3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. Restrictions on freedom of expression should pursue a legitimate aim. The ICCPR lists legitimate aims in Article 19, para. 3, which includes the protection of the rights of others. The Board notes that because Facebook reversed the decision the user appealed against, following the Board’s selection of that appeal, the company did not seek to justify the removal as pursuing a legitimate aim but instead framed the removal as an error. The Community Standards explain that the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy seeks to prevent and disrupt real world harm. Facebook has previously informed the Board the policy limits expression to protect “the rights of others,” which the Board has accepted ( case 2020-005-FB-UA). c. Necessity and proportionality Restrictions on freedom of expression should be necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim. This requires there to be a direct connection between the expression and a clearly identified threat (General Comment 34, para. 35), and restrictions “must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected” (General Comment 34, para. 34). As Facebook implicitly acknowledged by reversing its decision following the Board’s selection of this case, the removal of this content was not necessary or proportionate. In the Board’s view, the breadth of the term “support” in the Community Standards combined with the misplacement of internal guidance on what this excludes, meant an unnecessary and disproportionate removal occurred. The content in this case called for a discussion about ending Öcalan’s isolation in prolonged solitary confinement. It spoke about Öcalan as a person and did not indicate any support for violent acts committed by him or by the PKK. There was no demonstrable intent of inciting violence or likelihood that leaving this statement or others like it on the platform would result in harm. The Board is particularly concerned about Facebook removing content on matters in the public interest in countries where national legal and institutional protections for human rights in particular freedom of expression are weak (cases 2021-005-FB-UA and 2021-004-FBUA). The Board shares the concern articulated by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism in her submissions, that the “sub-optimal protection of human rights on the platform [...] may be enormously consequential in terms of the global protection https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 15/21