Legal Demands
Published on January 11, 2021
Legal Demands
Published on January 11, 2021
02.
Overview
This section covers the latest data about third-party legal demands that compel Twitter to remove content under our Country Withheld Content (“CWC”) policy.[1]
There are also details about the latest trends in global volumes of requests, accounts specified, and the total compliance rate. The total compliance rate is a simplified metric that combines all of Twitter’s removal actions––accounts withheld, Tweets withheld, and accounts TOS.
Twitter’s operations were affected due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic.
Some notable changes since the last report:
03.
Analysis
Big picture
Twitter received 42,220 legal demands to remove content specifying 85,375 accounts. This is the largest number of requests that we’ve received since releasing our first transparency report in 2012. We withheld or otherwise removed some or all of the reported content in response to 31% of these global legal demands.
Country insights
This record number of legal demands originated from 53 different countries, including Hungary, Jamaica, and Taiwan, which appear in this report for the first time.
Top requesters
96% of the total global volume of legal demands originated from only five countries (in decreasing order): Japan, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and India.
Legal demands from Japan increased by 59% this reporting period, accounting for 47% of global requests received. The 19,924 requests from Japan were primarily related to laws regarding narcotics and psychotropics, obscenity, or money lending. The next highest volume of legal demands came from Russia, comprising 21% of global legal demands. 54% of those requests pertained to Russian laws prohibiting the promotion of suicide. South Korea accounted for 11% of global legal demands, its largest volume of requests to date. Turkey, which has historically been the highest requester until the previous reporting period, ranked fourth this period (10% of global legal demands) and dropped out of the top 3 requesters for the first time. India submitted the fifth largest number of requests (7% of global legal demands) to remove content. Notably, the number of accounts specified by requests from India increased by 69% this reporting period.
Verified journalists and news outlets
158 accounts of verified journalists and news outlets from around the world were subject to 333 legal demands, a 22% decrease in the number of accounts since the previous reporting period. The majority of these legal demands originated from India (149) and Turkey (142).
In total, two Tweets withheld in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and one Tweet was withheld in Brazil under paragraph X of Article 5 of the 1988 Federal Constitution. We took no action on the remainder of the reported verified journalists and news outlets accounts due to them falling under our protected speech policies.
Twitter filed legal objections for court orders from Turkey that involved verified journalists or news outlets, arguing that those decisions are contrary to Turkish protections of freedom of the press. None of those objections were successful during this reporting period.
Periscope
We received three requests to remove content from Periscope, referencing three accounts in total. Two of these requests originated from the United States, while the other was from Turkey. One account was suspended under Twitter’s policy prohibiting child sexual exploitation, another was taken down under the illegal or certain regulated goods or services policy, and the third account was removed under our policy against posting violent threats.
04.
Withheld Content
04.
Withheld Content
This data includes all legal demands where we employed our Country Withheld Content ("CWC") tool during this period, resulting in either Tweets or accounts being withheld. Where permitted, Twitter provided notice to identified account holders and published copies of the underlying legal demands that resulted in withheld content to Lumen for public review.[2]
We have now used CWC in 18 countries in response to legal demands: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. During this reporting period, we withheld content at the account or Tweet level in nine of those 18 countries.
Examples (Lumen links to corresponding legal demands available below[3]):
05.
Un-withheld Content
05.
Un-withheld Content
Content is typically un-withheld (i.e., restored to Twitter) after a successful appeal of an original court order or because a legal procedure expired. Un-withheld content may pertain to accounts or Tweets that were withheld prior to this current reporting period.
We un-withheld content in India during this reporting period.
Examples (Lumen links to corresponding legal demands available below[4]):
06.
TOS Violations
This section includes instances where, in response to legal demands identifying the specified accounts or Tweets, content was removed from Twitter after determining it violated Twitter’s TOS.[5] We review all reported content for violations of Twitter’s TOS before assessing it further independent of any underlying claims.
We take an objective approach to reviewing legal demands for possible violations of Twitter’s TOS. The fact that the reporters in these cases may be involved in litigation, or may be government / law enforcement officials, had no bearing on whether any action was taken under Twitter’s TOS. This approach is consistent with our commitment to free expression.
Examples:
07.
Majority no action
This section includes instances where, in response to a legal demand, no action was taken on the majority of the reported content, as most accounts / Tweets were determined not to violate Twitter's TOS or to merit withholding under CWC. Generally, we do not take action on newsworthy content or political speech protected under UN-recognized principles of free expression consistent with Twitter values.
Examples:
Local Law(s)
Published on January 11, 2021
Local Law(s)
Published on January 11, 2021
02.
Overview
This section includes reports based on local law(s) from trusted reporters and non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) identified by the European Commission.
There are also details about the latest trends in global volumes of requests, accounts specified, total compliance rate, accounts withheld, Tweets withheld, and accounts TOS.
Some notable changes since the last report:
03.
Analysis
All reported content is first reviewed for potential violations of Twitter's TOS. Any content that is found to be violating is removed from the platform. Content that does not violate Twitter's TOS is then reviewed for potential withholding based on the local law(s) of the reporting jurisdiction.
Trusted reporters and NGO's
Broadly speaking, the organizations that submitted reports to us work on protecting and furthering human rights, and preventing issues such as racism, xenophobia, or homophobia. Twitter has formed partnerships with trusted reporters from Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands to date. In addition, the European Commission designated a number of other European NGOs to assist in evaluating industry implementation of the Code of Conduct on countering illegal online hate speech.
Twitter received 19% more reports based on local law(s) from trusted reporters and NGOs, impacting approximately 7% more accounts during this reporting period.
Examples (Lumen links to corresponding legal demands available below[6]):
04.
German Network Enforcement Act
04.
German Network Enforcement Act
The Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, aka NEA) is a German law that came into effect on January 1, 2018. We’re including information about it in this section of the transparency report as any content withheld under this law uses the same local law messaging as available in other countries.
Twitter is required to publish a biannual report in German regarding our handling of complaints submitted from users or complaints bodies pursuant to the law. The most recent report was published in July 2020, covering the reporting period of January 1 to June 30, 2020, and is available to download from the Germany country report.
Footnotes
Some cases received during this reporting period may be in progress and may not be closed at the time of reporting.
Each request may identify multiple items to be removed. For example, a single request may ask us to remove individual Tweets, an entire account, or both.
We may not comply with every request or all aspects of a request for a variety of reasons. For example, we do not comply with requests that fail to identify content on Twitter.
Legal Demands
2. Court orders are often accompanied by a non-disclosure order that prevents Twitter for notifying a specified account holder.
Where permitted, Twitter has published copies of removal requests to Lumen, at times redacted, that have resulted in content being withheld. We try to redact as little information as possible. Redacted information usually consists of personally identifiable information, but may also include defamatory statements or information that we are prohibited from publishing.
5. “Twitter’s TOS” is made up of Twitter’s Terms of Service and the Twitter Rules. More information about Twitter Rules enforcement is available here.