Ban on Showing Indigenous Nudity Disproportionately Limits Expression
June 3, 2025
The Oversight Board has overturned Meta in three out of four cases that demonstrate the disproportionate impacts of the Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy on users who share images of bare-chested indigenous women, when such nudity is part of the Indigenous Peoples’ beliefs and customs. It has also upheld a decision to leave up content in a third case due to the newsworthiness allowance.
Meta’s complete prohibition on posting images of bare-chested indigenous women in non-sexual contexts, along with granting ad hoc exceptions, does not result in necessary and proportionate restrictions on expression. Rather users’ right to expression, including that of Indigenous Peoples for whom such nudity is part of their culture, is disproportionately restricted.
Meta should make public its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy exception allowing content depicting bare-chested indigenous women in some circumstances, when such nudity reflects socially accepted custom and belief, and does not misrepresent these practices.
About the Cases
The Board has reviewed four cases with imagery showing bare-chested indigenous women in non-sexual contexts.
In the first case, an Instagram user posted an image in July 2024 featuring two bare-breasted women in the traditional attire of the Himba people of Namibia. The post includes an English quote and caption referencing the Himba. The user appears to be a visitor or tourist, rather than Himba. An automated nudity and pornography classifier removed it. The user appealed the removal. Following a human review, Meta confirmed its decision.
The second case involves an Instagram user posting a short video in July 2024 featuring a Himba man dancing, with bare-chested women in traditional Himba attire in the background. The caption includes references to Himba people and culture. After automated and human reviews, Meta removed the content.
In the third case, a Brazilian political party’s official Instagram account in March 2023 posted an image of bare-chested indigenous women in traditional Yanomami clothing. The accompanying text praises government efforts to combat illegal mining on Yanomami lands. A user reported the post and a classifier identified it before a human reviewer removed it for violating the Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy. The posting user appealed via a personal contact at Meta. Meta restored it under the newsworthiness allowance, finding the content’s public interest value outweighed the harm, with a newsworthy label. In September 2024, Meta referred the case to the Board.
In the fourth case, the administrator of a German newspaper's Facebook page posted an image in May 2023 of a bare-chested indigenous woman holding a child. The caption and text overlay in German describe a U.S. journalist’s visit to a Mayan village and her perspectives on different cultures’ parenting approaches, and the post links to an article. The image of the indigenous woman seems to belong to a photo agency, appearing in online collections of the Karo people of Ethiopia. A user reported the content to Meta and two human reviewers agreed it violated the Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy. As this account is in the cross-check program, the post was sent for additional review. Meta then determined the content should receive a spirit of the policy allowance and remain on Facebook, as, even though it violated Meta’s nudity rules, keeping it up was in line with the policy rationale. Meta referred the case to the Board in September 2024.
Key Findings
While Meta prohibits images of indigenous women with “visible female nipples” in non-sexual contexts, it sometimes allows this content via the spirit of the policy and newsworthiness allowances.
In the Yanomami post, Meta was right to keep this post up as newsworthy content due to its public interest value and limited risk of harm. The Yanomami have a social and cultural practice of bare-chested nudity and in the image there are indicators of consent.
Regarding the two Himba posts, the Board finds that Meta was wrong not to apply a spirit of the policy allowance. Meta did not follow its own exception guidelines concerning implicit consent in the context of indigenous nudity which focus on whether bare-chested nudity forms part of the beliefs and customs of an Indigenous People and are socially accepted. Nudity is a socially and historically accepted aspect of Himba custom, and both posts show sufficient indications of implicit consent to being photographed or recorded to justify the allowance.
In the Maya/Karo post, the majority of the Board finds that the fact that the image was shared by a news outlet is not a decisive factor in establishing consent. In this case, there is a clear disparity between the subject of the article (Mayan peoples) and the individual in the image (a Karo woman). The content, focused on parenting practices in Mayan cultures, does not relate to a social or historical tradition of nudity. Allowing the content to remain on the platform is therefore inconsistent with Meta’s policy rationale. A minority of the Board disagrees, finding that Meta made the right decision to keep the post up, as the nudity in the image aligns with the cultural norms of the depicted indigenous group. For the minority, the disparity between images was a minor mistake that does not diminish the public interest in the post.
Removing the Himba posts and keeping the Maya/Karo post up was also inconsistent with Meta’s human rights responsibilities. Meta’s complete prohibition on posting images of bare-chested indigenous women in non-sexual contexts and granting ad hoc exceptions disproportionately restricts expression. It disproportionately impacts indigenous women’s right to self-expression and sharing information about cultural practices, and restricts others’ access to that information. The Board underscores the importance of representing indigenous cultures in ways that avoid distortion or decontextualization.
The Board is concerned that the spirit of the policy and newsworthiness allowances have significant limitations of accessibility and predictability. Therefore, it believes a clearly defined exception is preferable.
The Board considers that Meta could develop internal guidelines to assist at-scale reviewers to escalate indigenous nudity content that could potentially benefit from such exceptions, using objective criteria, such as relevant hashtags or visual clues including cultural symbols.
The Oversight Board’s Decision
The Board overturns Meta’s decision to take down the two Himba women and Himba people dancing cases. The Board also overturns Meta’s decision to leave up the Maya/Karo case. The Board upholds Meta’s decision to leave up the Yanomami case.
The Board also recommends that Meta:
- Make public its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy exception allowing content depicting bare-chested indigenous women in some circumstances. This exception should be applied on escalation only. The exception should allow such nudity where it reflects socially accepted custom and belief, and does not misrepresent these practices.
Further Information
To read public comments for this case, click here.
