Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 52 (2020) Crime as Cognitive Constraint Article 19 and 20. 171 Expression is generally allowed (“voice”; Article 19) except when certain rights are at risk (“safety”; Article 20 prohibited speech). 172 However, Facebook is silent as to how it intends to strike a balance between these competing values. 173 The lack of definition of hate speech under international law, and its ambivalent treatment across jurisdictions and even within international criminal tribunals (e.g. Nahimana case), limit granular incorporation of human rights law in content moderation policy. 174 There is no given set of words that exhaustively and conclusively amounts to allowable and prohibited content. 175 The slippery nature of language, coupled with the differing contextual resonance of specific expressions, contribute to the challenge. At the very least, the usefulness of the ICCPR is in ensuring procedural guarantees in content moderation (e.g. transparency and oversight, due process). 176 In the US, for instance, Danielle Keats Citron called for “technological due process,” likening platforms’ content moderation to the quasi-judicial function exercised by US 171. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 121, arts. 19–20. 172. Id. 173. Douek, supra note 114. 174. Barrie Sander, Freedom of Expression in the Age of Online Platforms: The Promise and Pitfalls of a Human Rights-Based Approach to Content Moderation, 43 FORDHAM J. INT’L L. 939, 969 (2020) (acknowledging the difficulty of “translation of general human rights principles into particular rules, processes and procedures tailored to the platform moderation context”). 175. One commentator defends the substantive usefulness of the ICCPR to content moderation without, however, articulating it to a level of detail required by platforms’ community guidelines. See Evelyn Mary Aswad, The Future of Freedom of Expression Online, 17 DUKE L. & TECH REV. 26, 43 (2018) (using Twitter as an illustrative case of community guidelines’ incompatibility with international human rights law). But see id. at 57-59 (acknowledging criticisms). 176. But see Sander, supra note 174 (manuscript at 5) (further classifying process into two distinct dimensions: (i) process referring to transparency, oversight and stakeholder engagement, and (ii) procedural-remediation referring to user notification and availability of appeal in the review of content). See also Self-regulation and ‘Hate Speech’ on Social Media Platforms, ARTICLE 19, at 1, 5, 20 (2018); UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/38/35, at 15-16 (Apr. 6, 2018) (recommending that content moderation should adhere to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, and non-discrimination originally designed for states under the ICCPR). 172