Chile’s highest court ordered the continuation of an appeal against Meta for eliminating a journalist’s Instagram posts about Palestine. Although it did not comment on the underlying reasons, the court’s decision may set a precedent regarding national judicial control over moderation of digital platforms, rather than the US control, that the large platforms impose in contracts with their users
On February 4, the Supreme Court of Chile overturned a decision of the Court of Appeals of Santiago and ruled that the company Meta -parent company of Facebook and Instagram- should answer before the national courts, for which it ordered the continuation of the protection appeal against decisions to remove content from the company. The ruling is considered a decisive step in the discussion on freedom of expression in digital environments. The lawsuit was filed after the platform eliminated a post by a Chilean journalist on Instagram about the conflict in Palestine, arguing that it violated its community standards on “dangerous people and organizations”.
The case originated in November 2024, when the journalist shared images and videos published by the account “eye.on.palestine” about demonstrations demanding a ceasefire in Lebanon. Instagram deleted the post without warning. Faced with this censorship action by the platform, in December 2024 the journalist filed a protection appeal before the Court of Appeals of Santiago, but the request was declared inadmissible “considering that the elimination of the content did not violate fundamental rights”.
The case was appealed and the Supreme Court ruled that the moderation of content by digital platforms “could violate essential rights such as freedom of expression” and, therefore, must be judicially reviewed. The decision of the highest court does not imply a substantive ruling, but it does set a precedent in the possibility of judicial control over moderation decisions by large technology companies in Chile.
The decision forces the Court of Appeals to continue processing the appeal and request detailed information from Meta on the removal of the content. The resolution “reopens the debate on the role of companies like Meta in content moderation and the need for mechanisms that guarantee transparency and the protection of fundamental rights,” said Juan Andrés Mena, a lawyer for the Chilean Audience Ombudsman, a citizen initiative that sponsored the case.
The lawyer, who warns that the company has shown in the past “little cooperation” with the Chilean courts, warns that the arbitrary removal of content is not a minor matter and must be subject to judicial scrutiny. In Mena’s opinion, the discussion is not limited to the removal of a specific publication, but to the need for the courts to act as a counterweight to the power that companies like Meta have to decide what users can or cannot share.
The ruling is framed in a global context in which digital platforms have been criticized for a lack of transparency in content moderation. In Chile, the development of this case could influence future regulations on the role of platforms in the dissemination of information and the impact of their decisions on freedom of expression. In addition, this process could enable new legal actions against illegitimate moderation decisions by these companies.
RELATED LINKS: