4/10/22, 10:31
Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy.
"Dignity": We believe that all people are equal in dignity and rights. We expect that people will respect the dignity of others and
not harass or degrade them.
IV. International human rights standards:
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011,
establish a voluntary framework for the human rights responsibilities of private businesses. In 2021, Meta announced its
Corporate Human Rights Policy, where it reaffirmed its commitment to respecting human rights in accordance with the UNGPs.
The Board's analysis of Meta’s human rights responsibilities in this case was informed by the following human rights standards
which are applied in Section 8 of this decision:
The rights to freedom of opinion and expression: Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), General Comment No. 34, Human Rights Committee, 2011; Communication 488/1992, Toonen v.
Australia, Human Rights Committee, 1992; Resolution 32/2, Human Rights Council, 2016; UN Special
Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, reports: A/HRC/38/35 (2018) and A/74/486 (2019); UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights, report: A/HRC/19/41 (2011).
The right to non-discrimination: Article 2, para. 1 and Article 26, ICCPR.
5. User submissions
In their statement to the Board, the user described their account as a place “to celebrate queer Arab culture.” They explain that
while it is a “safe space,” as its following has grown it has increasingly been targeted by homophobic trolls who write abusive
comments and mass-report content.
The user explained that their intent in posting the content was to celebrate “effeminate men and boys” in Arab society who are
often belittled with the derogatory language highlighted in the post. They further explained that they were attempting to reclaim
these derogatory words used against them as a form of resistance and empowerment, and argued that they made clear in the
post’s content that they do not condone or encourage the use of the words in the pictures as slurs. The user also stated that they
believed their content complied with Meta’s content policies which specifically permit the use of otherwise banned terms when
used self-referentially or in an empowering way.
6. Meta’s submissions
Meta explained in its rationale that the content was originally removed under its Hate Speech Policy as the content contains a
prohibited word on Meta’s slur list which is “a derogatory term for gay people.” Meta ultimately reversed its original decision and
restored the content as the use of the word concerned fell within Meta’s exceptions for “content that condemns a slur or hate
speech, discusses the use of slurs including reports of instances when they have been used, or debates about whether they are
acceptable to use.” Meta accepted that the context indicated that the user was drawing attention to the hurtful nature of the
word and was therefore non-violating.
In response to questions from the Board about how context is relevant in Meta’s application of Hate Speech policy exceptions,
Meta stated that “hate speech and slurs are allowed” when they are mocked, condemned, discussed, reported, or used selfreferentially and that the responsibility is on the user to make their intent clear when mentioning a slur.
In response to another question from the Board, Meta stated that they “did not speculate” as to why the content was erroneously
removed because its content reviewers do not document the reasons for their decisions.
The Board asked Meta a total of 17 questions, 16 of which were answered fully and 1 of which was answered partially.
7. Public comments
The Board received three public comments related to this case. One of the comments was submitted from the United States and
Canada, one from the Middle East and North Africa, and one from Latin America and the Caribbean.
https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-2PJ00L4T
5/11