Interlegal argumentation in the <i>UK Drill Music</i> decision of Meta’s Oversight Board

Abstract This article zeroes in on the distinctive features of a novel site of public argumentation. The UK drill music decision of the Oversight Board (OSB) of Meta will be analyzed given its salience as its most explicit decision regarding governmental requests. An introduction presents a theoretical framework. The second section describes the interdiscursively hybrid genre of the OSB. The third section recalls the case, highlighting its complex relation to several discourses and legalities. The fourth section analyzes the argumentation undertaken in the OSB’s decision, looking at its generic moves and structure, and its hallmarks: the separation of balancing and proportionality assessments, the incorporation of non-merits-based arguments, and the development of an interface doctrine (as a recurring argumentative framework in which norms and arguments from other institutional sites are assessed). A conclusion remarks the relevance for the public realm of analyzing hybrid genres and interlegal sites of argument.