X defends satire in Delhi HC in Ramdev personality rights case
Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a case filed by Baba Ramdev alleging massive misuse and commercial exploitation of his persona, image and identity on various online and social media platforms.
The lawyer for X, formerly known as Twitter, opposed the “indiscriminate” blocking of accounts in the personality rights case when nothing “egregious” had happened, saying such orders had a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
He also referred to a post (meme) mentioned in Ramdev’s case and argued that it was a protected satire in democracy.
“This is pure satire. I cannot understand how this violates personal rights. This is protected. Satire is protected from the personal right to fair comment and public speaking. Satire is a part of democracy. There is no democracy without freedom of expression,” he said.
X’s lawyer also said that one of the objectionable accounts bearing his name on the platform was merely a parody account and should therefore be protected.
Similarly, the Meta Platforms lawyer said that while he wasn’t against removing egregious content, there had to be a “tangible monetization” by a third party, especially when a global blocking order was sought. He also stated that the most offensive content belongs to news organisations, and if there are any complaints, Ramdev should sue them for misinformation.
While expressing concerns that fair reporting would be affected, the lawyer said, “You cannot have a personality against a news channel by putting your name in a news article.”
Both X and Meta Platforms said they had removed some offensive content.
Ramdev’s lawyer said that social media platforms must be fair and that the content in question damaged Ramdev’s reputation.
Ramdev, in his case, alleged that various organizations on social media platforms used AI-generated deepfake videos, doctored images, etc. to commercially gain and exploit various aspects of his personality. He said that he published and distributed it, which amounted to an infringement of his personality and publicity rights and violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“The pattern of AI manipulation and impersonation risks irreversible dilution of Plaintiff’s spiritual personhood in circumstances where the sanctity of a spiritual leader’s identity is recognized as warranting greater protection,” the lawsuit said.
“The distribution of these infringing materials is continuous, unrestricted, and instantly reproducible, and continues despite the knowledge and hosting of major intermediaries such as Google (YouTube), Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook/Instagram), 10, and X-Corp. The infringing content remains widely available within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, resulting in recurring damages and a permanent cause of action.”
The next hearing of the matter will be held on February 18.
