Previous 20 / 21 Next

9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido recommendations. It believes this should be done for Instagram users as well. The Board will consider this implemented when the Transparency Center contains this information. *Procedural note: The Oversight Board’s decisions are prepared by panels of five Members and approved by a majority of the Board. Board decisions do not necessarily represent the personal views of all Members. For this case decision, independent research was commissioned on behalf of the Board. The Board was assisted by an independent research institute headquartered at the University of Gothenburg which draws on a team of over 50 social scientists on six continents, as well as more than 3,200 country experts from around the world. The Board was also assisted by Duco Advisors, an advisory firm focusing on the intersection of geopolitics, trust and safety, and technology. Memetica, an organization that engages in open-source research on social media trends, also provided analysis. Volver a Decisiones de casos y opiniones consultivas sobre políticas PRIORIDADES ESTRATÉGICAS SEGUIMIENTO DE LA APELACIÓN SUSCRIBIRSE CONTACTO OPORTUNIDADES LABORALES SOLICITUDES DE PRENSA https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 20/21

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Oversight Board Case of Violence Against Women

Case Law

Country

Sweden

Country Location

Latitude: 59.6916726946807

Longitude: 14.217204763399222

Country Location (linked Case Law): Sweden

Decision Date: Jul 12, 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Overturned Meta’s initial decision

Keywords

Digital Rights
Gender
Hate Speech
Social Media

Court Name: Oversight Board

Case Number: 2023-002-IG-UA & 2023-005-IG-UA

Case Summary: The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decisions to remove two Instagram posts condemning and raising awareness about gender-based violence. Meta originally removed the contents because they violated, according to the company, its Hate Speech policy. The first post included a statement that was characterized by two at-scale reviewers as an unqualified behavioral statement and the second post included a statement deemed as an expression of contempt against men. The Board found both posts did not violate the aforementioned policy as they aimed to raise awareness about violence against women and did not promote offline harm or create an environment of discrimination against men. The Board also decided that the posts aligned with Meta’s value of “Voice” as they sought to raise awareness. Additionally, the Board concluded that the removal of the posts was inconsistent with Meta’s human rights responsibilities as the measure didn’t meet the requirements of legality, necessity, or proportionality. The Board recommended Meta modify its policies to include an exception that allows content raising awareness about gender-based violence.

*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. These 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: Expands Expression

The Oversight Board’s decision expanded freedom of expression by allowing speech condemning or raising awareness about gender-based violence even if it includes harsh and offensive language to some groups, as long as it doesn’t promote violence or create an environment of discrimination against them. In its analysis of the content at hand, the Board implemented the Rabat Plan of Action and concluded that the statements did not incite violence, hatred, or discrimination against men. Thus they fell within the scope of freedom of expression. Through this decision, the Board fosters a safer environment for women to express themselves and raise awareness about their struggles.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

According to Article 2.1.3 of the Oversight Board Bylaws, “Where Meta determines that the content in a particular case was incorrectly actioned by Meta and reverses its original decision, the case selection committee may choose to select the case for summary decision […]”. In addition to that, Article 2 of the Oversight Board Charter stipulates that, “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.”

Furthermore, Article 4 of the same Charter provides that, “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)

Oversight Board Case of Mention of the Taliban in News Reporting

Related Law

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Oct 18, 2024

Primary Documents

Decision.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Oversight Board Case of Violence Against Women

Primary Documents

Notifications