Meta’s Oversight Board Issues Unanimous Decision on Threats Against Human Rights Defenders

• The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s (formerly Facebook) decision to keep online a post containing a threat against a human rights defender in Peru.
• According to the Board, the post, published by a leader of the extremist group “La Resistencia,” constituted a veiled threat – a type of threat that requires contextual understanding to be interpreted as such. In this case, the post emerged in an environment of ongoing intimidation and harassment against human rights defenders in Peru.
• The Board determined that Meta’s decision to leave the post online was incorrect and recommended that Meta amend its policies on violence and incitement to explicitly prohibit veiled threats.
• This decision sets a key precedent for the protection of human rights defenders in digital spaces and reinforces the responsibility of social media platforms in contexts of repression and civic space restriction.

Washington D.C., May 28, 2025 – The Meta Oversight Board announced yesterday its unanimous decision to overturn the company’s initial determination to keep online a post attacking a prominent human rights defender in Peru. The ruling sets a significant precedent in the protection of those who defend fundamental rights amid increasing repression, stigmatization, and the closure of civic space.

The case involved a July 2024 post by a member of the extremist group La Resistencia, known for spreading disinformation, harassment, and incitement against journalists, activists, and civil society organizations in Peru. The post featured a manipulated image—likely generated with artificial intelligence—of a well-known Peruvian human rights defender, depicting her with a bloodied face, accompanied by text discrediting the work of NGOs and linking them to violent protests.

At the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), we reported the post to Meta, arguing that it constituted a veiled threat in a context where online attacks can escalate into physical violence, especially in light of the Peruvian state’s failure to prevent such harms. Veiled threats are often ambiguous or indirect, requiring contextual interpretation. After Meta chose to keep the post online, we escalated the case to the Oversight Board—an independent body that reviews moderation decisions on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads based on international human rights standards.

After reviewing evidence submitted by expert organizations—over 65 submissions from around the world—the Board took into account the ongoing crackdown on civic space and concluded that the post violated Meta’s Community Standards on violence and incitement. The Board also noted that Meta’s review system lacks sufficient guidance for moderators to assess contextual risks, which undermines their ability to identify real threats unless the case is escalated to the Board. As a result, Meta’s response was deemed inadequate.

The Board urged Meta to urgently improve its internal processes to better prevent harm in sensitive contexts. It also concluded that a proper interpretation of Meta’s content policies must align with the company’s human rights responsibilities, particularly with the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The decision includes specific recommendations: Meta should update its policy to explicitly prohibit veiled threats—whether written, visual, or verbal—and conduct annual assessments on this type of content, with special attention to threats against human rights defenders and moderation errors concerning political speech.

In a regional context where civic space is rapidly shrinking and hostility toward human rights work is growing, social media platforms can and must play a crucial role. At CEJIL, we welcome this decision as a significant step toward ensuring safer and more accountable spaces, both online and offline. We also emphasize the urgent need for tech platforms to act with greater diligence in addressing content that incites violence or seeks to silence critical voices.