https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210730/06582247273/top-german-court-says-facebook-must-inform-users-about-deleting-their-posts-suspending-their-account-explain-why-allow-them-to.shtml [ ] Techdirt. Free Speech [ ] * Sign In * Register * Preferences [ ] Free Speech * Techdirt * Greenhouse * Tech & COVID * Free Speech * * Deals * Jobs * Support Techdirt [podcast-ti] Daily Deal: The All-Access CompTIA A+ And Network Certification Prep Bundle Disentangling Disinformation: Not As Easy As It Looks Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs Top German Court Says Facebook Must Inform Users About Deleting Their Posts Or Suspending Their Account, Explain Why, And Allow Them To Respond Content Moderation from the hating-the-hate-speech-hate dept Fri, Jul 30th 2021 10:44am -- Glyn Moody We've just written about Germany's constitutional court grappling with the issue of whether government users of zero-days for surveillance have a responsibility to report the flaws they use to the relevant developers. Another senior court in the country has been pondering an even thornier question that is occupying judges and lawmakers around the world: how should social media police so-called "hate speech" on their services in a way that respects fundamental rights on all sides? Germany's Federal Court of Justice issued its judgment regarding two similar cases (pointed out by Matthias C. Kettemann on Twitter). Both involved posts that Facebook removed because it said they went against the social network's community standards governing hate speech. In addition, Facebook temporarily blocked the accounts of the users who wrote the posts. When the lower German courts refused to overturn Facebook's moves completely, the users appealed to the Federal Court of Justice, which not only ordered Facebook to reactivate the two accounts, but also told it to refrain from blocking the re-posting of the deleted comments. The court ruled that Facebook's rules governing the removal of posts and the blocking of user accounts were "invalid", because "they unreasonably disadvantage the users of the network contrary to the requirements of good faith." The court went on to explain its reasoning (translation by DeepL of original in German): In this case, the conflicting fundamental rights of the parties -- on the side of the users the freedom of expression from [Article 5 (1) sentence 1 of Germany's Basic Law], on the side of the defendant [Facebook] above all the freedom to exercise a profession from [Article 12 (1) sentence 1 of Germany's Basic Law] -- must be considered and balanced according to the principle of practical concordance in such a way that they become as effective as possible for all parties. This balancing shows that the defendant is in principle entitled to require the users of its network to comply with certain communication standards that go beyond the requirements of criminal law (e.g. insult, defamation or incitement of the people). It may reserve the right to remove posts and block the user account concerned in the event of a breach of the communication standards. However, in order to strike a balance between the conflicting fundamental rights in a manner that is in line with the interests of the parties, and thus to maintain reasonableness within the meaning of [Section 307 (1) sentence 1 of the Civil Code of Germany], it is necessary that the defendant undertakes in its terms and conditions to inform the user concerned about the removal of a post at least subsequently and about an intended blocking of his or her user account in advance, to inform him or her of the reason for this and to grant him or her an opportunity to respond, followed by a new decision. Germany's Federal Court of Justice is trying to balance two conflicting rights -- freedom of speech, and freedom to exercise a profession. Its solution is to require companies like Facebook to inform users about the removal of a post -- at least retrospectively -- to tell them in advance about the blocking of an account, explain why, and to allow users to respond so that the decision can be reconsidered. That's a new, general approach that can be applied to a wide range of online services. However, as Matthias C. Kettemann pointed out on Twitter, it leaves important questions unanswered, including the issue of spam accounts, and of account suspensions, rather than deletions. Given their importance, we can probably expect future judgments to tackle these points in due course. Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon. Hide this Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone's attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites -- especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise -- and every little bit helps. Thank you. -The Techdirt Team Filed Under: account suspension, content moderation, deletion, free speech, germany, hate speech, notice Companies: facebook 9 Comments | Leave a Comment [masks-big-] If you liked this post, you may also be interested in... * Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs * Appeals Court Denies Immunity To University Officials Who Apparently Banned A Christian Student Group Just Because They Didn't Like It * Judge Tosses Candace Owens's Litigious Attempt To Turn Facebook Fact-Checking Into Defamation * Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To * Ridiculous: Yale Law Prof Argues That Because Some In Congress Want More Moderation, That Makes Twitter A State Actor Reader Comments Subscribe: RSS View by: Time | Thread * icon That One Guy (profile), 30 Jul 2021 @ 11:24am 'I said the color of trees, not green, give my account back.' Well that's nice of the german courts, now every other country will get to see what a monumentally stupid idea that is as spam and troll accounts swamp Facebook with demands to explain why they were suspended and appeal after appeal because they weren't really violating the rules, or for future violations because they weren't violating the rules in specifically the way they were told was a violation the last time. [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] * identicon Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2021 @ 11:24am I wonder how this ruling will mesh with the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), which requires them to take down content within 24 hours. Does the clock stop ticking once they inform the customer? What if the user never responds? What if they DO respond? [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] + icon That One Guy (profile), 30 Jul 2021 @ 11:30am Re: Judges and politicians: Of course you can do both, just nerd harder! [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] + identicon MathFox, 30 Jul 2021 @ 1:42pm Re: This ruling allows the platform provider to remove any post, provided that it informs the user of the platform about the reason. "Government says so" is quite simple, add a copy of the deletion request. "Moderator thinks post is bad" requires a reference to platform rules. I do find this ruling interesting because it says that a platform can not hide behind unfair terms of service. (In line with the EU law that puts a limit to how unfair TOS are allowed to be.) A company is expected to behave reasonable and consider basic human rights when making decisions. [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] o icon sumgai (profile), 30 Jul 2021 @ 3:51pm Re: Re: "Government says so" [is a good excuse to block a user] I hope that you're not advocating for government controlled speech. While that won't even get to first base in the US, thanks to 1A, it's a different story in the EU. In some countries, you do have some (limited) government controlled speech. For example in France the topic of Nazis is 100% interdit. Elsewhere I'm not qualified to address, but I do think that any government control over speech is always a bad idea. [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] * icon TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 30 Jul 2021 @ 11:35am Easier to understand this way... If you take down content we like, we will fine you. If you don't take down content we don't like, we will fine you. Seems like the basic message from all the governments these days.. [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] * icon Nathan F (profile), 30 Jul 2021 @ 11:50am The proper response from Facebook in regards to those two accounts is. "Your account is hereby terminated and the reason is because we don't want you on our platform." [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] * identicon Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2021 @ 12:01pm More transparency is certainly welcome. [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] * icon sumgai (profile), 30 Jul 2021 @ 1:57pm la The court has made a couple of tactical errors here. a) Fb can still block/hide/suspend/etc. an account by simply saying "Hey, we gave notice, and they didn't respond in a timely manner, so....." There should've been a minimum time limit between the two events. As it stands, a minute might seem reasonable to an AI that's going to automatically do the blocking operation. b) There's nothing in there that compels Fb to change their minds. The intended "reconsideration and new determination" doesn't have to be in favor of the policy offender. After all, Fb isn't going to (nor can they be required to) change their TOS, TOU, AUP and other policy statements just for any one given policy offender, doing so in mid-stream, so to speak. More telling, they are required to apply their policies equally across the board, so they literally can't show any favoritism - they simply must not change their minds, given that the offense is real and not a mistake. (AI's rarely understand the context, so mistakes can be rectified.) But I do give the court credit for one thing: users have complained since Day One that notices of deficiency have been woefully... deficient in explaining why an action was taken. It's exactly like your parents telling you that you can't do something for the reason of "Because I said so!" That doesn't sit too well with most adults, I'm certain. But the explanation needn't be detailed, it can be nothing more than a list of checkboxes with short-and-sweet generalized descriptions. For example: a) Bullying another user; b) Threats of violence towards elected officials; c) Espousing medical advise contrary to current medical practices; d) Promoting discrimination contrary to established law; e) yadda yadda, so on and so forth, blah blah, woof woof.... I don't use Fb (or any other socially acceptable social media), so I'm a fine one to talk. But I do keep my ears open, and they get filled with this complaint vis-a-vis Fb and other platforms, way too often for me not to notice. [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ] Add Your Comment Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here [ ] [ ] [ ] Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter [ ] [ ] [this is for spambots] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment Options: * (*) Use markdown. ( ) Use plain text. * Make this the ( ) First Word or ( ) Last Word. (*) No thanks. ( get credits or sign in to see balance) * [ ] Remember name/email/url (set a cookie) [Submit] [Preview] Close Add A Reply Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here [ ] [ ] [ ] Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter [ ] [ ] [this is for spambots] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment Options: * (*) Use markdown. ( ) Use plain text. * Make this the ( ) First Word or ( ) Last Word. (*) No thanks. ( get credits or sign in to see balance) * [ ] Remember name/email/url (set a cookie) [Submit] [Preview] Daily Deal: The All-Access CompTIA A+ And Network Certification Prep Bundle Disentangling Disinformation: Not As Easy As It Looks Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs Follow Techdirt Techdirt Daily Newsletter [ ][Subscribe] Insider Shop - Show Your Support! [insider-pr] Essential Reading The Techdirt Greenhouse Read the latest posts: * That's A Wrap: Techdirt Greenhouse, Broadband In The Covid Era * Could The Digital Divide Unite Us? * How Smart Software And AI Helped Networks Thrive For Consumers During The Pandemic read all >> Techdirt Deals Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads Techdirt Insider Chat Join the Insider Chat Recent Stories Friday Top German Court Says Facebook Must Inform Users About Deleting 10:44 Their Posts Or Suspending Their Account, Explain Why, And Allow Them To Respond (9) Thursday 10:44 Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs (18) Wednesday Appeals Court Denies Immunity To University Officials Who 03:27 Apparently Banned A Christian Student Group Just Because They Didn't Like It (29) Tuesday 10:45 Judge Tosses Candace Owens's Litigious Attempt To Turn Facebook Fact-Checking Into Defamation (48) Monday 13:35 Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review (32) 12:01 Senator Klobuchar Proposes An Unconstitutional Law That Would Kill Legions Of People If Trump Were Still President (198) 15:59 Appeals Court Affirms State Trooper Who Responded To An F-Bomb With An Arrest Owes $15k In Legal Fees (15) More arrow Tools & Services Twitter Facebook RSS Podcast Research & Reports Company About Us Advertising Policies Privacy Contact Help & Feedback Media Kit Sponsor/Advertise Submit a Story More Copia Institute Insider Shop Support Techdirt [td_logov14] Brought to you by Floor64 This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it Close Email This This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.