[governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil
Matthias C. Kettemann
matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at
Thu May 31 03:46:54 EDT 2012
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
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 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 <http://www.apc.org> | erotics.apc.org
> <http://erotics.apc.org> | www.takebackthetech.net
> <http://www.takebackthetech.net>
> Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>
>
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120531/eb51cb0d/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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