British Columbia’s Attorney General expressed strong concerns over a social media company, referred to as X, challenging a legal order to remove a non-consensual intimate image from the internet. Niki Sharma emphasized that the company is contesting a clear directive from B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal to eliminate an image that violated the province’s Intimate Images Protection Act.

The tribunal instructed X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, to take down the image following a complaint by a transgender individual from B.C., who remained anonymous in court documents, seeking protection under the law earlier this year.

In response, the company filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court stating that it promptly complied with the tribunal’s order by geo-blocking access to the image within Canada but not globally. The tribunal imposed a $100,000 penalty on the company in September for failing to remove the image globally, deeming it insufficient to block the content solely in Canada while allowing it to be visible in other regions.

X’s court petition argues against a global blocking order, claiming that it would challenge the sovereignty of foreign nations and pose a threat to free speech worldwide. The company expressed concerns that such orders could empower hostile foreign countries to demand the removal of statements made by Canadian political leaders.

The petition highlighted the potential consequences of allowing different countries to issue global blocking orders based on their individual laws, warning that it could result in the internet displaying only content approved by the most restrictive jurisdiction globally.

Moreover, X contended that enforcing such orders would establish a dangerous precedent legitimizing practices of authoritarian regimes that do not prioritize freedom of speech and access to information. In response, the complainant labeled the company’s petition as an abuse of process and an indirect challenge to the tribunal’s lawful directive.

Attorney General Sharma announced the province’s intention to intervene in the case to uphold the intimate images law, emphasizing that under B.C. regulations, such images must be removed promptly upon order without exceptions. She stressed that limiting access within the province’s borders is insufficient, advocating for comprehensive protection for survivors of non-consensual intimate image sharing.