Words on Fire
Calls to globalize the intifada cannot be justified by free speech
I’m about to touch on one of the most painful and controversial topics, one that inevitably raises a multitude of questions and debates—and on which no consensus exists. So, what exactly is freedom of speech? Let me state my position clearly. In my view, freedom of speech is the foundation of a free democratic society. Without it, basic human rights, the progress of scientific thought, the protection of minorities, and especially open debate—through which truth is born—would be unimaginable. Freedom of speech reflects humanity’s pursuit of excellence. It encompasses both heated arguments on difficult and unpopular topics and the formation of consensus through communicative practice. Yet the right to self-expression does not exist in a vacuum; it has its boundaries, dictated by common sense and the public good.
Naturally, this is a particular interpretation—because each country has its own definition of free speech, and even within Western society, there are notable discrepancies. There is no single, universally correct global formula for freedom of speech that looks identical everywhere. In practice, no civilized society offers complete and unrestricted freedom of speech—although regulatory bodies can interpret its violations differently in each case. Some respected public figures argue that any moderation inevitably leads to censorship, and must therefore be avoided. But in my view, there’s no doubt that incitement, the provocation of interethnic hatred, and calls for genocide against any ethnic group do not fall under the category of free speech. You can try to challenge this, frame it in a specific context, or even justify such ideas—but in essence, this is a normalization of extremist narratives with far-reaching consequences.
There is no doubt that calls to “globalize the intifada” are not expressions of free speech—they are incitement. This is exactly how some want free speech to be understood: as a shield for avoiding responsibility. But the consequences of these calls—violence, the murder of Jews—are real. They’ve happened before, and they’re happening now. We cannot look away.
Using freedom of speech to shield open aggression and acts of terror is a blatant violation of the very value of that freedom. Freedom of speech is not synonymous with permissiveness. Yet many interpret it exactly that way. This is a dangerous misconception—and it must be challenged.
The slogan “Death to the IDF” is, in essence, a call to kill—an incitement to murder thousands of real people: Jews, Israelis, men and women who stood up to defend their country from a terrorist threat—Hamas. That is not free speech.
Burning the American flag is considered a protected form of expression under U.S. free speech laws. But it’s worth asking: what does it mean when those burning that flag proudly wave the Palestinian one—and do so not in Gaza, but in the very country that gave them all the freedoms they now use to turn against it? Doesn’t that undermine the democracy and security of the nation they are attacking? For example, to the best of my knowledge, in Germany burning any national flag is a criminal offense and does not fall under freedom of speech.
Let’s return to the idea that many influential individuals believe even minimal restrictions on free speech mean it ceases to be “free.” But in practice, without a reasonable set of principles, this leads to the abuse of that freedom. Soon, we see the rise of populists, propagandists, and demagogues who distort fundamental values and gradually erode the very essence of free speech with their toxic influence.
One might ask: who decides the limits, and who regulates free speech? It’s a valid question. In legal frameworks, this is formalized in every country—some more clearly, some less. You may agree or disagree with those mechanisms. But imagine a society without any laws, where anyone is free to say and do whatever they please. What would that lead to? And would freedom of speech still function, if all regulatory mechanisms disappeared? We’d face chaos—an informational anarchy—where orientation is lost, and critical thinking becomes meaningless.
Now we approach another, less obvious—but equally important—dilemma. There is no shortage of podcasters, bloggers, and even comedians with massive audiences, who at some point—or from the beginning—have chosen the path of political discourse, either as direct participants or as intermediaries on their platforms. Yet their priority often lies more in ratings and publicity than in producing high-quality content grounded in verified facts. Their work directly shapes public opinion—even though they may claim noble intentions to offer “alternative viewpoints” in contrast to traditional media. And all of this, without editorial oversight, raises legitimate concern.
They present themselves as independent sources of information, but the approach some take—inviting self-proclaimed experts who generate incompetent or provocative commentary under the guise of open discussion—ultimately undermines the concept of free speech itself. Under its cover, people are fed disinformation, which forms a distorted view of reality that is nearly impossible to correct. Even irrefutable evidence loses its impact in the endless stream of noise and sensationalism—information noise.
Unfortunately, the owners of these vast platforms don’t believe they bear any responsibility for whom they give a voice to. Their invited speakers skillfully craft conspiracy theories, often relying on falsified historical data or imaginary sources. And an audience lacking in media literacy accepts this at face value.
Among those who bear particular responsibility, Piers Morgan and Joe Rogan stand out—they simply cannot be ignored. Their platforms reach millions, and both have repeatedly hosted pseudo-experts and provocateurs—people who blur the line between “alternative opinion” and outright disinformation. Whether knowingly or not, they shape public opinion while evading the editorial accountability that traditional journalism demands. At times, they’re not just passive observers of these discussions—they nod along with claims that have no factual basis, parroting disinformation spread by pro-Hamas accounts and media sources.
I understand where skepticism toward experts comes from—and how often the “expert” label has been used as a tool of manipulation. But to reject expertise entirely is a utopian illusion. We would end up in a world where everyone considers themselves an authority, yet no one truly is. Can someone who’s never set foot in the Middle East suddenly replace an expert with years of field and analytical experience and offer commentary on Israel’s war with Hamas—citing questionable sources while presenting themselves as the bearer of “historical truth”? That example is just the tip of the iceberg. In the end, under the guise of free speech, we are left not with truth, but with a chaos of opinion and cognitive dissonance that distances us from reality.
When we say that certain rhetoric is dangerous, it doesn’t mean we’re calling for censorship. It’s a judgement we are entitled to make. When criticism is based on facts, it does not suppress speech—it protects it, safeguarding the public space from the spread of toxic narratives.
An alternative viewpoint should not be filled with hatred and lies. It is welcome when it’s grounded in fact and does not contradict basic human values. That is why those who disseminate any form of information under the banner of free speech must ultimately recognize the scale of their influence—because consequences will inevitably follow.