With every war Lebanon experiences, escalation does not remain confined to military fronts. It quickly extends into the public sphere, where words themselves become part of the battle. In moments of conflict, positions harden, the space for debate narrows, and political language turns into a parallel arena of struggle, where freedom of expression blends with hate speech, political criticism with incitement, and opinion with threats.
War does not only shift the balance of power on the ground. It also reshapes the rules of speech in the public sphere. Amid fear, political mobilization, and sharp polarization, political disagreement becomes more easily interpreted as betrayal, while criticism is redefined as a threat to the community, the resistance, or the state. In such a charged environment, smear campaigns, accusations of treason, and threats become tools of pressure used to silence or discipline dissenting voices.
In Lebanon, where the digital space has become the primary extension of political debate, this transformation is particularly visible. Social media is no longer merely a platform for expression; it has become a space for mobilization and polarization, where coordinated campaigns and mutual accusations proliferate. During the current Israeli war, waves of hostile rhetoric and threats have once again targeted journalists, activists, and public figures, reflecting the fragile boundary between legitimate political expression and incitement that may turn into a real danger.
This phenomenon is not new in Lebanon’s modern history, but it intensifies during major crises. The more war escalates or political divisions deepen, the old debate over the limits of freedom of expression resurfaces: Where does legitimate political criticism end, and where does hate speech or incitement begin? And who holds the authority to define this boundary in a country already marked by weak institutions and sharp political polarization?
In this context, controversy has emerged around the statements and conduct of various public figures. From inflammatory rhetoric by media and political personalities such as Ali Berro and Charles Jabbour, to the case of rapper Jaafar Al-Taffar, which sparked wide debate over the line between sharp artistic criticism and accusations of incitement. Between these examples, a broader discussion is taking shape about the nature of public discourse in times of war, and about society’s and the law’s ability to distinguish between speech as opinion and speech as a tool of mobilization that could lead to violence.
In a country that stands on a constant fault line between politics, sectarianism, and war, the question is no longer only about freedom of expression. It is also about the capacity of the public sphere itself to remain a space for debate rather than becoming yet another arena of conflict.
Between Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech
In Lebanon, every crisis or war revives the debate over the boundaries between freedom of expression and hate speech. Yet this discussion becomes more complex amid sharp political polarization, where the banner of free speech is sometimes invoked to justify rhetoric that goes beyond political criticism into accusations of treason or direct threats.
Jad Shahrour, communication manager and spokesperson at the Samir Kassir Foundation, believes that confusion between the two concepts has become increasingly common in political and media discourse. He argues that the problem does not lie in political criticism itself, but in the language that sometimes shifts into direct threats or exclusionary rhetoric toward others.
Shahrour says: “Let us be clear that freedom of expression is entirely different from hate speech. What we see today is rhetoric increasingly coming from partisan figures targeting citizens or entire sects. We previously heard statements from Charles Jabbour claiming that these Shiites do not resemble human beings, or words to that effect. We have also seen Ali Berro insult and use offensive language, attacking the president of the republic and the prime minister, accusing them of treason and employing language of betrayal and death threats. And Ali Hijazi from the Baath Party once said: ‘When the time comes, killing will spread from top to bottom, and no one will remain to tell the story.’ There are many such examples.”
According to Shahrour, rhetoric based on accusations of treason or the exclusion of others cannot be classified as freedom of expression, because it creates a climate that normalizes verbal violence and opens the door to further escalation.
In recent months, several examples of this type of rhetoric have surfaced in the public sphere, whether in traditional media or on social media platforms. Among them are statements made by media and political figures such as Ali Berro and Charles Jabbour, where in some cases the debate shifted from political criticism to accusatory or threatening discourse.
War as an Accelerator of Polarization
Shahrour does not see this phenomenon as new to Lebanese political life, but argues that it intensifies during major crises, particularly in wartime, when the space for calm debate shrinks, and positions become increasingly divided into opposing camps. He notes that the country has lived through deep political divisions for decades, but these fractures become more pronounced during moments of crisis.
He recalls the example of the October 17 Revolution, when protesters were accused of being “funded by embassies,” and calls for violence against them accompanied such accusations. He says, “At the time, people said the protesters should be killed. Partisan crowds indeed took to the streets, assaults were carried out with sticks and weapons, and people were killed during that period.” In such contexts, political disagreement easily turns into accusations of treason, and the rhetoric of betrayal becomes a means of silencing critical voices or pushing them out of the public sphere.
Where Does the Law Stand?
From a legal perspective, lawyer Farouk El-Moghrabi explains that the distinction between freedom of expression and incitement depends on two main criteria: the content of the speech and its potential impact within the social and political context.
El-Moghrabi says: “We must distinguish between political criticism and incitement. When someone criticizes the government or attacks its policies, this falls within the scope of freedom of expression.”
He notes that part of the current debate in Lebanon revolves around statements made by public figures such as Ali Berro and Charles Jabbour, which many observers believe went beyond political criticism and entered the realm of incitement or threats. In some cases, the rhetoric did not stop at criticizing politicians or public policies but escalated to accusations of treason or explicit threats, shifting the discussion from the sphere of political expression into that of incitement.
At the same time, El-Moghrabi points to a different example involving rapper Jaafar Al‑Touffar, whose song criticizing the government and accusing it of aligning with the United States sparked widespread debate. According to El-Moghrabi, this type of expression remains within the political sphere, even if its language is harsh or provocative. He adds: “This kind of speech, even if sharp, does not constitute defamation or insult and does not contradict freedom of expression.”
However, the problem arises, he says, when speech turns into direct incitement or rhetoric that could lead to real harm. “We live in a country standing on the brink of civil war,” he explains, “which makes incitement particularly dangerous. If someone incites hostility against a specific sect in an area where displaced people from that sect are living, it could lead to actual attacks.”
According to El-Moghrabi, the influence of the person delivering the message also plays a significant role in assessing its potential danger, especially if the speaker is a public figure with a wide audience. Media personalities and social media influencers, he notes, can amplify tensions because their words may mobilize supporters or inflame already fragile social divisions.
Rap Language: Harshness as Part of Artistic Style
Some observers note that the controversy surrounding rapper Jaafar Al-Touffar’s song also reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of rap music itself. Historically, rap relies on direct and often harsh language, frequently using insults and profanity as part of its artistic expression.
According to Shahrour, rap is by nature an “aggressive art form” built on sharp criticism of authority and society, often relying on strong rhymes and harsh imagery. He adds that Al-Touffar also incorporates elements of ʿataba and vocabulary close to Lebanese folk poetry in some of his songs, giving his lyrics a distinctly satirical and confrontational tone.
In this sense, the language of rap cannot be evaluated according to the conventional standards applied to political or media discourse, as exaggeration and provocative language are intrinsic to the genre. Nevertheless, the debate surrounding the song opens a broader discussion about how artistic and political speech should be approached in times of war, particularly when the public sphere is highly polarized, and words themselves become part of a wider political battle.
Journalism Under the Pressure of War
The debate over the limits of speech does not remain confined to theoretical discussions or social media disputes. In wartime, the tone of public discourse directly affects journalists’ work. As rhetoric of accusation and incitement intensifies, the space for independent journalism narrows, and journalists become increasingly exposed to threats, restrictions, or targeting, whether from parties to the conflict or from actors seeking to control the dominant narrative of the war.
It is precisely here that the connection becomes clear between the debate over freedom of expression and hate speech on one hand, and the realities faced by journalists on the ground on the other.
Alongside the debate on free speech, journalists are facing growing challenges during the war. Elsy Moufarrej, president of the Union of Journalists and Media Professionals in Lebanon, explains that the role of the press during wartime is crucial on multiple levels.
Moufarrej says: “Journalists document war crimes, report the suffering of people, and contribute to writing the country’s collective memory.”
Yet this role comes with significant risks. During the previous war, 12 direct attacks on journalists were documented, resulting in the killing of six journalists in three separate incidents.
In the current war, Moufarrej notes that several media institutions have been targeted, making it more difficult for journalists to reach their workplaces and affecting their ability to report the news.
Controlling the Narrative
Beyond military risks, journalism in Lebanon also faces political and security pressures that affect its work. Elsy Moufarrej notes that some journalists encounter field restrictions during coverage, particularly in parts of Beirut’s southern suburbs, where they are sometimes required to enter areas accompanied by members of Hezbollah. She explains that such escorts are often justified on security grounds, but they raise additional concerns about the independence of coverage and the safety of journalists. The presence of party members within media convoys, she says, may lead Israel to interpret these convoys as potential targets, exposing journalists to further risk while doing their work.
“There are attempts to control the narrative,” Moufarrej says, referring to efforts to regulate what people say and what appears in the media so that the picture presented does not always reflect the full reality. She adds that pressures also emerge in displacement areas, where indirect constraints are sometimes imposed on what displaced people can say to journalists.
When Speech Becomes a Crime
Moufarrej also points to international experiences showing how media discourse can turn into a dangerous tool of incitement during conflicts. She cites the case of Rwanda, where journalists were prosecuted before an international tribunal after being found responsible for inciting violence during the Rwandan Genocide. “In that case, it was not freedom of expression,” she says. “It was direct incitement to kill.” Such examples illustrate how words themselves can become an active element in conflicts, particularly when used within a context of mass mobilization.
Defending the Space for Criticism
At the same time, digital rights advocates warn that confronting hate speech should not become a pretext for restricting freedom of expression. Mohammad Najem, executive director of SMEX, says that rapper Jaafar Al-Taffar “did not call for killing or inciting violence against any group in society.” He adds that what rap artists often produce includes sharp criticism of authority, which is part of the nature of the genre itself.
“It is the right of any citizen or artist to criticize politicians, even if the language used is sometimes harsh,” Najem says. “Politicians in Lebanon should become accustomed to this type of criticism.”
A Fragile Balance Between Freedom and Incitement
In times of war, accusations of treason and threatening rhetoric intensify in the public sphere, raising tensions and making certain forms of speech more dangerous for civil peace. At the same time, attempts to regulate such discourse may themselves become tools to restrict political criticism and narrow the space for freedom of expression.
In this context, maintaining a careful balance between protecting society from incitement and safeguarding the right to expression becomes a central challenge for the media, the judiciary, and society as a whole. As the war continues and polarization deepens, this balance appears increasingly fragile in a country where words themselves have often become part of the battles of politics and conflict.
