Case Summary and Outcome

On January 9, 2023, the Oversight Board overturned Meta’s initial decision to delete a Facebook post with the tagline “marg bar… Khamenei” in protest of the Iranian regime. Although this literally means “death to Khamenei,” it’s also frequently employed as political jargon to imply “down with Khamenei.” A Facebook user posted a cartoon on the platform with a caption that included the contested sentence. The post was promptly deleted since Meta considered it violated the Violence and Incitement policy. Although the user appealed this decision, Meta’s automated systems did not prioritize the appeal, and it was closed without additional review. The Board decided that the tagline line didn’t violate the Violence and Incitement policy as it considered that the statement should be understood as “down with Khamenei” due to the social and political situation in Iran. It also emphasized the importance of context when assessing whether calling for the death of somebody is a credible threat. In this case, the Board found that the statement wasn’t a credible threat as there was no actual danger towards Ayatollah Khamenei.  The Board offered recommendations to strengthen the protection of political expression in dire circumstances, as in Iran—where massive, historic rallies are being forcefully put down. This includes allowing expressions like “marg bar Khamenei” during protests in the country.

*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.

---

Facts

In mid-July 2022, a user posted a cartoon on Facebook of Ayatollah Khamenei. It depicted Iran’s Supreme Leader with his beard grasping a woman wearing a hijab. The woman was blindfolded and her ankles were chained. A text bubble stated that being a woman was forbidden. The caption in Farsi read “marg bar hukumat-e zed-e zan-e eslami va rahbar-e kasifesh Khamenei” which translates to “death to the anti-women Islamic government and its filthy leader Khamenei.” The post further criticized the Islamic Republic for its severe restrictions on what women can wear. The content was posted on a public Facebook group that supports the “freedom of Iran,” days before the “National Day of Hijab and Chastity.” the Iranian government intended this day to be a celebration of mandatory hijab, while the opposition used it to protest this measure and other abuses, online and offline.

On the same day, the content was reported and a Facebook reviewer removed it arguing it violated the Violence and Incitement policy, which prohibits threats that could lead to death. Additionally, the post’s author received a strike that prevented them from posting or commenting in groups, inviting new members to them, or creating new ones. They were also barred from posting any content on all Facebook surfaces, except the Messenger app. The author was notified of the removal and the seven-day posting restriction; however, they were not notified of the 30-day group-related limitations.

Hours after the decision, the author appealed it. Meta’s automated systems did not prioritize the appeal, and it was closed without additional review. The user was notified that this happened due to temporary reductions in review capacity because of COVID-19. The user appealed the decision to the Oversight Board (OSB).

After Meta was notified by the Board of the appeal, it reversed its original decision as it considered that even if the content did violate the Violence and Incitement policy, it should be restored under the company’s newsworthiness allowance, which permits violating content when the public interest outweighs the risk of harm. The content, however, was restored in August after the “National Day of Hijab and Chastity” had already passed. Although Meta reversed the strike too, the time restrictions couldn’t be reversed as they had run their full duration.

In September, while the Board was discussing this case, 22-year-old Jina Mahsa Amini was arrested for wearing an “improper” hijab in Iran. She died while in custody. Her death sparked widespread peaceful protests which were met with extreme violence from the Iranian state.

---

Decision Overview

On 9 January 2023, the Oversight Board issued a decision on the matter. The main issue before the Board was whether Meta’s decision to remove a Facebook post with the caption “death to Khamenei” was consistent with the company’s content policies and human rights obligations.

In their appeal to the Board, the user explained that they intended to raise awareness of the abuse Iranians face at the hands of their government. According to them, Facebook’s decision was unfair and incompatible with human rights.

On the other hand, Meta submitted that analyzing whether the phrase “death to”— in regards to a head of state—was rhetorical speech or a credible threat, was challenging and created much internal and external debate. The company said it welcomed the Board’s input on where to draw the line and on drafting a policy that addresses the issue.

Meta explained that the phrase “death to Khamenei” violated prima facie the company’s Violence and Incitement policy, as it prohibits calls for death targeting a head of state. Nonetheless, it differentiated between calls for lethal violence—where the speaker expresses an intent to act—and mere wishes or hopes for somebody’s death. The first category of content is deemed violating while the latter is not as it is often just hyperbolic language. Meta noted that an internal guidance from the company prohibits “death to” statements if the target is a “high-risk” person. The guidance provides a confidential list of categories of persons Meta considers high-risk, including heads of state. The internal guidance states that the combination of the phrase “death to” in relation to a high-risk person should result in the removal of the content, even if the context indicates that the speech is hyperbolic or rhetorical. The list of high-risk individuals is continuously changing, Meta explained, through feedback from the company’s policy teams and external experts.

Meta explained that it restored the contested content in light of its newsworthiness allowance. The company maintained that albeit the post violated its policies it should be restored as the public interest in the content outweighed the risk of offline harm. In the case at hand, Meta decided that the content was of high public interest due to its political nature and the fact it was posted to criticize the government’s usage of religion to oppress women. Meta also considered the political context and the proximity of the post to the “National Day of Hijab and Chastity.” The company determined that the risk of offline harm was low as the author did not intend to call for violent actions against Ayatollah Khamenei but to criticize the government. Ultimately, Meta leaned towards interpreting the content as rhetorical —i.e., “marg bar” meaning “down with.” Meta informed the Board that this contextual analysis was not available to at-scale moderators since they follow the aforementioned internal guidance.

Meta also explained that there are two types of newsworthiness allowances: “narrow” and “scaled.” The company applied a narrow allowance to restore this individual piece of content— contrary to a scaled allowance which allows all uses of a violating phrase for a limited duration. Meta explained that the “death to Khamenei” phrase has received a scaled allowance three times in the past: during the 2019 protests, the 2021 Iranian election, and the 2021 water shortage protests. No scaled allowance, the company said, was applied during the protests against mandatory hijabs in 2022. Meta explained that it has been hesitant to apply scaled allowances due to public criticism for temporarily allowing “death to” statements during crises, thus favoring narrow allowances. While Meta didn’t implement a scaled newsworthiness allowance during the 2022 protests for the phrase “marg bar Khamenei”, it issued a spirit of the policy allowance for the phrase “I will kill whoever kills my sister/brother,” ten days after the death of Jina Mahsa Amini.

The company also explained that the author of the post received a strike on their account despite Meta’s May 2022 guidance—which prohibited strikes against users who posted the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” while still permitting the removal of such content under the Violence and Incitement policy. Meta explained that in this case, the author didn’t benefit from this exemption as it is only applied by internal teams at escalation. Furthermore, it stated that the author’s appeal was closed without review as it did not meet the prioritization criteria.

In response to one of the Board’s questions, Meta clarified that its policies have been available in Farsi since February 2022 and that due to the high risk of the Persian market, the company has over-allocated content moderation resources in the region to deal with any arising crises.

Meta justified its revised decision by referring to the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and participation in public affairs. However, the company highlighted its need for bright-line rules to achieve the legitimate aim of the Violence and Incitement policy—to protect the rights of others. Meta acknowledged that such bright-line rules might result in enforcement errors that it can reverse on escalation. 

Compliance with Meta’s content policies

1. Content rules

• Violence and Incitement policy

In its analysis of whether the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” violated the Violence and Incitement policy, the Board found that the post did not violate such rule as the policy rationale seeks to prevent offline harm by removing content inciting serious violence. The OSB noted that one of the company’s internal guidances allows “death to” statements as long as they don’t target a “high-risk person”. As a consequence, said guidance also considers that “death to” statements violate, regardless of contextual analysis, the aforementioned policy when addressed to this category of persons. Considering this, the Board said that the front-facing policy doesn’t reflect the guidance as it doesn’t explicitly prohibit “death to” statements targeting high-risk individuals, including heads of state.

The Board observed that Meta’s analysis of the content found that it entailed a low risk of harm as it is a political slogan used in Iran and is better understood as “down with Khamenei”—rather than a direct call to Khamenei’s actual death. The OSB argued that this should have been sufficient for Meta to conclude that the content did not violate the company’s policies and to allow it alongside similar content on its platforms. In light of this, the Board expressed its concerns over Meta’s decision not to allow the use of the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” at scale during the 2022 protests in Iran.

Subsequently, the OSB considered the opinion of linguistic experts. To them, the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” is commonly used in Iran to criticize the government and Iran’s Supreme Leader. In addition to the linguistic experts’ opinion, the Board took into consideration that the post was uploaded during a period when Iranians resorted to social media to organize protests against the “National Day of Hijab and Chastity.” To it, this context should have guided the interpretation of the contested expression to mean “down with.” The OSB underlined that “down with” statements are permissible under Meta’s policies and highlighted that this approach aligned with Meta’s value of voice as it safeguarded political speech expressing discontent without creating genuine risk of harm.

To the Board, the presumption against “death to” statements, directed at heads of state, was consistent with the policy rationale, however, its enforcement in this case was not. For it, the policy rationale considers the context to determine whether a threat is credible; yet, in this case, the context was ignored even when it was helpful to assess the political nature of the speech. The OSB said that the reviewer who moderated the content initially acted in a manner that was consistent with the internal guidance but not with the policy—as the internal guidance doesn’t consider context when assessing “death to” statements directed at “high-risk” persons while the policy and its rationale do.  The Board referred to the Wampum belt case to highlight the importance of context to assess content. In it, the Board held, for example, that  the phrase “kill the Indian” was not a threatening statement of violence; it rather opposed it. The OSB also reiterated how violent speech can be used rhetorically to oppose violence, as underscored in the Russian poem case.

The Board said it understood the reviewer’s decision in light of the internal guidance and thus urged Meta to update it in a manner consistent with the policy rationale. The Board agreed that threatening statements directed at high-risk persons should be prohibited due to the safety risk they entail. It further concluded that heads of state should be considered high-risk persons. Provisions on this issue, the Board argued, should be nuanced in the guideline, nonetheless. The OSB noted that the removal of the content was not consistent with Meta’s value of voice nor was it necessary to protect the value of safety.

• Newsworthiness allowance

Since the Board decided that the content did not violate Meta’s policies it considered a newsworthiness allowance was not required. Regardless, it opined that Meta should have applied a scaled allowance, as it did in the past, on all the content with the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” due to its widespread use in Iran. The OSB concluded that this decision would have been consistent with Meta’s value of “Voice.” Moreover, it noted that by failing to apply a scaled allowance, Meta silenced political speech as it didn’t consider the importance of social media to protest in Iran and the human rights situation in the country.

The Board considered that criticism of the company’s scaled allowances on “death to” statements during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t have influenced Meta in this situation. The OSB highlighted the rarity of newsworthiness allowances as only 68 were issued across all policies between June 1, 2021, and June 1, 2022.

For the Board, Meta should be less reluctant to scaled allowances, in the context of protests, to help protect expression when minimal safety risks are present. Moreover, it underlined the importance of protecting speech where systematic violations of human rights have been documented and freedom of expression is being suppressed, as in Iran.

2. Enforcement action

The Board highlighted the negative impact of “feature limits”—such as restricting users’ ability to post or participate in groups—on individuals during times of protests as they stifle their ability to express their opinions and can shut people out of social movements. Moreover, the OSB expressed concerns about the fact that the user was not notified of the feature limits imposed on them. As it noted, the Board has expressed similar concerns in the past (Mention of the Taliban in news reporting decision) in a case where the user was blocked from using their account during a crucial political moment.

The OSB also expressed preoccupation that the user’s appeal was not reviewed. The automatic closure of the appeal, the Board held, did not adequately account for expressions of public interest. When prioritizing appeals, this type of content should be identified by important signals—such as topic sensitivity and false-positive likelihood—to prevent the automated closure of appeals of incorrect decisions, the Board said. To the OSB, this was particularly significant in cases where users were prevented from using essential platforms’ functionalities, during pivotal political events, due to the incorrect enforcement of Meta’s policies.

3. Transparency

The Board encouraged “the increase in data and examples Meta is providing of narrow newsworthiness exceptions in the Transparency Center.” [p. 21] It noted that differentiating between “scaled” and “narrow” exceptions would improve these disclosures even further. Providing instances of “scaled” newsworthiness limits, the Board held, would help people comprehend the measures Meta is taking to safeguard user input. To ensure that people are aware that their speech will be protected, the OSB considered Meta should make announcements during significant events, like demonstrations in Iran, about when scaled newsworthiness allowances are granted.

Compliance with Meta’s human rights obligations

1. Freedom of expression

Regarding Meta’s human rights obligations, the Board explained that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR or the Covenant), public debate, political speech, and artistic expression are highly regarded and protected, especially in relation to protests. To analyze whether Meta’s restrictions abided with its international obligations, the Board applied the three-part test introduced in Article 19 of the Covenant, which analyzes the legality of the measures, their aim, necessity, and proportionality.

• Legality

The principle of legality under the ICCPR, the Board said, requires rules on content moderation (or any other limits to freedom of expression) to be understandable and accessible to users and to those in charge of enforcing them. Furthermore, rules shouldn’t give unfettered discretion to those applying them. On this point, the OSB recognized Meta’s efforts in translating its content policies into more languages, including Farsi, to make them more accessible to users.

However, the Board expressed concerns over the discrepancies between the front-facing Violence and Incitement policy and its internal guideline—as the latter considered that “death to” statements are not permitted if their target is a high-risk person whereas the front-facing policy does not mention this. It further argued that the rationale for including some high-ranking public officials and not others, such as members of the legislative branch and the judiciary, is vague. Despite this, the OSB acknowledged that there might be good reasons for not disclosing the list of high-risk individuals publicly, especially if they are not afforded protection by the State’s security apparatus.

Subsequently, the Board underscored that the Violence and Incitement policy rationale takes language and context into consideration to assess whether a piece of content is a credible threat or not—although the “do not post” section of the policy does not clarify how they are used in the assessment of high-severity violent content. Moreover, the OSB noted that the policy rationale allows rhetorical speech, often used in the context of protests, albeit the written policy and guidance do not—which leads to enforcement errors.

The Board stressed that the Violence and Incitement policy and its internal guidance should be revised and modified to explain how Meta assesses rhetorical threats—such as “death to” remarks directed at “high-risk persons”—and how language and context are considered when determining the credibility of threats against heads of state. Internal guidelines, the OSB said, ought to be particularly considerate of protests, where safeguarding freedom of speech is essential.

The Board opined that Meta has provided public explanations about its newsworthiness allowance, but worried that the lack of explanations about “scaled allowances” could create confusion. It suggested Meta to announce when it implements scaled allowances, specifying their time limits—or when they are lifted—in the interest of clarity.

• Legitimate aim

The Board recognized that the Violence and Incitement policy seeks to prevent offline harm by removing content that poses risks to physical integrity or threats public safety. This aligns with the ICCPR’s legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, specifically the right to life and security of person.

• Necessity and Proportionality

Citing the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 34, the Board explained that “[t]he principle of necessity and proportionality provides that any restrictions on freedom of expression ‘must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; [and] they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.’” [p. 22]

The OSB considered that although Meta should be concerned about violent content against high-ranking officials, content removal in this specific case was unnecessary to protect Ayatollah Khamenei. To it, Meta’s decision to forbid this content, and similar rhetorical elements, was concerning. The company’s refusal to implement scaled allowances for the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” was also criticized by the Board.

The Board noted that Meta accepted it issued guidance to its moderators to remove posts with the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” without imposing strikes in the lead-up to “National Day of Hijab and Chastity.” As the OSB also took notice, Meta recognized the importance of its platforms in Iran to organize protests since it previously issued scaled allowances in favor of the phrase “marg bar Khamenei.” Within this context, the Board considered that “[t]he company should therefore have anticipated issues around the over-removal of protest content in Iran, and it should have developed a response beyond the very limited strike exemption for escalated decisions.” [p. 24] Meta’s failure to do so, the OSB concluded, caused unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of expression of demonstrators and impacted their ability to organize on the company’s platforms.

The Board compared the case at hand to the 23 September 2022 scaled allowance for the phrase “I will kill whoever kills my sister/brother” in Iran. To it, “death to” statements were not as directly threatening as “I will kill” statements. Hence, according to the OSB, people in Iran should have been permitted to protest an oppressive head of state such as Ayatollah Khamenei through “death to” statements.

Furthermore, the Board used the six-factor test outlined in the Rabat Plan of Action to analyze whether the contested content was a credible threat of violence. The OSB noted, for example, that the speaker was not a public figure, and their speech was not a call to violence. The Board, following Meta’s own findings, concluded that “the protest context in Iran specifically made clear that rhetorical statements of this kind [‘death to’ statements] were expected, and the likelihood of violence resulting from them was low.” [p. 23]

The OSB acknowledged that “death to” statements targeting public figures and government officials should be taken seriously in other contexts; however, in the case at hand, the term “mag bar” carried a rhetorical meaning, as evidenced by the linguistic and cultural contexts, which entailed no risk of harm.

Furthermore, the Board worried “that the rationale for the list of ‘high-risk’ persons appears in some respects overly broad in terms of the presumption for removal it creates, but then inexplicably narrow in other respects.” [p. 23] In the specific case of heads of state, it agreed they were high-risk individuals. Nonetheless, the OSB considered that the internal guidance should allow protest-related political speech that criticizes them, even if it is violent. The Board also stressed that contextual analysis was important for reviewers moderating content since it would allow the use of rhetorical threats against heads of state, under the acknowledgment they pose no real risk of harm.

The OSB recognized that this was a complex issue and that it was not possible to adopt a general rule to allow the use of certain terms without contextual analysis. Still, the Board held that “Meta’s current position is leading to over-removal of political expression in Iran at a historic moment and potentially creates more risks to human rights than it mitigates.” [p. 24] ] To it, the current allowances did not offer adequate protection for freedom of expression and left users confused about whether their content was permitted or not.

The Board also said that “[t]he proportionality concerns with this content removal increase where ‘feature-limits’ are imposed as a result of an incorrect decision.” [p. 24] According to it, Meta should consider how its penalties deter people from participating in public debate on its platforms.

2. Access to remedy

The Board expressed concerns about how Meta’s automatic closure of appeals deprives users of appropriate access to remedies, especially when taking into account that automated systems do not consider topic sensitivity and the rate of enforcement errors. The OSB highlighted that due to the improper removal of information, either restored slowly or not at all, online protestors’ right to remedy might be especially affected—keeping them out of social movements and political discourse during crucial political moments.

Identical content with parallel context

The Board showed preoccupation over the possibility that other content including the phrase “marg bar Khamenei” had been wrongfully removed and directed Meta to restore identical content with parallel context and reverse any strikes, or account-level penalties, imposed due to such enforcement errors.

***

In light of all the arguments the OSB presented, it overturned Meta’s original decision to remove the content under the Violence and Incitement policy.

Policy Advisory Statement

1. Content policy

The Board recommended Meta to modify its Violence and Incitement policy to clarify that rhetorical threats like “death to X” are generally allowed, except when directed at high-risk individuals, such as heads of state, and to provide an illustrative list of high-risk persons. The policy should also include criteria for when such statements are permissible in protest contexts to protect non-violent political speech.

2. Enforcement

The Board advised Meta to prioritize issuing scaled allowances in favor of certain content in protest contexts where there is no risk of violence and public interest is high. Additionally, Meta must ensure that its internal processes effectively review protest-related content to protect freedom of expression while minimizing harm. The Board suggested Meta to “issue guidance to its reviewers that ‘marg bar Khamenei’ statements in the context of protests in Iran do not violate the Violence and Incitement Community Standard.” [p. 26] The OSB also ordered Meta to reverse any wrongful penalties, and disclose data on restored content and affected accounts. Moreover, Meta should review its appeals ranking system to prioritize sensitive topics and minimize false positives.

3. Transparency

The Board proposed Meta to publicly announce all its scaled allowances, their duration, and expiration, along with data about the number of scaled and narrow allowances it granted. Additionally, the OSB encouraged Meta to provide a public explanation of the process for the automatic prioritization and closure of appeals, including the criteria used for both.

---