केस विवरण
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.
टिप्पणियाँ
NO NOT @ ALL BECAUSE WE WERE BORN IN THAT ERA & WHY SHOULD IT BE, IT'S HARMLESS!
I believe that the ex-SA flag is a symbol of a portion of the SA history. It must be remembered, as a part of history and therefore cannot be totally banned from any platform.
It is the distinction between opinion and hate speech (which incites to violence) must be clearly defined to ensure that one is allowed and the other is banned.
I believe the strongest democracies are those that accept their whole history, the good and the bad. Further, it is a strong democracy that can allow differing opinions, restricting only the portions which aim to incite violence against or destruction of a person or group.
It would be good if social media can facilitate good discussions, restricting only the content which is inciting violence or hate speech. We have a lot to learn about one another in SA and need a place to communicate positively and negatively, about who we are, what we have done and how we can make it better going forward.
Many of us grew up under the old South African flag.
Many of our brothers and sisters sacrafised their blood under the flag.
Who gives Meta / FB the right to play devils advocate.
They must keep to to what they were founded for.
Its part of our history and you cannot change our history.
Facebook is sowing devision between races, religion and countries with the so called community standards they want to enforce.
If the old flag bothers you build a bridge and get over it.
Keep to your original script.
Facebook is actually trying to run our lives , and yes it is actually doing it.
Many things offend me also but I have come to realise that I must accept it.
You can ban my old flag but not my history.
And I have nothing against the new flag.
FB stick to your origens and leave mine alone.
The flag is part of a country's history and should remain available.
This was a national flag, not a political or organisational flag. One cannot lump the flag and the nation it represented under the banner of those who had incorrect political views and drove their outcomes. Is the U.S. flag Democrat or Republican? Neither. The flag and the politics are not the same. If people choose to fly this flag because it means something to them, it does not automatically mean that they supported and agreed with the government of the time. You can be proud of your nation without being a supporter of the Government or its politics.
One cannot and should never try to delete or hide history.
What happened well happened, learn from it don't hide it.
Does the USA ban the Confederate Flag? NO
Are the Nazi Flag still showing in movies etc., for sure.
I am no fan of the Nazi's at all but know what to look for and it surely helps in identifying the signs. Ditto the swastika.
The old flag was not all bad, a lot of good came from that era, admit it as you admit the bad.
I'm a 48yr old white women, born and living in Cape Town since 1976. My parents were Afrikaans and I married an English man. Post-1994 RSA is more united than divided. For the most part, the wider public wants to get on with each other and get on with life. The hopes we all had after the '94 elections were dashed during Pres Zuma's reign as wide spread corruption in gov depts grew exponentially. The previously poor, who were for the most part coloured and black people, hoped that the new ANC gov would bring about changes which would encourage investment in the country, prompting economical growth, increasing financial wealth for all. A large portion of the white community hoped the same. Sadly, the financial divide has grown post-apartheid. Speaking to many black people, a lot of the older folks will say they were safer under apartheid, as the criminals run rife in the townships, suburbs and cities, as well as the rural areas. No area is spared from the unemployed, desperate people who steal (and often murder) for something to sell again. A few baddies can affect a huge group of good citizens, and drive fear into them. Gangsterism (especially on the Cape Flats) is flourishing. Our cleaning lady, an isiXhosa woman's son was stabbed and killed for his smart phone a few years ago. Shacks have popped up on sidewalks and open spaces, which were not like this, even 10 years ago. With the gov's poor reputation regarding stewardship of the country, poor management and corruption, many South Africans have adopted a "we'll do it ourselves" attitude. And with that, for the most part, it means that "we'll do it together". People of all races are banding together to fix public street, re-wild and clean up public parks, ensure that people are treated well, regardless of their financial status or employment. But the divide between the poor and rich has increased over the past 30 years of democracy. There are still some white people who do the obvious insinuations when speaking in "code" about "them". Still racist at heart. Similarly, there are still some black people who have hatred and bitterness in their hearts towards white people. Some going back as far as colonial times. The larger majority of us have agreed to accept that the horrors of apartheid on a humanitarian level was unacceptable, to respect each other's generational hurts, try to understand each other's prejudices and educate one another, and grow together. The old flag has been adopted by some as a symbol of oppression, and would argue that Afrikaans is the language of the oppressor. Yet, there are tens of thousands of black people whose 1st language is Afrikaans. Some have adopted the old flag as a symbol of "apartheid-supporting solidarity". Whilst the bulk of us in the middle, understand it's part of our multi-cultural past and cannot be erased. It's a historical artifact. It would be wise to review each FB post of the old flag, based on its own merit. Before the 2024 elections, there was uncertainty as to how things would pan out, as Zuma re-entered the political scene. The minority racist groups on the black and white sides both tried to influence others to join them. But both sides' arguments are actually rooted in fear. The racist whites fear being killed off by the blacks. The racist blacks fear being oppressed by the whites. The educated and understanding people of all colours have realised that actually, we all want peace and harmony and for the country and its people to prosper. And working together, this can happen. When people share the old flag on FB, it's for different reasons, and that's why I say each post/complaint should be judged on it's own merit or context. One cannot control people's associations and emotional connotations to things like flags. But one can educate people about others' relationship with things, like our old flag. I cannot vouch for some saying that the old flag is comparable to the Nazi flag. Nazi Germany killed off people en-masse. Our apartheid gov was more focused on suppressing people of colour, which held them back financially in life, over decades, which led to social issues. A wicked cycle. Ultimately, the flag is part of the country's history. It was 4 flags in 1, relaying the history of how we went from a colony to a union to an eventual republic. It's historically correct in colour, but emotionally evokes a variety of responses. The 1 post where it was used as part of a nostalgic "do you remember" which it was posted along with many photos, incl the ice cream seller and kids: that's a positive memory for most adults. The ice cream sellers today look exactly the same. They ride on similar carts and ring similar bells, announcing their approach as they move up and down the streets. When children of all ages hear that bell, excitement builds in anticipation of getting a treat. That photo is in no way racist or malicious. It's exactly like that today still. Children of all colours wait the the ice cream guy to come past. The other items shared as part of that post, are treats and things from childhood, which no longer exist. Including the old flag in that post was not exactly nostalgic. It was odd. My interpretation was that it was to show the old treats and things from "that era", meaning the 1980's to be specific.
Banning anything is usually counter productive. Much like censorship and banning is in effect censoring.
I believe in freedom of speech, as entrenched in the SA (and USA ) constitution.
To my knowledge the old SA flag has not been banned.
No useful purpose would be served by banning this old flag., or any flag for that matter.
I therefore vote against any such banning.
I do not agree with banning the aparteid-era South African flag. I do not like the flag and I believe that depending on where it is displayed it can be divisive. However, Meta, and Facebook specifically, have no right to position themselves as the keepers of the world's morals. They are already puppets of the liberal left-wing governments of the world and pose a major threat to freedom of speech. I may not like some of the posts I see but I do like the freedom that people are able to exercise to post them.
There exists a misconception regarding the former SA flag. It was raised the first time on 31 May 1928 , loooong before the era of Apartheid(Segregation in America, Cast System in India ) which started in 1948. It is part of a large group of the white people of South Africa. Banning that would rob them of their identity .
Should leave the flag alone. It is part of South Africa’s history.
it's a symbol of history, but for those radical political moaners, its an insult, but for me , it's a country that has a rich history that my both parents family lines came from in the Portuguese and British settlers during the early days rule in 1697 and 1820 to settle and uplift the country from ground up and fought for the freedom we have today.
So no, the flag is not a racial symbol, but a symbol of unity .
So does the old and new anthem of our country is also based on unity from early time and now. People must learn to set aside their pride and radical nonsense and see it as a symbol of unity.
You can't erase history
The old flag should not be flown in public. Although ffs it's just a piece of cloth. But people get sensitive and start rioting.
If you want to drape the inside of your home in the old SA flag, that's your right.
This old South Africa flag, this symbol of hatred, racism, white superiority and trauma SHOULD be banned from Facebook. There is no educational or cultural benefit to be obtained from this flag. The only use would be to enforce the beliefs of this racist, divisive and fascist regime.
There's nothing wrong with the apartheid era's flag leave our proud heritage alone
The old South African Apartheid era flag was never promoted or designed or inferred to as being one of 'Hatred'.
This statement is misleading and incorrect, and plays into the hands of those who wish to find fault, or destabilize the current situation, or for sensationalism, and as a consequence, ride on the back of an outbreak of public anger. The old flag was a flag at the time, in the early days, and one which shall not be forgotten. Time has moved on, and in our New Democracy, the flag had to be changed to symbolize total inclusivity, of all races, and without discrimination. Because things, situations and symbolism change over time, is no reason to abolish, neglect or not make any reference to them. Many form part of our history in South Africa and they tell their own story.
The debate surrounding the display of the old South African flag, particularly on social media platforms like Facebook, is a deeply contentious issue. The old flag, which was used from 1928 until 1994, is widely associated with apartheid, a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination that the South African government officially imposed for several decades. Following the country's transition to democracy in 1994, the flag was replaced with a new design, symbolizing unity and reconciliation in the post-apartheid era.
Those who advocate for the display of the old flag often argue for it on the grounds of freedom of speech, historical preservation, and individual rights. However, these arguments need to be carefully weighed against the legitimate concerns about hate speech, racial sensitivity, and the collective memory of South Africa's painful past. In this comment, I will make an argument for why Facebook should allow the display of the old South African flag in posts, balancing the ideals of free expression with the need for sensitivity to historical context and social responsibility.
1. Freedom of Speech
At the heart of the argument for allowing the old South African flag to be posted on Facebook is the principle of freedom of speech. The right to free speech is fundamental to most democratic societies, and it allows individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and even controversial or unpopular opinions without fear of censorship. This right is enshrined in international human rights documents, such as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression."
While platforms like Facebook are private entities and not government institutions, they have nevertheless become vital spaces for public discourse. The allowance of various symbols, flags, and historical artifacts in posts is often seen as an extension of users' rights to express their personal views or to engage in discussions about historical and political matters. In this sense, banning the old South African flag could be viewed as an infringement on individual freedoms, particularly if the intention of the user is not to incite hatred but to contribute to a historical or cultural discussion.
For instance, some individuals may wish to use the flag in the context of explaining the country's history or reflecting on how far South Africa has come since the apartheid era. As a historical symbol, the flag can offer a visual representation of South Africa's past, providing a point of reflection for both domestic and international audiences. To ban its use outright could stifle legitimate historical discourse and prevent individuals from engaging with the past in a meaningful way.
2. Historical Context and Educational Value
The old South African flag is undeniably a powerful symbol, representing a painful period in the nation's history. However, it is also a significant part of South Africa's heritage. Historical artifacts, no matter how uncomfortable they may be, offer opportunities for education and reflection. By allowing the flag to appear in Facebook posts, the platform could provide an opportunity for people to engage in discussions about the injustices of apartheid, the consequences of state-sanctioned racial segregation, and the importance of human rights and reconciliation.
Many countries around the world grapple with the display of controversial historical symbols. In the United States, for example, the Confederate flag, associated with slavery and segregation, continues to stir debate. While its public display has been limited in some contexts, it is still used in educational and historical settings to teach about the Civil War and the legacy of racism in America. Similarly, Nazi symbols are banned in some countries like Germany but are allowed in others in specific contexts, such as education or historical discussion.
Facebook posts featuring the old South African flag could serve as part of a broader educational effort, encouraging users to learn about South Africa's history and the transition to democracy. Allowing the flag in this context could be an acknowledgment that, while the flag symbolizes a dark chapter, it can also serve as a reminder of the importance of never returning to that period. Context matters, and the key to balancing freedom of speech with sensitivity to historical trauma lies in understanding how and why a symbol is being used.
3. Differentiating Intent: Hate Speech vs. Historical Memory
It is essential to differentiate between posts that use the old South African flag as an expression of hate and those that use it in the context of historical reflection or even critique. The line between free expression and hate speech can be difficult to define, but many legal frameworks exist to help distinguish between the two. International law and constitutional systems often recognize that freedom of expression is not absolute and that it can be limited when it promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against others.
In South Africa, the Equality Act of 2000 defines hate speech as speech that is based on prohibited grounds (such as race, ethnicity, or religion) and that is intended to harm or propagate hatred. When assessing the use of the old South African flag in Facebook posts, the intent of the user should be taken into account. If the flag is being used to promote hate, intimidate others, or glorify apartheid, then restrictions may be justified. However, if it is used in a historical context or as part of a discussion about South Africa's past, it could fall under legitimate free speech.
Facebook, as a platform, already employs community standards that prohibit hate speech and the incitement of violence. These standards could be applied to the use of the old South African flag, ensuring that it is not misused for racist purposes while still allowing it in appropriate contexts. Facebook’s community moderation can strike a balance, allowing free speech while also upholding social responsibility.
4. Preserving Historical Symbols for Future Generations
The old South African flag is part of the country's historical identity, whether people like it or not. Removing it from public discourse entirely risks erasing parts of history that are uncomfortable but crucial to remember. Historical symbols help future generations understand the struggles and mistakes of the past, and the old flag is a stark reminder of a time when institutional racism and oppression were government policies.
Efforts to remove the flag from public spaces or ban its display on platforms like Facebook could be seen as an attempt to erase the uncomfortable parts of history. While the post-apartheid South African government rightly sought to create a new national identity through a new flag, it is also important not to forget the conditions that necessitated this change. Displaying the old flag in educational or historical contexts can be a powerful way to teach new generations about the horrors of apartheid and why the fight for equality and justice remains vital.
Historical amnesia can be dangerous because it often leads to the repetition of past mistakes. By allowing the old flag to be part of the conversation—albeit in specific, well-regulated contexts—Facebook can contribute to preserving the memory of apartheid's atrocities, ensuring that they are not forgotten or downplayed.
5. International Precedents: Contextual Use of Offensive Symbols
Looking at international practices can provide valuable insights into how other nations handle the display of controversial symbols. In Germany, for instance, Nazi symbols like the swastika are banned in most contexts, but they are allowed in educational and historical settings. This approach ensures that the symbols are not used to glorify the Nazi regime but are preserved for purposes of historical understanding and reflection.
In the United States, where free speech is protected under the First Amendment, there has been a long-running debate over the display of the Confederate flag, a symbol similarly associated with racism and oppression. Although it is prohibited from flying on government buildings in some states, individuals retain the right to display it in personal contexts, provided it does not incite violence or hatred.
These international examples show that it is possible to allow the display of controversial symbols in regulated contexts without endorsing the ideologies they represent. Facebook could adopt a similar approach, allowing posts with the old South African flag that are intended for historical reflection or education while removing those that aim to promote hatred or racial superiority.
6. The Slippery Slope of Censorship
There is a valid concern that banning the old South African flag from Facebook posts could set a dangerous precedent for other forms of censorship. Once a particular symbol is banned, the door is opened to further restrictions on speech, potentially leading to a slippery slope where any symbol, text, or image deemed offensive could be removed. This is especially concerning in a world where opinions and sensitivities vary widely, and what is offensive to one person may not be to another.
While it is crucial to protect individuals from hate speech and to foster a respectful online environment, this must be balanced with the right to free expression. Censorship should be a last resort, reserved for cases where there is a clear and present danger of violence or harm. Allowing the old South African flag in Facebook posts, provided it is used in appropriate contexts, would prevent the platform from embarking on a path of excessive censorship while still upholding the values of inclusivity and respect.
Conclusion
The question of whether Facebook should allow posts displaying the old South African flag is complex and multi-faceted. On the one hand, the flag is an undeniable symbol of apartheid, a system of racial oppression that caused immense harm to millions of South Africans. On the other hand, banning the flag outright from online discourse risks infringing on free speech, stifling historical discussion, and potentially erasing a critical part of South Africa's history.
A balanced approach is necessary. Facebook should allow the display of the old South African flag in posts, provided that it is used in a historical, educational, or reflective context, and not for the purposes of hate speech or promoting racial superiority. By adopting a nuanced policy, the platform can protect free expression while also respecting the sensitivities of those affected by apartheid's legacy.
In this way, the old flag can serve as a reminder of the past—an essential tool for educating future generations and ensuring that the mistakes of history are not repeated.
I don't see how a display of a flag, where all the systems worked in everyone's benefit, could encourage hatred. I was born under that flag and am proud of it for the good it resemble, I am just as proud of the new flag for the good it resemble. Unfortunately the last few years have been tough under the new flag.
The use of the Old Soutj African flag is part of history. The display or use of it has no connection with any racial or other activities. As the flags of the Confederate and Union armies is part of history so are the South African flag. Banning one flag will mean that all flags from previous colonial or governments link to racism, slavery or any sure need to be banned. This will however also not be inline with freedom of self governance and speech, promoted by most today.