International human rights standards ARTICLE 19 intermediaries are typically ill-equipped to make determinations of content illegality’,12 and reiterated criticism of notice and takedown frameworks for ‘incentivising questionable claims and for failing to provide adequate protection for the intermediaries that seek to apply fair and human rights-sensitive standards to content regulation’, i.e. the danger of ‘self- or overremoval’.13 The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression recommended that any demands, requests, and other measures to take down digital content must be based on validly enacted law, subject to external and independent oversight, and must demonstrate a necessary and proportionate means of achieving one or more aims under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. 14 In their 2017 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and ‘Fake News’, Disinformation and Propaganda, the 4 international freedom of expression mandate holders further expressed concerns at ‘attempts by some governments to suppress dissent and to control public communications through … efforts to “privatise” control measures by pressuring intermediaries to take action to restrict content’.15 They emphasised that: [I]ntermediaries should never be liable for any third party content relating to those services unless they specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey an order adopted in accordance with due process guarantees by an independent, impartial, authoritative oversight body (such as a court) to remove it and they have the technical capacity to do that. These international norms are referenced in the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, which introduce a framework to assess laws, policies, and practices that govern the liability of intermediaries for third-party content. The Principles state: Intermediaries should be shielded from liability for third-party content. Content must not be required to be restricted without an order by a judicial authority. Requests for restrictions of content must be clear, be unambiguous, and follow due process. Laws and content restriction orders and practices must comply with the tests of necessity and proportionality. Laws and content restriction policies and practices must respect due process. Transparency and accountability must be built into laws and content restriction policies and practices.16 ____________________________________________ 12 A/HRC/32/38. A/HRC/32/38, para 43. 14 A/HRC/32/38. 15 OSCE, Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and ‘Fake News’, Disinformation and Propaganda, 3 March 2017. 16 Manilla Principles on Intermediary Liability. 13 12