Descripción del caso
In May 2024, two Facebook users separately posted images showing the former national flag of South Africa. This flag, which became associated with the country’s apartheid system of racial segregation, was replaced in 1994 by a new national flag. The two Facebook posts were shared in the run-up to South Africa’s General Election on May 29, 2024, during which immigration, inequalities and unemployment were key issues.
The first post shows a soldier carrying the pre-1994 flag. The image, which appears to have been taken during the apartheid years (1948-1994), is accompanied by a caption encouraging others to share the post if they “served under this flag.” The content was viewed more than 500,000 times and shared more than 5,000 times. The post received numerous comments, with many suggesting that South Africa was a safer country during apartheid, while others emphasized the suffering experienced by people during those years. By the time the Board selected this case, three users had reported the content to Meta, for hate speech and violence. Following human review, the content was found to be non-violating and left on Facebook.
The second post contains multiple images of a previous era, including the country’s former flag, a nostalgic picture of a seaside theme park, a packet of candy cigarettes, a toy gun and a black man on a bicycle ice cream cart, with white children next to him. The caption expresses fondness for the previous era and asks the audience to “read between the lines,” followed by a winking face and an “OK” hand emoji. While in most instances, the OK hand emoji is used by people to show approval or agree that something is okay, this symbol has been adopted by some as an expression of white supremacy. The post was viewed more than 2 million times and shared over a thousand times. Many users commented on the post, positively describing life during apartheid, including on law and order. Other comments noted that it was not a good time for all. Within a week of posting, 184 users reported the content, mostly for hate speech. Some of the reports were reviewed by human reviewers, who determined that the content did not violate the Community Standards. The remaining reports were processed through a combination of automated systems and prior human review decisions. The content was kept up on the platform.
When the Board selected this content, Meta’s policy subject matter experts reviewed both posts again and the company confirmed that its original decisions to keep both pieces of content up on Facebook were correct.
In their statement to the Board, the user who reported the first post stated that South Africa’s former flag is comparable to the German Nazi flag and that “brazenly displaying” it “incites violence” because the country is still reeling from the impact of “this crime against humanity [apartheid].” The user also stated that sharing such images during an election period can encourage racial hatred and endanger lives. Similarly, the user who reported the second post explained that the “context of the post suggests” apartheid was a “better time” for South Africans and that such use of the flag is illegal. The user also emphasized how the former flag represents oppression.
The Board selected these cases to address the issue of glorifying or praising hateful or racial supremacist ideologies, including through the use of symbols, especially in the lead-up to an election. Such content can have public interest value, e.g., to raise awareness about or condemn an issue, but it may also be used to glorify or incite racial discrimination or violence. These cases, which provide an opportunity to evaluate Meta’s current approach on this issue, fall within the Board’s strategic priorities of Elections and Civic Space and Hate Speech.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The sociopolitical context in South Africa, in particular the nature of public and political discourse around apartheid and racial inequality, including in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, the impact of displaying the apartheid flag since 1994, and the role of supremacist and apartheid-sympathetic groups in social and political life.
- The coded use of online symbols, such as the ‘OK’ hand emoji and other symbols adopted by white supremacist groups on social media in South Africa and/or globally.
- Approaches to moderating visual content involving potential implicit attacks against groups with protected characteristics, particularly in contexts where there is a history of racial segregation.
- Risks of over-enforcement of removing hate symbols at scale, as well as analysis of least intrusive means among digital tools (beyond removals and geoblocking) that are available in content moderation to address hate symbols.
As part of its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to these cases.
Comentarios
The Board asked for public comment on:
“The sociopolitical context in South Africa, in particular the nature of public and political discourse around apartheid and racial inequality, including in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, the impact of displaying the apartheid flag since 1994, and the role of supremacist and apartheid-sympathetic groups in social and political life.”
In general, South African political discourse is robust and “[t]he language we often use is as colourful as our rainbow nation and as informal and unruly as our people sometimes are” (Democratic Alliance v. African National Congress & Independent Electoral Committee [2015] ZACC 1 para 174). The political engagment with the country’s past is complex given the enduring legacy of Apartheid. While some mainstream politicians will engage in some defence of some aspects of colonialism and apartheid or its overall character (eg. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-40143710), denouncing both is the strongly prevailing norm. There is, however, a rising “right wing populism” that endorses an “enclave nationalism” which may spread pro-Apartheid sentiment, including through the use of the Apartheid flag. (https://theconversation.com/south-africas-white-right-the-alt-right-and-the-alternative-103544: https://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/hts/v72n4/31.pdf).
As part of that rise, the use of the Apartheid flag has been considered judicially. The case arose after the Apartheid flag was displayed at protests against farm murders organized by a civil society group called AfriForum. The group describes itself as advocating for the rights of Afrikaaners, critics consider them a “white nationalist group” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dangerous-and-poisoned-critics-blast-trump-for-endorsing-white-nationalist-conspiracy-theory-on-south-africa/2018/08/23/6c3b160e-a6df-11e8-a656-943eefab5daf_story.html). Both the Equality Court (Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust and Another v Afriforum NPC and Others [2019] ZAEQC 2 and the Supreme Court of Appeal (Afriforum NPC v. Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust and Others [2023] ZASCA 58) found, in the case of the latter, unanimously, that any “gratuitious public display” of the Apartheid flag is has been found to constitute speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (the “Equality Act”), harassment in terms section 11 of the Equality and unfair discrimination in terms of 7 of the Equality Act. While this is not binding on the Oversight Board, I would encourage the Board to read the judgments as they pertain to the meaning of the Apartheid flag as they contain wealth of historical material and social analysis that may assist the Board in deciding the case.
In my view, it is unlikely that an informed and benign interpretation of the use of the Apartheid flag is possible. Of course, anyone may use the flag misunderstaning its context without meaning any harm, especially if its use is normalized. However, given the history of the flag and its use primarily by the rising right-wing populists described above, it is unlikely that sincere use of the Apartheid flag for a benign purpose would be likely.
Please see attached file.
The Society for Automation, Instrumentation, Mechatronics, and Computer Engineering (SAIMC) boasts a rich history extending over six decades. Throughout this period, the SAIMC has engaged in numerous significant initiatives, including participation in the NASA Space Program. Notably, during the mission of the Orbiter Atlantis STS-46 from July 31 to August 8, 1992, the flag from the white apartheid era was flown aboard. In recognition of their contribution to this event, the SAIMC Durban Branch was presented with a framed acknowledgment, which included a miniature version of the flag.
The exhibition of this flag in these contexts should not be construed as an endorsement of racial animosity. Instead, it exemplifies the potential accomplishments when individuals come together in a heavily sanctioned environment, regardless of their governments' polcies and procedures.
The South Africa Apartheid Era flag is part of a history that built South Africa. Removing a very important part of history is not the solution and will only serve to create a divide! This would also impact on freedom of expression and opinion.
Manage the issue at hand without ignoring a complete section of society. The flag represents South African history and connot be specifically identified with Apartheid. The flag is a country and apartheid is an ideology and are exclusive from each other.
Meta needs to mind their own business and stop trying to erase history. ALLOW THE FLAG!!!!!
The Nelson Mandela Foundation regards the two displays of the old apartheid flag on Facebook currently under discussion as manifestations of hate speech. We base our conclusion on years of advocacy work in relation to displays of that flag.
In 2019 we secured an Equality Court ruling which determined that gratuitous displays (in other words displays outside of authentic scholarly, heritage or journalistic endeavor) of the flag constituted hate speech. The ruling broke new ground in legal understandings of the modes, forms and limits of hate speech.
This ruling was appealed by AfriForum and went to the Supreme Court of Appeals. The action was delayed by two other cases with direct implications for the Apartheid Flag case - Qwelane and Masuku, both of which were heard by the Constitutional Court. The Nelson Mandela Foundation joined these cases in a support (or amicus) role. When these cases were concluded – favorably for the Foundation’s arguments – the appeal case proceeded (2022) and the Equality Court ruling was upheld.
The two Facebook displays of the apartheid flag are self-evidently gratuitous. The evidence accumulated for the above-mentioned cases was overwhelming that such displays cause pain and hurt to those who suffered under the apartheid regime as well as to their descendants. In addition, gratuitous displays are an affront to all around the world who respect the UN’s determination that apartheid was a crime against humanity.
Link to media statement: https://www.nelsonmandela.org/news/entry/media-statement-apartheid-flag-sca-judgement
Link to media summary of judgement (also attached): https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2023/58media.pdf
There is nothing wrong with displaying the old South African flag, once they tried to make a law in South Africa that any person who displays the flag would be arrested and tried for displaying the flag and in the end they met resistance and decided that the law would not work.
While there has been a very negative history in SA with Apartheid, there are many here who still identify strongly with the flag from those days for several reasons (I am not one of them, it was never my flag):
The years of independence since 1994, has been riddled with reverse racism (A Black Empowerment system that benefits ONLY the small elite black hierarchy, to the detriment of the economy, all other races AND ALL less affluent black people). White people and white businesses are actively discriminated against by these policies. The loss of these businesses and opportunities have meant a massive reduction in employment opportunities across the board.
It is these same elite black people that perpetuate the ongoing racism and ensure focus remains on racism, to avert attention from the extreme corruption, incompetence and destruction of the economy that they have caused (refer to the Zondo Commission - 5000 pages of evidence against almost every member of the ANC government right up to the top).
Focusing on such a mundane thing as an old National Flag is another aspect of this ridiculous reverse racism, and I believe illogical, irrational and often ill-informed. This flag was what the South Africans who fought in both World Wars, the Korean war and other regional African wars all fought and died under. There are many who honour those dead or themselves fought.
South Africa is the only country in the world where the majority in power LEGALLY economically discriminate against a minority population under their rule - large companies are not allowed to employ white people, government does not employ white people, white people are not easily able to do business with government, links to white culture are blocked and are systematically being eroded (hence the attempt to ban the old flag). Using their language is being blocked. Under proposed new legislation their children will not be allowed to be schooled using their own language.
There is an ongoing murder campaign against white farmers (these crimes are characterised by calculated military precision, but also extreme levels of brutality and torture) which is ignored by the ANC government. Over 4000 white farmers have been murdered in this way. Though there are probably other complicating factors involved, it is percieved as a deliberate failure of the government and police.
Instead of focusing on urgent matters like the failure of the electricity grid, total collapse of local municipalities, the total collapse of the sewage and water systems, the collapse of the police, law and order, the collapse of the national transport system - affecting ALL South Africans, particularly the poor - they focus on ridiculous things like trying to ban an extinct flag.
This flag that matters to only a few (now largely powerless) citizens, who now use it as a way to try and keep their identity, when almost every other avenue has been eroded and discriminated against. They keep it as a way of protesting their situation, and the behaviour of the ANC since independence. And as a memory to those who fought and died under the flag.
The flag is part of history and has had previous complaints to its symbolism by the then "oppressors" . It did represent the history of the development of now RSA with all its warts and achievements and as such cannot be discredit and removed from public consciousness as that will disregard a huge part of South Africa's development.
By closing ones eyes to realities we are doomed to revisit all the problems and redo them, which we are seemingly doing at a great pace. Now.
To Be Fair - banning old south africa flag will require banning all flags with historic impact today.
Including
The ANC Flag as it is a symbol of opression today.
The Inkontho Isizwe flag as it is a ongoing emotion evoking flag even today.
The EFF flag as it is publically calling for genocide of minority groups in South Africa.
The flag if USA as it was also a racist society in the past.
The British Flag as it is also a flag of oppression and slavery in the past.
The French flag as it is still economically opressing some parts of west africa
So be fair.
The old South African flag is not the apartheid era flag. It was the national flag before apartheid, during apartheid and for 4 years after apartheid. Banning old national flags that makes part of history is draconian. Just because one group takes offense of an old national flag, now we should erase every trace of it??? If the old South Africa flag gets banned on Meta, you'll end up with anti Israeli groups demanding the banning of the Israeli flag because they TAKE offense and find it represents evil in their eyes, you'll end up with nationalists groups demanding the banning of the Soviet flag because of the genocide and famine of over 50 million people that took place under that flag. So consider that the abolishing of Apartheid also took place under the old SA flag and that those who demand the removal and banning of it, has no right to attempt to alter history by oppressing those who display it for what ever reason, whether it's for historic context or just because they view the flag in a different view than just apartheid.
History does not define us nore should it scare us............we should use it as a example and not feel scared to show it to the world
As a South African I do not see the old flag as being hateful or promoting of any hatred or racism. Its part of history, its part of a story.
It is an object of historical value. It was not born from apartheid, it was born from the nation's independence from Imperial rule and unification of the independent states of the country at the time.
Interfering with free speech leads to a slippery slope where someone that might not have your best interest at heart decides what you should hear and say and shouldn't say. It is a tool to silence dissenting voices. Fascists love it.
There is no such thing as an apartheid era flag. The South African flag in question has a rich history long before apartheid. Millions of us lived under this flag happily for many years.
You cannot change history by removing a symbol of pride from a nation that is proud of its history.
This is the flag I was born under and went to war under, I respect my flag and will never stop displaying it, it is part of MY history
Fact: It's part of us as South Africans, it's History, it's our history, can it be Changed? No, can we Learn from it? Yes, Germany teaches history on Hitler and WW2 till this day, the good, the bad and the ugly...we can hide and ban things like the flag, does it change what happened? No, will people learn from it if banned/removed? no, how can they if it's being omitted?
History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time." "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."
more than 50% of our youth doesnt even know what the Wars that were fought in Southern Africa were about.
conclusion: omitting information, images doesnt change history and it's already being repeated.