Since 2009, the CDICWC has issued decisions regarding in the intermittent blocking of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and WeChat. In Febraury 2014, the CDICWC also stated it is considering blocking the app Viber, though it had not yet reached a decision.
Freedom House, Iran, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2013/iran#.U-ymB_ldVEI Small Media, Iranian Internet Infrastucture and Policy Reports, http://smallmediafoundation.com/term/1/11
Under the Computer Crimes Law, the Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Web Content (CDICWC) is the regulatory entity, which is entitled to issue orders against ISPs regarding the legality, blocking and removal of online content. The orders of the CDICWC do not involve judicial review and the ISPs must comply under severe penalties. The CDICWC is under the authority of the Supreme Court of Cyberspace.
On 13th, March, 2018, the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Ms. Heather Humphreys T.D., and the Minister of State for Training, Skills, Innovation, Research and Development, Mr. John Halligan T.D. welcomed the publication of the Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Law Provisions Bill 2018. The Bill is in response to a Report entitled “Modernising Copyright” published in October 2013, which was compiled by an independent Copyright Review Committee appointed in 2011.
(prepared by Swiss Institute of Comparative Law for Council of Europe)
This is one of series of country reports prepared for the Council of Europe in 2015. Other countries' reports, and responses from national governments, are available here. The studies undertake to present the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet.
(1) Twitter International Company was ordered to disclose data about the source of tweets about a whistleblower. The tweets, which included allegations of insurance fraud, are alleged to be defamatory. The whistleblower has brought a defamation action against the poster of the tweets, and asked the court to require Twitter to turn over information that would allow the whistleblower to identify the poster. (2) The Court order Twitter to turn over the poster’s name. The Court also issued an injunction to prohibit the destruction of any evidence or records related to the tweets.