Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 14:1 (2025) ► pp.3–39

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Interlegal argumentation in the UK Drill Music decision of Meta’s Oversight Board

ORCiD logo with link | FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg | University of Oxford, Faculty of Law
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.

Published online: 17 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.24004.enc
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Critical genre analysis
    • 1.2Strategic maneuvering
    • 1.3Structure
  • 2.The interdiscursively hybrid genre of the OSB
    • 2.1The OSB and transnational law
    • 2.2Inter-Legality and interlegal argumentation
    • 2.3The OSB as an inter-legality hub
    • 2.4The OSB’s adjudicative genre
  • 3.The UK drill music case
  • 4.Interlegal argumentation in the OSB’s UK drill music decision
    • 4.1Generic moves and structure
    • 4.2Inter-Legality and the role of domestic law
    • 4.3Distinctive features of interlegal argumentation
      • 4.3.1Balancing and proportionality
      • 4.3.2Non-Merits reasons in proportionality and standard of proof
      • 4.3.3The policy of a primary and a secondary signal qua interface doctrine
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (72)
References
Alexy, Robert. 1989 (1978). A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010 (1985). A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Formal Principles: Some Replies to Critics.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 12 (3):511–524. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “The Special Case Thesis and the Dual Nature of Law.” Ratio Juris 31 (3):254–259.
Arnardóttir, O. M. 2016. “Rethinking the Two Margins of Appreciation.” European Constitutional Law Review 12 (1):27–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Badger, Richard. 2003. “Legal and General: Towards a Genre Analysis of Newspaper Law Reports.” English for Specific Purposes 221:249–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing Genre. Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2023. “Legal Genres in Interdiscursive Contexts.” In Research Handbook on Jurilinguistics, ed. by Anne Wagner and Aleksandra Matulewska, 159–178. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Elif and Nedim Hogic. 2021. “Inter-Legality and Online States.” In L’era dell’interlegalità, ed. by Edoardo Chiti, Alberto di Martino, and Gianluigi Palombella, 217–237. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burchardt, Dana. 2023. “Looking Behind the Façade of Monism, Dualism and Pluralism.” KFG Working Paper Series 591. [URL]
Carter, Anne. 2024. Proportionality and Facts in Constitutional Adjudication. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clérico, Laura. 2009. El examen de proporcionalidad en el derecho constitucional. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Da Cruz, Paula Baldini Miranda. (2020). “Trackers and Trailblazers: Dynamic Interactions and Institutional Design in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 11 (1): 69-90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douek, Evelyn. 2020. “What Kind of Oversight Board Have You Given Us?”, The University of Chicado Law Review Online Archive. [URL]
Douek, Evelin. 2024. “The Meta Oversight Board and the Empty Promise of Legitimacy”. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 37 (2):373–445Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1967. “The Model of Rules”. The University of Chicago Law Review 35 (1):14–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Encinas, Gabriel. 2022. “Interlegal Balancing: A Concept, Two Contexts, Some Circumstances” Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 11:75–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Endicott, Timothy. 2015. “Comity among Authorities.” Current Legal Problems, 681:1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Nicholas. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. 2008. “Weighing and Balancing in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.” Informal Logic 28 (1):20–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, Evelin T. 2017. Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2023. “The Meaning(s) of Solidarity.” In Andrea Sangiovanni, Solidarity: Nature, Grounds and Value, 205–221. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gradoni, Lorenzo. 2021. “Chasing Global Legal Particles: Some Guesswork about the Nature of Meta’s Oversight Board.” EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. 30 December 2021. [URL]
Griffin, Rachel. 2023. “Rethinking rights in social media governance: human rights, ideology and inequality.” European Law Open, 21:30–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter. 2007. “Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence.” University of Toronto Law Journal 571:383–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. 2018. “What Is Legal Validity? Lessons from Soft Law.” In Legal Validity and Soft Law, ed. by Pauline Westerman, Jaap Hage, Stephan Kirste, and Anne Ruth Mackor, 19–45. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hass, Binesh. 2021. “The Opaqueness of Rules”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 41 (2):407–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R., and Mary K. Land. 2023. “The Meta’s Oversight Board’s Human Rights Future.” Cardozo Law Review 44 (6):2233–2300.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ihnen Jory, Constanza. 2012. Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates: instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation at the second reading of the British Parliament. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Jackson, V. C. (2015). Constitutional law in an age of proportionality. Yale Law Journal 124 (8): 3094–3197. [URL]
Jessup, Philip C. 1956. Transnational Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klabbers, Jan and Gianluigi Palombella, eds. 2019. The Challenge of Inter-Legality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klonick, Kate. 2020. The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression. The Yale Law Journal 1291: 2418–2499.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kloosterhuis, Harm. 2015. “Institutional Constraints of Topical Strategic Maneuvering in Legal Argumentation. The Case of ‘Insulting’.” In Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, ed. by Thomas Bustamante and Christian Dahlman, 67–75. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krisch, Nico. 2010. Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “Framing Entangled Legalities beyond the State.” In Entangled Legalities Beyond the State, ed. by Nico Krisch, 1–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2020. Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maley, Yon. 1995. “From Adjudication to Mediation: Third Party Discourse in Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Pragmatics 231: 93–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaels, Ralf. 2017. “Law and Recognition -- Towards a Relational Concept of Law.” In In Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence, ed. by Nicole Roughan and Andrew Halpin, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nickel, Rainer. 2015. “Interlegalidad”. Eunomía: Revista en cultura de la legalidad (8):205–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliver-Lalana, A. Daniel. 2022. “On the Structure and Stock Issues of Legislative Justification (in Parliamentary Debates).” In Exploring the Province of Legislation, ed. by Francesco Ferraro and Silvia Zorzetto, 57–83. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortolani, Pietro. 2022. “If You Build it, They Will Come. The DSA “Procedure Before Substance” Approach.” In Putting the Digital Services Act into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice, and Global Implications, ed. by Joris van Hoboken, João Pedro Quintais, Naomi Appelman, Ronan Fahy, Ilaria Buri, and Marlene Straub, 151–163. Berlin: Verfassungsbooks.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palombella, G. 2019. “Theory, Realities, and Promises of Inter-Legality: A Manifesto.” In The Challenge of Inter-Legality, ed. by Jan Klabbers and Gianluigi Palombella, 363–390. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pirker, B. 2013. Proportionality Analysis and Models of Judicial Review. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popa, Eugen Octav, and Jean Wagemans. 2021. Stock issues and the structure of argumentative discussions: An integrative analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 186129–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch, and Jan Engberg. 1999. “Genre Analysis of Legal Discourse.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 221:113–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2009. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ryngaert, Cedric. 2019. “Jurisdiction”. In Concepts for International Law, ed. by Jean d’Aspremont and Sahib Singh, 577–584, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Martin, Pamela. 2023. “Meta’s Oversight Board. Challenges of Content Moderation on the Internet.” Erasmus Law Review 21:124–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scarcello, Orlando. 2021. “Proportionality in the PSPP and Weiss Judgments: Comparing Two Conceptions of the Unity of Public Law.” European Journal of Legal Studies 13 (21):45–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shany, Y. 2019. “International Courts as Inter-Legality Hubs.” In The Challenge of Inter-Legality, ed. By Jan Klabbers, and Gianluigi Palombella, 319–338. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sieckmann, J. 2012. The Logic of Autonomy. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2021. “To Balance or Not to Balance: The Quest for the Essence of Rights.” In Proportionality, Balancing, and Rights: Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights, ed. by Jan Sieckmann, 113–134. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2022. Autonomie und Menschenrechte. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steiner, Talya, Andrej Lang, and Mordechai Kremnitzer. 2020. “Comparative and Empirical Insights into Judicial Practice: Towards an Integrative Model of Proportionality”. In Proportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice, ed. by Mordechai Kremnitzer, Talya Steiner, and Andrej Lang, 542–611. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Da Silva, V. A. 2023. “Balancing may be everywhere, but the proportionality test is not.” Global Constitutionalism, First View, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2021. Legal Pluralism Explained: History, Theory, Consequences. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiedeke, Anna Sophia and Martin Fertmann. 2024. “A Love Triangle? Mapping Interactions between International Human Rights Institutions, Meta and Its Oversight Board.” European Journal of International Law, chad062. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Berg, Albert. 2024. “Does an Annulled Award Constitute Legal Authority in Investment Arbitration?” ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad020, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, Paul. 2011. “The Unchangeable Judicial Formats.” Argumentation 251:499–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vázquez-Orta, Ignacio. 2013. “Authoritative Intervention in Legal Discourse: A Genre-ased Study of Judgments and Arbitration Awards.” Revista Española de lingüística aplicada 261:91–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vázquez, Ignacio and Diana Giner. 2012. “Contrastive Study of International Commercial Arbitration and Court Judgments: Intertextuality through Metadiscourse in Action”. In Arbitration Awards: Generic Features and Textual Realisations, ed. by Vijay K. Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone and Chiara Degano, 171–191, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verheij, Bart, Jaap C. Hage, and H. Jaap van den Herik. 1998. An Integrated View on Rules and Principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law 61:3–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, Neil. 2022. “Legalising Inter-Legality.” European Law Open 1 (1):216–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zenker, Frank, Jan Albert van Laar, B. Cepollaro, M. Hinton, C. G. King, B. Larson, S. Oswald, M. Pichlak, J. H. M. Wagemans. 2024. “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation 381:7–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue