UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues [DRAFT FOR GLOBAL CONSULTATION] employed for the ‘public interest’ exemption, which could combat such a perception, remains absent due to opaque details of its application. This should be remedied by applying the above three principles. 3. SMC’s should balance the potential harm to protected groups and minorities on the basis of necessity and proportionality, including when deciding the appropriate content moderation response. Commentary Beyond clearly defined content policies on hate speech compliant with international human rights laws, there is a need to adopt a focused application of existing standards to the online context to determine where the precise substantive line should be drawn between free speech and hate speech. The right to freedom of expression31 extends to online expressions32 and falls within the scope of “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”.33 It is fundamental and essential to other human rights and the proper functioning of democracy34 as well as its associated institutions. It even extends to controversial and offensive views35. It may be permissibly limited to protect the rights of others or on pressing public policy grounds36 as long as it is legally defined, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.37 This remains the most appropriate and correct framework to apply to permissibly limiting online hate speech provided that some aspects are adopted for the online context. First, the application of ‘legality’ to SMCs content policies on hate speech requires that its definition and enforcement satisfies the standard in Guideline 1 above. Second, the only ‘legitimate aim’ that SMC’s can pursue is that of “protecting the rights of others”. The remainder are intended for States and inapplicable to SMCs. As such, States may deem it necessary and proportionate to require limitations on others’ expressions by SMCs in very narrow circumstances based on other enumerated legitimate aims such as ‘national security’. This also correlates with the requirements of the UNGP to balance competing rights of their community members, which in this case would be the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection from hate speech.38 Third, ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’ should be determined on the basis of there being no alternative means to ensure the same result or the protection of the concerned protected group or minority. 39 In other words, it should be the least restrictive option available. ‘Proportionality’ also entails that a range of enforcement responses should be availed on a spectrum of necessity and severity. These can include warning labels, limits on virility (through disabling engagements such as ‘likes’, ‘shares’ and ‘replies’ as well as algorithmic downranking – sometimes referred to as ‘friction’), removal of content, temporary suspension of community members and ultimately their permanent exclusion. 31 ICCPR Art. 19. Report on Content Regulation, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (David Kaye), 2018 (A/HRC/38/35). 33 ICCPR, Art. 19(2). 34 General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression. 35 Ibid. 36 ICCPR. Art 19(3): “a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” 37 ICCPR Art. 19(3). 38 UNGP. 39 General Comment 34, par. 20. 32 9