Should Social Media Platforms Permit Violating Content that is “Newsworthy”?

In 2016, Facebook received widespread global criticism for removing the iconic “Terror of War” photo (widely known as the “Napalm Girl” photo) for violating its rules on child nudity. To remedy that concern, Facebook introduced a general “newsworthiness allowance” to apply to some content on the platform even though it technically violates a rule. The “rarely applied,” ad hoc and ex post exemption has since been used in a range of cases to exempt violating speech—including violating speech by political figures. But should a social media platform allow speech that violates a rule to remain on the platform because it meets some threshold for “newsworthiness”? We argue that social media platforms should not apply such exemptions. First, as a procedural matter, we argue that ad hoc and ex post decisions to exempt certain people from platform rules rest in considerable tension with the rule of law, specifically the principle of legality. Second, as a substantive matter, we argue that the newsworthiness allowance is the wrong prescription for the right problem. The problem is that content moderation rules are often insufficiently nuanced and overinclusive. Instead of applying an arbitrary exemption, platforms should nuance their rules to allow for awareness raising, condemnation, and satire in categories of content to which the newsworthiness allowance might otherwise be applied. Third, we consider whether there ought to nevertheless be a narrowed newsworthiness allowance for violating speech by political leaders. People have a fundamental interest in finding out what their leaders think, especially when what they think is deeply misguided or even harmful, and this is particularly true in democracies. While this is an important interest, we reject the notion that a newsworthiness allowance is the right way to protect it. The interest is most propitiously protected by allowing news reporting on what politicians have said, not by allowing politicians to abuse platforms to cause harm.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Online Trust and Safety
Published
2025-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v3i1.253
Primary Topic
Freedom of Expression and Defamation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Should Social Media Platforms Permit Violating Content that is “Newsworthy”?

J. Woodford Howard, Ricki-Lee Gerbrandt
Journal of Online Trust and Safety
Freedom of Expression and Defamation
article

Should Social Media Platforms Permit Violating Content that is “Newsworthy”?

J. Woodford Howard, Ricki-Lee Gerbrandt
article en

Abstract

In 2016, Facebook received widespread global criticism for removing the iconic “Terror of War” photo (widely known as the “Napalm Girl” photo) for violating its rules on child nudity. To remedy that concern, Facebook introduced a general “newsworthiness allowance” to apply to some content on the platform even though it technically violates a rule. The “rarely applied,” ad hoc and ex post exemption has since been used in a range of cases to exempt violating speech—including violating speech by political figures. But should a social media platform allow speech that violates a rule to remain on the platform because it meets some threshold for “newsworthiness”? We argue that social media platforms should not apply such exemptions. First, as a procedural matter, we argue that ad hoc and ex post decisions to exempt certain people from platform rules rest in considerable tension with the rule of law, specifically the principle of legality. Second, as a substantive matter, we argue that the newsworthiness allowance is the wrong prescription for the right problem. The problem is that content moderation rules are often insufficiently nuanced and overinclusive. Instead of applying an arbitrary exemption, platforms should nuance their rules to allow for awareness raising, condemnation, and satire in categories of content to which the newsworthiness allowance might otherwise be applied. Third, we consider whether there ought to nevertheless be a narrowed newsworthiness allowance for violating speech by political leaders. People have a fundamental interest in finding out what their leaders think, especially when what they think is deeply misguided or even harmful, and this is particularly true in democracies. While this is an important interest, we reject the notion that a newsworthiness allowance is the right way to protect it. The interest is most propitiously protected by allowing news reporting on what politicians have said, not by allowing politicians to abuse platforms to cause harm.

Journal of Online Trust and SafetyVol. 3(1)
University College London (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Freedom of Expression and Defamation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.