Meta’s oversight board just made a decision that the pro-Palestine slogan “from the river to the sea” does not reach a threshold for hate speech.
The company’s new policy allows the term to be used on Facebook and Instagram so long as it doesn’t accompany the glorification of violence. Nonetheless, it’s a deeply offensive term which implies Israel should no longer exist and justifies a genocide of the Jewish people.
How ironic that a slogan that arguably condones genocide is not “hate speech” — especially considering Meta’s long history of censorship.
The company’s policy is to censor hate speech, which it defines as “direct attacks against people — rather than concepts or institutions— on the basis of what we call protected characteristics (PCs): race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, and serious disease.”
Meta has censored all manner of things, from Covid-19 content to the term “stupid Americans.” In August, X owner Elon Musk even called out the company for allegedly censoring British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’ comments about transgender participation in female sports.
Why is “from the river to the sea” any less meaningful? Once you start policing speech that is offensive to some groups, you create the rightful expectation that you will do the same for others.
Legally, free speech is protected — even if it’s deeply offensive or inflammatory. The First Amendment draws a line at direct incitement to violence, which requires tolerating odious speech up until that point.
Sure, private companies are allowed to censor all they want, but in a free society we should all be interested in maximizing expression.
Jewish ACLU lawyers demonstrated remarkable restraint and principle in the 1970s when they defended the rights of literal Nazis to march through the streets of Skokie, Illinois, where many residents were Holocaust survivors.
That’s true free-speech absolutism.
In that spirit, I wouldn’t have a problem with Meta’s decision on “from the river to the sea” if not for its revealing hypocrisy.
No one group is more deserving of protection than another — but that’s what Meta is seemingly implying.
Similarly, Harvard’s disgraced former president Claudine Gay delivered a lawyerly response in December to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)’s questions about whether calls for “Intifada” constituted harassment at Harvard: “It depends on the context.”
While Gay attempted to draw the line at actual incitement of imminent violence, it came off as tone deaf.
Why would the complaints of Jewish students being made to feel uncomfortable on campus matter any less than someone who is misgendered or “micro-aggressed”?
In theory, Gay was correct about the threshold, but Harvard was also rated the worst school for free speech last year.
In fact, it earned a zero out of a possible 100-point scale, according to free speech watchdog group FIRE. Things are so bad that a group of more than 100 professors banded together to form a free speech union and fight back.
Both Meta and Harvard’s decisions to stand with free speech now are correct on paper, sure. But they also demonstrate horrific double standards that many Jewish people are understandably offended by.
Free speech doesn’t only apply to anti-Zionist protesters and antisemitic language.
Personally, I’m a free-speech activist to my core. I will defend speech that I find hideous. However, I won’t let Meta or Harvard get away with this little switcheroo without being called out.
If these behemoths are really into being pro-free speech suddenly, in the wake of October 7th, then they ought to stop censoring any kind of protected speech.
No more squelching conservative voices. No more controversial professors targeted for their views. And no more wars on supposed “misinformation.”
Let’s draw the line: Maximizing free speech is great, but it cannot be selectively applied.