Way more countries have laws against holocaust denial (11 or so) than breast feeding (0), but guess which one is banned on Facebook? That’s right. Pictures of breast feeding babies are indecent, so they’re a no go.
But Holocaust denial is totally cool because it fosters open discussion. Facebook wants to “be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.” Even, apparently, the discussion of the idea that someone might be a “Nigger faggot, Jew nosed cunt.” That’s just one of many hateful messages I found written on a Holocaust denial site on Facebook.
Brian Cuban is making the removal of these sites a personal mission. He’s arguing the law. He’s arguing terms of service. He’s arguing common sense and decency. These groups are clearly little more than excuses to spew hatred towards Jews, and Facebook is too timid to do anything about it. The first amendment doesn’t apply to private companies. So why is Facebook so willing to take a stand when it comes to hungry babies, but won’t do a damn thing when it comes to the Holocaust.
Because they’re cowards. Here’s more open discussion of ideas on a Facebook Holocaust denial group:
If Facebook doesn’t want to take a moral or ethical stand on the issue, they can easily make a case that the groups violate their terms of service. These groups violate multiple sections of the TOS, particularly Section 3. There’s an easy way out of this for Facebook, and it also happens to be the right thing to do. Why in the world must they draw a line in the sand and then stand on the same side as Holocaust deniers is beyond me.
Update: Up for debate is whether or not this image of Romanian children in Auschwitz, victims of medical experiments, is evidence of the Holocaust, which apparently may or may not have happened. But what isn’t debatable is whether or not this is pornography under Facebook’s TOS. It is.
Yes, Facebook, this is the side of the line you’ve chosen to stand on.
How needlessly inflammatory and counter-productive. Censorship is a highly nuanced and complicated issue; to take one example, the highest judicial body in the United States has spent more than 200 years figuring out the meaning and interpretation of the First Amendment. But you successfully managed to boil it down to a sensationalist headline, two carefully selected outrageous screenshots, insulting language and Rove-ish mud-slinging (e.g. “Facebook…stand[s] on the same side as Holocaust deniers.”)
This article reeks of page-view trolling. It’s cheap, irresponsible, and unbecoming of a blog of such influence.
Think for a second what you would do if you were in charge of monitoring content on Facebook. let’s talk pornography…everyone has his or her own definition of what it is. OK, but now you have a team of people making their own judgments, and they have to go through a lot of content because Facebook is big and there’s a lot of stuff on there, so you have to come up with a policy that 1) is easy to follow and don’t leave much room for individual interpretation and 2) is reasonable by most community standards. People fall on both sides of the breastfeeding issue, but the “nipple test” meets both these criteria and so is not an unreasonable policy choice. In any case, it’s not that big a deal because it takes time to put pictures on Facebook, and there aren’t that many breastfeeding moms out there, and of those there aren’t that many who want pictures of them breastfeeding on Facebook in the first place.
But now let’s talk about _text_, baby. Well, it’s easy to write a comment, and there are a lot of people with a lot of strong opinions out there among those 200 million users…run a few numbers on your envelope and you’ll soon see why it’s just not feasible for humans to monitor content at the post level. So what about at the group level, as Brian Cuban suggests? What policy are you going to give your moderators? Everything OK except for holocaust denial groups? What about the Armenians…do they have any less of a claim, even though the denial of their genocide is not law in 11 countries? Or anti-abortion groups, or pro-death penalty groups, or anti-religion groups, or groups related to any of a thousand hot button debates that get ugly – not just flame wars on the internet but also in homes, newspapers, TV, churches, community centers, houses of Congress, etc. These arguments have been going on for a long time, in a lot of different media, and I hate to say it but these media (Facebook, blogs, TV) will be dead long before these debates are settled. You can kill all the Facebook groups you want, but flame wars will just find some other forum to occupy. Starting a discussion about a sensitive issue like the holocaust anywhere is an invitation for strong language…but that does not mean that one shouldn’t discuss these issues at all.
If you’re going to editorialize, you have to make judgments on individual issues that are framed by your own background, upbringing, beliefs, etc. There’s no such thing as a neutral moderator, so there’s no such thing as neutral editorializing except to have no editorializing at all. If you think hard about the problem, you will arrive at the same conclusion that Facebook did: limiting peoples’ ability to express their opinion about _any_ topic is futile.
This is why the article is disingenuous. Visual pornography and written speech are not equivalent and they require different consideration.
I really wish you had spent a few minutes thinking before you wrote this and got your readers all hot and bothered. We need constructive, level-headed solutions to these problems that have been around for hundreds of years…not more pointless outrage.
-an0n
Mike, thanks for continuing the discussion on this complex topic. We’ve talked a lot about it internally and also answered quite a few questions externally. You point to the CNN story but I’ll add the CNET story (http://news.cne...0234760-71.html).
Let me be clear, as we have stated a number of times previously, we find Holocaust denial repugnant and ignorant. We are serious about our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and where there is content that violates these terms, we will remove it. We have spent considerable time internally discussing the issues of holocaust denial and have come to the conclusion that the mere statement of denying the holocaust is not a violation of our terms. However, if the members of the holocaust denial groups consistently post hateful or threatening comments, we will take the groups down, despite the original disclaimer of historical debate or the like. And we have done so on many occasions.
Many of us at Facebook have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape. We believe in Facebook’s mission that giving people tools to make the world more open is a better way to combat ignorance or deception than censorship, though we recognize that others — including those at the company, disagree. We may be fools for doing the former but not “cowards”.
Also, Mike, with all of the time you have spent with us, I know that you know we don’t have a policy against breastfeeding photos. Our policy is against nudity and in rare cases this policy has been applied to a small number of photos of naked women who happen to be breastfeeding. Otherwise, the vast majority of breastfeeding photos remain on the site. I encourage you to look at the multitude of these photos that are on the largest protest group (http://www.face...?gid=2517126532).
do you also spend a lot of time internally discussing slavery denial, or perhaps whether women are intelligent enough to deserve the right to vote? How do you/would you deal with Facebook groups proposing these ideologies?
Some things in this world are so outrageously evil that they fall outside of the normal rules. This is the big one. And you guys are flailing badly at just being human beings.
You’ve let the lawyers rule the roost. Nudity is such an easy thing to ban. It takes courage to stand up to something like this.
Furthermore,
Why in the world are you not personally writing on the walls of these groups, “facilitating discussion” and stating that you find “find Holocaust denial repugnant and ignorant”? I didn’t see any Facebook employee comments, please point them out if they are there.
The fact is they aren’t there, because you and I both know that these people aren’t open to debate. They are ignorant and they’re racist and there is nothing to be done except shun them.
And for those of you at Facebook that “have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape” – did you ask any of those parents or relatives what they thought of the fact that you haven’t banned these groups, despite the fact that their activities are illegal in 11 countries?
Michael
Thank you! They ARE cowards. People who have any connection to Shuah and don’t fight it with all their might are double COWARDS.
That’s exactly why it happened in the first place.
If I tell you I have no idea what “Shuah” is, will you understand?
This picture of Romanian children in Auschwitz, victims of medical experiments, violates Facebook’s TOS because it’s pornography.
Barry, let’s foster an open debate about whether these children are victims of the Holocaust or not.
Get off your high horse already.
I believe the words of Justice Douglas, in his eloquent dissent in Dennis v. United States, are as applicable here as they were when they were written.
“The nature of Communism as a force on the world scene would, of course, be relevant to the issue of clear and present danger of petitioners’ advocacy within the United States. But the primary consideration is the strength and tactical position of petitioners and their converts in this country. On that, there is no evidence in the record. If we are to take judicial notice of the threat of Communists within the nation, it should not be difficult to conclude that, as a political party, they are of little consequence. Communists in this country have never made a respectable or serious showing in any election. I would doubt that there is a village, let alone a city or county or state, which the Communists could carry. Communism in the world scene is no bogeyman; but Communism as a political faction or party in this country plainly is. Communism has been so thoroughly exposed in this country that it has been crippled as a political force. Free speech has destroyed it as an effective political party. It is inconceivable that those who went up and down this country preaching the doctrine of revolution which petitioners espouse would have any success. In days of trouble and confusion, when bread lines were long, when the unemployed walked the streets, when people were starving, the advocates of a short-cut by revolution might have a chance to gain adherents. But today there are no such conditions. The country is not in despair; the people know Soviet Communism; the doctrine of Soviet revolution is exposed in all of its ugliness, and the American people want none of it.
“How it can be said that there is a clear and present danger that this advocacy will succeed is, therefore, a mystery. Some nations less resilient than the United States, where illiteracy is high and where democratic traditions are only budding, might have to take drastic steps and jail these men for merely speaking their creed. But in America, they are miserable merchants of unwanted ideas; their wares remain unsold. The fact that their ideas are abhorrent does not make them powerful.”
Question? If you are a Jew hater which is worst:
(1) A Jew
(2) A Homo Jew
(3) A poor Jew
(4) A rich Jew
Thank you Michael! I appreciate you taking a stand!
“Indifference is the essence of inhumanity” -George Bernard Shaw
Dude’s decidely deceased, dearie
Barry i though Mr. Cuban asked some good questions – do you plan on answering them?
Your argument in invalid.
1. Facebook is not a country – comparing it to countries is stupid.
2. They are a private company; they are not accountable to you. Imagine if they took down one type of group? They would have to take down others too.
Q: “Why did facebook remove only the anti-Semite groups?
A: Because their jews.
Since when does breastfeeding = nudity? You can find pictures on FB of women in outfits that show way more breast than most pictures give up of women breastfeeding.
BTW, put “nipple” into FB’s search and see all the groups that um, pop up.
You’re awesome Michael. Continually impressed with your ability to take chances and tell it how it is.
I agree that there’s few things more offensive than Holocaust denial, but I think it’s a slippery slope to venture down. If they go this route, I hope the cases where they act are few and far between. What happens if muslims are offended by anyone questioning their religion?
I think this is a simple case. Facebook should receive a cease or desist letter. Holocaust denial is illegal. Facebook is hosting illegal content and not acting to remove it. Isn’t this what other companies, like Pirate Bay and Napster, were accused of?
Not in most countries. Germany, I would suppose.
So this means I have to continue searching for porn, doesn’t it?
This should be a personal issue for Zuckerberg, since he’s Jewish. It’s a sad world when someone as powerful as him doesn’t care about his own people or the amount of suffering that his own family has been through. This is just a stupid decision on his part. I’m upset. Mark, you should be ashamed.
Several things:
(to preface any outrage – I’m a jew)
1. Arrington runs a business, and controversial posts pay his bills. Feigned indignation in follow-up comments helps fuel the fire.
2. Holocaust denial is a disgusting and revolting fact of life. The only way to conquer it is through education and historical truth. However, if the general public is unaware that Holocaust denial is an actual problem, they will not feel the paramount necessity to create the proper Holocaust education that will combat the Holocaust denial. Letting holocaust denial meet the scrutiny of truth and history is the only way to combat it – and through Facebook we are served a powerful reminder.
3. The breastfeeding comparison is idiotic. Facebook’s policy is to remove nudity, a universally accepted norm that can be clearly defined. Holocaust denial comes in so many shapes and sizes – where do you draw the line? That is why true platforms must remain neutral. Facebook has a global responsibility to preserve itself as a true platform.
1) Agreed, but he’s entitled to his opinion, and it seems that here he is more active in the comments than usual, which leads me to believe he’s earnestly and honestly upset and outraged over this particular issue.
2) Amen to that, sir. Bring the fight to them. They have freedom of speech, but so do we.
3) The problem, I believe, comes from the fact that there are so many groups and pictures and such with content that reasonable people would agree is inappropriate, that for them to simply throw the ban-hammer down on something that is innocent and natural seems downright silly. Yes, they ban outright nudity – but then they allow pictures of a sexual nature to escape that ban? They allow groups dedicated to so-called “MILFs” to exist? I think that is where people like Mike are coming up against a quandry.
The only issue I have with this story is that it misses the larger context: 1000’s of JIDF activists have sent complaints to Facebook about these groups for over a year: http://www.thejidf.org
It’s great that the media and bloggers are finally starting to cover the issue, but its important to mention all the effort of many thousands of others who have been on this front for a while.
Dear Mr Humphreys, excuse me for being suspicious but if JIDF is such a great thing why did I find myself pretty much alone in a supposedly pro-Israel group and having to take on three people at the same time?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
I’m happy you are a Hebrew.
Please stop crying about it and work harder at saving the world you bemoan.
If baiting becomes you, clean the hook and throw it back.
The overall tone of the comments here, (and in most other places on the web), doesn’t give me much hope that the ‘best will rise to the surface’.
Which is why I appreciate Barry Schnitt’s tempered and polite response.
My take on some issues in this thread:
- Facebook or Techcrunch’s founders being Jewish or not has no bearing on whether they should do what they consider to be right or not.
- 17 million Jews being offended is no reason for blocking a topic. Or rather, it is no MORE reason that 17 million muslims being offended by criticism of Allah.
And that is where I would be very wary about any kind of censorship. Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN was aimed at defining criticism of Islam as racism. That is very dangerous ground, we DON’T want to go there.
Define ‘best’. To make good point here one must ask a question first, not accuse and insult.
yeah well Neville Chamberlain was super tempered and polite too as Hitler first started rolling through Europe. It took Churchill to stare that fucker down.
yeah well Chuchill, Roosevelt and Truman were super tempered and polite too as Stalin first starting rolling through Europe. It took…. Oh wait. Want me to list the genocide’S Stalin is responsible for? Stop being such a tool. I don’t see you writing about Muslim bashers? I wonder why…
Oh and for the record I am sure exposing of the breast (breast feeding or not) is illegal in more than 11 countries (every Islamic one to start). Guess that means we have the moral high ground to block that as well! Why am I not surprised the only things techcrunch stands up for are gay rights and Jewish people lol. Turn off your TV Michael.
Funny how people will complain about China’s censorship and yet what something similar when it comes to something they care about…
Exactly! This is attitude is full of hypocrisy. In some people’s minds, free speech is only okay if the speech being given happens to agree with *them*.
Funny how people will complain about China’s censorship and yet want something similar when it comes to an issue they personally care about…
want to know why these groups wont be removed from facebook? money. more discussion = more pageviews = more money in zuckerbergs pocket. jews will do anything for money. zing!
disgusting.
Like with child molesters, it’s a perfect opportunity to track down haters and do something useful with all the data. Identify them and reuuse their statements to shame them all over the internet. The FB group should have a sell by date and be nuked, but in the meantime, harvest haters and do something creative with data recovered if that’s possible.
These are frightening & despicable characters.
They seem to be using fake ethnic names for disguise.
“Naekei Takahashi”, for example, is not a real Japanese name. “Naekei” is akin to scrambling “Thomas” as “Jhomas”.
The other, Arab-sounding, name may also be a fake, made-up name.
Clearly, these neo-Nazis are posing as members of other ethnic groups to incite hate in all directions.
Facebook was wrong to ban the breastfeeding mothers group…period. They were wrong to ban it when so many thousands of breastfeeding mothers came out in protest…clearly there was nothing shady about the page or the group. The fact that there are people out in the world who have a sexual fetish for lactating women is an absurd reason to ban the group. People have feet fetishes too…will that mean no pix of naked feet in the future?
That’s just stupid. But not nearly as stupid as banning the breastfeeding group but yet later on permitting a group who denies the existence of the Holocaust.
Your thoughts are created in your head, that means they effect foremost yourself. So, everybody should ask themselves: What I´m getting out of it by offending other people?
“There’s an easy way out of this for Facebook”
And yet they didn’t take it. That makes them “cowards”?
Facebook took a decision they knew would be deeply unpopular, and yet felt it was the right one. Maybe they are wrong, but cowards they are not.
I have never had any respect for Holocaust-deniers, including the small man currently running Iran. But I cannot help but feel an immense amount of respect for people who will defend free speech, even when that speech must surely be extremely hurtful and distressing for them to read and hear.
And the Churchill-Chamberlain analogy is ridiculous. The bulldog approach is not the optimal one under ALL circumstances. Or maybe Douglas Macarthur was right, and China should have been nuked to smithereens during the Korean war?
the bulldog approach in the face of evil is ALWAYS the right approach. Except that most people cave like cowards, leaving the people with courage standing alone. If Chamberlain hadn’t been such a pansy WWII may have been stopped in Prague and the Holocaust may never have happened. Most historians agree that the Luftwaffe was nowhere near ready to fight an open war with all of Europe. Chamberlain’s reticence to act is a stark contrast to Churchill, who stood firm in the face of the utter destruction of his country.
and regarding Facebook’s decision – I’m guessing here, but what likely happened is the lawyers yelled “slippery slope,” which, combined with the fact that the founder and most of the exec team are Jewish, made them realize they may be in for serious backlash in they banned these sites. IMO they should have done the right thing and banned them anyway, damn the criticism.
of course pornography is a simple test. penises and boobs are bad. they’re out. no slippery slope there.
” the small man currently running Iran”
What does “small” have to do with it? That seems to be a gratuitous and bigoted swipe at short people. Bin Laden is 6′4″. Would you refer to him as that tall terrorist? Maybe your comment should be banned. It is fact that shorter people suffer more violence at the hands of taller people. If we allow speech like yours to persist, we are acting like Chamberlain in the face of the Nazi threat.
This type of material is further example of the reason why advertisers like to steer clear of user generated content. I doubt any of the advertisers on FB would be pleased to have their ads placed alongside the likes of “nigger faggot, jew nosed cunt LOL”
Since this site is redirected from a Google URL, guess who rotates the ads and guess why unless the stink smelled by the advertiser is really pungeant it really doesn’t matter?
they also mention the word nigger, michael you seem to act as if that okay? all racism is bad you seem to ignore that fact. So i would appreciate it if you would cause the same stir for any group or any person you come across promoting any kind of hatred, i highly doubt you would.
huh? obviously slavery never happened. I read that on Facebook somewhere.
point taken.
Slavery still exist today. It never ended
Oh God. Michael, Sometimes I think you have gone overboard, but your post is perfectly reasonable and makes a point well worth highlighting. The notion that breastfeeding is more offensive than holocaust denial is just crazy. Some of the responses here show everything that is wrong with debate on the internet. Can’t we invoke Godwin’s Law on this?
What I find funny is even if you look in their requirements for advertisers (which I am), they don’t allow hate/sexist speech or images in their advertising.
My question is, why would you allow this in the community?
What holocaust deniers refuse to understand is that the Nazis were meticulous record-keepers. The Nazis were sunk by what was in their own records.
On the subject of breast-feeding, just outside Bethlehem is The Milk Grotto, where you can see various Christian artists and sculptors depicting the Virgin Mary breastfeeding Jesus and spilling a drop or two of milk in that very cave.
Of course, the depictions vary from the sublime to the ridiculous…
Nazi Germany was based on hate. American and Australians fought to end that sort of hatred. Pity our grandkids don’t get that.
Mike: If Facebook allowed breast-feeding pics and also allowed the Holocaust deniers, would you have a problem?
You (wisely?) don’t delete a lot of hateful and offensive comments from TechCrunch, yet would you censor gravatars with nudity?
As Chris M points out, it seems like Facebook doesn’t want to regulate stupid/offensive/hateful speech, but does draw a line on nudity in pictures. It’s an understandable policy for a site with millions of users that, just perhaps, wants to avoid opening the pandora’s box of trying to regulate “offensive speech.”
Should Facebook allow groups like “Homosexuality should STOP”, “Islam is retarded….and evil.”, “Christianity is made up of horribly stupid followers of its fabricated lies”, etc? (those are all Facebook groups)
How about groups that attack evangelical Christians? Mormons? Hindus? Scientologists? Are groups/pages that make fun of those beliefs hateful? Would a joke about the Pope molesting boys qualify as hateful or offensive?
Obviously the Holocaust happened. Obviously Holocaust deniers struggle with both antisemitism and an ability to rationally examine history.
Nevertheless, it is usually best to just let stupid people have a go in public and let the chips fall where they may, most likely to their own detriment.
The Holocaust is a whole other category of fucked up. I put it in a special category all on its own. And so do lots of countries that otherwise protect free speech. So the slippery slope argument, which is usually a trump card, doesn’t work for me on this one.
A lot of countries also put reviling religion in a “special category of its own.”
Should Facebook have deleted the Mohammed cartoons if someone posted them? What about a group against Islam? Or Christianity? Or a group which made fun of the absurd history of Scientologists or Mormons?
Just because countries have laws against expressing a belief doesn’t mean those laws are at all enlightened.
Because you are biased?
Fine, but it doesn’t mean people have to give a rat’s ass what you think. And most don’t.
Wow, this site (I mean techcrunch, not Facebook) has gone far FAR away from its origins. It used to be about technological innovations and startups, but now it’s just second hand web gossip. I guess techcrunch staff is REALLY grasping for straws due to lack of actual tech venture news. Also you just got yourselves a “Not Safe for Work” status with quoting all those bad words……. Goodbye and goodluck bubble site
This is the problem that arises when you decide that “freedom” of speech applies to some topics but not others.
If someone wants to deny the horrors committed by the Germans during WW2…let them…in the face of overwhelming evidence anyone with a brain will know that they are an idiot!
If someone wants to show some boob…let them
Freedom of speech means the right to offend others. You do NOT have the right NOT to be offended.
Michael, thank you for your article, people need to be aware of the weaknesses and foibles of the internet. Regards Mike
…and TechCrunch praises Middle Eastern despots who brutalize their subjects to maintain their oppressive regimes.
A clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, Mikey.
Would facebook allow a group that denied thousands (some say millions) of Africans were made slaves? I think not.
The greatest benefit of Facebook is that it has many groups on the site that you can join. So if you are interested in Chicago Cubs you can research Chicago Cubs in the groups section and you will be able to find friends on there that like the Cubs.
Just like in the real world, we need to stay clear of hatemongers and fascists on Facebook as well. Although, I do support their decision to allow free speech on their site.
“I may not agree with what my enemy says but I will defend, to the death, his right to say it – Voltaire”
James
http://EmailCharger.com
Excellent and well reasoned post.
It’s interesting that Facebook’s attitude on these things seems to be the polar opposite to MySpace’s (who tend to delete groups/members on a whim).
I think somewhere there is probably a middle ground – just hire a few people to make judgement calls on a case by case basis. Delete the content before deleting users, but keep an eye on repeat offenders.
There also needs to be a clear distinction between what is clearly illegal (hate speech) and what some people may find distasteful (a personal opinion). Illegal content should of course be moderated – and the users who post it should be held accountable. People should realise that just because they post it online, does not mean they are immune from the law.
Michael Arrington, Calm The Fuck Down you little Jew.
I still don’t understand why the fuck people are still giving a shit about the people who deny holocaust. Let them deny it. Who cares about what they think. If this really was a fact and it did happen, people can deny it all they want and it shouldn’t matter to you.
Besides. Fucking get over it man. Shit happened. It sucked but so what. It happened and now Jews are fucking living their lives all over the place and popping babies every minute.
Calm the fuck down, relax and enjoy your life man.
Peace
1. How about Anti Jews but Holocaust Non denial groups ?
2. Anti Muslim Groups ?
Yes or no to each question and if the answer is what i expect then you are just afraid of the outcome of these debates.
Nice troll, bro.
We really don’t care if you’re a Jew but this is bcoming a kvetch.
The problem is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
There are laws against hiring White People, and yet, everybody claims to be against racism.
The truth doesn’t fear investigation.
Any topic should be openly discussed.
The term ‘Holocaust denial’ is inaccurate. People are merely questioning the so-called “facts” because they don’t make sense.
Are you interested in the truth about the “facts” or are you interested in maintaining your politically correct illusion?
I looked into it, some of the “facts” are inconsistent; I don’t deny the holocaust, I simply question some of the “facts” that force us to believe 2+2 = 95.
The masses are asses totally brainwashed by something far more evil than Holocaust denial: Political Correctness.
“The masses are asses totally brainwashed by something far more evil than Holocaust denial: Political Correctness.”
are you serious? lol
Mike, thanks for bringing this to light. My wife and I find it disgusting that Facebook would choose to be so arbitrary with their ban-hammer – people can agree that breastfeeding pics aren’t pornographic, since there is absolutely no way to sexualize something like that (unless you’re perverted, in which case you need professional help).
As for the holocaust pics, it doesn’t make sense – isn’t Zuckerberg Jewish himself? Why would he allow this sort of thing on his service, which he supposedly has a great deal of control over?
I think that racist speech is quite easy to identify and remove, and that locations which encourage or allow such speech are just as guilty as those who would bring action to their words. If you “allow” such things, make no mistake: you encourage it. That being said, this is a free country and no one is forcing anyone to look at or join these groups or be friends with these people.
If you don’t like it, walk away. If it’s honestly criminal speech (such as serious talk of causing harm to Jewish people or any people), then it ought to be reported as such to the authorities so they can do something about it – otherwise, let it go. For as much as people may disagree with them, for as wrong as any reasonable person can see that they are, they have the right to say what they want.
Whether they have the intelligence to speak responsibly is another story.
It’s time for Facebook to take the Bulgarian approach. Protect the jewish population at all cost.
Great stuff Michael. I’m glad you put light to this often-ignored issue. Facebook is full of racism and hate — more than anyone could imagine.
Anyone ever stop and think, that there may be good reasons that Jews are hated?
Hint: They are capable of going to the local middle schools and LYING the big lies to children about the holohoax without remorse. Anything for Israel. The rest of the human race is ‘goyim’ (cattle) to them.
All the skinny people in the pictures died from starvation because supply-lines were bombed by the allies, not from gas chambers. The gas chambers were invented in 1978. You will not find anything *in print* about gas chamber executions of Jews before 1978.
I agree with Mr Arrington on this one.
This seems to be a contradiction. You can either be open and allow free speech and risk offending your readers. Or you can filter content and avoid offending readers. The cause of the offense (nudity or hate speech) shouldn’t really matter.
I have a single photo up at Facebook at present. It’s a photo of a woman breastfeeding that I took at the How Berkeley Can You Be Parade in 2007.
I thought they’d take it down right away, but have been surprised that it’s still up today.
http://www.face...mp;id=501909885
Personally I think the less censorship on Facebook the better.
Michael,
My wife and I were talking about the UK yesterday. I was mentioning how its basically turning into a surveillance society. I also said how they recently barred a few various people from entering the country. I said its a good thing they are keeping them out since they are hate speakers if thats an appropriate term. She felt that regardless its a free speech right. After talking a while I realized that it was creating a slippery slope as she suggested. If these were hard core leftists she noted I would be abhorred. Just because they are hard core right wingers somehow its ok that they are barred? Its a lot to think about for sure and believe me she is not “ok” with any of the stuff spewing out of the mouths of these racist hate mongerers. But I do wonder what the solution is and certainly its similar to the Facebook situation. Where do you draw the line? Clearly there is no need for this type of speech but if you keep out these groups do you keep out the hard core anti war groups? I cant find a good analogy but I hope you can understand this view point.
Thanks