Objective: the present paper aims to analyse Case Decision 2022-001-FB-UA of Facebook* Oversight Board, also known as the Knin cartoon case and attempts to put the case as well as its procedure in a historical and cultural context to set out a critical approach concerning Facebook’s* content moderation.Methods: the paper uses desk research as the primary source of method. The paper’s resource background builds upon comparative case studies and case analysis as well. The paper uses resources from various disciplines: legal philosophy, international law, media law, platform regulation, history.Results: the paper presents the context of the Knin cartoon case as well as the key findings of the Oversight Board and the reasoning behind its decision. Furthermore, this paper aims to reflect on the idea of hate speech as interpreted by the Oversight Board and makes a tentative to contextualise and introduce the main problems and possible solutions regarding Meta’s content moderation in the scope of the present case.Scientific novelty: the Knin case has not been analysed in such historical and contextual depth before as the case decision was issued in 2022. Only a few analyses from merely legal standpoints were published thus far.Practical significance: the findings regarding the Knin case may be of importance of three main aspects: (1) it could be used for further critical analyses on Facebook’s* content moderation, (2) it could serve as a recommendation regarding platform regulation and guideline development and (3) it presents the paramount relevance and significance of the holistic interpretational perspectives when determining hate speech. As for the latter the present paper argues that the historical, cultural, societal and symbolic interpretation and understanding of hate speech determination is not only instrumental, but the only viable method to understand, determine and judge upon alleged hate speech cases.
