A/HRC/38/35 concern that States may interfere with the right to freedom of expression “regardless of frontiers”. The logic of these demands would allow censorship across borders, to the benefit of the most restrictive censors. Those seeking removals should be required to make such requests in every jurisdiction where relevant, through regular legal and judicial process. 19. Government demands not based on national law. Companies distinguish between requests for the removal of allegedly illegal content submitted through regular legal channels and requests for removal based on the companies’ terms of service. 43 (Legal removals generally apply only in the requesting jurisdiction; terms of service removals generally apply globally.) State authorities increasingly seek content removals outside of legal process or even through terms of service requests. 44 Several have established specialized government units to refer content to companies for removal. The European Union Internet Referral Unit, for instance, “flag[s] terrorist and violent extremist content online and cooperat[es] with online service providers with the aim of removing this content”. 45 Australia also has similar referral mechanisms. 46 In South-East Asia, parties allied with Governments reportedly attempt to use terms of service requests to restrict political criticism.47 20. States also place pressure on companies to accelerate content removals through nonbinding efforts, most of which have limited transparency. A three-year ban on YouTube in Pakistan compelled Google to establish a local version susceptible to government demands for removals of “offensive” content.48 Facebook and Israel reportedly agreed to coordinate efforts and staff to monitor and remove “incitement” online. The details of this agreement were not disclosed, but the Israeli Minister of Justice claimed that between June and September 2016, Facebook granted nearly all government requests for removal of “incitement”. 49 Arrangements to coordinate content actions with State input exacerbate concerns that companies perform public functions without the oversight of courts and other accountability mechanisms.50 21. The 2016 European Union Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online involves agreement between the European Union and four major companies to remove content, committing them to collaborate with “trusted flaggers” and promote “independent counter-narratives”.51 While the promotion of counter-narratives may be attractive in the face of “extremist” or “terrorist” content, pressure for such approaches runs the risk of transforming platforms into carriers of propaganda well beyond established areas of legitimate concern.52 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 8 Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) (case C-507/17); Global Network Initiative submission, p. 6. Compare Twitter Transparency Report: Removal Requests (January−June 2017) with Twitter Transparency Report: Government Terms of Service Reports (January−June 2017). See also Facebook, Government requests: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Submissions by ARTICLE 19, p. 2 and Global Network Initiative, p. 5. European Union, Internet Referral Unit, Year One Report, sect. 4.11; submissions by European Digital Rights (EDRi), p. 1 and Access Now, pp. 2−3. Australia submission. Southeast Asian Press Alliance, p. 1. Digital Rights Foundation submission. 7amleh − The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media submission. Association for Progressive Communications, p. 14 and 7amleh. “Trusted flaggers … refers to the status given to certain organisations which allows them to report illegal content through a special reporting system or channel, which is not available to normal users.” European Commission, Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online: First results on implementation (December 2016). The same companies created the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, an effort to develop industry-wide technological tools to remove terrorist content on their platforms. Google, “Update on the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism”, 4 December 2017.