社群媒體時代的言論自由界線：以「監察委員會」對「立即危害」與「容許差別」之相關裁決為中心

The Boundaries of Freedom of Speech in the Social Media Era: Focusing on the Oversight Board’s Decisions Regarding “Imminent Harm” and “Allowance”

Freedom of speech, as a fundamental right of the people and a cornerstone of democratic systems, can still be legally restricted by states in pursuit of significant public interests, provided the means are proportionate. However, for social media, the decision to display content on platforms is usually based merely on policies set by private technology companies. Yet, these policies have seemingly become the most widely applied and universal standards for freedom of speech internationally.
This thesis analyzes the Community Standards and other content policies enacted by Meta for Facebook and Instagram, the measures used for content review and policy implementation, and the operation of the Oversight Board to oversee whether the company’s content moderation decisions are aligned with international human rights standards. This study attempts to understand the content moderation system of the world’s largest social media platforms.
Additionally, this thesis analyzes 53 case decisions made by the Oversight Board up to October 2023, focusing on cases regarding the concepts of "imminent harm" and "allowance." The former, a key principle for social media to remove or block content, is derived from the six-part threshold test of The Rabat Plan of Action by the United Nations. The Oversight Board does not strictly require the clarification of users’ intent or the temporal gap between speech and danger. Instead, it places more emphasis on whether the related danger had already happened or was ongoing at the time of posting, and it considers the possibility of harm being realized in the context of the content’s background and environment.
This study further points out that "allowance" serves as an exception developed by Meta to the boundaries of freedom of speech on social media. The Oversight Board tends to recognize content related to autocratic regimes, suppressing freedom of speech, or unveiling human rights violations as newsworthy. If it does not pose "imminent harm," such content is allowed to remain on the platform even if it violates the Community Standards. Alternatively, if it lacks newsworthiness, but retaining the content adheres to Meta’s core values or if removing it would contradict them, it is also exceptionally retained, constituting a "three-level, two-track" review process.