Case Description
Due to a technical glitch, our public comments portal for cases related to the "From the River to the Sea" phrase closed earlier than planned. To ensure everyone has a chance to share their input, we've reopened it for 24 hours. The portal will now close at 12pm BST on May 23rd.
These three cases concern content decisions made by Meta, all on Facebook, which the Oversight Board intends to address together.
The three posts were shared by different users in November 2023, following the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7 and the start of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Each post contains the phrase “From the river to the sea.” All three were reported by users for violating Meta’s Community Standards. The company decided to leave all three posts on Facebook. For each case, the Board will decide whether the content should be removed under Meta’s policies and according to its human rights responsibilities. Numbers of views and reports are correct as of the end of February 2024.
The first case concerns a comment from a Facebook user on another user’s video. The video has a caption encouraging others to “speak up” with numerous hashtags including “#ceasefire” and “#freepalestine.” The comment on the post contains the phrase “FromTheRiverToTheSea” in hashtag form, as well as several additional hashtags including “#DefundIsrael.” The comment had about 3,000 views and was reported seven times by four users. The reports were closed after Meta’s automated systems did not send them for human review within 48 hours.
In the second case, a Facebook user posted what appears to be a generated image of fruit floating on the sea that form the words from the phrase, along with “Palestine will be free.” The post had about 8 million views and was reported 951 times by 937 users. The first report on the post was closed, again because Meta’s automated systems did not send it for human review within 48 hours. Subsequent reports by users were reviewed and assessed as non-violating by human moderators.
In the third case, a Facebook page reshared a post from the page of a community organization in Canada in which a statement from the “founding members” of the organization declared support for “the Palestinian people,” condemning their “senseless slaughter” by the “Zionist State of Israel” and “Zionist Israeli occupiers.” The post ends with the phrase “From The River To The Sea.” This post had less than 1,000 views and was reported by one user. The report was automatically closed.
The Facebook users who reported the content, and subsequently appealed Meta’s decisions to leave up the content to the Board, claimed the phrase was breaking Meta’s rules on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. The user who reported the content in the first case stated that the phrase violates Meta’s policies prohibiting content that promotes violence or supports terrorism. The users who reported the content in the second and third cases stated that the phrase constitutes hate speech, is antisemitic and is a call to abolish the state of Israel.
After the Board selected these cases for review, Meta confirmed its original decisions were correct. Meta informed the Board that it analyzed the content under three policies – Violence and Incitement, Hate Speech and Dangerous Organizations and Individuals – and found the posts did not violate any of these policies. Meta explained the company is aware that “From the river to the sea” has a long history and that it had reviewed use of the phrase on its platform after October 7, 2023. After that review, Meta determined that, without additional context, it cannot conclude that “From the river to the sea” constitutes a call to violence or a call for exclusion of any particular group, nor that it is linked exclusively to support for Hamas.
The Board selected these cases to consider how Meta should moderate the use of the phrase given the resurgence in its use after October 7, 2023, and controversies around the phrase’s meaning. On the one hand, the phrase has been used to advocate for the dignity and human rights of Palestinians. On the other hand, it could have antisemitic implications, as claimed by the users who submitted the cases to the Board. This case falls within the Board’s strategic priority of Crisis and Conflict Situations.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The origin and current uses of the phrase: “From the river to the sea.”
- Research into online trends in content using the phrase.
- Research into any associated online and offline harms from the use of the phrase.
- Meta’s human rights responsibilities in relation to content using the phrase including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and equality and non-discrimination.
- State and institutional (e.g., university) responses to the use of the phrase (e.g., during protests) and the human rights impacts of those responses.
As part of its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to these cases.
Comments
Posting online to request freedom for a land between a river and a sea — arguably the two most notable geographic features that exist — is never a call for violence. It is a call to an end to violence, describing the land using simple words. It is free speech and protected under almost every convention on human rights that has been passed in recent history. To police posts that contain the words is violate the human right to free speech.
From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,”
To whom it may concern,
There is unfortunately a massive, coordinated campaign underway that attempts to stifle and vilify pro-Palestinian voices and opinions, among which the attempt to criminalize and ban the slogan in question is only one such part. Already there have been measures implemented by Meta that effectively curtail online activism, especially those advocating for the Palestinian people. Please do not let this be another such step towards public censorship of opinion and free speech.
Thank you very much.
The phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is NOT antisemitic. Ask yourself: how can a people's freedom be antisemitic?
Today I attended a webinar with Israeli historian, and Jew, Ilan Pappe. He addressed this very question, saying it was not antisemitic and that he wanted freedom for all people between all bodies of water.
Some will claim that the phrase is a call for the erasure of the state of Israel. In addition to not being supported by the text of the phrase, it's also worth noting that the existence of a Palestinian state has actually been denied for 76 years by Israel and its allies. And yet there is no public comment asking if pro-Israeli speech is anti-Arab, Islamophobic, etc.
Some will otherwise claim that it is a reference to the original Hamas charter. It is not. The only similarity is that they both reference the geography of the region. This similarity is superficial at best. Hamas called for violence, while the phrase in question calls only for freedom.
You should also be aware that the same geography is mentioned in the party charter of Likud, Netanyahu's party, which states: “Between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the Jordan [River], there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” This phrase explicitly eliminates any Palestinian claim to statehood, whereas "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," only calls for freedom for Palestinians.
Please, do not give in to those who would weaponize claims of antisemitism by making bad faith interpretations to limit free speech. It is important that those who oppose Palestinian freedom not be allowed to dictate that calls for such are violence against them. Palestinians have been denied freedom for 76 years, in the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank, and in Israel proper; in short, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They deserve to be free.
I invite you to read this piece in Jewish Currents on the phrase for further information: https://jewishcurrents.org/newsletter/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
Thank you,
Benjamin Turner
The Palestinian slogan "From the river to the sea" is in no sense hate speech.
‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ is an expression to describe freedom of the Palestinian people who are under occupation and control of another people. This phrase does not incite violence. It seeks peace and freedom, it seeks equal rights for Palestinians. If this
R3D Comments for the Oversight Board
“From the Land to the Sea” case
2024-004-FB-UA, 2024-005-FB-UA, 2024-006-FB-UA
Introduction
R3D (Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales) is a non-governmental organization dedicated to defending and promoting human rights in the digital environment based in Mexico. One of our central lines of work is the defense of freedom of speech and the agenda of content moderation in social media. We address this analysis on a contextual basis and from an InterAmerican perspective, considering the legal framework established in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and in the work of both the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) and the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (IAHR Court). This framework is desirable for content moderation due to its solid standards for freedom of expression on the Internet.
In the following paragraphs, we divide our comments into different sections to emphasize the questions made by the OB and the issues we consider related to them that are important to exercising freedom of expression.
Removing posts referring to the phrase “From the land to the sea” would imply establishing an anti-arab and anti-Palestinian bias within Meta policies.
Recently, the Oversight Board recognized in the “Shaheed” case (PAO 2023-1) that Meta has been applying an approach that over-moderates speech related to arab expressions related to their cultural background and their language use, taking the term “shaheed” as a reference to the glorification or exaltation of terrorist violence (reason why Meta considered every expression containing that reference as a violation of the Violence and Incitement, and the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals [DOI] norms). In that case, the OB demonstrated that Meta had a biased moderation to that term, which was discriminatory and restrictive regarding the right of freedom of expression.
In that case, one of the key points was to understand that the context and the use of an expression are of capital importance when we address matters related to the legitimate exercise of the right of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a right exercised contextually, so its limits and scope must always be addressed while considering the context and cultural background. In Meta’s specific case, its policies must avoid decontextualized moderation and any general approach that takes an expression with a universal and unique meaning.
In the present case, removing the reference to “From the land to the sea” as a general approach would mean adopting a similar reasoning to that used in the “shaheed” case. Moreover, it would take a culture and the story of an oppressed people as a story related uniquely to the promotion of violence and terror, in open contravention to the principle of non-discrimination that should guide every Meta’s decision.
In the three cases under review by the OB, the messages on the posts that were reported by users include messages of support to the Palestinian people, in one case explicitly referring to the cease of fire of the recurrent attacks of the State of Israel against innocent Palestinians, and referring to the freedom of this people and to the “senseless slaughter” that it has suffered. Taking the context into account, in this case, must mean recognizing the over-documented instances of crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed against the Palestinian people by the attacks of the Israeli Army (with a clear intent to commit genocide). These facts have been so overwhelmingly brutal that the International Criminal Court, the specialized institution international law regarding international criminal law (and to the gravest criminal acts such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity), has decided to apply for an arrest warrant against the Presiden of Israel for the violence committed against the Palestinian people (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state).
The biased discriminatory approach we refer to would be instituted if, as some of the reporting users alleged, Meta interprets these messages of support and protest against the State of Israel as automatic support for the violent acts committed by Hamás in this context (also referred into the application of the arrest warrant of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court against some of their organization leaders). Articles 1 & 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognize the equality of all human beings in their rights and dignity, with full entitlement without distinction of language, religion, political opinion, national origin, or the jurisdictional status of the country or territory to which a person belongs. If Meta includes the reference in question as a violation of its policies, it will implicate discriminatory treatment of expressions of Palestinians or Palestinian supporters.
The expressions under Meta’s review are legitimate manifestations of the right to freedom of speech and the right to social protest.
Freedom of expression and the right to social protest are two sides of the same coin. Especially in contexts of social discontent such as this, those in charge of the duties related to guaranteeing these rights must take them seriously and recognize that a strong and vehement criticism against a State is by no means outside the legitimate use of freedom of expression and protest. If genocide is being committed in daylight, constantly televised, and committed beyond the limits of any humanitarian constraint, why should people distressed by these facts avoid criticism of the State committing those crimes?
The existence of harsh expressions that can question the legitimacy of any government, especially when they result from acts of war in clear violation of human rights, is at the heart of these rights. In the Inter-American System of Human Rights (IASHR), for example, a well-established interpretation of the scope of freedom of expression gives a reinforced character to speeches that constitute political criticism against a government. This means that expressions of this kind of questioning are especially protected from censorship and restrictions. They have a heavier weight to be given in the public sphere, and they should be tolerated.
It is far from the discussion that expressions related to religion and its practices are essential to personal identity and to the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as established by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The expression “From the Land to the Sea” clearly fits in this framework and it has historic and cultural relevance to the Palestinian People. In the IASHR, another of the especially protected speeches is the speech that expresses essential elements of personal identity or dignity precisely because of their importance to the exercise of other human rights or the consolidation, proper functioning, and preservation of democracy. This case is also an iteration of this kind of protected speech.
Meta must interpret what we propose as compatible with its community norms because it is the only possible interpretation compatible with the right to freedom of expression, the principle of non-discrimination, and its commitments related to inclusion and respect for human rights. The dishonest allegations that any criticism against the State of Israel is tantamount to antisemitic statements must be rejected clearly by Meta as a part of its compromise to the principles abovementioned. Any other decision would result in an over-moderation of a legitimate expression and even have a chilling effect on these expressions.
For those reasons, the OB must consider Meta’s decision as the correct approach to this question and should continue in the direction established by the “shaheed” case recommendations related to the transparency of Meta and the contextual and culturally inclusive moderation of content on the platform. The OB must be clear by stating that the automated systems of Meta shouldn’t incorporate this phrase as one in tension with the figures of Violence and Incitmente, Hate Speech, or DOI.
Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are fundamental to informing about State abuses and protecting Palestinian people's integrity and lives. Voice's value would be undermined in how users express themselves on the platform and in exercising some essential liberties in these contexts if the expression is banned as proposed by the reporting users.
In moderating these kinds of expressions, Meta must ensure that only in cases where there is additional praise, representation, or support in the sense contained in the standard of DOI could those expressions be limited as an exception. However, this exception must only result from human moderation and in conditions that ensure that specialized human moderators consider the multiple interpretations of the phrase. Meta must incorporate the social, political, and religious contexts in every moderation decision related to this expression (as it apparently has).
Transparent reports must accompany all the actions that Meta takes to decide on this case and its policies and implement procedures to adapt its automated and human moderation processes to its human rights duties.
As an American Jew, I find it despicable and terrifying that Meta would choose to side with censorship over a popular movement for freedom and against genocide. The decision to target the phrase "from the river to the sea" violates our first amendment right to free expression without retribution. In this moment when over 35,000 people have been killed in a violent military campaign determined to be genocidal by both the ICC and the United States 9th Circuit Court, and when a nonviolent student antiwar movement is being met with a brutal authoritarian crackdown, it also desecrates Jewish history. "Never again" must mean never again for ANYONE. It is shameful that Meta would fail so spectacularly in this historic moment.
Don't be another shameful section of future documentaries. History will not forgive your cowardice, nor will your users.
From the river to the sea is a calling statement for inahilating the Israeli state that exist, the only jewish country in the world.
In this case I am a concerned member of the public, who is worried both about the free speech implications of censoring posts with a call for freedom, and shocked at the attempt to paint a desire for freedom and equality as "antisemitic".
It is clear from all reporting that Palestinians are being oppressed, disenfranchised and murdered by the Israeli state. Just as calls and slogans for freedom were used by anti-apartheid activists in South Africa, so there will be equivalents in Palestine. It is also clear that a concerted effort by Israeli propaganda organisations is trying to paint all resistance against genocide, the Israeli government, etc as "anti-Semitic". This is clearly false, as many Jewish academics, public figures and others are criticising Israel, using this very slogan to show support to Palestine. I hope that sense will prevail and that future attempts to silence Palestinians and their advocates in this manner will also come to nothing. Please do not change the guidelines to make this heartfelt desire for equality into something that it's not, thereby silencing more Palestinian voices, those who need to be heard just now. Thank you
When I think of the phrase “From the River to the Sea.” I think of a call for freedom, liberation and equality. It evokes the idea of “from sea to shining sea.”
“From the river to the sea” is a call for equality for all of the people between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. Free of apartheid, free of genocide, free of children in military detention, free of people held indefinitely in military prisons, free of checkpoints and discrimination. It is not a call for violence, it is not an accusation or a call for vengeance. It is a plea for liberation.
From the river to the sea is a cry for collective understanding, for acknowledgment and for unity. The ability for people to have freedom of movement, free of persecution and free from harm.
I urge you not to allow others to vilify this cry. The attempts to malign its meaning are deliberate by those who benefit from the continued subjugation of the Palestinian people.
Censoring “from the river to the sea” won’t stop people from using the expression. It will only put Meta on the wrong side of history.
Do NOT censor the phrase or any part of "from the river to the sea". This is ridiculous, misinformation, not in line with any inclusivity and diversity policy and is flat out anti-palestinian racism.
"From the river to the sea" is not hate speech and should not be treated as such, do not ban it's usage. support the people of palestine
“FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA” is not antisemitic. Criticizing Israel is not antisemitic. Protesting the murder of Palestinian civilians is not antisemitic. Please stop being stupid, genocide is wrong no matter WHO is doing it.
From the river to the sea is a statement yearning for the end of apartheid in Gaza. There is no violence in it or threat, only a demand that violence and threat against the Palestinian people end. They must not live as captives in their own land as they have for decades. They must not be obliterated as the Israeli army seems to intend with their relentless bombing of fleeing refugees.
To the board,
I strongly urge you to consider "from the river to the sea" as simple expression of support of the Palestinian people, and not as a form of hate speech.
Firstly, criticism of a state/country has always been allowed. While Israel and Zionists lobbies have worked hard to convince the world that any ill-sentiment or criticism of the Israeli government is automatically anti-semetic, this is not the case. "From the River to the Sea" is not a call for the end of Israel, or an incitment of violence against Jews. Furthermore, even if it were referring to a disbandment of Israel, this is a discussion about a country and government, not a protected group. We would also have to ban people who argue for a united Ireland, a disollution of the European Union or the United States. At most, this phrase can be considered a call to rearranging the current borders of a country, much like calls for a United Ireland do. It does not mean that harm should.l come to those who inhabit this country. Banninh the phrase would be overprotecting a country that is extremely powerful and influential to silence those who are critical of it in this way. To ban a phrase that expresses the desire of Palestinian freedom from Israeli organised apartheid and oppression would be to stray from hate speech moderation best practice.
It is also untrue that any support of Palestine is automatically support for Hamas. While many people may agree that oppressed people also have the right to defend themselves against occupation, most will agree that a Free Palestine will ultimately allow the Palestinians to break away from a more fundamentalist regime. Hamas remains as long as violent occupation does. Israel knows this, it is to their benefit, as it serves as justification for continued colonisation and apartheid.
I would also like to point out that during the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the escalation of the war, Meta chose to allow hate speech conducted by Ukranians online whilst removing that of Russians.
Whilst I'm not sure this was the best decision, it proves that your policy makers are aware of the differences in power between both groups, and recognises that the criticism of those in power and committing violence is not the same as the oppressor expressing hatred. Banning the phrase "from the river to the sea" is a suppression of Palestinian voices and tone policing.
As an Irish person, it is a phrase that gets used time and time again in our online organising and in our in-person events of solidarity and fundraising. I have attended many events since October 7th in solidarity with Palestine and the people of Gaza where this phrase has been used and it is never used to incite hatred or violence against the Jewish people. It is also a phrase I have seen used online by Jewish people who stand with Palestine. It would be out of order to remove content by Jewish people who are critical of Israel when Israel routinely uses fear-mongering around Jewishness to leverage power.
To ban this phrase from Meta platforms would be succumbing to the propaganda of a country currently waging genocide against innocent people, largely women and children. While the October 7th attacks were horrendous and should be condemned, they are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the ongoing violence, displacement, incarceration, and torture of Palestinians over the last 76 years, let alone the last 7 months. Zionists have long pushed the idea that anything critical pf Zionism and of Israel is inherently anti-Jewish, but the world is waking up to the fact that we can and should critique ideologies and countries that support supremacy of one group of another. Not only would banning this phrase be an overstep by Meta in terms of trust and safety best practice, it is a decision I know will be looked back on in years to come as an example of a company who was out of touch with where the world is headed. When people ask in 30 years time "how did we let this happen" as we do for other genocides, let it not be because Meta was part of the enablement of Israeli propaganda, but rather acted as a platform that allowed those being systematically destroyed to tell their stories.
From the river to the sea represents hope for the future. It is freedom for all people.