Expands Expression
The decision issued by the Oversight Board in this case expanded freedom of expression. Through this decision, the Board stressed the importance of preserving content that documents potential human rights abuses and humanitarian law violations during armed conflicts where journalistic access is severely limited. Considering the importance of social media platforms in times of crisis, the Board’s decision provides robust protection for the right to disseminate information—which might be essential to guarantee the safety of civilians, whose access to media, in light of the context, could be heavily curtailed already. The decision also fosters a better online ecosystem for expression about matters of public interest.
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.
According to Article 2 of the Oversight Board Charter, “For each decision, any prior board decisions will have precedential value and should be viewed as highly persuasive when the facts, applicable policies, or other factors are substantially similar.” In addition to Article 4 of the Oversight Board Charter, “The board’s resolution of each case will be binding and Meta will implement it promptly, unless implementation of a resolution could violate the law. In instances where Meta identifies that identical content with parallel context — which the board has already decided upon — remains on Meta, it will take action by analyzing whether it is technically and operationally feasible to apply the board’s decision to that content as well. When a decision or a policy advisory opinion includes recommendations, Meta will take further action by analyzing the operational procedures required to implement the recommendations, considering those recommendations in the formal policy development process of Meta, and transparently communicating about actions taken as a result.”