How Facebook Inc.’s Oversight Board’s Expulsion of Former President Donald Trump from Social Networks Balances Political Leader’s Freedom of Speech with Responsibility to Prevent Hateful Rhetoric from Inciting Violence I couldn’t decide whether to take it.
A 20-member board of directors, including legal scholars, activists and the former prime minister, supported Mr. Trump’s suspension from Facebook, but said the company needed to do more to prepare for a volatile political situation. Stated.
The company’s policy on these issues is very important not only in the United States, but also in countries such as India, Brazil, Myanmar and the Philippines. According to critical reviews by the United Nations and other agencies, political leaders there turned to social networks to arouse hatred and disseminate false information.
“Facebook has become a de facto essential medium for political discourse,” the board said in a decision Wednesday. “We are responsible for both enabling political expression and avoiding serious risks to other human rights.”
The Supervisory Board acknowledged Facebook’s credit for assessing Mr. Trump’s actions during the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. This urged a ban on his service against the Rabat Action Plan, a globally recognized test for distinguishing between hatred and incitement to violence. What should be protected as freedom of speech?
The 6-point Rabat program takes into account the context and intent of the speech, the speaker, the content itself, its reach, and the imminent harm. The then president, Mr. Trump, told protesters in a Facebook video that they were “very special,” even though they were still rushing to the Capitol. Mr. Trump’s account had 35 million followers.
The board concluded that Mr. Trump “used the president’s communications authority to assist the attackers,” and the violation of Facebook’s policy on praising violence was “serious in terms of human rights abuses.” .. He didn’t exercise the power to tell Facebook that Mr. Trump must be banned permanently.
However, the board has accused Facebook of not having the process of reapplying it or other tests to decide when to regain Trump’s privileges. It gave Facebook six months to determine Mr. Trump’s position and urged the company to develop a policy to handle a crisis in which existing options could not prevent imminent harm.
Facebook said it was considering feedback.
Mr. Trump’s suspension was the first time Facebook had blocked the current president, prime minister, or head of state. In March, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was launched for 30 days for disseminating false information about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). His administration called the penalty “digital totalitarianism.”
Since Facebook has become a major source of information, political leaders’ statements are of media value and important to government functioning, thus giving political leaders more room in most cases. Nevertheless, the crackdown on rule-breaking politicians and the broader political speech created government backlash and new regulatory threats in India, Hungary, and Mexico.
Many civil society supporters say the company is ready to silence political objections and does not have a toolkit to deal with the many ways authoritarian governments operate its services. I will. This includes Instagram and WhatsApp.
The problem is particularly acute in India, where users have criticized Facebook since last year for being slow to crack down on hate speech and other actions by politicians from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Meanwhile, the government has demanded that Facebook remove posts that are critical of the pandemic process. This includes posts by local lawmakers.
At the heart of the board’s order in the Trump case is to clarify the actions that all Facebook users, including Trump, can take to permanently ban them and ensure that the temporary suspension is lifted. The view is worthy.
The United Nations Convention, which has established a widely respected but voluntary framework for international human rights law, states that freedom of expression is a fundamental right and therefore people should be exposed to arbitrary quarrels by Facebook. Claims not. The company has promised to protect such human rights in its corporate policy announced in March, including its annual follow-up report.
Nate Persily, a law professor at Stanford University, said Wednesday: “If you believe in the principles of international human rights law that guide your decisions, it’s hard to understand how a lifetime ban is allowed for content breaches. I tweeted.
However, human rights law also provides that people must be protected from violence and other forms of harm.
Salamoris, director of the New America Open Technology Institute, said the board’s decision was that Trump repeatedly posted problematic posts during the preparatory period until January 6, and the impact on the attack affected him. “It’s a particularly terrible case justifying the release of the platform,” he said.
The board recommends that Trump should not be revived until he stops making false allegations about widespread fraud in the elections he lost last year and denies support for the people involved. I refused to go down the road. Parliamentary attack.
If Facebook adopted that requirement, Trump’s return could be far away. He called Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 presidential election a “big lie!” And repeated this claim until Monday. — — Palais Dave / Reuters
Facebook faces a human rights dilemma in a political speech
https://www.bworldonline.com/facebook-confronts-human-rights-dilemma-on-political-speech/ Facebook faces a human rights dilemma in a political speech