4/10/22, 10:45 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. The Community Standards define “praise” as any of the following: “speak positively about a designated entity or event”; “give a designated entity or event a sense of achievement”; “legitimiz[e] the cause of a designated entity by making claims that their hateful, violent, or criminal conduct is legally, morally, or otherwise justified or acceptable”; or “align[...] oneself ideologically with a designated entity or event.” Meta recognizes that “users may share content that includes references to designated dangerous organizations and individuals to report on, condemn, or neutrally discuss them or their activities.” Meta says its policies are designed to “allow room for these types of discussions while simultaneously limiting risks of potential offline harm.” However, Meta requires “people to clearly indicate their intent when creating or sharing such content. If a user's intention is ambiguous or unclear, we default to removing content.” III. Meta’s values: The value of "Voice" is described as "paramount": The goal of our Community Standards is to create a place for expression and give people a voice. Meta wants people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them objectionable. Facebook limits "Voice" in the service of four values. "Safety" is the most relevant in this case: We’re committed to making Facebook a safe place. We remove content that could contribute to a risk of harm to the physical security of persons. Content that threatens people has the potential to intimidate, exclude or silence others and isn’t allowed on Facebook. 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: The right to freedom of opinion and expression: Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR); Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, (2011); Human Rights Council, Resolution on the Safety of Journalists, A/HRC/RES/45/18, 2020; UNESCO Brisbane Declaration on Freedom of Information: The right to know; UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, A/74/486, 2019. The right to education: Article 13, International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights; Article 10, Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women; Articles 28-29 on the Convention of the Rights to the Child; the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, 1960. The right to non-discrimination: ICCPR Articles 2 and 26. The right to life: ICCPR Article 6; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, 2018. The right to security of person: ICCPR Article 9, as interpreted by General Comment No. 35, para. 9, Human Rights Committee, 2014. 5. User submissions In their statement to the Board, the user states that they are a representative of a media organization and do not support extremism. The user says that their articles are based on national and international media sources and that this content was shared to provide information about women and girls’ education in Afghanistan. Also, the user says they always ensure the content they share is in the public interest and that it is acceptable under Meta’s Community Standards. 6. Meta’s submissions Upon re-examining its original decision, Meta decided that the content in this case should not have been removed as praise of a designated organization under the Dangerous Individuals and Organization policy. Meta explained that the underlying news context meant the content should have benefitted from the policy allowance for users to report on designated entities. Meta explained that the post and linked article include reporting on school reopening dates and details, an issue of public interest. According to Meta, the Dangerous Individuals and Organization policy allows news reporting that mentions designated entities. To benefit from the https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-U2HHA647 5/12