Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced widespread criticism after refusing to remove or attach a ‘warning label’ to a post by President Trump which – according to many – incited violence.
In response to the ongoing protests catalysed by the murder of African-American George Floyd by a police officer, Mr Trump posted on social media on 29 May 2020 to say that “the Military is with [Minnesota Governor Tim Walz] all the way” and that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”. Trump is believed to have been quoting former Miami Police Chief Walter Headley from 1967 - a known racist.
Zuckerberg stated that the decision not to remove the post was tough but “pretty thorough”, and that he tried to separate his personal opinion from the matter. Whilst accepting the quote’s racist history, he stated that Facebook’s policy has been to allow those acting on behalf of the government to inform people about the potential use of force.
WHAT CRITICISM HAS FACEBOOK FACED?
Facebook’s decision was criticised by a trio of American civil rights organisation leaders, who, following a call with Zuckerberg and fellow boss Sheryl Sandberg, stated that their explanations were “incomprehensible”. Media watchdog Media Matters for America is said to be writing a letter appealing to advertisers to stop advertising on Facebook, in protest of Zuckerberg’s decision.
Facebook’s employees also displayed their anger, with one software engineer publicly announcing his resignation in response to the decision. A number of former staffers published a letter arguing that Facebook “should be holding politicians to a higher standard than their constituents”.
The controversy over the decision not to remove or censor Trump’s post is part of a longer line of incidents the company has dealt with in recent years. These include concerns over privacy relating to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and fears about the spread of misinformation on the platform. In the context of the movement emerging from Floyd’s murder, this decision could be interpreted as a failure of responsibility by the platform. However, Facebook did announce on the 4 June 2020 that it would be adding labels to content derived from state-run media outlets, and that such outlets would no longer be allowed to run adverts.
HOW DID OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS RESPOND?
In contrast to Facebook, Twitter decided to replace Trump’s tweet with a warning label, on the grounds that it violated the site’s rules around the glorification of violence. This label means that an individual cannot read the tweet unless it is clicked on. However ,Twitter chose not to delete it completely, as “it may be in the public’s interest for the tweet to remain accessible”. The site had already added fact-check tags to other tweets by the President.
Snapchat took a similar approach, stating that it will no longer promote Trump’s account, as it refused to “amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice”. In response to Twitter’s actions, Trump signed an executive order which aims to limit the power of the platform, and calls for a review of legislation which protects internet companies.
IS THIS A QUESTION OF FREE SPEECH?
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) sets out the right to freedom of expression and information. However, this right may be made subject to restrictions which are ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society’. This right is also enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The issue of alleged incitement to violence was addressed in a recent case before the European Court of Human Rights: Mehdi Tanrikulu v. Turkey. In this case, the Claimant was prosecuted, after publishing a book about a Kurdish revolutionary organisation, on charges of propaganda for a terrorist organisation. The Court stated that in relation to Art. 10 of the ECHR, the public had a right to full and comprehensive information, provided that there is no incitement to violence.
Therefore, whether a decision to remove or censor Trump’s tweet could be said to breach Art. 10 would likely depend on whether a court would find he had incited violence, as many have alleged.
Zuckerberg most recently stated that Facebook will review its content policies - seemingly as a result of the heavy backlash. It is yet to be seen whether any changes will be made, and how they will compare to other social media platforms.
Rhiannon is an LLB student at Swansea University, who intends to pursue a career at the Bar of England and Wales. She has particular interests in criminal and human rights law. She has sat on the committee of her university’s Bar Society and is incoming President of its Feminist Society.