PDF   Print
Id
374
Title
Oversight Board Case of Derogatory image of candidates for U.S. elections
Date
23/10/2024
Country
UNITED STATES (North and Central America)
Adjudication body
The Oversight Board (Meta)
Territorial scope
International
Case number
2024-057-FB-UA
Main themes
Bullying or harassment
Type of expression
Parody or pastiche
Photograph, photomontage, or manipulated image
Sexual, LGBTQ+, or gender humour
Social media
Branch of law
Other
Decision direction
Expands expression
Outcome
(Oversight Board) Overturned. Content reinstated
Outcome note
Meta overturned its decision to remove the content after the Oversight Board brought the decision to the company's attention.
Relation to previous decision
Disagreement
Speaker
Private individual
Target
Gender_Man
Gender_Woman
Politician, public officer, or public body
Link to analysis
Summary
In August a Facebook user superimposed pictures of Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz over the characters from the film Dumb and Dumber. The altered picture was based on the film poster in which the two actors are grabbing each other’s nipples through their clothing. The accompanying caption included the [shrug] and [middle finger] emojis.
The post was removed under Facebook’s Bullying and Harassment Community Standard which prohibits “derogatory sexualized photoshop or drawings”.
The Board stated that it was an “overenforcement of Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy with respect to satire and political speech in the form of a non-sexualized derogatory depiction of political figures.” It additionally highlighted the dangers that over enforcing the policy can have, “especially in the context of an election, as it may lead to the excessive removal of political speech and undermine the ability to criticize government officials and political candidates, including in a sarcastic manner. This post is nothing more than a commonplace satirical image of prominent politicians and is instantly recognizable as such.”
The decision was overturned and Meta reinstated it on the grounds that there was no violation, and the image did not constitute sexual activity.