A disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression – Fails to meet the legality principle – Gap between publicly available information and internal rules. 

These are the conclusions of  the Facebook Oversight Board in one of its first decisions on content removal by the platform. Facebook's action was assessed against human rights standards. The decision paves the way for users whose content is unfairly targeted by enforcement actions to argue for a rights-based approach. Yet it  also highlights some of the difficulties of automated content moderation. It contains much that is to be welcomed, although ultimately, the Board will have demonstrate that it has real teeth. 

I explore the rationale, drawing on my own research where I encountered a similar post to the one in this case.  

The case concerned content related to

Read more: Oversight Board Decision moves Facebook into human rights ambit

The Allostreaming case…

 A lesser-known provision in the French Hadopi law has been used by a Paris court to order de-indexing of websites by search engines. The order also calls for the blocking of sites by ISPs, where the domains concerned belong to a group known as ‘Allosteaming’. However, whilst the rights-holders are claiming an amazing victory, it is not quite so – due to the way the costs have been ordered.

Read more: Hadopi law used to order search engine de-indexing

The  Premier League, which comprises the  UK’s wealthiest  football clubs,  obtained a high court order last month blocking a Swedish website that streams football games. Since the block was  put in place, media reports have suggested that it  additionally knocked out access to websites such as the Radio Times,  which were not subject to the court order. The ISPs wipe their hands of any blame. But case law from the European Court of Human Rights suggests that these instances are violations of free speech rights.

Read more: Premier League web block - a strike against free speech rights?