The phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and its variations are at the heart of the vigorous debate over the current conflict in Gaza. It is a common refrain both online and offline by supporters of the Palestinian cause while it has been frequently condemned by supporters of Israel, including in notable exchanges between members of Congress and presidents of Ivy League universities. There are several challenges to moderating this term, including interpreting a range of meanings often involving implicit and coded speech, difficulty navigating issues of neutrality and bias, and consistency with existing policies and Board decisions that remove other types of speech that are arguably less harmful. The key takeaway for the Board is that even for content that is viewed as hateful or harmful, there should be a closer and clear connection to actual harms to justify its removal. Otherwise, the Board and Meta risks interjecting bias and uneven policies based on how offensive some may find certain types of speech.

Handling Content with a Range of Meanings 

While other experts will likely provide in-depth analysis and history of this phrase, I will merely highlight several meanings to show how a blanket policy approach would be inappropriate.