13/3/24, 13:44 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. that users cannot post sadistic remarks towards imagery that requires a warning screen under the policy. The Board’s analysis was informed by the Meta’s commitment to “ Voice,” which the company describes as “paramount,” and its values of “Safety,” “Privacy” and “Dignity.” The newsworthiness allowance is a general policy exception that can potentially be applied across all policy areas within the Community Standards, including to the rule on prisoners of war. The newsworthiness allowance is explained under Meta’s “commitment to voice.” It allows otherwise violating content to be kept on the platform if the public interest value in doing so outweighs the risk of harm. According to Meta’s approach to newsworthy content, which is linked from the introduction to the Community Standards, such assessments are made only in “rare cases,” following escalation to the Content Policy Team. This team assesses whether the content in question surfaces an imminent threat to public health or safety, or gives voice to perspectives currently being debated as part of a political process. This assessment considers country-specific circumstances, including if the country is at war. While the identity of the speaker is a relevant consideration, the allowance is not limited to content that is posted by news outlets. III. Meta’s human rights responsibilities 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. Significantly, the UNGPs impose a heightened responsibility on businesses operating in a conflict setting (“Business, human rights and conflict-affected regions: towards heightened action,” A/75/212). The Board's analysis of Meta’s human rights responsibilities in this case was informed by the following international standards, including in the field of international humanitarian law (also known as ‘the law of armed conflict’): The right to freedom of expression: Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR), General Comment No. 34, Human Rights Committee, 2011; UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and e pression reports A/68/362 (2013) A/HRC/38/35 https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-YLRV35WD/ 10/26