Meta, Harvard are total free-speech hypocrites

Meta's oversight board recently ruled that the pro-Palestine slogan "from the river to the sea" does not qualify as hate speech, allowing its use on Facebook and Instagram unless it promotes violence. This decision highlights a significant inconsistency in Meta's approach to content moderation, as the company has previously censored various forms of speech deemed offensive, including comments on Covid-19 and criticisms of certain social issues. Critics argue that this selective enforcement undermines the principle of free speech, which should protect all expressions, regardless of their offensiveness. In December, Harvard's former president Claudine Gay faced scrutiny for her ambiguous response regarding whether calls for "Intifada" could be considered harassment. Her statement, which suggested that context matters, was perceived as insensitive, especially given the historical implications of such rhetoric. This situation has prompted over 100 professors to unite in forming a free speech union, indicating a growing concern over the state of free expression in academic settings. Both Meta and Harvard's recent stances on free speech appear to be correct in theory, yet they reveal a troubling double standard that many Jewish individuals find offensive. The inconsistency in how different types of speech are treated raises questions about the commitment to protecting all voices equally. As a proponent of free speech, the author emphasizes the importance of defending even the most distasteful expressions. However, they call for accountability from institutions like Meta and Harvard, urging them to avoid selective application of free speech principles and to ensure that all voices, including conservative ones, are heard without censorship.