Chicago Journal of International Law Tatmadaw officials committed genocide, the specific intent argument might be strengthened. B. Complicity in Inciting Genocide on Social Media Once direct and public incitement to commit genocide is established, the potential complicity of others becomes an open question, and incitements on social media may implicate employees at the company providing the platform. As discussed in Section III, there are two main tracks for complicity under the Rome Statute: (1) aiding and abetting liability; and (2) common purpose liability.182 Because the requisite mens rea for common purpose liability is knowledge, while the mens rea for aiding and abetting is purpose, a prosecutor is more likely to obtain a conviction where the incitement is perpetrated by a “group of persons acting with a common purpose.”183 Therefore, an employee faces a greater risk of complicity in an incitement campaign—which requires coordination among multiple actors—than an isolated call for genocide.184 This Section’s analysis is therefore limited to complicity in campaigns, for which the mens rea is knowledge. Accordingly, a social media employee who knowingly assists a campaign to incite genocide is complicit in that crime.185 As evidenced by The Zyklon B Case, complicity also varies depending on where an individual is positioned in the corporate hierarchy.186 Accordingly, this Comment examines the risk of complicity through three examples: the CEO, the manager, and the content moderator. 1. The CEO This Comment first analyzes the CEO. It is presumed the CEO has the foremost control over the social media company, setting the overall direction for the enterprise and making fundamental business decisions. While the CEO’s awareness of business activity is likely broader than his or her subordinates with respect to scope, he or she is less likely to know the day-to-day details of the company. First, a prosecutor must show that the social media CEO assisted the incitement. According to the ICC, assistance may be practical or material, as well 182 183 184 185 186 Rome Statute, supra note 29, at art. 25(3). Id. at 105. This Comment assumes that social media employees rarely, if ever, contribute to inciting genocide on purpose. It therefore does not analyze the risk of aiding and abetting liability at length, which is presumed de minimis. Rome Statute, supra note 29, at art. 25(3). See The Zyklon B Case, Case No. 9, 1 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals 93, 102 (British Military Court, Hamburg, Germany Mar. 1–8 1946), http://perma.cc/GU9K-GLH6. 110 Vol. 21 No. 1