Previous 7 / 26 Next

12/20/23, 4:12 PM Oversight Board | Independent judgement. Transparency. Legitimacy. The Board notes as relevant context the recent history of violence and terrorist incidents in Nigeria. Experts consulted by the Board stated that the Nigerian government has at times suppressed domestic reporting of terror attacks but does not appear to have done so to a significant degree with regards to the 5 June attack, which was widely covered by traditional media. Graphic imagery of the attack and its victims was widely circulated on social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, but was not shown to the same extent by traditional media. In response to questions from the Board, Meta confirmed that the Nigerian government did not contact Meta regarding the attack or request that the content be taken down. 3. Oversight Board authority and scope The Board has authority to review Meta's decision following an appeal from the user whose content was removed (Charter Article 2, Section 1; Bylaws Article 3, Section 1). The Board may uphold or overturn Meta's decision (Charter Article 3, Section 5), and this decision is binding on the company (Charter Article 4). Meta must also assess the feasibility of applying its decision in respect of identical content with parallel context (Charter Article 4). The Board's decisions may include policy advisory statements with non-binding recommendations that Meta must respond to (Charter Article 3, Section 4; Article 4). 4. Source of authority The Oversight Board considered the following authorities and standards: I.Oversight Board decisions: "Russian poem" (case decision 2022-008-FB-UA): the Board discussed challenges arising from content moderation in conflict situations and noted that the Violent and Graphic Content policy was unclear. "Mention of the Taliban in news reporting" (case decision 2022-005-FB-UA): the Board discussed how users can comment on the activities of terrorist entities. "Colombian police cartoon" (case decision 2022-004-FB-UA): the Board recommended that Meta improve procedures to remove non-violating content https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-OZNR5J1Z/ 7/26

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

The Case of Video After Nigeria Church Attack

Case Law

Country

Nigeria

Country Location

Latitude: 7.311172396347703

Longitude: 6.54274292730156

Country Location (linked Case Law): Nigeria

Decision Date: Dec 20, 2022

Case Status: Closed

Keywords

Terrorism

Judicial Body: Meta's Oversight Board

Court Name: Oversight Board

Case Number: 2022-011-IG-UA

Case Summary: The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decision to remove a video from Instagram showing the aftermath of a terrorist attack on a church in Nigeria, in which at least 40 people were killed, and more were injured. Meta removed the content as it considered that it violated the Violent and Graphic Content policy, the Bullying and Harassment policy, and the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy. The Board decided that the video should be restored to the platform to respect freedom of expression and allow people to “discuss the events that some states may seek to suppress” by raising awareness and documenting human rights abuses. Nonetheless, the Board considered that the video needed a “disturbing content” warning screen to protect the privacy of the victims whose faces were visible. The Board also recommended Meta to provide users with a reasoned notification when a warning screen is applied to their content, and to review and clarify the language of the Violent and Graphic Content policy to ensure that it lines up with the moderators’ internal guidance.

*The Oversight Board is a separate entity from Meta and will provide its independent judgment on both individual cases and questions of policy. Both the Board and its administration are funded by an independent trust. The Board has the authority to decide whether Facebook and Instagram should allow or remove content. Decisions, except summary decisions are binding, unless implementing them could violate the law. The Board can also choose to issue recommendations on the company’s content policies.

Case Significance: Mixed Outcome

This decision has a mixed outcome. While the Board underscored the right to freedom of expression in contexts where the content seeks to raise awareness and document human rights abuses, it weighed this right with the victims’ and families’ privacy. In doing so, the Board decided the content should be restored with a warning screen, a less severe measure that justifiably restricts the content’s reach in accordance with international human rights standards.

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, Article 4 of the Oversight Board Charter establishes, “The board’s resolution of each case will be binding and Facebook (now Meta) will implement it promptly, unless implementation of a resolution could violate the law. In instances where Facebook identifies that identical content with parallel context – which the board has already decided upon – remains on Facebook (now 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 includes policy guidance or a policy advisory opinion, Facebook (now Meta) will take further action by analyzing the operational procedures required to implement the guidance, considering it in the formal policy development process of Facebook (now Meta), and transparently communicating about actions taken as a result.”

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Sep 22, 2024

Primary Documents

Decision
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

The Case of Video After Nigeria Church Attack

Primary Documents

Notifications