Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision finding that Meta should have allowed a Facebook post containing metaphorical political statements about “hanging” then-President of Peru Pedro Castillo, made in the context of public debate on his potential impeachment. The user clarified that the statement was not intended to incite violence but to express support for impeachment proceedings. Meta initially removed the post under its Violence and Incitement policy, but reversed its decision and restored the content after being notified of the appeal, concluding that the statement was metaphorical and not a direct call to harm. The Board highlighted this case as an example of inconsistent enforcement of the policy, particularly in relation to rhetorical or metaphorical political speech.

*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. The Board issues full decisions and summary decisions. Decisions, except summary decisions, are binding unless implementing them could violate the law. The Board can also choose to issue recommendations on the company’s content policies. Summary decisions are a transparency mechanism, providing information to the public on Meta’s decision making and the Board’s recommendations relating to cases where Meta reversed its original decision on its own accord, after receiving notice from the Board about the appeal.

Facts

On 24 November 2022, a Peruvian Facebook user posted in Spanish that “we” will hang then-President Pedro Castillo, comparing it to the execution of Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. The post described the remark as a “metaphorical statement” referring to the potential impeachment of Castillo by Congress over corruption allegations, and added that Castillo should not worry as the user was not a “filosenderista” (a term in Peru referring to sympathizers of the Shining Path terrorist group). Two weeks later, Castillo was impeached by Congress.

Meta removed the post for violating its Violence and Incitement policy, which prohibits speech that incites serious violence, poses a risk of physical harm, or includes direct threats to public safety. Under the policy, language and context are considered when assessing whether content is a credible threat. The user appealed Meta’s decision to the Oversight Board.

Decision Overview

The main issue before the Board was whether the removal of a post containing metaphorical political statements was consistent with Meta’s policies and human rights obligations.

In their submission, the user argued that Meta had misinterpreted their statement, which was not intended to incite violence, and that the company should have considered the specific context, namely an ongoing public debate about the possible impeachment of President Pedro Castillo.

After being notified of the appeal, Meta reversed its original decision and restored the post. The company concluded that the statement was metaphorical, related to impeachment rather than violence, and did not contain any direct call to harm the President.

The Board noted that this case illustrates enforcement inconsistencies in applying the Violence and Incitement policy to political metaphorical statements. Removing such content risks stifling online debate about politicians. The Board stressed the importance of moderation systems that are sensitive to irony, satire, rhetorical language, and political discourse.

The Board recalled recommendations from previous decisions, including “Two Buttons Meme” (implement procedures to assess content in context and allow users to indicate if their content benefits from policy exceptions), “Iran Protest Slogan” (clarify when rhetorical political threats are protected), and “Former President Trump’s Suspension” (adopt a policy for addressing crises and situations beyond the scope of existing rules).

The Board overturned Meta’s original removal decision and welcomed the company’s correction of the error. It encouraged Meta to fully implement these recommendations to avoid similar mistakes in political crises, when individual voices are particularly vital.