|
No Records Found
| Id |
|
| Title |
|
| Date |
|
| Country |
| |
|
| Adjudication body |
|
| Territorial scope |
|
International
| |
|
| Case number |
|
| Main themes |
Bullying or harassment
Hate speech
Hate speech - Other
Incitement
| |
|
| Type of expression |
Dark humour
Meme or GIF
Political humour
Social media
| |
|
| Branch of law |
Other
| |
|
| Decision direction |
|
Mixed outcome
| |
|
| Outcome |
(ODS Body) Recommend reinstating profile
| |
|
| Outcome note |
|
| Relation to previous decision |
|
Disagreement
| |
|
| Speaker |
Private individual
| |
|
| Target |
Gender_Man
Politician, public officer, or public body
Public figure
| |
|
| Link to case |
|
| Link to analysis |
|
| Related decisions |
|
| Summary |
User Rights reviewed TikTok’s permanent suspension of a French-language user account for violating the platform’s Bullying and Harassment policy. The dispute concerned a meme-like image showing conservative commentator Charlie Kirk appearing to livestream from hell, represented by a flaming skeleton surrounded by fire. TikTok considered the image degrading and humiliating, especially because it was posted shortly after Kirk’s assassination. The platform also noted that the user had reposted the same content multiple times after removals.
A central issue in the decision was whether the content should be treated as protected humor, satire, or mocking political commentary. The complainant argued that the image was intended as a “caricature satirique” shared in a humorous context and was never meant to incite hatred or glorify violence. User Rights acknowledged that the post constituted a form of “satire de mauvais goût” (“bad-taste satire”) and accepted that the image violated TikTok’s harassment rules because it mocked a recently murdered public figure. However, the body emphasized that the content did not amount to hate speech, incitement, or advocacy of violence.
User Rights agreed that TikTok could lawfully remove the individual post, but concluded that permanently banning the account was disproportionate and violated the user’s freedom of expression under Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ODS Body, therefore, recommended restoration of the account.
| |
|
|
|
Processing......