Précédent 7 / 21 Next

9/7/24, 14:07 Violence against women | Consejo asesor de contenido among different groups. Meta also held a policy forum in which it debated potentially modifying the Hate Speech policy, and ultimately decided to continue with its current approach. 3. Oversight Board authority and scope The Board has authority to review Meta’s decision following an appeal from the person whose content was removed (Charter Article 2, Section 1; Bylaws Article 3, Section 1). The Board may uphold or overturn Meta’s decision (Charter Article 3, Section 5), and this decision is binding on the company (Charter Article 4). Meta must also assess the feasibility of applying its decision in respect of identical content with parallel context (Charter Article 4). The Board’s decisions may include non-binding recommendations that Meta must respond to (Charter Article 3, Section 4; Article 4). Where Meta commits to act on recommendations, the Board monitors their implementation. When the Board selects cases like the first post, where Meta subsequently acknowledges that it made an error, the Board reviews the original decision to increase understanding of the content moderation process and to make recommendations to reduce errors and increase fairness for people who use Facebook and Instagram. The Board also aims to make recommendations to lessen the likelihood of future errors and treat users more fairly moving forward. When the Board identifies cases that raise similar issues, they may be assigned to a panel simultaneously to deliberate together. Binding decisions will be made with respect to each piece of content. 4. Sources of authority and guidance The following standards and precedents informed the Board’s analysis in this case: I. Oversight Board decisions The most relevant previous decisions of the Oversight Board include: “Mention of the Taliban in news reporting” case ( 2022-005-FB-UA) recommending that Meta release more information on its strike system. “Wampum belt” case ( 2021-012-FB-UA) recommending that Meta study the impacts on reviewer accuracy when content moderators are informed they are engaged in secondary review. “‘Two buttons’ meme” case ( 2021-005-FB-UA) examining Meta’s procedures to assess relevant context and recommending that Meta provide content moderators necessary time and resources to review content. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/ig-h3138h6s/?lang=es 7/21

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Oversight Board Case of Violence Against Women

Case Law

Country

Sweden

Country Location

Latitude: 59.6916726946807

Longitude: 14.217204763399222

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Sweden

Decision Date: 12 juil. 2023

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Overturned Meta’s initial decision

Keywords

Digital Rights
Gender
Hate Speech
Social Media

Court Name: Oversight Board

Case Number: 2023-002-IG-UA & 2023-005-IG-UA

Case Summary: The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decisions to remove two Instagram posts condemning and raising awareness about gender-based violence. Meta originally removed the contents because they violated, according to the company, its Hate Speech policy. The first post included a statement that was characterized by two at-scale reviewers as an unqualified behavioral statement and the second post included a statement deemed as an expression of contempt against men. The Board found both posts did not violate the aforementioned policy as they aimed to raise awareness about violence against women and did not promote offline harm or create an environment of discrimination against men. The Board also decided that the posts aligned with Meta’s value of “Voice” as they sought to raise awareness. Additionally, the Board concluded that the removal of the posts was inconsistent with Meta’s human rights responsibilities as the measure didn’t meet the requirements of legality, necessity, or proportionality. The Board recommended Meta modify its policies to include an exception that allows content raising awareness about gender-based violence.

*The Oversight Board is a separate entity from Meta and will provide its independent judgment on both individual cases and questions of policy. Both the Board and its administration are funded by an independent trust. The Board has the authority to decide whether Facebook and Instagram should allow or remove content. These decisions are binding, unless implementing them could violate the law. The Board can also choose to issue recommendations on the company’s content policies.

Case Significance: Expands Expression

The Oversight Board’s decision expanded freedom of expression by allowing speech condemning or raising awareness about gender-based violence even if it includes harsh and offensive language to some groups, as long as it doesn’t promote violence or create an environment of discrimination against them. In its analysis of the content at hand, the Board implemented the Rabat Plan of Action and concluded that the statements did not incite violence, hatred, or discrimination against men. Thus they fell within the scope of freedom of expression. Through this decision, the Board fosters a safer environment for women to express themselves and raise awareness about their struggles.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

According to Article 2.1.3 of the Oversight Board Bylaws, “Where Meta determines that the content in a particular case was incorrectly actioned by Meta and reverses its original decision, the case selection committee may choose to select the case for summary decision […]”. In addition to that, Article 2 of the Oversight Board Charter stipulates that, “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.”

Furthermore, Article 4 of the same Charter provides that, “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.”

Related Caselaw (self)

Oversight Board Case of Mention of the Taliban in News Reporting

Related Law

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 18 oct. 2024

Documents principaux

Decision.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Oversight Board Case of Violence Against Women

Documents principaux

Notifications