In the social media era, every word of criticism which deviates from a certain consensus, which I doubt even exists, leads to scornful and disgusting reactions. It’s an easy way to deal with any expression which a certain side isn’t pleased with. It doesn’t deal with the content, it deals with the reactions. It’s a wonderful way to avoid a real discussion.

That’s exactly what happened this week. Criticism against President Reuven Rivlin immediately turned into “incitement,” not because of the content but because of the reactions. The accusing finger was pointed this time at Channel 20, following a Facebook post in which it claimed that the president’s comments were “a disgrace.” Is that incitement? Since when is Israel’s president exempt from criticism?

That doesn’t mean that everything is okay. Because the social media reactions do include incitement. Occasionally, there are even calls for violence. These are reactions which have no place in freedom of expression, and we already know that incitement leads to violence. This applies both to the Palestinian Authority’s broadcasts and to the social networks.

Incitement has no political side. Israeli poet Nathan Zach said about the elections in Israel that “Hitler was also elected in a democratic election.” Filmmaker Orna Ben Dor wrote, “Tell me, when Hitler rose to power, did the ‘okay’ Germans complain continuously but continue their daily routine?” A journalist from the enlightened department published a reminder about the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler as an example of a move which should be imitated. Then he played dumb. He didn’t mean it. No way.

And the list goes on. The leaders and officers of the State of Israel have been turned by some writers into Nazis, murderers and oppressing soldiers. The State of Israel has been referred to as Satan. And the list goes on. Despicable claims have also been made on the radical right-wing side. Are these legitimate comments or incitement?

That of course did not stop the leftist freedom of expression knights from claiming that the dangerous Channel 20 should be silenced. They are allowed to talk, but others aren’t. And every word of criticism against them turns into a “danger to freedom of expression.” The great inciters, who write in their articles what people write in talkbacks, are suddenly turning into supporters of refined expression. You won’t find a lot of intellectual integrity here. You will find endless hypocrisy, in addition to incitement.

I wrote this week that the president was right to cancel singer Amir Benayoun’s performance at the President’s Residence, but was wrong to participate in a conference alongside members of the Breaking the Silence organization. I also criticized his comments, which present Israeli society as a sick society. And lo and behold, I have miraculously turned into a dangerous inciter as well. Some of the reactions, I must say, were disgusting.

The people who comment on social networks have names. They have addresses. They can easily be located. But where are the law enforcement authorities? Why aren’t the police launching an investigation? And how is it possible that the police have the time and the budget to summon a television presenter over of a segment which criticized the police, but don’t have time to locate the social media inciters?

This unruly behavior stems, among other things, from the fact that the freedom of expression rules in Israel are more similar to the rules in the United States than to the rules in Europe. It’s not in the law, it’s in Supreme Court rulings. It hasn’t made the public discourse more interesting, enriching or open – it has made it more violent.

Only a week ago, the High Court approved the attorney general’s decision not to indict the authors of “The King’s Torah.” The radical right is allowed to issue a halachic permit to kill children, and the radical left is allowed to justify terror or support former Knesset Member Azmi Bishara. So why should we complain about talkbackers after the High Court has already ruled that everything is permitted?

Freedom of expression is not a sacred cow. It’s possible, only possible, that the balancing points in the European legislation, which are slightly saner, are more suitable for Israel. It’s possible that there is a need for explicit legislation, which will prevent some of the expressions of hatred, and not only against the president, which contribute nothing to the public discourse.

We must protect freedom of expression, but there is no need to protect freedom of incitement.

Reprinted with author’s permission from YNet News.com