3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. violence. It did not have the potential to “intimidate, exclude, or silence other users.” Instead, Facebook’s decision illegitimately suppressed the voice of a person raising a human rights concern. 8.3 Compliance with Facebook’s human rights responsibilities Removing this content was inconsistent with the company’s commitment to respect human rights, as set out in its Corporate Human Rights Policy. In relation to terrorist content, Facebook is a signatory of the Christchurch Call, which aims to “eliminate” the dissemination of “terrorist and violent extremist content” online. While the Board is cognizant of human rights concerns raised by civil society concerning the Christchurch Call, it nevertheless requires social media companies to enforce their community standards "in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms." I. Freedom of expression (Article 19 ICCPR) Article 19 states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information. The right to freedom of expression includes discussion of human rights (General Comment 34, para. 11) and is a “necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability” (General Comment 34, para. 3). Furthermore, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provides that everyone has the right to “study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, through these and other appropriate means, to draw public attention to those matters” (A/RES/53/144, Article 6(c)). The user sought to highlight concerns about an individual’s solitary and prolonged confinement. The Board notes that international bodies have raised human rights concerns about such practices. The Nelson Mandela Rules set out that states should prohibit indefinite as well as prolonged solitary confinement as a form of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of punishment ( A/Res/70/175, Rule 43). Discussing the conditions of any individual’s detention and alleged violations of their human rights in custody falls squarely within the types of expression protected by Article 19 of the ICCPR, as emphasized in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders seeks to protect. While the right to freedom of expression is fundamental, it is not absolute. It may be restricted, but restrictions should meet the requirements of legality, legitimate aim, and https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 13/21