Meta board: ‘From the river to the sea’ does not violate hate speech policy

Meta’s Oversight Board ruled Wednesday that using the phrase “from the river to the sea” does not violate the company’s hate speech rules and should not result in content removal from its social media platforms.

The independent board reviewed three Facebook posts from November with the phrase in question and determined the uses do not qualify as hate speech because “they do not attack Jewish or Israeli people with calls for violence or exclusion, nor do they attack a concept or institution associated with a protected characteristic that could lead to imminent violence.”

The board also ruled the phrase did not violate Meta’s rules on violence and incitement, or dangerous organizations and individuals.

The majority of the board concluded the phrase “has multiple meanings” and does not always translate to a call for the expulsion or annihilation of Israel’s Jewish population, as many critics suggested.

“While it can be understood by some as encouraging and legitimizing antisemitism and the violent elimination of Israel and its people, it is also often used as a political call for solidarity, equal rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people, and to end the war in Gaza,” the board said.

The phrase predates the current conflict, but it has seen a resurgence since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent military response, leading to growing debate about the meaning of the words.

The oversight board argued there are a “variety of people using the phrase in different ways” and pushed back against arguments that point to its use in the 2017 revised Hamas charter.

“The phrase’s use by this terrorist group with explicit violent eliminationist intent and actions, does not make the phrase inherently hateful or violent,” they wrote.

“Because the phrase does not have a single meaning, a blanket ban on content that includes the phrase, a default rule towards removal of such content, or even using it as a signal to trigger enforcement or review, would hinder protected political speech in unacceptable ways,” the board added.

Each of the three posts was reported by users who argued they violated the company’s community standards, but Meta had previously ruled the posts should be left on Facebook. Users then appealed to the oversight board, which is run independently from Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and funded by a grant provided by the company.

The group also made recommendations for better access to the platforms’ data for journalists and other third-party researchers, as well as better methods for tracking hate speech.

“We welcome the board’s review of our guidance on this matter,” Meta said in an emailed statement about the ruling.

“While all of our policies are developed with safety in mind, we know they come with global challenges and we regularly seek input from experts outside Meta, including the Oversight Board,” the company added.