9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido The Board's analysis of Meta’s human rights responsibilities in this case was informed by the following international standards: 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; UN Human Rights Council resolution on freedom of expression and women’s empowerment A/HRC/Res/23/2 (2013); Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, reports: A/76/258 (2021), A/74/486 (2019), A/HRC/38/35 (2018), A/68/362 (2013); and Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Gender Justice, Special Rapporteurs on freedom of opinion and expression of The United Nations (UN), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (2022). The prohibition of incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence: Article 20, para. 2, ICCPR; Rabat Plan of Action, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report: A/HRC/22/17/Add.4 (2013). The right to non-discrimination: Article 2, para. 1 and Article 26, ICCPR. 5. User submissions In their first appeal to the Board, the content creator said that they wanted to show women who face domestic violence that they are not alone. They also stated that removing the post stops an important discussion and keeps people from learning, and possibly sharing the post. In their second appeal, they explained that it was clear that they do not hate all men but want to discuss the problem of men committing violence against women. 6. Meta’s submissions After the Board identified the first post, Meta determined that it had been removed in error and did not violate the Hate Speech policy. Meta, however, maintained that the second post violated the Hate Speech policy. With regards to the first post, Meta stated that the text in the caption that “men murder, rape and abuse women mentally and physically - all the time, every day” likely caused the removal. When read in isolation, Meta found it was an “unqualified behavioral statement" about men comparing them to sexual predators or violent criminals, and therefore violated the Hate Speech policy. However, once the Board identified the case, Meta determined that, when read within the context of the post as whole, this was a “qualified behavioral statement.” Meta explained that an “unqualified https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 9/21