“Pure Rat Country” – Reflections on Case Decision 2022-001-FB-UA of Facebook Oversight Board (Knin Cartoon Case)

Objective: the present paper aims to analyse Case Decision 2022-001-FB-UA of Facebook Oversight Board, also known as the Knin cartoon case and attempts to put the case as well as its procedure in a historical and cultural context to set out a critical approach concerning Facebook’s content moderation.

Methods: the paper uses desk research as the primary source of method. The paper’s resource background builds upon comparative case studies and case analysis as well. The paper uses resources from various disciplines: legal philosophy, international law, media law, platform regulation, history.

Results: the paper presents the context of the Knin cartoon case as well as the key findings of the Oversight Board and the reasoning behind its decision. Furthermore, this paper aims to reflect on the idea of hate speech as interpreted by the Oversight Board and makes a tentative to contextualise and introduce the main problems and possible solutions regarding Meta’s content moderation in the scope of the present case.

Scientific novelty: the Knin case has not been analysed in such historical and contextual depth before as the case decision was issued in 2022. Only a few analyses from merely legal standpoints were published thus far.

Practical significance: the findings regarding the Knin case may be of importance of three main aspects: (1) it could be used for further critical analyses on Facebook’s content moderation, (2) it could serve as a recommendation regarding platform regulation and guideline development and (3) it presents the paramount relevance and significance of the holistic interpretational perspectives when determining hate speech. As for the latter the present paper argues that the historical, cultural, societal and symbolic interpretation and understanding of hate speech determination is not only instrumental, but the only viable method to understand, determine and judge upon alleged hate speech cases.

1. Arun, Ch. (2021). Facebook’s Faces. Harvard Law Review Forum, 135, 22–37. Balkin, J. M. (2018). Free Speech is a Triangle. Columbia Law Review, 118, 12–20.

2. Banjeglav, T. (2015). A Storm of Memory in Post-War Croatia. Cultures of History Forum, 4, 34–39.

3. Bayer, J. (2021). Rights and Duties of Online Platforms. In J. Bayer, B. Holznagel, P. Korpisaari, L. Woods (Eds.). Perspectives on Platform Regulation: Concepts and Models of Social Media Governance Across the Globe. Baden-Baden, Nomos–Digitalization and the Law. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.298

4. Bayer, J. (2022). A Facebook Ellenőrző Bizottság mint alternatív vitarendező szerv. Fundamentum, 3, 5–16.

5. Benesch, S. (2020). But Facebook’s Not a Country: How to Interpret Human Rights Law for Social Media Companies. Yale Journal on Regulation Online Bulletin, 38, 71–86.

6. Chander, A. (2012). Facebookistan. North Carolina Law Review, 90(5), 56–61.

7. Cowls, J-D., & Dominiquo-Schramm, M. (2022). Constitutional Metaphors: Facebook’s ‘Supreme Court’ and the Legitimation of Platform Governance. New Media & Society, 3, 23346. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221085559

8. Douek, E. (2019). Facebook’s, Oversight Board: Move Fast with Stable Infrastructure and Humility. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 21, 123–130.

9. Douek, E. (2020). What Kind of Oversight Board Have You Given Us. The University of Chicago Law Review Online, 23, 45–59.

10. Douek, E. (2021). Governing Online Speech. Columbia Law Review, 121(3), 34456.

11. Douek, E. (2022). The Siren Call of Content Moderation Formalism. In L. Bollinger, G. Stone (Eds.). Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/oso/9780197621080.003.0009

12. Dvoskin, B. (2022). Expert Governance of Online Speech. Harvard International Law Journal, 63, forthcoming.

13. Elkin-Koren, N., & Perel, M. (2020). Separation of Functions for AI: Restraining Speech Regulation by Online Platforms. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 24(3), n.pag. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3439261

14. Frazier, K. (2021) Why Meta Users Need a Public Advocate: a Modest Means to Address the Shortcomings of the Oversight Board. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, XXVIII(3), 596–622.

15. Goldman, E., & Miers, J. (2021). Online Account Terminations/Content Removals and the Benefits of Internet Services Enforcing Their House Rules. Journal of Free Speech Law, 1, 192–225.

16. Gorwa, R. (2019). The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Review, 8, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1407

17. Helfer, L. R., & Land, M. K. (2022). The Facebook Oversight Board’s Human Rights Future. Cardozo Law Review, 44(6), 1–70.

18. Klonick, K. (2020). The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression. The Yale Law Journal, 129, 2418.

19. Kulick, A. (2022). Corporations as Interpreters and Adjudicators of International Human Rights Norms – Meta‘s Oversight Board and Beyond. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 5, 8–17.

20. Leutloff-Grandits, C. (2008). Claiming in Postwar Croatia: The Dynamics of Property Relations and Ethnic Conflict in the Knin Region. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen004

21. Medzini, R. (2022). Enhanced self-regulation: The case of Facebook’s content governance. New Media & Society, 24(10), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821989352

22. Melichárek, M. (2015). Národná symbolika a mýtus v srbských vojenských piesňach z obdobia r. 1991–1995. Porta Balkanica, 7(2), 25–34.

23. Nunziato, D. C. (2022). Protecting Free Speech and Due Process Values on Dominant Social Media Platforms. Hastings Law Journal, 73(5), 1255.

24. O’Kane, R. (2022). Meta’s Private Speech Governance and the Role of the Oversight Board: Lessons from the Board’s First Decisions. Stanford Technology Law Review, 25(2), 167–209.

25. Pickup, E. L. (2021). The Oversight Board’s Dormant Power to Review Facebook’s Algorithms. Yale Journal on Regulation Bulletin, 39(1), 2–21.

26. Pongó, T. (2020). Új Korszak Az Online Véleménynyilvánítás Korlátozásában? Gondolatok a Facebook Oversight Board működéséről. Iustum Aequum Salutare, XVI(4), 147–162.

27. Ramet, S. P. (2011). Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two. Berlin, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230347816

28. Robionek, B. (2017). Musik als Transportmittel für Ideologie. In K., Bozay, D. Borstel (Eds.). Ungleichwertigkeitsideologien in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft. Wiesbaden, Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-14245-2_14

29. Rogoff, Z. (2019). Five Free Expression Safeguards from a Facebook User’s Perspective. TPRC47: Research Conference on Communications, Information and Internet Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3428062

30. Sale, H. A. (2022). Monitoring Facebook. Harvard Business Law Review, 12. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213540

31. Schultz, M. (2021). Six Problems with Facebook’s Oversight Board. In J. Bayer, B. Holznagel, P. Korpisaari, & L. Woods (Eds.), Perspectives on Platform Regulation: Concepts and Models of Social Media Governance Across the Globe. Baden-Baden, Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748929789-145

32. Singleton, F. Hinds, L. A., Krebs, Ch., & Spratt, D. M. (2003). Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and management. Canberra, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.

33. Takhshid, Z. (2021). Regulating Social Media in the Global South. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 24(1), 1–55.

34. Vukčević, I. (2021). Facebook Oversight Board’s Decision on the Indefinite Suspension of Donald Trump’s Account. Pravni Zapisi, 12(1), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-32521

35. Wong, D., & Floridi, L. (2022). Meta’s Oversight Board: A Review and Critical Assessment, Minds and Machines. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09613-x