12/20/23, 4:12 PM Oversight Board | Independent judgement. Transparency. Legitimacy. In response to questions from the Board, Meta also determined that the content violated the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations policy. Meta had designated the 5 June attack as a "multiple-victim violence event" and, as a result, any content deemed to praise, substantively support or represent that event is prohibited under the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations policy. Meta explained that this was in line with its commitments under the Christchurch Call for Action, and that it brought the 5 June attack to the attention of industry partners in the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. Meta explained that, while it was a "close call", the content in this case appears to mock the victims of the attack and speak positively about the weapons used, and therefore qualifies as praise of a designated event under its policy. Meta stated that removing the content in this case strikes the appropriate balance between its values. The user's caption demonstrated a lack of respect for the dignity of the victims, their families and the community affected by the attack – all of which outweigh the value of the user's own voice. In response to the Board's questions, Meta confirmed that it did not issue any newsworthiness allowances in relation to content containing violating imagery related to the 5 June attack. Finally, Meta explained that its actions were consistent with international human rights law, stating that its policy on sadistic remarks is clear and accessible, the policy aims to protect the rights of others, as well as public order and national security, and all actions short of removal would not adequately address the risk of harm. Meta pointed to the European Court of Human Rights decision in Hachette Filipacchi Associes v. France (2007), which held that journalists who published photos of someone's violent death in a widely distributed magazine "intensified the trauma suffered by the relatives". Meta also pointed to a 2010 article by Sam Gregory, "Cameras Everywhere: Ubiquitous Video Documentation of Human Rights, New Forms of Video Advocacy and Considerations of Safety, Security, Dignity and Consent" in the Journal of Human Rights Practice, which explains that "the most graphic violations" such as violent attacks "most easily translate into a loss of dignity, privacy and agency, and which carries with it the potential for real re-victimisation". Meta noted that its policy is not to remove graphic content, but to place it behind a warning screen, which limits its access to minors. It said that its policy to remove sadistic remarks "goes a step further" because "the value of dignity outweighs the value of voice". https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-OZNR5J1Z/ 12/26