Meta’s Oversight Board rules that ‘from the river to the sea’ is not necessarily hate speech
NBCSEP 13 2024
A Meta-funded oversight body Wednesday ruled that the controversial Palestinian nationalistic rallying cry “from the river to the sea” is acceptable speech.A Meta-funded oversight body on Wednesday ruled that the pro-Palestinian phrase "from the river to the sea" is acceptable speech and hence doesn't violate the company's hate speech policies.
The panel reportedly reviewed three posts and said "the phrase has multiple meanings" and the posts "contain contextual signs of solidarity with Palestinians."The panel reviewed three posts and noted that "the phrase has multiple meanings," adding the said posts "contain contextual signs of solidarity with Palestinians — but no language calling for violence."
A minority of the Meta panel reportedly believed that the phrase ought to be deemed as glorifying a banned entity since it appears in its 2017 charter.However, a minority of the Meta panel reportedly believed that the phrase ought to be deemed as glorifying Hamas, a banned entity, since it appears in its 2017 charter.
The pro-Palestine phrase "From the river to the sea" represents Palestinian aspirations for freedom and justice across their historical homeland. It's a call for liberation from oppression, not a threat to any group. ItRegardless beckons all people, regardless of faith or ethnicity, it beckons everyone to live as equal citizens. Rather than being restricted, this slogan should be understood in its full context as an expression of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and a peaceful coexistence in a land thatwith has deep meaning for multiple communities.
TheMeta chantmust "Fromblock thethis riverphrase to the sea" should be shunned due to its ambiguous and potentially harmful connotations for Israel., Thiswhich ambiguity makes the phraseslogan easily misinterpreted and allows critics to accuse well-meaning protesters of supporting antisemitism or genocide. Given the current sensitive situation in Gaza, using such a contentious slogan distracts from the urgent need to address the humanitarian crisis. Instead, activists should opt for clearer, unambiguous language that explicitly opposes violence and supports human rights for all.