[sarafiq]

So the phrase "from the river to the sea" is hateful to many but when it comes to disrespect Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or Quran then it becomes freedom of speech no matter a vast majority of world population hates it. Hypocrisy to say the least!

[peyton]

Both are hateful to many and both are protected from laws by Congress. Facebook can remove whatever it wants on their platform.

[krembo]

Let's make it simpler- disrespect for Muhamad is a disrespect to a religion based on crusades and a prophet who is a declared pedophile according to their scripts (married and had sex with Aisha when she was 6yo). Calling "from the river to the sea" is a call for genocide of the Jewish people. So, can you pick a side already of which of the calls is legit and which not?

[baobabKoodaa]

Wow, you are openly advocating for speech to be allowed in cases where it is politically good and disallowed in cases where it is politically bad? And who's going to determine which speech is good and what's bad? It's not gonna be you, it's some bureaucrat who has a completely different idea of good and bad than you do. Why do you want that?

[filoleg]

> Wow, you are openly advocating for speech to be allowed in cases where it is politically good and disallowed in cases where it is politically bad?

Not the person you are replying to, but I think the logic is a bit different than “is it politically good or bad.” It is more like “is this speech advocating for genocide of an ethnic group or is it just critical of/disrespectful to a religion.”

I think most people agree that those two things aren’t even close to being the same. Also, I don’t think that “talking negative about islam” has been a “politically good” thing in way over a decade.

[baobabKoodaa]

The people who advocate for censorship based on political opinions never stop at "censor genocide". They also want to censor a huge list of non-genocidal things. And my point is that these people don't seem to understand that they would not personally be able to make those case by case decisions - instead it's faceless bureaucrats who tow the party line.

[krembo]

Again, this should be quite simple. You can criticize a pedophile prophey. You cannot call for genocide. IDK why it's so hard for you to get that.

[baobabKoodaa]

You need to understand that the U.S. does not own the whole world and there are other countries besides the U.S. I know it may be shocking for you to hear, but those other countries have drawn the "freedom of speech line" differently than the U.S. Calling Muhammad a pedophile (even if factually correct) is not legal in many parts of the world. Because, as I said, it is faceless bureaucrats who are drawing the line on what can be said and what can't. And that's not a good thing. Why do you place so much faith in faceless bureaucrats?

[krembo]

Well, if something is factually true it should not be disallowed to be said, right? But calling for the death of others should be, again, right?

[baobabKoodaa]

I 100% agree with you! That's how the line "should be" drawn! Unfortunately, when you let faceless bureaucrats draw the line, they don't draw it where you want them to!

[drawkward]

You do a lot of hand waving to equate "from the river to the sea" with support for genocide.

It certainly could indicate support for genocide. It also could indicate extreme disapproval for the vastly disproportionate civilian death toll among Palestinians at the hands of Isreal in the wake of Hamas' attacks.

It appears to me that Israel's goal under Netanyahu is to suppress dissent, and label all those who oppose its actions as "genocidal" to therefore justify its indiscriminate violence against the people of Gaza.