. Krishna Mohan.
In response to String’s petition, the Court has issued notices to both the Centre and Google, directing them to submit their responses within a period of four weeks. However, the Court has refrained from granting any interim relief to String at this juncture.
String, which purportedly garnered a monthly revenue ranging of Rs 4 to 5 lakhs through its suspended channels, has further sought Rs. 2 crore in compensation.
Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, representing String before the Court, emphasised on the gravity of the situation, stating, “This is a matter of fundamental rights violation. I am a YouTube journalist, and my accounts have been arbitrarily suspended by Google.”
Responding to the arguments presented by String’s counsel, the Court deliberated on the matter, asserting, “We can issue notice, let them file a response.”
The Court’s decision to issue notices to both Google and the Centre underscores the seriousness with which it views String’s allegations of arbitrary account suspension, signalling the commencement of legal proceedings in this regard.
Read More: Gangster Mukhtar Ansari Dead: End of mafia raj; know all about the notorious “Bahubali”
A brief background of this case
On September 20, 2023, YouTube, undertook stringent measures against the “String” channel, permanently deleting it from the platform due to multiple violations. YouTube justified this drastic action by citing severe or repeated breaches of their Community Guidelines as the primary rationale for the channel’s removal.
In an email screenshot shared by String, YouTube emphasised its obligation to take such actions to “protect other users” on the platform. The platform’s policy explicitly states that channels found violating Community Guidelines or Terms of Service may either receive a strike or face termination.
In response to the suspension, Vinod, the owner of the String channel, initiated legal action by filing a petition at the Andhra Pradesh High Court, demanding compensation of Rs. 2 Crore from Google for arbitrarily removing the channel from YouTube. The Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is being pursued through a Writ Petition by the Petitioner.
Significantly, the String had previously published a video titled “Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl,” following which the account faced a one-week suspension. Subsequently, the video was reposted on “String Hindi,” after which all channels owned by the petitioner were indefinitely terminated.
Additionally, the petitioner has been prohibited from creating a new channel with the same name and barred from uploading videos. Furthermore, channels that bore no connection to the video titled “Video: Bill Gates EXPOSED- Rockefeller Funds Fertility Vaccine SCAM I#BirthControl” were also terminated by YouTube without providing any justification.
What Vinod told Organiser?
Organiser called up Vinod following the judgement by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on March 23 and the following story mentions excerpts from that conversation:
On February 11, 2021, Vinod received an email from YouTube concerning a video uploaded on its YouTube channel titled “Arrest Rathee I Zubair I Barkha NOW! (Greta Toolkit Exposed).” The email notified the him that the mentioned video had been removed by YouTube, citing a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting harassment, threats, and cyberbullying.
Also Read: Gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari dies of heart attack in Banda Medical College
Subsequently, on February 16, 2021, he received another email from YouTube regarding a video uploaded on its YouTube channel titled “Hang Me If Guilty – Modi [Godhra Riots] Part 2.” The email informed him about the removal of the video due to a violation of YouTube’s policy against hate speech.
Further, on July 9, 2022, he received an email from YouTube regarding a video titled “Capital Punishment for ZUBAIR or NUPUR? [Single Handedly Responsible] I Court Systems,” uploaded on its YouTube channel. YouTube informed him that this video had been removed for contravening YouTube’s policy prohibiting violent or graphic content.
In response to these removals, on September 28, 2023, Vinod lodged an appeal with the Grievance Redressal Cell of YouTube. Consequently, on November 17, 2023, YouTube responded to the aforementioned appeal.
Additionally, on October 6, 2023, Vinod filed an appeal/representation via email against the abrupt and unconstitutional termination of its channels String and String Hindi with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting but to no avail. The ministry replied to each point made in the complaint calli it simply fair and nothing unconstitutional.
It is pertinent to mention here that, there have been a series of legal cases against YouTubers, including the notable instance of Kunal Kamra Vs. Union of India, where the Division Bench of the Honorable High Court of Bombay deliberated on the powers of intermediaries, resulting in a Split Verdict. Within this case, Justice Neela Gokhale issued a dissenting judgment, highlighting significant points.
Justice Gokhale emphasised that labelling any news or article as ‘fake, false, or misleading’ necessitates a thorough examination involving the presentation of evidence and hearing from affected parties. She argued that such assessments should ideally be conducted by the judiciary or a quasi-judicial tribunal. Additionally, she criticised the impugned Rule as a direct attempt to infringe upon the freedom of speech of the media, aiming to censor opinions critical of the Government.
Furthermore, in the precedent-setting case of Indian Express Newspaper Vs. Union of India and Others (1986) I SCC 133, it was established that while the term “Freedom of Press” is not explicitly mentioned in Article 19 of the Constitution, it is implicitly encompassed within Article 19(1)(a). This freedom entails protection from interference by authorities that could impede the content and circulation of newspapers. It was asserted that freedom of the press constitutes the cornerstone of social and political discourse.
Therefore, the company demands the issuance of a Writ, order, or direction akin to Mandamus or any other directive instructing Google and YouTube to compensate the Petitioner for the losses and damages incurred due to their unlawful actions. The requested compensation amounts to Rs. 2,00,00,100/- (Rupees Two Crores and One Hundred Only), payable to the Petitioner and to be borne by Google and the Centre.
As per media reports, recently YouTube announced that it had removed over 2.25 million videos for breaching its Community Guidelines in India during the fourth quarter of 2023, spanning from October to December.
Additionally, globally, YouTube stated that it had taken down over nine million videos for violations of Community Guidelines during the same period. Notably, YouTube highlighted that more than 96 per cent of these removed videos worldwide were initially flagged by automated systems rather than human review.
Furthermore, among the videos flagged by machines, 53.46 per cent were removed before receiving a single view, while 27.07 per cent had between one and 10 views before their removal.
Citing the same report, Vinod said that his channel was removed due to mass reporting and not community guidelines. He shared a Tweet by self-proclaimed fact-checker Mohammad Zubair from Alt-News who boasted and took credit of removing String Channel from YouTube.
Following the suspension of Vinod’s channel, Zubair wrote on X, “This String guy had shared a video on his YouTube channel targeting me, @dhruv_rathee, @khanumarfa and @RanaAyyub. We sent an email to YouTube reporting his videos. And the rest is history”
Vinod said, the standard format for getting a channel removed is by having a strike thrice in a month. However, Vinod’s channel faced no such strike even for once, still his channel was removed by YouTube in the name of community guidelines, which is bizarre.
Vinod, who had a strat-up company and employed as many as seven employees, is now jobless. His employees left the company following the suspension of the channel. He started a new OTT platform but it is still in the budding phase. He says he has now started working independently. But the suspension has hit him hard not only careerwise but financially as well.
Vinod is determined to fight the legal battle and get his channel back on YouTube. The matter is currently subjudice, Organiser will keep bringing details from this case for our readers.
Comments