Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Facebook's 'Supreme Court' taking public comments on Trump's suspension
#1
https://oversightboard.secure.force.com/...zl708kZWe1

The independent group that will decide whether former President Donald Trump can return to Facebook is officially taking public comment on the case.

Facebook's Oversight Board, a group that includes legal experts and human rights advocates, said in an announcement Friday that people and groups with "valuable perspectives" on Trump's indefinite suspension from the social media platform have until Feb. 8 to weigh in via its online form.

The group has until April to decide on whether to reinstate the former president's Facebook account, which the company froze after a throng of his supporters sacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, and will use the public comments as part of its deliberation process. The board, often likened to a "supreme court" for Facebook, has the power to overrule content decisions by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his executives.


https://news.yahoo.com/facebooks-supreme...jwumo1bpf4


Below is Facebook's list of the 20 members of the Facebook Oversight Board:

Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei - A human rights advocate who works on women’s rights, media freedom and access to information issues across Africa at the Open Society Initiative for West Afric

Evelyn Aswad - A University of Oklahoma College of Law professor who formerly served as a senior State Department lawyer and specializes in the application of international human rights standards to content moderation issues

Endy Bayuni - A journalist who twice served as the editor-in-chief of The Jakarta Post, and helps direct a journalists’ association that promotes excellence in the coverage of religion and spirituality.

Catalina Botero Marino, co-chair - A former U.N. special rapporteur for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States who now serves as dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law.

Katherine Chen - A communications scholar at the National Chengchi University who studies social media, mobile news and privacy, and a former national communications regulator in Taiwan.

Nighat Dad - A digital rights advocate who offers digital security training to women in Pakistan and across South Asia to help them protect themselves against online harassment, campaigns against government restrictions on dissent, and received the Human Rights Tulip Award

Jamal Greene, co-chair - A Columbia Law professor who focuses on constitutional rights adjudication and the structure of legal and constitutional argument.

Pamela Karlan - A Stanford Law professor and Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and First Amendment cases, and serves as a member of the board of the American Constitution Society.

Tawakkol Karman - A Nobel Peace Prize laureate who used her voice to promote nonviolent change in Yemen during the Arab Spring, and was named as one of “History's Most Rebellious Women” by Time magazine.

Maina Kiai - A director of Human Rights Watch’s Global Alliances and Partnerships Program and a former U.N. special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association who has decades of experience advocating for human rights in Kenya.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy - A vice chancellor of the National Law School of India University who co-founded an advocacy organization that works to advance constitutional values for everyone, including LGBTQ+ and transgender persons, in India

Ronaldo Lemos - A technology, intellectual property and media lawyer who co-created a national internet rights law in Brazil, co-founded a nonprofit focused on technology and policy issues, and teaches law at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

Michael McConnell, co-chair - A former U.S. federal circuit judge who is now a constitutional law professor at Stanford, an expert on religious freedom, and a Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in a wide range of First Amendment cases involving freedom of speech, religion and association.

Julie Owono - A digital rights and anti-censorship advocate who leads Internet Sans Frontières and campaigns against internet censorship in Africa and around the world.

Emi Palmor - A former director general of the Israeli Ministry of Justice who led initiatives to address racial discrimination, advance access to justice via digital services and platforms and promote diversity in the public sector.

Alan Rusbridger - A former editor-in-chief of The Guardian who transformed the newspaper into a global institution and oversaw its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Edward Snowden disclosures.

András Sajó - A former judge and vice president of the European Court of Human Rights who is an expert in free speech and comparative constitutionalism.

John Samples - A public intellectual who writes extensively on social media and speech regulation, advocates against restrictions on online expression, and helps lead a libertarian think tank.

Nicolas Suzor - A Queensland University of Technology Law School professor who focuses on the governance of social networks and the regulation of automated systems, and has published a book on internet governance.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair - A former prime minister of Denmark who repeatedly took stands for free expression while in office and then served as CEO of Save the Children.
Reply
#2
Thanks. I made a submission.
Reply
#3
How many of the justices did he get to appoint?
Reply
#4
Seems like that "group" might inviting a plethora of crazy into it's deliberations.
Reply
#5
RgrF wrote:
Seems like that "group" might inviting a plethora of crazy into it's deliberations.

My thoughts exactly. This is FB's way of letting Trump back in to führer er further poison the nation and world.
Reply
#6
Theater. They will let him back in. Twitter and the rest, too after "prayerful consideration." He's too good for business.
Reply
#7
I see at least eight that I would expect to back letting Trump back in. Not because they agree with him or support his view, but because they support his right of expression, or oppose suppression of speech in almost any manner.

What will be interesting will be the conditions they place on his future postings. The next question will be whether Trump will accept any conditions whatsoever.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)