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 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.A Meta-funded oversight body on Wednesday ruled that the phrase "from the river to the sea" — which supports Palestinian nationalism — is acceptable speech which doesn't violate the company's hate speech policies.
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."The panel reviewed three posts and noted that "the phrase has multiple meanings," adding that the said posts "contain contextual signs of solidarity with Palestinians — but no language calling for violence."
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.However, a minority of the panel reportedly argued for it to find that the phrase that glorified Hamas (a banned entity), since "from the river to the sea" appears in the group's 2017 charter.
The pro-Palestine phrase 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. 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 peaceful coexistence in a land with deep meaning for multiple communities.
Meta must blockrestrict this phrase due to its ambiguous and potentially harmful connotations for Israel, which makes the slogan easily misinterpreted and allows critics to accuse well-meaning protesters of supporting antisemitism or genocide. Given the current 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.