Ben & Jerry's MegaCone Protest Party Defends Free Speech Amid Corporate Silencing
The celebration of free expression follows a bitter, multi-year conflict with its parent company, Unilever, over the brand’s own right to protest.
Ben & Jerry’s, Vermont’s iconic ice cream maker, has announced its latest activist campaign: a “Party for Protest Rights” in New York City. Described in a PR Newswire announcement as a “celebration of people power” with “Block Party Vibes,” the event invites the public to “raise your MegaCone” — an oversized, cone-shaped megaphone — in defense of the First Amendment.
The event, held in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, and the Slow Factory, continues the brand’s long history of blending its products with social causes.
But this celebration of free expression comes at a moment of intense internal turmoil for the company. It follows a bitter, multi-year conflict with its parent company, Unilever, over the brand’s own right to protest — a conflict that culminated in co-founder Jerry Greenfield’s resignation just last month, claiming the company’s independent voice has been “silenced.”
This article pieces together the public-facing campaign and the critical, behind-the-scenes corporate battle to provide a full picture of what this new activism means for the Vermont company.
The Stated Mission: ‘Tested Like Never Before’
According to the company’s press release, the “Party for Protest Rights” is a direct response to a climate of anxiety and perceived threats to core American values. The rationale is that “the First Amendment... is being tested like never before” and “human rights, including freedom of expression, are increasingly under attack in the U.S.”
This framing taps into widespread public concern. A 2025 survey from the Freedom Forum, for instance, found that younger Americans, in particular, are increasingly fearful of facing social or professional consequences for speaking freely.
By partnering with the ACLU, a century-old defender of the First Amendment, Ben & Jerry’s grounds the event in a principled, civil-liberties framework. However, the announcement’s vague language avoids naming any specific legislative threats, political actors, or controversial protest movements, allowing the company to champion the idea of protest without taking a side in any specific, ongoing fight.
The Unspoken Context: A Brand Silenced
The most significant “blank” in the company’s announcement is the story of its own recent muzzling. The context for this new, “safer” campaign is the high-risk, specific stance that nearly tore the company apart.
The 2021 Breach In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s independent board made a decision entirely consistent with its founders’ legacy: it announced it would cease selling products in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The move was praised by human rights groups, including Amnesty International, which called it a “legitimate and necessary response” to respect international law, according to a 2021 statement.
The backlash was immediate and immense, leading to accusations of antisemitism and threats of divestment from U.S. state pension funds.
Unilever Steps In Parent company Unilever, which acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, allegedly moved to neutralize the crisis. In 2022, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever to block its parent from selling the Israeli business license to a local partner—a move that would override the board’s decision and keep ice cream in the settlements.
Ben & Jerry’s lost the legal fight. According to reporting from Salon.com and PBS, this was the beginning of a systematic silencing. The company and its founders have alleged that Unilever, on at least four occasions, prevented Ben & Jerry’s from issuing statements calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. In March 2025, the company accused Unilever of unlawfully ousting its CEO, David Stever, allegedly in retaliation for his commitment to the social mission.
The Final Straw The conflict reached its climax in September 2025. Co-founder Jerry Greenfield resigned from the company after 47 years. In a public letter reported by PBS, Greenfield stated that the brand’s independence was “gone” and that it had been “silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power.”
From ‘Peace Pops’ to ‘Party’: A New Strategy
This bitter corporate feud provides the essential context for the “Party for Protest Rights.” The event appears to mark a strategic pivot from the high-risk, specific activism of the past to a more generalized, lower-risk advocacy.
The Founders’ Era (1978-2000): This period was defined by provocative, specific challenges to power. The “Peace Pop” in 1988, for example, directly protested the Reagan administration’s military budget. The company took on agricultural giant Monsanto over rBGH in 1989. These were high-risk campaigns that targeted specific policies and politicians.
The Unilever Era (2021-Present): The OPT decision was a return to that founder-style risk, and the corporate response from Unilever appears to have established a new boundary.
The “Party for Protest Rights” is controversial, but in a different way. Public opinion data from the Pew Research Center shows a deep partisan divide on the very idea of protest: 82% of Democrats believe the right to protest is “very important,” while only 53% of Republicans agree.
By championing the process of protest, Ben & Jerry’s aligns itself with its progressive base but avoids the specifics (like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or criticisms of Donald Trump) that Unilever reportedly deemed “too taboo.” It’s a theme that feels bold and relevant but is unlikely to trigger the same level of legal and financial risk as the 2021 decision.
A Strategic Portfolio of Partners
The choice of partners for the event further illustrates this careful balancing act:
The ACLU: The mainstream, establishment choice. The ACLU’s history of defending all speech, even for unpopular groups, lends the event a principled, non-partisan, civil-liberties authority.
Amnesty International: A subtle but defiant choice. By partnering with Amnesty, the very organization that publicly defended its 2021 OPT decision, Ben & Jerry’s is signaling its continued alignment with the group that backed them during their biggest fight with Unilever.
Slow Factory: The “radical flank.” Described by InfluenceWatch as a far-left, anti-capitalist, and anti-Zionist organization, Slow Factory provides the event with credibility among the younger, more radical activists who form a core part of the brand’s identity.
What This Means for Vermonters
For Vermonters who have watched the company grow from a single scoop shop into a global symbol of “conscious capitalism,” this event reveals a brand in crisis, caught between its activist soul and its corporate reality.
This new campaign is an attempt to navigate the “Unilever Paradox”: how to maintain an activist mission when your corporate owner, who faces its own ethical criticisms for “greenwashing” and continuing operations in Russia according to Ethical Consumer, has demonstrated it will intervene when the activism poses too great a business risk.
The “Party for Protest Rights” is a sophisticated maneuver that allows Ben & Jerry’s to champion a progressive cause, connect with its base, and subtly nod to its censored fight, all without directly violating the new lines drawn by its parent company.
For Vermonters and brand-watchers, the event leaves a complex question: Is this a clever and necessary evolution, allowing the social mission to survive under corporate constraint? Or is it, as critics might suggest, a form of “performative activism”—a loud “MegaCone” signifying that the brand’s truly independent, rebellious voice, as lamented by its own founder, has been silenced for good?