[governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil
Jac sm Kee
jac at apcwomen.org
Fri Jun 1 03:05:09 EDT 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Sala: What if facebook was merely trying to comply with US laws
> and other countries laws that expressly prohibit obscenity.
>
> MM: Sala, you are taking a commercial/juridical stance. I am taking
> a political stance. Two points. First, I do not think that is up to
> FB to give concreteness to a notion of nudity or obscenity. This is
> a very complicated debate, of public interest, that cannot be
> carried out by the board of company alone, whose role is,
> naturally, to maximize profit and minimize risks.
JK: +1
Second, I personally do not care to which country law they
> are complying with. My point is that they are enforcing a FB policy
> norm that does not echo laws and common sense in Brazil and this
> interpretation is going against the fight of feminist movements and
> movements fighting for sexual rights here. We already have our
> internal disputes with conservative movements, as was pointed out
> by Jac, when he mentioned the Azeredo Bill. We do not need this
> external push from FB giving a restrictive interpretation of what
> is obscene and what is moral. It just reinforces the conservative
> forces we are trying to fight. So, FB juridical compliance with
> some country's law is translating into a political setback here.
JK: To add to this as well, companies (and this is Google's regularly
heard mantra) often say that look, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to
comply to national laws. But in reality, this isn't always the case
and the criteria and decision-making processes isn't clear. E.g.
Google banning abortion on google adwords for a list of countries,
including Malaysia, where abortion is perfectly legal under particular
circumstances. So compliance with national law isn't even always the
case. More often than not, over-compliance/paranoia/cultural
relativist assumptions with national laws constricts free flow of
information and expression - which again, makes me worry when the
primary point of engagement is t national level. compared against e.g.
womenonweb who had their picture that describes how to use an abortion
pill censored by FB, and raised huge protests against which, which
resulted in reinstatement and an apology. I guess this is around
economic power, and is profit-driven, but then consumer/user rights
can play a part?
j
>
> Of course, more countries with a more conservative approach to
> sexual rights could argue the opposite, that FB disrespects local
> moral standards. What is the solution? It can't be one size fits
> all, otherwise we will only see ankles of women in FB.
> Fragmentation on service in each jurisdiction? I don't think this
> should be the way... But I think that, definitely, this should be a
> theme for global discussion.
>
> Badouin, thanks! I appreciate. We will keep in touch.
>
> Best, Marília
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann <
> matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> since Facebook's "Abuse Standards" were leaked in February we
>> know according to which policies Facebook policies content. I've
>> summed at the discussion here:
>> http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html.
>>
>>
>>
>>
There are a number of issues involved. One is that prima facie and in
>> purely legal terms a social networking company can choose to
>> censor certain content, if its users have agreed to submitting to
>> this censorship, as part of the terms of service to which they
>> submit to when creating an account.
>>
>> But there are limits to this: A company cannot engage in
>> arbitrary censorship. Further, as soon as social network
>> providers are so successful that their networks are a
>> "quasi-public sphere" they lose, it can be argued, the right to
>> use terms of service to limit international standards of freedom
>> of expression. The more successful and public a service is, the
>> fewer restrictions may be allowed.
>>
>> As I've heard pointed out, Facebook pursues something of a
>> 'college morality'. Sex is bad, but violence is ok. The "Abuse
>> Standards" bear this out.
>>
>> Back in February I wrote in my blog:
>>
>> "Among pictures which are not allowed, we find those showing
>> "Any OBVIOUS sexual activity [...] Cartoons/art included".Users
>> are also not allowed to "describe sexual activity in writing,
>> except when an attempt at humor or insult."
>>
>> "Digital/cartoon nudity" is not ok, but "Art nudity" is fine.
>> People “using the bathroom” are not allowed, neither are
>> "[b]latant (obvious) depiction of camel toes and moose
>> knuckles".
>>
>> Facebook also bans "[s]lurs or racial comments of any kind", hate
>> symbols and "showing support for organizations and people
>> primarily known for violence." But the Guidelines caution that
>> "[h]umor overrules hate speech UNLESS slur words are present or
>> the humor is not evident."
>>
>> Since the importance of Facebook as an international forum of
>> aggregation and articulation of ideas is growing, the leaked
>> document amount to what it believes should be an international
>> moral consenus on allowed content. This would be problematic as
>> the document is not free of bias and should be vetted more
>> carefully against international law on freedom of expression.
>> With regard to the generally excepted exceptions from freedom of
>> expression, however, most of the standards pass muster.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Content violative of human rights of others will always exist.
>> Social network providers are obliged to protect their users from
>> that content but at the same time must ensure that they do not
>> infringe freedom of expression unnecessarily.
>>
>> What Facebook should now do is officially publish the Abuse
>> Standards, clarify the moderation process, and start a vigorous
>> debate among its users on the international standards of freedom
>> of expression." ****
>>
>> For more, see
>>
>> http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html
>>
>>
>>
Kind regards
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 31.05.2012 09:01, schrieb Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> a glimpse into how FB implements its censorship policies in
>>> practice:
>>>
>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/low-wage-facebook-contractor-leaks-secret-censorship-list/
>>>
>>>
>>>
In those countries, the people make their laws through the
>>>> parliament and one can say that they are legitimately
>>>> exercising their sovereign right to determine what is
>>>> "acceptable" versus what is "not acceptable" - do we then
>>>> dare say that they are wrong. Every country has the sovereign
>>>> right and the people therein the sovereign right to determine
>>>> for themselves what is "public morality".
>>> actually, the state's duties to protect public morality is
>>> precisely what provides legitimate cause of governments to
>>> intervene and create more laws around censorship of the
>>> internet - and this needs a closer and more critical analysis
>>> than accepting as is. e.g. in brazil, the problematic azeredo
>>> bill was first pushed under economic arguments (preventing
>>> financial fraud) - didn't work. but when it was pushed under
>>> child protection arguments, it almost went through without a
>>> hiccup and galvanised a lot of support (which also resulted in
>>> a huge protests - but different story).
>>>
>>> There are two opposing schools of thought and maybe more, one
>>> holds the
>> view that what is true in the real world must hold true in the
>> virtual world. Paraphrasing that would mean that laws that are
>> applicable in real time should be applicable in the internet. The
>> other believes that there should be separate laws in real life
>> and separate laws for the Internet. Every event/transaction has
>> to be analysed according to its own merits so that the danger of
>> painting everyone with the same brush is reduced.
>>
>>
>>> pornography is another obvious one, but then what does this
>>> constitute and how is it defined can be a problem - as can be
>>> seen the FB scenario. not the first time they have come across
>>> problems, e.g. they are notorious for blocking photographs of
>>> women breastfeeding. compare this against e.g. time magazine's
>>> recent controversial cover of a woman breastfeeding, which is
>>> okay under US laws - so, lowest common denominator
>>> internationally?
>>
>> This, I would respectfully submit is not the correct test.What
>> is culturally acceptable in Miami, Florida, US is not the same as
>> in Qatar, Malaysia etc. To dictate to them what their public
>> morality won't buy us any ground as far as advocacy for freedom
>> of expression is concerned and only serves to alienate without
>> educating and giving them an opportunity to learn and grow. See
>> the tests that the US Supreme court used in the Miller case.
>>
>>
>>> this would mean anything less than e.g. fully closed face and
>>> ankles and wrists would be unacceptable. that doesn't quite
>>> make sense either.
>>>
>>> That was never said. For the record, the discussions have been
>>> about
>> namely the following:-
>>
>> 1. Is the right of freedom of expression an absolute right? Is it
>> an unfettered right? 2. Does the right of freedom of expression
>> come with responsibilities? 3. Who should be responsible when it
>> comes to the Internet? 4. Are there exceptions under
>> International law? 5. What are those exceptions? 6. Are there
>> instances where the exceptions have been abused? 7. How can civil
>> society advocate responsibly?
>>
>>
>>
>> apc has been doing a research on examining how internet
>> regulation and
>>> regulation of sexuality goes hand-in-hand, and it's thrown up
>>> some interesting points. from e.g. international aid for
>>> infrastructure that comes encumbered with policy requirements
>>> and setting national agendas on e.g. the issue of child
>>> pornography, to the contentious geopolitical negotiations
>>> around sexual speech, health, rights and citizenship. more
>>> info: http://erotics.apc.org
>>>
>>> i've also been reading the conversations around EC and
>>> democratization of IG on this list with interest. and the thing
>>> that bugs me about looking at democratization starting from
>>> national democratic processes is that the potential of the
>>> internet to facilitate democratic participation and
>>> deliberations is precisely because it is currently still
>>> somewhat slippery from complete state control, as opposed to
>>> e.g. broadcasting media and books and streets.
>>
>>
>> I think that when making a broad assertion that you give
>> specific examples so that there can be discussion and debate.
>>
>>> so i am reluctant to say that states should ahve oversight and
>>> negotiate it from there.
>>>
>>
>> There is some misunderstanding. In any sovereign jurisdiction,
>> civil society, private sector and the state each have their
>> place. The foundation of multistakeholderism stems from the basic
>> notion that the governments, private sector and civil society
>> have clear functions. What is enhanced cooperation domestically
>> within a nation and what does it look like outside the country?
>> What should it look like?
>>
>> although i understand that global governance and oversight is
>>> different from national, but when states become the highest
>>> hierarchy of authority, then my point of entry for engagement
>>> as civ soc would be from that level. it's not something i am
>>> optimistic about..
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> anyway, 2 cents, jac
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What FB is doing will potentially impact the way that
>>>> younger generations
>>>>> will perceive liberty (including body expression and
>>>>> sexual liberty) and morality. And, in my country, FB is
>>>>> actually being more conservative than traditional media,
>>>>> endangering the progress we made on recent decades when it
>>>>> comes to body expression women's rights and sexual rights.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Is it facebook that is being conservative? Afterall, they
>>>>> are merely trying to comply with the laws of the land. I
>>>>> think that if people have an issue, they should take it up
>>>>> with their respective Parliaments and have it debated.
>>>>> These comments are restricted to the "Freedom of
>>>>> Expression" but when it comes to "Privacy" and "misuse" of
>>>>> information and data - I have different views.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I do not feel comfortable to place this sort of decision on
>>>>> FB's hands, with no chance of democratic debate, with no
>>>>> chance to scrutinize these policies they impinge on users.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are good discussions and Turkey and Thailand and the
>>>>> US make
>>>> fascinating studies.
>>>>
>>>>> Best, Marília
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom
>>>>>>>> of expression,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would one who uses FB think they can express
>>>>>>> themselves outside of the FB ToS/AUP?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are being
>>>>>>>> restricted by the same platforms that are praised and
>>>>>>>> known for
>>>>>>> enabling
>>>>>>>> their exercise; b) there is a privatization of
>>>>>>>> Internet regulation,
>>>>>>> subtle,
>>>>>>>> based on contracts (terms of use)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you argue that Internet companies have NO ToS?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> , but yet, dangerous; c) I see no adequate
>>>>>>>> forum where we should take this issue to be analized
>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>> participatory and
>>>>>>>> balanced way in the global arena.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor should there be IMHO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address
>>>>>>> indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get
>>>>>>> there." Jon Postel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio
>>>>>
>>>>> Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> - -- Jac sm Kee Women's Rights Policy Coordinator Association
>>> for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org |
>>> www.takebackthetech.net Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>
>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679
>> 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Univ.-Ass. Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)
>>
>> Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen
>> Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
>>
>> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich
>>
>> T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) F | +43
>> 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog |
>> internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Teaching and
>> Research Fellow
>>
>> Institute of International Law and International Relations
>> University of Graz
>>
>> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria
>>
>> T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F |
>> +43 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog |
>> internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile
>> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
- --
Jac sm Kee
Women's Rights Policy Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net
Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyGmlAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmWNYIAJhzUg/ZzigJaWxQTTwzm3LR
IJWtCGRCAg8nr2AWvB5nGgTfBUvJY9X1jRVn4J2djzHVvxhpMdnJbMBwcVUPDj22
pgUgwa63pTPZGMH7jDEY56Ugf1l0j33WZ4kFalE1Gm1+Uf1DM9QF8tma5QuQ/04t
3w7dnhBYx7pb6G7b7qb+6wHtpz/+OGAvW5Gf5E58lQszcfhqvTwLogt9fB55V4Ze
J2IMltgXGUwU3GLzaHMYJ5ri9dFwT62Ei54WAfJ+J/C/aek/IcQXB34xp9SEYn1B
Kc99I+lHOwoqgXnyTEfjM5cA+akftcBZ3j0vKGlfRw4R/QZUKPI5KHzvTDNyoCg=
=1Ktc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list