Previous 8 / 26 Next

12/20/23, 4:12 PM Oversight Board | Independent judgement. Transparency. Legitimacy. incorrectly added to Media Matching Service banks. "Sudan graphic video" (case decision 2022-002-FB-MR): the Board discussed the need to amend and clarify the Violent and Graphic Content policy. "Pro-Navalny protests in Russia" (case decision 2021-004-FB-UA): the Board discussed legitimate aim of the Bullying and Harassment Community Standard. "Nazi quote" (case decision 2020-005-FB-UA): the Board discussed comments left on content by its authors friends and followers, as an indicator of a poster's likely intent. II. Meta's Content Policies: This case involves Instagram's Community Guidelines and Facebook's Community Standards. Meta's third quarter transparency report states that "Facebook and Instagram share content policies. This means that if content is considered violating on Facebook, it is also considered violating on Instagram". The Instagram Community Guidelines say that Meta "may remove videos of intense, graphic violence to make sure Instagram stays appropriate for everyone". This links to the Facebook Violent and Graphic Content Community Standard, where the policy rationale states: To protect users from disturbing imagery, we remove content that is particularly violent or graphic, such as videos depicting dismemberment, visible innards or charred bodies. We also remove content that contains sadistic remarks towards imagery depicting the suffering of humans and animals. In the context of discussions about important issues such as human rights abuses, armed conflicts or acts of terrorism, we allow graphic content (with some limitations) to help people to condemn and raise awareness about these situations. The Violent and Graphic Content policy states that "imagery that shows the violent death of a person or people by accident or murder" will be placed behind a disturbing content warning screen. The "do not post" section of the rules explains that users cannot post sadistic remarks towards imagery that requires a warning screen under the policy. It also states that content will be removed if there are "visible innards". Meta's Bullying and Harassment policy rationale explains that it removes a variety of content https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-OZNR5J1Z/ 8/26

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