the terminology used in its public facing Bullying and Harassment Community Standard and internal guidance provided to content moderators. Prior to this change, the Community Standard prohibited content mocking “serious physical injury” while the internal guidance prohibited mocking a “medical condition.” According to Meta, “medical condition” is the broader term. The Board welcomes this change as the use of different terminology may lead to confusion and inconsistent enforcement. However, the Board is concerned that it may not be clear to users that “medical condition” includes “serious physical injury” and recommends that Meta makes this clear to its users. II. Legitimate aim State restrictions on freedom of expression must pursue a legitimate aim, which includes the protection of the rights of others. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the term “rights” to include human rights as recognized in the ICCPR and more generally in international human rights law ( General Comment 34, para. 28). The Board finds that Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy is directed towards the legitimate aim of respecting the rights of others, including the right to equality and nondiscrimination, and to freedom of expression. Among other aims, these policies seek the legitimate aim of preventing the harms resulting from bullying and harassment, discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, and respecting the freedom of expression and access to Meta’s platform for those targeted by this expression. These aims are linked, as according to the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Gender Justice, “online violence against women has particular significance for freedom of expression” and “social media platforms have an obligation to ensure that online spaces are safe for all women and free from discrimination, violence, hatred and disinformation.” III. Necessity and proportionality The principle of necessity and proportionality provides that any restrictions on freedom of expression "must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they 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). Applied to the company, the Board finds that Meta’s policy, under which this content should have been removed, constitutes a necessary and proportionate response to protect users from targeted on-line bullying and harassment. The policy respects the equal right to