Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 52 (2020) Crime as Cognitive Constraint Facebook’s Community Standards are said to reflect legal norms. Klonick likened the protected categories of Facebook’s Hate Speech policy to those of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964. 113 Moreover, the values that inform Facebook’s Community Standards now make reference to “international human rights standards.” 114 The question of normative alignment becomes more crucial in light of the establishment of Facebook’s Oversight Board. 115 Perhaps a more important question in the context of mass atrocities is whether there exists a need to regulate and impose legal obligations on companies, or if self-regulation is enough. If regulation is necessary, should this be international or regional 116 in form, or will domestic regulation suffice? In pursuing these questions, it is crucial to consider the current relevant regimes of international legal responsibility to know the conceptual limitations that can hinder our exploration. II. Gap In the report, the FFM concluded that the inciteful rhetoric on Facebook could amount to persecution as a crime against humanity or as advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence that must be 113. Klonick, supra note 102, at 1645 n.327 (citing §§ 201–202, 703, “outlawing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”). 114. Monica Bickert, Updating the Values that Inform our Community (September 12, 2019), Standards, FACEBOOK https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/09/updating-the-values-thatinform-our-community-standards/; Evelyn Douek, Why Facebook’s (Sept. 16, 2019), ‘Values’ Update Matters, LAWFARE https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-facebooks-values-update-matters; However, Klonick maintains that the influence of American law cannot be overlooked, particularly because Facebook’s policymakers are steeped in American free speech norms. See Klonick, supra note 102, at 1621-22; Thomas E. Kadri & Kate Klonick, Facebook v. Sullivan: Public Figures and Newsworthiness in Online Speech, 93 S. CAL. L. REV. 37, 61 (2019). 115. I suggested, for example, using the work of relevant human rights institutions such as the ICC as a signpost that can guide the Oversight Board’s case selection. See Jenny Domino, How Myanmar’s Incitement Landscape Can Inform Platform Regulation in Situations of Mass JURIS (Jan. 2, 2020), Atrocity, OPINIO http://opiniojuris.org/2020/01/02/how-myanmars-incitement-landscapecan-inform-platform-regulation-in-situations-of-mass-atrocity/. 116. See, e.g., EU Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, EUROPEAN COMM’N (June 30, 2016), https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamentalrights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/eu-codeconduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en#theeucodeofconduct. 163