Case Summary and Outcome

The Oversight Board issued a summary decision on December 8, 2023, overturning Meta’s original decision to remove a Facebook post that depicted six of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices wearing Ku Klux Klan robes. The user appealed the post’s removal arguing that the post was intended as political critique, not an endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan. The Board highlighted Meta’s recurring enforcement errors under its Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy, particularly regarding political critique content. The Board also called on Meta to implement its recommendations from its “Öcalan’s Isolation” decision to reduce enforcement errors that limit users’ freedom of expression. Meta reversed its original decision and reinstated the post after the Board notified the company of the user’s appeal.

*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

In July 2023, a Facebook user posted an image that altered the appearance of six of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices to resemble Ku Klux Klan members, while leaving the three more liberal justices unaltered. The post, which had no caption and garnered fewer than 200 views, was initially removed under Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals (DOI) policy, which prohibits praising organizations or individuals that Meta deems dangerous.

The user appealed the removal decision to the Board.

Decision Overview

The key issue before the Board was whether Meta’s original decision to remove the post was compatible with its content policies and human rights obligations.

In their appeal, the user clarified that the post was intended as political critique, not an endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan. They argued that it condemned what they viewed as six justices’ prejudicial and harmful attitudes toward women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ communities, and other vulnerable groups.

Meta reversed its removal decision after the Oversight Board brought the case to the company’s attention, recognizing that the post did not violate the DOI policy and that its removal was incorrect.

The Board underlined that this case exemplified enforcement errors of the DOI policy, particularly regarding political critique content. The Board also expressed concern that such errors impact the users’ freedom of expression and urged the company to prioritize reducing such errors.

The Board further noted that, as stated in previous Board decisions, the DOI policy remains the source of many erroneous takedowns. The Board reiterated recommendation number 6 from the “Öcalan’s Isolation” decision, urging Meta to: 1) clarify in the Community Standards how users can make the intent behind their posts clear to Facebook, 2) publicly disclose the company’s DOI list, and 3) provide illustrative examples showing the difference between permissible and prohibited content. Meta agreed to implement this recommendation in part.

The Board also referenced recommendation number 12 from the “Öcalan’s Isolation” decision, encouraging Meta to provide more detailed information on enforcement errors under DOI rules, a recommendation Meta declined to implement.

Finally, the Board overturned Meta’s original decision to remove the post and acknowledged Meta’s correction of the initial error. The Board emphasized that the full implementation of its recommendations could reduce enforcement errors under the DOI policy.