ECNL submitted a public comment to the Facebook Oversight Board regarding the removal of a user’s post featuring a picture of Abdullah Öcalan, founder of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This particular case raises important concerns for the user’s freedom of expression, among other human rights at play, and also highlights content removals' impact on open and inclusive online civic space.
Key points from our comment are the following:
- The user was raising awareness of the conditions of imprisonment of Mr. Öcalan, namely solitary confinement. In that respect, the goal of the post was to encourage discussion of solitary confinement, and defense rights in general.
- There are no indications that the user was calling for or inciting violence, nor did the user praise any previous acts of violence.
- Discussing issues related to solitary confinement, detention, and defense rights do not constitute incitement to violence or “praising a dangerous individual or organization”, merely because the person subject to detention is considered by some countries as dangerous and/or belonging to a dangerous institution.
- The list featuring these individuals and organizations "proclaiming a violent mission or engaging in violence" is not made publicly available by Facebook. As such, even if the content was somehow considered to “praise” or coordinate terrorist content, the fact that the user couldn’t know that the PKK was considered “dangerous” prevented them from understanding what is permitted online or not.
- Removing users’ posts because they merely mention a individual or organization that is considered as “dangerous” by Facebook, especially when they raise other public interest issues such as solitary confinement, is an overly broad interpretation of the Community Standards and is unjustified. Such an approach disproportionately impacts human rights defenders, activists, political dissidents, journalists, and civil society organizations more generally. Indeed, the issues that they work on often center or relates to so-called dangerous individuals and organizations. Framed as “counter-terrorism” efforts and legal obligations, content take-downs disproportionately silence Muslim activists. While they are the primary target of terrorist acts, they are also most impacted by restrictions to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in this context. Open and inclusive civic space cannot exist under such tight – and unjustified – restrictions.
While there has been a lot of focus on the Trump suspension case, this particular case has seen very little public attention. This illustrates how powerful individuals who already have a megaphone, platform and visibility get elevated, whereas ordinary users, citizens and activists are marginalized and ignored.