This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Christchurch Call | |
|---|---|
| Name | Christchurch Call |
| Date signed | 15 May 2019 |
| Location signed | Christchurch, New Zealand |
| Parties | New Zealand; France; United Kingdom; United States; technology companies; civil society organisations |
| Subject | Voluntary commitments to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online |
Christchurch Call
The Christchurch Call is a multistakeholder initiative launched after the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand; it was announced by Jacinda Ardern and Emmanuel Macron at a summit attended by representatives from governments, technology firms, and civil society. The initiative sought rapid action to prevent the use of online platforms to plan, promote, or broadcast terrorist and violent extremist acts, drawing participation from states including Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, plus major technology companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Microsoft and civil society groups including Amnesty International and Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Call emerged from the livestreamed attack on the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre which provoked responses from leaders like Jacinda Ardern and international institutions such as the United Nations and the European Commission. The initiative built on prior international instruments including the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, and deliberations at the G7 and G20 about online harms, intersecting debates involving platform practices debated at Congress (United States), Parliament of the United Kingdom, and within national forums in France, Germany, and Australia. Civil society actors like Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and Center for Media, Data and Society were influential in shaping calls for transparency from firms such as Twitter, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Alphabet Inc..
The core objective was to coordinate state and industry action to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online while protecting rights articulated in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The declared principles emphasized cooperation among actors including national ministries (e.g., Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand), Department of Homeland Security (United States), Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (France)), platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, and standards bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and World Wide Web Consortium. Commitments referenced technical measures akin to those in discussions at Internet Governance Forum and legal frameworks debated in forums like the European Court of Human Rights and Council of the European Union.
The Call’s initial launch involved heads of state, ministers, and chief executives from corporations including Google LLC, Facebook, Inc., Twitter, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Amazon (company) along with civil society organisations such as Amnesty International and Electronic Frontier Foundation. States signing ranged from New Zealand and Australia to Japan, South Korea, Norway, Sweden, France, and United Kingdom, and subsequent signatories included regional bodies like the European Union and multilateral institutions such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Technology associations like Internet Association and research centres including The Brookings Institution and Oxford Internet Institute engaged in technical consultations and helped draft guidance adopted by industry participants.
Industry commitments emphasized rapid removal, improved content moderation policies developed by firms including Meta Platforms, Inc., Alphabet Inc., and Twitter, Inc., and investment in counter-speech initiatives run by NGOs such as Search for Common Ground and Institute for Strategic Dialogue. States pledged cooperation through law enforcement agencies including New Zealand Police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Europol and through cross-border referral mechanisms influenced by protocols like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Technical measures cited included hashing and content-flagging systems similar to PhotoDNA and machine learning approaches discussed at conferences such as NeurIPS and ICML; capacity-building funding involved agencies like United States Agency for International Development and United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Governance arrangements created a non-binding coordination mechanism hosted by the New Zealand Government with advisory roles for technical experts from institutions such as the Internet Society, academics from Harvard University and University of Oxford, and civil society representatives from Human Rights Watch. Accountability relied on voluntary reporting by corporations and periodic stocktakes at ministerial meetings involving delegations to forums like the United Nations General Assembly and the G7 Summit. Critiques noted the absence of formal enforcement comparable to mechanisms in treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or adjudication bodies such as the International Court of Justice.
Critics including Electronic Frontier Foundation, scholars from Stanford University and University College London, and media outlets such as The Guardian argued commitments risked overreach, raising concerns about censorship, due process, and transparency in content takedown practices. Others pointed to uneven participation by firms, divergent legal regimes across signatory states such as United States and Germany, and tensions with free expression jurisprudence at the European Court of Human Rights and constitutional tests at the Supreme Court of the United States. Debates involved trade associations like Computer & Communications Industry Association and policy groups such as Center for Democracy & Technology over automated moderation, algorithmic accountability, and impacts on journalists represented by Committee to Protect Journalists.
Assessments by research organisations including RAND Corporation, Data & Society Research Institute, and academics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have been mixed: some studies credited the Call with accelerating platform policy changes at Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter and with spurring investment in content detection tools, while others found limited effect on offline radicalization metrics studied by institutes like International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. Evaluations cited divergences in national law—comparing frameworks in Germany (e.g., Network Enforcement Act) and United States (e.g., First Amendment to the United States Constitution)—and noted challenges measured by datasets curated by Internet Archive and researchers at Oxford Internet Institute. Future reviews are expected in multilateral settings including the United Nations and regional forums like the European Commission to determine whether voluntary arrangements should be supplemented by regulation.
Category:Internet governance Category:Counter-terrorism