Descrição do caso
In July 2024, a Facebook user in Peru posted a digitally altered headshot of the leader of a human rights organization in Peru. The image of the human rights defender appears to be AI-manipulated, showing their face covered with blood that is dripping downward. A caption in Spanish insinuates financial wrongdoing by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and accuses NGOs of encouraging violent protests. The post was shared around the time of demonstrations in Peru’s capital when citizens protested against the government. It was viewed around 1,000 times and had less than 100 reactions.
Three days after the content was posted, a user reported it for violating Meta’s Community Standards. A human reviewer determined the content did not violate Meta’s policies and the post was kept up on the platform. The user appealed Meta’s decision, but that appeal was automatically closed without further human review.
The user who reported the post then appealed to the Board, stating that the image was a “thinly-veiled death threat” against a human rights defender. They added that the post should be interpreted within a broader context of “harassment and physical attacks” against human rights defenders in Peru, and that it was shared in response to the July 2024 demonstrations. They explained that the user who posted the content is a member of “La Resistencia,” a group known for inciting violence against human rights defenders and journalists in Peru, and that such online threats have escalated into offline violence.
In the time between the user appealing to the Board and the Board selecting this case, the post was also reported to Meta through its Trusted Partner program. Meta’s Trusted Partner program is a network of non-governmental organizations, humanitarian agencies and human rights researchers from 113 countries. In connection with this report, Meta’s internal escalation teams reviewed the account associated with the post and found it was in violation of Meta’s Terms of Service for reasons unrelated to the content. Meta then disabled the account, making the content inaccessible on Facebook. The content was not assessed further at that time as the user’s account had been disabled.
When the Board selected this case, Meta’s policy subject matter experts reviewed the post again, confirming the original decision that the content did not violate the Community Standards, including Violence and Incitement and Bullying and Harassment. However, Meta noted that it did not reach out to a broad cross-functional team or external parties for additional input to inform its decision, as it might have done otherwise to assess the content as a veiled threat, had the content remained live on its platforms. Threats that are “veiled or implicit” require “additional information and/or context to enforce,” according to the Violence and Incitement Community Standard.
The Board selected this case to examine how Meta enforces policies that aim to protect human rights defenders, particularly when threats of violence are veiled or implicit, require additional context to interpret, or occur within an environment of intimidation and harassment. This case falls within the Board’s strategic priority of Elections and Civic Space.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The sociopolitical context in Peru, in particular risks to the safety and freedom of expression of human rights defenders, journalists and civil society organizations.
- Recent laws and bills in Peru and elsewhere in the region that limit or undermine spaces for expression, assembly and political participation of civil society organizations.
- The use of social media to spread narratives accusing NGOs of wrongdoing and if this type of content has been associated with explicit or implicit (coded) calls for offline violence.
- Policy recommendations for the protection of human rights defenders that have already been made to social media platforms, as well as the outcomes of campaigns to implement those recommendations.
- The use of images, including digitally altered or AI-manipulated, to harass, intimidate and make threats of violence against activists and journalists.
- Moderation of veiled or implicit threats of violence that require additional context to interpret. This can include the impact of error rates in removing or failing to remove content containing veiled or implicit threats on freedom of expression and other human rights.
As part of its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to this case.
Public Comments
If you or your organization feel you can contribute valuable perspectives that can help with reaching a decision on the case announced today, you can submit your contributions using the button below. Please note that public comments can be provided anonymously. The public comment window is open for 14 days, closing at 23.59 Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Tuesday 28 January.
What’s Next
Over the next few weeks, Board Members will be deliberating this case. Once they have reached their decision, we will post it on the Decisions page.
Comentários
Enviamos adjunto el aporte de Derechos Digitales para nutrir la consideración de este caso.
The International Center for Not-For-Profit Law (ICNL) is a non-governmental organization with a mission to promote a legal and digital environment that strengthens civil society and enables public participation around the world. ICNL works to promote and protect the freedoms of association, assembly, expression and the right to privacy, online and offline. ICNL thanks the Oversight Board for accepting public comments and hopes that our intervention will contribute valuable perspectives that can help the Board reach a decision on the case under consideration. Our submission will focus on these issues:
• The sociopolitical context in Peru, in particular risks to the safety and freedom of expression of hu-man rights defenders, journalists and civil society organizations.
• Recent laws and bills in Peru and elsewhere in the region that limit or undermine spaces for expres-sion, assembly and political participation of civil society organizations.
• The use of social media to spread narratives accusing NGOs of wrongdoing and if this type of content has been associated with explicit or implicit (coded) calls for offline violence.
Civic Space context in Peru
In Peru, the work of human rights defenders (HRDs), civil society organizations (CSOs), and journalists are stigmatized through both online and offline threats, in some cases leading to direct physical violence. “Terruqueo” is the word most often used to discredit independent journalists and civil society. While “terruqueo” derives from the word terrorist, it has deeper contextual meaning in Peru and has historically been used to baselessly attribute terrorism to one or more individuals. The use of this term originated during the country’s period of insurgency in the 1980s and 1990s and was based on the broadly defined anti-terrorism provisions in Decree No. 46 of 1981. The Decree criminalized “apology for terrorism,” which came to be “understood as any form of glorification or defense of the political discourse of subversive organiza-tions.” Although the Decree and the label of “terruqueo” were directed at members of irregular armed groups, the State also used it to target the political left as a means to stigmatize and dehumanize opposition to the authority of President Alberto Fujimori. Although the Decree has since been repealed, the term “terruqueo” has continued to be used by certain right-wing groups to discredit, stigmatize, threaten and attack individuals with real or perceived progressive or left-wing political positions, as well as indigenous peoples, CSOs, HRDs, journalists, and people who participate in protests.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has closely monitored threats against HRDs and journalists in Peru, particularly threats from the right-wing group known as “La Resistencia.” In 2023, the IACHR granted precautionary measures to a prominent Peruvian journalist, after the group doxed him, re-leasing his home address and other personal information publicly, and violently entered the offices of his non-government organization (NGO) and assaulted his colleague. The IACHR classified these threats as seri-ous and imminent, with the potential to cause irreparable harm to the journalist’s rights to life and personal integrity. Similarly, justice operators working on high profile corruption cases have been subject to threats, intimidation, harassment and attacks attributed to “La Resistencia.” In 2023 the IACHR issued a resolution on precautionary measures granted to two prosecutors. Both were investigating corruption cases involving high-ranking authorities and former Peruvian officials. The IACHR noted that La Resistencia “have gone from dis-crediting campaigns on social media to concrete acts of harassment or intimidation against [him] in personal spaces such as his personal home,” such has “plantones,” or sit-ins, outside his home.
Peruvian and international civil society have documented “plantones” convened by “la Resistencia” and other groups against HRDs, and human rights NGOs like APRODEH and Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Hu-manos, amongst others. The “plantones” were accompanied announced in social media posts days before. In both the offline and online harassment, the leaders of human rights NGOs were explicitly referred to as "de-fenders of terrorists and criminals," and were accused of being a “scourge” on the country. Further, the IACHR has noted that this adverse context intensifies when social protests are taking place in the country. According to a 2023 IACHR report on the right to protest in Peru, “la Resistencia” was allegedly responsible for acts of vandalism and/or physical assaults against NGOs and journalists during the protests at the end of 2022.
Regarding whether acts of harassment by “la Resistencia” are being investigated by Peruvian law enforce-ment, the IACHR received information on the lack of accountability for these practice in the case of one of the prosecutors mentioned above. There was also no information on concrete actions being taken by law en-forcement to respond to doxing practices against carried out by “la Resistencia”. Not only is there a lack of protection, but former President Fujimori’s supporters in Congress, as well as some top government officials, have aggressively sought to discredit NGOs that advocate for human rights accountability.
In addition, according to Human Rights Watch in 2022, “threats to freedom of expression continue to be a concern in Perú.” The Government of Pedro Castillo has also had a very tense relationship with the media. The Press and Society Institute (IPYS) and the Peruvian Press Council (CPP) have issued alerts about attacks against journalists.
Meanwhile, legislative efforts are seeking to further restrict civil society’s legal and operating environment, through a proposed bill amending the law creating the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (The APCI Amendment Bill). If approved, the bill would subject civil society to burdensome registration require-ments, excessive oversight of funding sources, and disproportionate sanctions. Further, in 2023, the UN Hu-man Rights Committee, expressed its deep concern over the imprecise definition of “terrorism” set forth in the Peruvian Counter-Terrorism Act (Decree-Law No. 25475). The Committee noted that the ambiguity in the legislation encourages the branding of persons who exercise their rights to protest, freedom of expression, thought, assembly, and political participation as terrorists to discredit their discourse. Further, the Commit-tee noted its increased application in the context of social protests since 7 December 2022.
Legal Analysis
The right to freedom of expression recognizes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. It promotes plural-ism and tolerance, making it a cornerstone of democratic societies. Further, international human rights law recognizes that “the same rights people have offline must also be protected online”, including the right to freedom of expression. Social media companies play a crucial role in enabling the right to freedom of expres-sion online, by providing a platform to disseminate information and opinions. However, social media com-panies are urged to adhere to human rights guidelines and standards. According to the United Nations Guid-ing Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as the Inter-American and universal standards devel-oped to date, businesses and corporations have specific responsibilities, including in relation to freedom of expression and the protection of human rights defenders. These responsibilities are informed by internation-al human rights law.
ANALYSIS OF SPEECH THAT THREATENS THE SAFETY OF HRDS IN PERU
International law provides broad protection to freedom of expression, but it is not absolute. Any limitations to this right must be exceptional and strictly adhere to applicable human rights standards. A restriction to the right to freedom of expression cannot be based solely on the grounds that the content is uncomfortable or offensive.
In this case, the content under review was made against the leader of a human rights organization in Peru. Therefore, it is worth examining international standards on HRDs. International law recognizes the funda-mental role of human rights defenders in upholding human rights and fundamental values such as peace, de-mocracy, the rule of law, among others. According to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (I-A Court), the work of HRDs is essential for strengthening democracy and the rule of law, which justifies a special standard of protection towards them. Moreover, the I-A Court has emphasized that the respect for human rights in a democratic society largely depends on effective and adequate guarantees for HRDs that enable them to carry out their activities freely. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider the appropriateness of actions that limit or obstruct their work and take immediate action to prevent and protect against harm di-rected at them, including acts of intimidation and harassment online.
Moreover, when analyzing whether a potential restriction on the right to freedom of expression is necessary to ensure a legitimate aim – particularly whether such restriction is admissible in order to respect the rights of others – it’s worth examining the rights at risk. In this case, the content under review was argued to consti-tute a death threat.
It is worth noting that there is no legal definition under international law on what constitutes a threat. Inter-national experts have acknowledged that a threat “refers to an intentional conduct that indicates future harm or that intimidates an HRD, their family or community. This […] includes individual and collective, direct and indirect, explicit and symbolic threats, whether they take place in offline or online spaces.” Additionally, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights defenders has found that threats have been made against HRDs “their colleagues and their organizations through symbolic actions or gestures.” Under this international guidance, speech is a threat when it has a chilling effect on and significantly hinders the ability of HRDs to defend rights. As the IACHR has previously stated, practices such as “plantones” and doxing puts HRDs at further risk of being victims of physical attacks that could seriously affect their rights to life and personal in-tegrity. According to the I-A Court “creating a threatening situation or threatening an individual with taking his or her life could even be considered, in at least some circumstances, inhuman treatment.”
Given that “la Resistencia” has used social media to incite offline violence against HRDs, posts and messages online that implicitly or symbolically call for violence against HRDs significantly impact their right to per-sonal integrity, potentially leaving them in a state of moral anguish due to the imminence and possibility of this online violence manifesting offline. For example, the NGO CNDDHH was the target of intimidation and attacks perpetrated by around 40 members of “La Resistencia” who arrived at their headquarters in a bus and yelled insults at them an called them “terrorists”, “get out of Peru” and “criminal left-wingers”. Media outlets have also highlighted attacks against HRDs and NGOs that were convened online days before they took place.
As the IACHR noted of Peru, the risks of “threats, persecution, and disinformation campaigns […] are not be-ing countered by a public discourse that supports their work and condemns the attacks against them.” In fact, the Peruvian state, not only fails to comply with its international obligation to protect HRDs and journalists at risk, it is proposing legislation to limit and undermine their rights to expression, assembly and political participation. And it continues to enforce a vague definition of “terrorist” under the Peruvian Counter-Terrorism Act, particularly in the context of social protests. This significantly hinders the right to protest, freedom of expression, thought, assembly, and political participation.
ANALYSIS OF SPEECH THAT CONSTITUTES INCITEMENT
Although there is no definition for hate speech under international human rights law, the Rabat Plan of Ac-tion provides useful guidance that Meta reviewers should consider as they are deciding whether to take down or keep content on its platforms. While speech attacking HRDs does not fall under one of the protected cate-gories the Rabat Plan provides guidance on (race, national and religious hatred), the criteria are potentially useful to identify if speech targeting HRDs in Peru could be considered incitement to violence. The plan con-sists of a six-part test that considers the following criteria:
1. Context: whether the social and political context is likely to incite violence.
2. Speaker: the speaker’s position and their ability to influence others.
3. Intent: the motive and purpose of the speaker to incite and influence the actions of others.
4. Content of the expression: whether the content includes direct or indirect calls to violence.
5. Extent and magnitude of the expression: the reach of the speech, its magnitude, and size of its audience.
6. Likelihood and imminence: the probability that the speech would succeed in inciting actual violence.
The case under consideration was posted within the context of a violent environment against HRDs, charac-terized by a systematic practice of baselessly labeling civil society as terrorists. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, the “terruqueo” phenomenon not only stigmatizes people, it has the potential to put them in a situation of greater vulnerability and risk of attack. Additionally, it was posted in the context of protests in the country where threats and violence against the sector have been widely documented. These threats are mostly perpetrated online and have been known to lead to physical violence against HRDs. The IACHR stated in the precautionary measures mentioned above, that “the conjunction of recurrent negative mentions on social networks and harassment, threatening calls and harangues in public speeches should be understood as direct threats to the personal integrity of the person.”
Further, the content was published by “la Resistencia,” a group that has been known to orchestrate attacks against HRDs. Members of “la Resistencia” have a significant audience and members that post in their own social media accounts, amplifying their reach. As the IACHR noted, this group has the ability to organize online and act swiftly to convene offline attacks.
Finally, the content of the expression shows the face of the HRD covered in blood, which is a symbolic ex-pression of future and exemplary harm that directly targets the individual and her organization. Given the context of violence in Peru against human rights defenders, CSOs, and journalists, there is a high probability that the content could lead to physical violence, as indicated by the events described above which happened prior to the Facebook post. Given that the content under review meets the high threshold established by the Rabat Action Plan, it should be considered an incitement to violence towards the HRD and threat to the HRD’s safety, as prohibited by Meta’s Community Standards.
ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL CONTEXT FOR CSOS IN PERU
The most significant legal threat that CSOs in Peru face is imminent approval draft amendments to Law 27692 that would further restrict the right to association in Peru. Although the government’s stated interest is to increase the transparency and oversight of entities that manage international aid, Peruvian civil society ac-tors are concerned the amendments will further restrict the ability to register, receive foreign funding, and conduct work without the fear of arbitrary penalties.
ICNL has analyzed the law and shared its analysis with Peruvian CSOs and government actors. ICNL’s key concerns include:
1. Required registration for all organizations that engage in political activism with direct or indirect fund-ing from abroad. An organization engages in “political activism” whenever it uses international coopera-tion funding to seek changes to national public policies or electoral results that favor the interests of pri-vate foreign entities. Registration for political activism could result in the stigmatization of such organi-zations, enabling the authorities to portray these organizations as serving foreign interests.
2. The criminalization of using international funding or resources to conduct “acts that adversely affect the public order, public or private property, citizen security, the national defense, and domestic order.” The amendments do not define the italicized terms, preventing CSOs from clearly identifying prohibited conduct.
3. The proposed amendments impose disproportionate penalties for violations. Registered CSOs would be subject to penalties as high as USD 683,000, the suspension of registration benefits, and the complete can-cellation of registration.
4. CSOs’ registration application must include their plans, programs, projects, activities, and grants involv-ing technical cooperation funding, and they must update it every 6 months. Additionally, they must sub-mit supporting documents or risk serious sanctions. This information is submitted through an online por-tal.
Right to Association: Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Peru in 1978, provides that “everyone has the right to associate freely with others”. The exercise of this right may only be subject to restrictions when provided by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or public order, or for the protection of public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to peaceful assem-bly and association has repeatedly stated “that the ability to seek, obtain and utilize resources – from na-tional, foreign and international sources – is essential to the existence and effectiveness of the activities of any association.” The proposed amendments do not meet these standards because the vague restrictions on their activities do not meet the “provided by law” standard, the penalties and registration requirements are disproportionate and unnecessary to ensure public safety. These requirements could unduly hinder CSOs from registering or receiving much needed resources from abroad.
Privacy Rights: If enacted, the proposed amendments would undermine the right to privacy of CSOs, their donors, and their staff. CSOs’ plans, programs, projects, activities, expenditures, and the amounts of ITC financing or grants received would be easily accessible online. The proposed amendments fail to set forth criteria to protect the confidential information of donors, beneficiaries, and staff, and could put their security at risk.
This comment has been submitted as an attachment, because of its length and for clarity purposes.
El uso de las redes sociales para desacreditar a las personas defensoras de derechos humano, el empleo de imágenes manipuladas para acosar e intimidar, y los desafíos en la moderación de amenazas veladas o implícitas, son aspectos que deben ser considerados como parte del contexto necesario para resolver denuncias por publicaciones violentas. La permisividad que tienen plataformas como Meta de este tipo de publicaciones perpetúa un entorno hostil que afecta la seguridad y limita la labor de las personas defensoras de derechos humanos. Por ello, resulta necesario que las plataformas tecnológicas, los Estados y las empresas internacionales trabajen de manera articulada para implementar soluciones sostenibles y basadas en derechos humanos. Esto incluye mejorar las tecnologías de moderación y garantizar que las políticas digitales sean efectivas en la eliminación de publicaciones que amenacen, acosen u hostiguen a las personas defensoras de derechos humanos, como en el caso de Jennie Dador, una mujer defensora de derechos humanos, que es amenazada en línea y vilipendiada mediante imágenes manipuladas, por la labor que realiza.
La Resistencia is a verbal and phisical violent group who post fake news, alterated images and hate just because of ideology.
No es cierto la acusación de las ong's de derechos humanos que dicen que el ciudadano José muñico González este violando las normas comunitarias ni tampoco no hay acoso ni bullying ni incitacion ala violencia.
El grupo denominado "La Resistencia" y afines tienen la finalidad de ser utilizados como movimientos de apariencia cívica pero responde en consigna y financiamiento a los partidos de ultra derecha peruana como el fujimorismo y satélites que encargan efectuar campañas públicas de difamación, desinformación, violencia pasiva y perturbación de la tranquilidad pública, a todo rival ideológico de dichos movimientos. Para ello reclutan personas desempleadas y violentas en torno a un grupo cabecilla que labora a tiempo completo. También cuentan con asesorías de abogados y políticos que coordinan la campaña específica de desprestigio. El apoyo político es clave para que no sean intervenidos por la policía cuando ejercen violencia de palabra, difamación y de perturbación a la tranquilidad pública. También son apoyados explícitamente por personajes de la política inescrupulosos y que son simpatizantes de narrativas falsas convenidas como fue el fraude inexistente en la elección presidencial del año 2021 y otras similares.
Este accionar se traslada a las redes sociales donde también cuentan con activistas de escritorio y bots que apoyan y rebotan su accionar, amplificando la campaña de difamación y se encargan de publicitar a estos grupos a yoda hora del día, intensificándose cuando hay una campaña específica de desinformación y difamación.
No veo acoso ni incitación al odio ,puesto que es una denuncia pública y los ciudadanos tenemos derecho a saber la verdad.
La Resistencia also named La pestilencia by Peruvian media is a group payed by formerly nacionalist extreme wing parties from Peru. Their job is to appear in the houses and workplaces of news broadcasters that denounce irregularities and injustice. Rosa Maria Palacios has been harassed in her own home, IDL reporteros had been harassed with human fecal and trash thrown to the facade of their offices. Demonstrations against human rights and democratic institutions who are attacked by this crowd of incivils are not intervened by police because the chiefs of them are part of the government.
We live in Finland and we follow the ill doing of this group from here since many of our members are Peruvians and we see that once more the representatives of Human rights are attacked and harassed with impunity. We hope that this attacks stop and political situation in Peru is taken in account and that advice and sanctions are included in our actions as democratic society, this kind of organisations must be stopped.
TOTALMENTE DE ACUERDO CON EL CONCEPTO QUE LA RESISTENCIA, BRAZO AGRESOR DEL PARTIDO POLITICO FUERZA POPULAR, DE LA HIJA DEL EX DICATADOR ALBERTO FUJIMORI, HOSTIGA, AMENAZA, AGREDE, INSULTA A TODA AQUELLA PERSONA PUBLICA O NO, QUE SE MANIFIESTE EN CONTRA DE SUS INTERESES, SOLO DEBEN BUSCAR EN GOOGLE LA PALABRA "ROSA BARTRA" Y "RESISTENCIA" PARA COMPROBAR LA CERCANIA DE ESTE GRUPO DELINCUENCIAL CON ESE PARTIDO Y TAMBIEN CON EL PARTIDO DE ULTRADERECHA, RENOVACION POPULAR, SU CABEZA VISIBLE JUAN JOSE MUÑICO (EX SOLDADO, ACUSADO DE HOMICIDIO), POSTULÓ AL CONGRESO POR ESE PARTIDO QUE EN ESE MOMENTO TENIA OTRO NOMBRE, SOLIDARIDAD NACIONAL. ESE GRUPO AGREDE E INSULTA A PERIODISTAS (ROSA MARIA PALACIOS, GUSTAVO GORRITTI, MARCO SIFUENTES), POLITICOS (AL EX PRESIDENTE FRANCISCO SAGASTI), DE UN MODO CONSTANTE E IMPUNE, NO LES PASA NADA, ESTAN PROTEGIDOS POR LA POLICIA Y EL SERENAZGO DE MUCHOS MUNICIPIOS, ME AVERGUENZA COMO CIUDADANA LA PRESENCIA DE GENTE DE TAN BAJO NIVEL INTELECTUAL Y MORAL, QUE ES USADA POR FUERZA POPULAR COMO UN MODO MÁS SUCIO AUN DE ELIMINAR A SUS ADVERSARIOS, YA USAN SU ABUSIVA HEGEMONIA EN EL CONGRESO APOYADOS POR SUS ALIADOS, SON EXPERTOS EN POLITIZAR LA JUSTICIA PARA VACARLOS Y LUEGO INHABILITARLOS, LA RESISTENCIA Y SU SIMILAR LA PESTILENCIA, ES EL MODO CALLEJERO Y DIRECTO DE CALLAR A SUS OPONENTES, Y DE ALGUN MODO LO LOGRAN, HAY MIEDO. ES DE MENCIONAR QUE EL GOBIERNO DE DINA BOLUARTE ES COMPLICE Y TITERE DE LA MAFIA QUE DOMINA EL CONGRESO Y QUE ES QUIEN REALMENTE MANDA EN EL PERU, CON CADA VEZ MENOS RESPETO POR LA CIUDADANIA Y SUS DERECHOS, AMEDRENTA TAMBIEN A LA PRENSA, QUE SI NO FUERA POR LOS MEDIOS ALTERNATIVOS DE COMUNICACION, ESTARIA CASI TOTALMENTE DOMINADA POR ESOS PODERES CADA VEZ MAS CINICOS Y A BUSIVOS.
La resistencia, es una organización que se dedica ha amenazar a periodistas, y cualquier persona o institución que denuncie los abusos del gobierno.