<p>The Supreme Court on Friday discharged Twitter for publishing contemptuous tweets by advocate Prashant Bhushan as the microblogging site contended it had got no editorial control and merely acted as a display board.</p>.<p>"We accept the explanation given by Twitter, that it is only an intermediary and that it does not have any control over what the users post on the platform," a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Arun Mishra said.</p>.<p>The court, which held Bhushan of having committed criminal contempt, noted the Twitter has also shown bona fides as it has disabled and blocked access to the two tweets posted on June 27 and 29, immediately after the cognizance was taken of the matter on July 22.</p>.<p>In response to the court's contempt notice, Twitter said that it had got no editorial control on the tweets and merely acted as a display board.</p>.<p>It was a global website providing a micro-blogging platform for self-expression of its users and to communicate, the Twitter said.</p>.<p>It also submitted that it was merely an ‘intermediary’ within the meaning as provided under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and thus is not the author or originator of the tweets posted on its platform.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday discharged Twitter for publishing contemptuous tweets by advocate Prashant Bhushan as the microblogging site contended it had got no editorial control and merely acted as a display board.</p>.<p>"We accept the explanation given by Twitter, that it is only an intermediary and that it does not have any control over what the users post on the platform," a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Arun Mishra said.</p>.<p>The court, which held Bhushan of having committed criminal contempt, noted the Twitter has also shown bona fides as it has disabled and blocked access to the two tweets posted on June 27 and 29, immediately after the cognizance was taken of the matter on July 22.</p>.<p>In response to the court's contempt notice, Twitter said that it had got no editorial control on the tweets and merely acted as a display board.</p>.<p>It was a global website providing a micro-blogging platform for self-expression of its users and to communicate, the Twitter said.</p>.<p>It also submitted that it was merely an ‘intermediary’ within the meaning as provided under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and thus is not the author or originator of the tweets posted on its platform.</p>
