Happy International LGBT Pride Day!🏳️‍🌈
 

Oversight Board
Oversight Board Case of Post in Polish Targeting Trans People
Decision Date: January 16, 2024
The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decision to keep a Facebook post depicting curtains bearing the colors of the Transgender Pride flag with a text overlay saying, “Curtains that hang themselves” and “spring cleaning <3”—uploaded by a user whose biography stated, “I am a transphobe”. After publication, the content was reported 12 times, by 11 different users, under the Hate Speech policy and the Suicide and Self-injury policy. Only two reports were sent to human reviewers who deemed the content non-violating, while the others were closed automatically. Only one appeal, out of three, was reviewed by a human moderator—who upheld the original decision.  The Board noted that Meta’s practices in this case depicted enforcement challenges as it considered that the company’s policies were clear and precise. The Board found that the content violated Meta’s Hate Speech policy since it was violent speech targeting transgender people. It also concluded that the content violated the Suicide and Self-injury policy as it encouraged and celebrated the high suicide rates of transgender people. The Board recommended Meta modify its internal guidance for reviewers in order to clarify that flag-based depictions of gender identity, even without any human figures, can be understood as representations of a group defined by the gender identity of its members. The Board also recommended Meta to clarify that the Suicide and Self-Injury policy forbids content encouraging suicide within an identifiable group of people.

Oversight Board Case of Cartoon Showing Taliban Oppression Against Women
Decision Date: March 7, 2024
The Oversight Board issued a summary decision overturning Meta’s original decision to remove a Facebook post of a satirical political cartoon illustrating Afghan women’s oppression under the Taliban regime. Meta initially removed the post for violating its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy which prohibited the representation of groups the company designated as linked to offline harm. After the Board notified Meta of the user’s appeal of the original decision, the company reversed its original decision and restored the post. Accordingly, the Board issued this summary decision in which it underlined that enforcement errors such as this one could gravely impact artistic and political expression.
 
Malaysia [Updated Case]
State Government of Negeri Sembilan v. Muhammad Juzaili bin Mohd Khamis
Decision Date: October 15, 2015
The Federal Court of Malaysia addressed a case involving Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis, Shukur Bin Jani, and Wan Fairol Bin Wan Ismail, three individuals diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, who challenged the constitutionality of Section 66 of the Negeri Sembilan Syariah Criminal Enactment 1992. This provision prohibited men from wearing women's attire in public places. The Court of Appeal had previously declared Section 66 unconstitutional, citing violations of several articles of the Federal Constitution. However, the Federal Court overturned this decision, ruling that challenges to the validity or constitutionality of state legislation must follow specific procedural requirements and cannot be made through collateral attack in judicial review proceedings without leave from a Federal Court judge. Since the Respondents failed to follow this procedure, the Court deemed the judicial review action incompetent and allowed the appeal solely on grounds of procedural non-compliance.

United States
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
Decision Date: May 30, 2024
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that a government agency violated the First Amendment's free speech clause when it compelled a third party to suppress the speech of another person or entity. The case was brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) against Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), for violating its right to free speech. The NRA alleged that Vullo coerced third parties—various entities and companies regulated by the DFS—to cancel their insurance policies with the NRA to discourage pro-gun advocacy. Vullo asked to dismiss the complaint, arguing that she had done nothing illegal. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the case after considering there was no violation of the First Amendment. The NRA filed a petition for a writ certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS granted certiorari and vacated the Second Circuit’s judgement. The Court reaffirmed the precedent laid out in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963), which held that “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” The Court also held that Vullo could have used, potentially, the power of her office to punish pro-gun speech by going after the NRA's business partners—which could have induced those third parties to comply out of fear of hostility from the official. In light of this, the Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from selectively exercising their power to punish or suppress speech, either directly or through private intermediaries or third parties. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded the judgment.

● Colombia: CLD Submits Amicus Brief on Government Social Media Blocks. The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) filed an amicus curiae brief to uphold freedom of expression and the right to access information in a case involving a journalist blocked by a government account on the X platform. The brief, submitted to the Constitutional Court of Colombia, argues that blocking an account in response to criticism of public officials “could rarely if ever be justified.” The CLD’s comments emphasize that the act of blocking – a restriction of free speech in itself – must pass the three-part test: the restriction should “be provided by law,” “have a legitimate aim,” and “be necessary and proportionate.” Read the full submission here.

● Latvia: Media Defence Intervenes at ECtHR on Question of When Entry Ban Brings Journalist within Banning State’s Jurisdiction. Another notable recent court intervention is that of Media Defence. Submitted to the ECtHR, the intervention concerns the case in which a Russian journalist with a refugee status in Finland was banned from entering Latvia on grounds of national security – due to her alleged support of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Crimea annexation. Media Defence responds to the jurisdiction question raised by the Court in the Statement of Facts. “The question of whether a journalist in one state who is banned from entering another state comes within the Article 1 jurisdiction of that state is important for press freedom,” Media Defence states. “It affects the ability of journalists not just to impart information, but also to carry out essential journalistic functions [...]” The submission refers to the Court’s case law and argues there is “a settled practice of assuming jurisdiction in such cases.” Download the intervention here.

Wavering Resolutions: The UN Security Council on Digital Rights, by Imène El Kadour. The study, published by Access Now, analyzes the UN Security Council resolutions between 2001-2023, focusing on digital, cyber, and human rights and the language used to refer to them. The findings show that when it comes to including digital rights in the broader human rights and security agenda, the UN Security Council is falling behind if compared with “more digitally aware” UN bodies. The report emphasizes that the UN Security Council “is overlooking the overall advancement of international law protecting people, peace, and security in the digital age, focusing on operational and physical security at the expense of human rights and human security.” The paper concludes with recommendations for the Council’s Member States.

● Call for Applications: Freedom of Expression Litigation Surgery for Women Lawyers from South and Southeast Asia. Media Defence invites women lawyers from Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam to apply for participation in an upcoming litigation surgery set to take place on September 3-5, 2024, in Kathmandu, Nepal. Applicants should submit a case on freedom of expression that they are litigating or planning to litigate; alternatively, applicants can also send in “a relevant law, practice or policy relating to freedom of expression that they would like to challenge in court.” Learn more here and fill out the application form by July 8, 2024. 

In case you missed it…

● Revisit the 2024 IPI World Congress & Media Innovation Festival. All sessions’ recordings from the festival “Navigating Crises: Journalism at a Turning Point” held by the International Press Institute (IPI) in Sarajevo this past May are now available online. They include conversations on cybercrime laws, investigating disinformation, climate and environmental journalism, AI, investigating war crimes, and reporting from Gaza.