The International Justice Clinic (IJC) at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights (RFK) will co-host a panel discussion “Advancing strategic litigation on digital rights in Africa: the role of the UN Human
New Report! Advancing Digital Rights through UN Treaty Body Litigation
For at least a decade, the United Nations (“UN”) has sought to define and promote digital rights for the international community. In the face of resistance from authoritarian-minded governments, UN bodies have not always articulated fundamental norms in the most
Professor Kaye Testifies Before Indian Supreme Court Committee on the Threats to Human Rights Posed by Pegasus Spyware
*This article was originally published by UCI Law here. 02-17-2022 University of California, Irvine School of Law (UCI Law) Professor and Director of the International Justice Clinic, David Kaye, provided expert testimony before a committee established by the Supreme Court of India to
IJC, ARTICLE 19 and ILGA-Europe submit an Amicus brief before the European Court of Human Rights
See the original Press Release from ARTICLE 19 here On 14 January 2022, Professor David Kaye and the organizations ARTICLE 19, and nd the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe), submitted a third-party
Strategic Treaty Body Litigation to Advance Digital Rights: regional consultations
In 2021 the International Justice Clinic launched the Treaty Body Litigation Initiative to bring or support individual claims before the key monitoring bodies of the UN system, to seek meaningful redress for victims of digital rights violations, and advocate for
IJC is seeking a Clinical Fellow to support its New Treaty Body Litigation Initiative
The University of California, Irvine, School of Law invites applications for the position of a Fellow in its International Justice Clinic. The successful candidate will work principally on projects defending and promoting human rights online, with a specific focus on
UCI Law International Justice Clinic Students Present to Facebook/Meta*
Students and faculty of the UCI Law International Justice Clinic recently gave a presentation to a panel of policy experts at Facebook/Meta providing recommendations on how the company can bring its conduct and the Oversight Board into better alignment with international human rights standards. The presentation was led by UCI Law students Jackson Backer, Krystal Campos and Alec Regulski. UCI Law Professor Mary Hansel supervised.
Prof. Hansel Debates the Human Rights Implications of Social Media at Inter-American Dialogue Event
On October 7, 2021, Professor Mary Hansel spoke on a panel hosted by the Inter-American Dialogue entitled Debating the Facebook Oversight Board and Self-Regulation Mechanisms. The event brought together international human rights experts for a conversation on the impacts the Facebook Oversight Board and other regulatory efforts have had on freedom of expression in Latin America.
“Provided by Law”? Applying Article 19’s Legality Requirement to Facebook’s Content Moderation Standards*
In rendering decisions on content moderation actions, the Facebook Oversight Board must scrutinize whether restrictions on speech pass muster under international human rights law. This analysis involves an assessment of Facebook’s policies governing content moderation on the company’s platforms (its “Community Standards”). Indeed, any Board decision affirming the removal of content or an account suspension must necessarily include a finding that the relevant Community Standards comport with the right to freedom of expression as set forth by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yet, as this paper explains, the substance and presentation of these Standards raise important questions about their adherence to the legality requirement under Article 19.
Decoding Intent in Two (Seemingly Contradictory) Facebook Oversight Board Decisions on Hate Speech*
Is speaker intent the pivotal element that explains the different outcomes of two hate speech cases decided by the Facebook Oversight Board? Despite the fact that both cases involved offensive speech aimed at marginalized groups, the Board came to different conclusions in each—finding that one user intended to insult and dehumanize while the other intended to raise awareness and engage in societal commentary. The instant working paper reflects on this apparent contradiction and teases out the role of each user’s intent in the Board’s assessment of hate speech under applicable international human rights standards.