Why Won’t Facebook Reveal the 5 Names of its Secret Trump Tribunal?

Daniel Greenfield, In my article on Facebook’s Oversight Board from last year, I noted that it was a horrible collection of lefty figures tied to Soros along with a smattering of Muslim Brotherhood types.

Facebook claims to have set up the board for transparency, yet its process of having a five-member panel judge a case, followed by a general board review, omits one basic element which is the names of that panel.

The names of the board members are public, the names of the five panelists from the board are not.

Alan Rusbridger, a former lefty Guardian editor, who sits on the board, promised the ‘inside scoop’ on the board’s decision in President Trump’s censorship case. Despite the sales pitch, he actually tells us almost nothing relevant and the names of the fab five are still being kept secret.

“The Trump decision was reached through the processes we’ve devised ourselves. A panel of five – with a good spread of regional backgrounds – did the initial heavy lifting, including sifting through more than 9,000 responses from the public.”

We can safely assume then that with this “good spread of regional backgrounds”, the panel was likely not very American.

Beyond that it’s being kept secret.

A basic element of democratic jurisprudence is the right of the accused to know the names of their judges. This secret tribunal nonsense is creepy totalitarian behavior for a creepy totalitarian organization.

Facebook Used UN Rules to Keep Banning Trump

If you want to see what having the First Amendment trashed by UN regulations looks like, you can look no further than Facebook and Silicon Valley.

Facebook created an ‘Oversight Board’ to whom bans can be appealed. The ‘Board’ judged the case of President Trump. And the outcome was predictable. But what was the Board’s metric?

The Board analyzed Facebook’s human rights responsibilities in this case by considering human rights standards including:

The right to freedom of expression: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR), Articles 19 and 20; as interpreted in General Comment No. 34, Human Rights Committee (2011) ( General Comment 34); the Rabat Plan of Action, OHCHR, (2012); UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression report A/HRC/38/35 (2018); Joint Statement of international freedom of expression monitors on COVID-19 (March, 2020).

The right to life: ICCPR Article 6.

The right to security of person: ICCPR Article 9, para. 1.

The right to non-discrimination: ICCPR Articles 2 and 26; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( ICERD), Articles 1 and 4.

Participation in public affairs and the right to vote: ICCPR Article 25.

The right to remedy: ICCPR Article 2; General Comment No. 31, Human Rights Committee (2004) ( General Comment 31); UNGPs, Principle 22.

The  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a UN treaty. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( ICERD) is a UN convention. OHCHR refers to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. HRC is the Human Rights Council.

The Rabat Plan of Action is particularly bad news and it’s now being imposed on Americans.

We’re now living under the UN speech codes.