UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues [DRAFT FOR GLOBAL CONSULTATION] Annex I - Consultation Questions: Underlying Principles and Proposed Definition 1. The ‘Underlying Principles’ seek to reconcile the tensions/conflicts between i) international law being aimed at States and not companies, ii) some States’ national laws or Government actions falling foul of minimum international standards and iii) that ideally online freedom of expression will require a lower threshold for necessity and proportionality given the severest sanction being termination of an account. Do you agree with this framing and solutions offered by the principles? If so, could the wording be improved? 2. Definitions exist of ‘incitement to hatred’ under ICCPR Art. 20 and one is suggested for ‘hate speech’ in the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech. No similarly authoritative definition for ‘online hate speech’ has yet been offered nor has there been any consensus on the precise definition of ‘minority’ under ICCPR Art. 27 yet. The proposed definition of ‘online hate speech’ seeks to build on the above. Do you have any views on whether it works, will be of utility and how it could be improved? Guideline 1 3. Is it feasible to set a common minimum standard for SMCs in relation to their ‘hate speech’ policies? 4. Do you agree that the list of protected characteristics should be non-exhaustive and inclusion of non-listed protected characteristics should be on the basis of them constituting an identity factor? 5. Do you think that reference should be made to hate speech specifically targeting minorities in light of its unique nature (i.e. targeting of cultural, religious or cultural identity) and the risk of worse consequences (i.e. communal / group-based violence)? Guideline 2 6. Are there any ways to reduce the risks posed by opaque ‘public interest’ exemptions and risk that they may be applied in an unfair or discriminatory manner? Guideline 3 7. Is the approach taken relating to the application of ICCPR, Articles 19 and 20, the correct one? Could it be improved in any way? Guideline 4 8. As per Guideline 4, is there agreement that there may be a gap that has not been addressed by SMCs between prohibiting ‘hate speech’ and ‘incitements and violence’? Guideline 5 9. This Guideline is concerned with two issues related to algorithmic amplification and demotion or downranking. Conventionally, ‘borderline’ content not being removed and not amplified has not been considered an interference with the right to freedom of expression. This Guideline seeks to reframe it as such and thus requiring the application of the 3-part test for a permissible limitation. It is further not clear to what extent is hateful content amplified prior to removal. Any 16