Mixed Outcome
In this decision, the Board limited expressions that called for violence issued by Cambodia’s then Prime Minister. Through a careful balancing of conflicting rights—considering the risks the content entailed of engendering offline harm—, the Board concluded that Meta’s decision to keep the content online was wrong since protecting the rights of others, in this case, outweighed its public interest value. In doing so, the OSB referred to multiple human rights standards that justified proportionate limitations to freedom of expression, especially when considering Cambodia’s political context.
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.”