<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-05-22T08:41:11Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:verfassungsblog.de/78282" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://verfassungsblog.de/oai/repository/</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <header>
      <identifier>oai:verfassungsblog.de/78282</identifier>
      <datestamp>2024-02-14T00:58:53Z</datestamp>
      <setSpec>posts</setSpec>
    </header>
    <metadata>
      <dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
        <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/54581b17916817b0</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/absolute-truths-and-absolutist-control/</dc:identifier>
        <dc:title>Absolute Truths and Absolutist Control - On India’s “Fact Check Unit” over Social Media</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Kalra, Kartik</dc:creator>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:date>2024-02-14</dc:date>
        <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>content moderation</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Social Media</dc:subject>
        <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
        <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
        <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
        <dc:description>Last week, the Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India, comprising a split verdict on the constitutional validity of the Information Technology Rules, 2023. The rules install an institutional regime for determining – and warranting takedown by social media intermediaries – of content relating to the Central Government deemed “fake, false or misleading”. This regime was challenged on three main grounds – first, its violation of citizens’ free expression due to “fake, false, or misleading” speech being constitutionally protected; second, the pedestalization of state-related information, such that it enters public discourse with a single, truthful formulation, as being an illegitimate and disproportionate measure; and third, the violation of natural justice in enabling the state to determine truth and falsity concerning itself.</dc:description>
      </dc>
    </metadata>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
