Facebook is apparently done talking about Holocaust denial for now. A couple of groups that got more out of hand than the rest were taken down, but the company’s policy of permitting the groups on the site remains. “Denying the holocaust is not a violation of our terms,” says Facebook spokesperson Barry Schnitt in a comment to our post yesterday. Meanwhile, Facebook’s ban on pictures showing nipples from breast feeding women remains. The pictures are pornography and a violation of Facebook’s terms of service. Interestingly, Schnitt is the spokesperson that handles both issues, and seems quite comfortable with the respective policies.
While we don’t have much officially being said, we do have some Facebook employees speaking their mind directly, and most are pro-Holocaust deniers. Product Manager Ezra Callahan describes the posts by Brian Cuban and myself as “incomprehensible reasoning.” Ezra is not a Facebook spokesperson, but Randi Zuckerberg, who is a Facebook Spokesperson, says of Ezra’s note “Really well-written, articulate, and insightful note by Facebook employee Ezra Callahan on being a Jewish employee and supporting Facebook’s policy to not remove groups that deny the Holocaust.” That sounds like a stamp of approval to me.
Ezra’s arguments in a nutshell:
- Facebook is a “company run by a prominent Jew” and can’t “possibly show preferential treatment to one offended group over others”
- The Holocaust is just one of many human tragedies: “There are quite a few other especially-horrifying events in humanity’s recent past that likely merit the same level of consideration”
- Providing a forum for Holocaust deniers lets people see how “stupid” they are
Here’s where I’m going to take a ninety degree turn. I’m not going to address these issues head on. Brian Cuban is doing that already, and provides logical counterpoints to these arguments.
But I actually think even engaging in this debate is dangerous. The Holocaust is in its own special category of fucked up human behavior. Not because of the millions of Jews that were killed in the actual Holocaust – sadly that’s just how we roll as a race. No, the problem is that Holocaust deniers make their arguments for one simple purpose – they want to finish what was started and wipe Jews off the planet. We all know this is the elephant in the room, it’s just that the lawyers who write terms of service don’t really know how to deal with that. Nipples are bad, even if clearly not posted for sexual reasons. Holocaust denial is ok, even if clearly posted in order to spread hatred of Jews. That’s not something lawyers can tackle.
I don’t make that statement lightly, nor do I expect everyone to agree. But in the last few days I’ve read a lot (a whole lot) of Holocaust denial literature on the Internet, and it is extremely scary stuff. The whole point of it is to suggest that Jews are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool the world. These are the same types of conspiracy theories that led to the Holocaust in the first place.
When you engage with Holocaust deniers to talk about where the lines are drawn you’ve already lost. Ezra and the rest of Facebook is playing the game on their terms.
Holocaust denial is a seed. A seed that will grow into a fully bloomed second Holocaust if ever allowed to germinate. And Facebook is providing the fertile ground and watering needed to do just that.
That’s why a dozen or so countries, all of which otherwise support free speech, have enacted laws against Holocaust denial. People love to hate, even smart people with significantly more than a “shred of common sense” as Ezra puts it. So many smart people think there is a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. They can’t help but believe it. And giving those people a place on Facebook to share and expand those ideas is just too dangerous a thing to do. They know they can spread hatred of Jews if they stick mostly to just denying the Holocaust. And if a few members get out of hand every once in a while, they can just say that the group exists only to talk about whether the Holocaust happened or not, and certainly not to spread hate. See the images on my post from yesterday to see how these messages go.
Sure, we can’t shut down the dark places on the Internet where people are free to hate Jews and post pictures of breast feeding mothers. But Facebook can take a stand and say it won’t happen in their back yard. Holocaust denial is hate speech, and it cannot be given a place to take root.
This isn’t a slippery slope, Facebook. It’s evil. Pure evil. Don’t plant a flag on the wrong side of the line. Stand firm against racial and religious hatred, even if you don’t have to. You’ll look back in fifty years and be proud that you did. Because no matter what your terms of service say, this isn’t porn. It’s the Holocaust. And it happened.
Are comments for this post closed?
i’ll let you work that out on your own.
Michael,
I was wondering how to meet you/your staff in person and show you what I have been working on which I am planning on launching soon.
Let me know.
Thanks
Facebook is flying in the face of of Arrington. Very bad. Long live free speech. And it is upto group administers to block hate speech, not facebook’s business.
Once this insurgencies in different countries is wiped off with military and technology might, religions will vanish out of people’s mind. Dont worry.
“The Holocaust is in its own special category of fucked up human behavior.”
Ohh no..My 10 year old geeky nephew just read it..
Also, wanted to tell you that Google App Engine is down on iPhone for couple of days and was expecting an article on that one…
I’m a bit disappointed about your statement, Michael. As basically, you’re doing the same: The exact opposite of what the public would have expected from you, knowing your values.
I’m not a holocaust denier or anything close. I always admired the importance of freedom of speech in the U.S. It’s also one of the reasons I like TC.
Hurting the freedom of speech never solves problems. It just hides them.
And regarding the culpability of having the “wrong” intention: Is there such a thing such as thought crimes? A big part of this world would probably like (or “intends”) to erase one or another nation. Does stop talking about it make it any better?
Freedom of speed is not absolute, please keep that in mind. I hear that phrase thrown around like it gives us the right to say anything we want, any time. That is 100% incorrect. A very basic example: go into a packed theater and yell “Fire!”. You will find yourself in jail for simply saying one word.
My personal problem isn’t with freedom of speech — it’s the double standard presented; a breast-feeding mother is considered obscene, but writing “Nigger faggot, Jew nosed cunt” isn’t. Seems a little backwards to me.
Michael, et. al:
Problem is, it’s very easy to draw a line when it comes to displaying the human anatomy. No boobs – period. Otherwise people will quickly blur those lines by holding a baby in the name of showing full boobage. Now, when it comes to speech and the written word, the lines are much more difficult to draw. Every phrase is subjective and can be scrutinized. Who is going to take on these people? Are they organized groups? Can you point out a distinct “leader” and go after them? Will they only get stronger if you do? All things to think about when dealing with groups of individuals, especially when it comes to relatively violent groups.
The holocaust was a horrible act that many of my family members faught and died to protect the world from. They saw first hand what it was about and what the Nazi’s did to people.
However, I agree with Cail.
Michael is taking this story way too personally and beyond reason at this point.
@allen, you are correct. People cannot say anything they want 100% of the time.
However, you are wrong using it in this context. You cannot say what you want if it insights violence or panic… hence, the “fire” in the theater thing.
But, these groups are not trying to insight violence… they’re simply stating their opinion. (however fucked up and stupid it is)
Unfortunately, freedom of speach does not only apply to things we agree with. That’s what Fox news does… we’re supposed to be better.
For those of us in the UK and Europe, this is an irony that shouldn’t be ignored, but it affects Americans as well..
From the 4th to the 7th of June across Continental Europe, we went to the polls for seats at the European parliament in Strasbourg, during this Thu-Sun period, on June 6th we commemorated the 65th anniversary of D-Day, which was one of the final major offensives to defeat Nazi-occupied Europe.
Aside from what the local politicians have been up to, it’s the likes of the facebook holocaust deniers (that spew unbelievable levels of bile) that the younger and less educated generation of voters today voted for the right wing candidates and when the results came in, the far right political parties got seats.
So don’t say politics has nothing to do with it, because at the end of the day, it affects us all when the claims and uses of free speech are abused like this and given the option to curtail them, that didn’t happen!
Facebook HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE THIS CONTENT and should not need to defend itself for free speech.
Most of the time when people deny the holocaust they do so for political reasons and rarely otherwise. It is obvious that the President of Iran does that.
According to the second law of motion “every action has an opposite and equal reaction”, which also holds true for freedom of speech. Barring people online from speaking about the holocaust denial, government conspiracy theories, and UFOs will only encourage people to believe that someone is trying to suppress facts.
I completely agree with cail and Troy.
Sorry physics teachers. Meant to say “third law of motion” not “second”.
x2 for Cali and Troy. Facebook’s position on breast feeding is orthogonal to the Holocaust denial debate. If you believe, truly believe, in free speech that means tolerating the racists and bigots…and knowing that you have the ability (and protected right) to offer an opposing view. Not so long ago, when racism was the law of the land, it was the First Amendment that allowed us to speak out against it. Never give up that right for short-term comfort or convenience.
i think allen didnt get a chance to properly articulate himself clearly. he is absolutely right in saying that freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want. he brought a good example of yelling “fire” in a crowded area but thats not directly related to the topic here. a better example is that the first amendment does not permit hate speech. what allen, michael, and I are trying to prove is that holocaust deniers are really spewing hate speech and inciting people to hate jews in particular. that type of speech is not protected under the first amendment and those who provide a forum for it, just like those that say/write it, can be sued. I like the breast-feeding example; there too, technically speaking the pictures are not pornographic in nature, but what makes them unacceptable is the fact that its guaranteed that they will be used for the wrong purposes. if holocaust deniers merely said “the holocaust never happened” and backed it up with concrete proof, i would have to agree that nothing illegal transpired. However, this is never the case. first of all, holocaust deniers have no concrete proof whatsoever. on the contrary, all the facts available prove that the holocaust did happen. ive personally visited the concetration camps and the death camps; my grandparents went through it and aside from hearing stories directly from them, theyve provided video testimonials and my uncle wrote a book of his memoirs. secondly, all holocaust deniers say its a jewish conspiracy to rule the world or to get world sympathy, something that is clearly opinionated and with the goal of inciting hate towards jews. again, this is not protected under the first amendment. facebook can and should be prosecuted.
Who is going to define hate speech??? I know of a high school principal who silenced a student singing a Christmas carol in the hall, calling the song “hate speech”. We must be careful about trying to limit the 1st Amendment! The biggest problem I see with most people under the age of 60, is that many of them tend to be relativists, and have no concept of truth.
The problem looks clear to me. Michael is calling racist and crazy remarks holocaust denial.
I will show examples holocaust denial and racism.
Holocaust denial>I do not believe that millions of jews died during world war two.
Racism>Jews are snakes and liars who should be removed from the earth.
Isn’t the distinction obvious.
I think the problem is simple.
Each race, region, religion, country, economic class, tribe, company, university, military, court, and any other grouping of human beings that you can make, has good people, bad people and neutral people.
Without good Jews, we would not have the internet or blogs. PHP is supported and Zend is run by ___ and gives employment to ___.
Without good Muslims, we would have no Youtube – Jawed Karim, anyone?
Without Jewish and Muslim friendship, we would not have a successful Google+Youtube – Omid Kordestani (”Born 1963 Tehran[1] Iran” )
Not everyone in Iran is bad.
People confuse govts with peoples.
That is the problem. Just strip off the names and the titles and count the bare humans in politics and global affairs.
You see that a few bad humans use this pretext and that emotion to incite the rest of the neutral or good humans into committing horrible crimes.
This is how control over populations is maintained – by swaying their opinions.
I suspect this is what Michael Arrington fears.
And this is what we need to prevent.
Not by getting our opinions swayed, but by counting the humans in each group without using name or affiliation.
Then label them “mischievous”, “good” or “neutral”.
That is all you have to do.
Let’s all go back to work and stop this crap. People are dying all over, including Anglosaxons in North America.
As Michael Jackson sang, let’s focus on the living and not dig up the past.
There’s a reason we cannot yet travel back in time or know or remember the past.
This is the reason.
Instant classic, Gregg
No, they seem to be open
PS: it’ll get really excited if these holocaust-deniers move on to twitter!
“No, the problem is that Holocaust deniers make their arguments for one simple purpose – they want to finish what was started and wipe Jews off the planet.”
This is pure raving lunacy and a product of your paranoid schizophrenia. Of all the conspiracy theories spewed out by the statist propagandists this is one of the most ridiculous (second only to the absurd idea that Osama bin Laden had something to do with 9/11).
Isn’t it funny how the alleged victims are the first people to go around trying to crush free speech. Isn’t funny how they use the same tactics as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler?
Of course, that’s what taboo and politically correct culture are all about: censorship. They don’t dare let an open debate take place because then the facts would come out. The mere fact that they are so vehemently opposed to ideas but cannot meet them in open debate only lends credibility to their opposition.
Kudos to Zuckerberg for having more integrity than the cock-sucking pigs who write this drivel for Techcrunch.
Go tell your masters that your lies aren’t working anymore. Michael Arrington is a NWO shill and a Nazi piece of shit, but it is not his fault. He is just very, very, sick.
Your arguments would work better if you didn’t manage to show your own bias and idiocy in your own rant.
There is no such thing as bias. Bias does not exist. It is a figment of your psychotic fantasies. There are only people who have the facts and people who have psychotic disorders.
You think that bias exists because you’re a degenerate sociopath with post-modernist schizophrenia. You think everything is a matter of opinion, and that there is no right and wrong. But there is a right and a wrong. Free speech is right and the Nazi terror tactics of people like Michael Arrington are wrong.
Case closed. Seek treatment.
Alex,
You’re very kind to point out to ‘nonsense’ that he does show bias and idiocy. However it is feeble to do so as I’m sure you’ve already noticed the red herring argument and straw man tactic he has put fourth in his reply.
Never argue with an idiot. They’ll only drag you down to their level and beat you at their game.
You apparently live your own universe and have know concept of truth, or reality for that matter! Not that you will listen to reason – you’ve already chosen your fantasy world.
other genocides have happened since WWII (don’t we learn?):
-Rwanda
-Darfur
-Zanzibar
-West Papua
-Bangladesh
-Eastern Europe [under Stalin]
-Burundi
-Kurds
-Bosnia and Herzegovina
The problem I have with the whole “the Holocaust is different” crowd, is that they seem to want a special lane for their pet historical event. Why carve out a particular event for exclusion from free speech? What’s the benefit? Hitler came to power because the French and British tried to cripple post WW1 Germany to prevent its reemergence as a would power. How did that work out? Not too well!
Also, where do you draw the line? If someone wants to debate the number of people killed or how many Germans knew about the killing, does that now constitute denial? Should any discussion about the Holocaust be preempted? What about paralles to what Isreal is doing in Palestine? Should that be off limits too?
This is a sensitive subject for many, and my heart goes out to anyone who lost family in the Holocaust– but lets be real here. Holocaust deniers aren’t destined to create the Fourth Reich or spread hate anymore then knowing the truth about Abu Ghraib was going to jeopardize our efforts in Iraq. Truth is never wrong and suppressing fallacious opinion-no matter how much we disagree with it– isn’t going to promote truth.
Countries that ban such discussions are repressive- no matter what the justification. That means Austria, Germany et al- are all repressive and are closer to Nazi Germany then the countries that allow universal free speech- I guess that could go for FaceBook too.
No breast feeding is good.
Your stance on the deniers is too obvious to even post about.
Connecting the two is just dumb.
I am a jewish person and for me any topic due to freedom of speech and expression shouldn’t be off topic , hence facebook shouldn’t ban anything.
before anyone asks i’ve been to auscwhitz i’ve seen the graves and i am not a holocaust denier.
however everytime a holocaust denier or facebook holocaust denial group is banned we give them the oxygen of publicity. Look when david irving was banned he got more publicity then ever before and became a martyr for freedom of speech on the far right. Let these warped people have their facebook group it will just show how idiotic they are ,and how their arguments have no validation whatsoever. If you want to do something joing their group and engage them in argument, you don’t beat anyone from ducking out of an argument. i guess my message is challenge them, dont ban them .
as voltaire said ” i hate what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it ” – facebook is a way people say there views – censorship of any kind on facebook shouldn’t happen and in some areas has gone too far already.
as voltaire said, “i hate what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it”
Um, no he did not say that (and even if he did say it, he would have used better spelling LOL). This must be one of the most misquoted lines on the planet: see http://www.clas...om/voltaire.htm for the real words he used.
Lately, I have been having problems posting to most TechCrunch forums.
And the impression I got mostly was that either comments were being censored, or Mike was simply unhappy with what others had to say!
There is now a group on Facebook: Get Holocaust Deniers Off Facebook!
Brilliant article; I wholeheartedly agree. With an idealistic view of the world, a truly-open forum is maybe what’s “right” (whatever that means). But… we don’t have an idealistic world. Even so, people can already assemble in their own houses and freely talk holocaust theories if they wish. Facebook doesn’t need to open it’s doors as another place for it.
ps. went a little too fast with the keyboard in one spot: “its own special cateogry of”
fixed the typo, thx
What happens then if someone doesn’t like the facebook account called Redskins, since it is offense to native americans?
It will never end, since millions more Indians than Jews were killed on purpose with introduction of diseases (like chicken pox), granted the Indians were “just savages” anyway right? So they don’t get the same protection as such a great country??
I think facebook did the right thing.
No matter what facebook does, someone will not be happy.
You missed all the anti PETA groups.
You missed all the anti Techcrunch groups.
You missed all the anti Catholic groups.
You missed all the ___________ groups.
You fill in what offends you.
If only positive things are allowed to be said, TechCrunch won’t be allowed to write bad reviews.
Like the one you did about facebook.
There is a ton more anti-xyz groups that also should be banned. I think MA is letting this thing to get into his head. I am actually a bit a disappointed by his childish reaction!
I think part of Mike’s point is that this moves beyond being an “anti” group and into the territory of hate speech. It’s no longer a valid debate about the Holocaust, it’s merely a platform for proposing the violent removal of Jews from the world.
i agree with alex comepletely. I’ve had similar debates about the abuses of free speech and, whether by admission of my counterparts or through their responses, ive always been proven right.
Must we make gross generalizations? Can’t we just say that some Holocaust denial is hate speech and some is just denial of the Holocaust – and then ban the hate speech and allow the pseudo-historians to carry on like we do creationists?
I agree banning nipples en masse is a mistake though, for the same reasons. Not all nipples are shown for the same reasons.
Please, find me one pseudo-historian denying the holocaust and turning the 6 million killed into a Jew invention that has no anti-jews agenda. Just one. Please…
that’s the problem. there are none. not one.
Like you said, “they want to finish what was started and wipe Jews off the planet.” Jews want to wipe out Muslims. Muslims want to wipe out Jews. Racists want to wipe out every other race etc.
What you’re calling the elephant in the room is actually a tiny ant on top of the elephant trying to strangle the real elephant. The real elephant of course is that Jews, Muslims, Christians etc. all have the same mentality as Racists. They believe they are superior and demand special treatment. Shunning that type of mentality from society is what needs to happen. Open your eyes and look at the big picture.
“…Jews, Muslims, Christians etc. all have the same mentality as Racists.” – That’s a pretty GROSS generalization! Do you know all Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.? Maybe it is you who needs to open not just your eyes but also your mind, and look at the big picture.
There is a contradiction, because these ants are also the same Jews, Muslims, Christians and Racists. They are fighting against the same mentality.
Question any fact is a common practice of knowledge seekers. Lots of accepted facts have been changed after further consideration, or otherwise we would still think that the Earth is flat.
Michael, your argument has more of emotion than reason, and it only polarizes the situation even more.
Bullshit. My grandma’s entire family was documented as being killed at the holocaust, but that doesn’t mean the possibility that the some of the numbers are wrong doesn’t exist. You’re basically on a censorship crusade. Because apparently it’s okay to censor hate speech. Maybe you should move to Canada where you can face a Human Rights Tribunal for saying Islam has murderous elements, becuase hate speech is banned there?
C’mon, Arrington. You can’t say “anyone with position X is thinking Y and this will end up with another Holocaust.” This is the worst form of anything you’ve ever written.
Peter, you’re most certainly wrong here. Jews never wanted to destroy Muslims or Christians. The Jewish religion states that a Jew’s role in this world is to be a light to other peoples.
Throughout history, there has been only one known case of a Jewish king who force-converted people to Judaism. This is of course shunned upon by all Jews. Today, if you wish to convert to Judaism, you’ll have to go through at least a year of religious studies.
With Christians and Muslims today, the grand majority don’t wage holy wars and/or try to eradicate the others. Hate groups are many times not religious-related.
BTW: I’m an atheist.
Thank you Michael for this post. I greatly believe in freedom of speech but not in supporting hate groups. Holocaust denial is not about free speech more than saying “we should get rid of all the Jews” is about free speech. Free speech is not about allowing ones to hurt others or promote suffering, but about us all respecting each other.
i agree with alicia and michael. its amazing how naive some people could be. “oh, um, not all holocaust deniers hate jews.” yeah right. ive personally read a ton of holocaust denial material, including the facebook notes, and ive honestly never found anyone or anything written that wasnt anti-semitic. sorry idealists but open your eyes to reality.
Of course under the rules proposed here, we would never know, would we?
David Irving. If you actually look past what the media says you will realize he is actually a very good and well respected historian who knows more about WWII then just about anyone. He doesn’t debate it didn’t happen, he only says the numbers are incorrect – does it matter? Maybe not. But Michael is there any wonder few historians bother investigating/reporting on it when they are treated like modern day witches?
Amir Wa, you completely ignored the main point I was making and focused on my obvious exaggeration. Very constructive, good job.
Uh… when you say 6 million were you MEANING to count JUST Jews? Because if you were and anyone agreed with you without correcting you thy too would be bigots or just uninformed.
Estimates are that 6 Million JEWS were killed, but a crap-load others were killed too, with estimates going as high as 17 million (http://en.wikip...ust#cite_note-3).
Yah… that might be the problem: some make this look like it’s a Jewish issue when it’s not, but some find a way to be able to further their own agenda:
The Holocaust Industry
http://www.amaz...3185&sr=8-1
Michael,
I’m 100% with you here — so glad there’s someone in a powerful position to look out for such clear hatred. This sort of activity, injustice and ignorance, will lead to a second Holocaust without a doubt.
Thanks for all you do.
–Michael
Where is the line between retards in Facebook and a second holocaust?
As much as I hate to get into this debate, the holocaust was the result of an unfortunate mix of factors, of which anti-semitism was only one.
You also have to have a control of a fascist government, support of the population due to a collapsing economy, a militarized youth who grew up during hyperinflation, oh –and a world war.
I mean a lot of things came together to lead to the holocaust. Antisemitism alone doesn’t lead to another holocaust.
I agree 100%. The Jews were scape goated at the time so an agenda could be advanced. There were many other factor as you mentioned besides anti-semitism.
fascist government
support of the population
collapsing economy
militarized youth
hyperinflation
war
and add to that a charismatic leader.
… How many of those things do we have now or are we headed towards?
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Gird them loins people!
Entering into a serious debate with hate does not speak well for you.
@alliewag: totally get it. If there are standards of appropriateness, this does not pass muster.
Plenty of hating exists; this should not be a “right” which we rally behind. What freedoms do we fight for? The perpetuation of something dangerous and false is not something to protect–it completely misses the realm of freedoms.
Being able to discern what not include, there is a gain. Let us not shut our eyes and our minds, and blindly rally behind what our hearts would not wish to include in our world.
Let us take a stand on one side against hatred. Let us not simply back up from the table, making it harder for those who desire a world free from hegemonic hatred. MLK, Jr.’s described the greatest danger as the “moderate.” If it means opening the discussion of the appropriateness of other elements within our society, so be it. We could employ minds and people (think jobs), and the world would be better off for it.
FB continues to miss the point.
If they are going to establish content standards, they need to use common sense and be consistent. If this was a close call, I wouldn’t take issue with them. But to actively campaign to eradicate breastfeeding pics but then defend the right to post kind of garbage just boggles the mind.
agreed
unfortunately, human social behavior is not so cut and dry. i don’t even see the breastfeeding issue and this issue being one in the same.
People are entitled to their opinion. If you start shutting down groups for voicing opinions it won’t finish there.
I totally agreed with you until I spent time reading these Facebook groups and other sites on the Internet advocating Holocaust denial. There’s a line where speech is little different from direct physical action. This needs to be treated as a special case.
freedom of speach protects these guys, sticks and stones. The last thing you want is to turn this into an underground movement that involves people actually meeting up in person. Let these guys vent while we are watching.
That’s the scary thing. Underground groups already exist. Here’s a schedule of events so that you can find a book burning or paramilitary training at a location near you: http://preview....yurl.com/2wrk7l
Great post Mike.
Sorry, freedom of speech does not protect these guys. Read up on it and educate yourself please. Or, if you feel freedom of speech is absolute, test it out by walking to your local theater and yelling “fire” – great example I will continue to post. There are boundaries, and if you are speaking harsh words that involve abuse, you have crossed the line.
the first amendment does not protect gainst hate speech or speech with the goal of inciting hatred towards a particular group. facebook can and should be prosecuted.
The first amendment only protects freedom of speech when it comes to dissent against the Government. I could say that “Obama is doing a terrible job and he should be impeached.” without fear of being arrested. However it doesn’t protect against hate speech in FB. That’s a matter of FB policy and they’ve decided to turn a blind eye to it. MA’s argument is that antisemitic groups use the guise of Holocaust denial on FB to spout their vitriol. I agree with MA that the Holocaust denial groups should be taken down.
I do wonder what incredible internet “research” you’ve been reading, radical lets-keep-the-KKK-alive-in-2009 or some neo nazi crap written by groups of confused kids?
If knew anything what you’re talking about, you’d know that much of the so-called “holocaust denial” is actually quite scholarly, and goes to great lengths to reiterate that it is not seeking to deny the holocaust, but rather questions the validity of certain historical arguments made in connecting with it, such as whether 6 million actually perished, or whether such a large number actually perished in the way that is claimed. If you took a moment to read some of this material, instead of becoming just as dumb and blind as those neo nazis you’ve been reading, you’d actually find it quite fascinating. It doesn’t offer all the answer but questions that deserve more research and more answers.
None of this can happen with people lumping any discussion of the holocaust as “denial” or “nazism” or “antisemitism”. I’m seeing people comparing revisisionist history with creationism! I mean, are people insane? There’s a real whiff if hatred coming from this forum and from people like that, a fascist insanity. And today, Michael Arrington, you speak like one of them.
I think a major argument against that is the fact that most of the posts in those “Holocaust denial” groups are pure hatred — no real discussion of any value. I’m not seeing much talk about actual numbers of those who perished… just a lot of “Nigger faggot, Jew nosed cunt LOL” posts.
Freedom of speech doesn’t extend to speech which may cause the harm of others (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded room, when there isn’t actually a fire… or inciting hatred actions toward a group).
That’s true. Speech can be as dangerous as direct actions.
But denying the holocaust in and of itself does not rise to that test.
If on those groups serious hate speech is going on, that is a different story.
Completely agree. If those groups are hateful, that’s not good for anyone. I just resent the BIG TONE in this post and painting even genuine inquisitiveness with that same brush. If this is an issue worthy of a TC post, I wonder why we can’t have the same for black issues (I’m sure there’s groups out there on social networks who are racist) or Palestinian issues or Kurdish issues or Kashmiri issues or Tamil issues…. man, this would become MinorityInjusticeCrunch.
The big problem with Holocaust denial is that it is couched hate-speech as pseudo-historical debate.
Hitler himself said (paraphrased):“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Holocaust deniers know that if they created a website that stated “I hate Jews” then they would be labeled as anti-semitic and probably shut down. Claiming that they don’t hate jews, but just want to debate an event in history as if it was something trivial is a way to get their same hateful opinion out there without the stigma of being anti-semitic.
Michael, one thing I’ve learned from covering this extensively for my college newspaper (a guy named Bradley Smith tried to take out an ad offering a reward to anyone who would help him hold a debate on campus), is that they want the negative attention to. They want posts like this on Techcrunch calling for their removal, because that just lets any idiots who happen to read techcrunch hop on their bandwagon.
You can’t control or censor hate speech. There is no point and doing so makes the information the martyr. Keeping the information publicly available in the internet age is the best way to keep it down, ironically.
yes, i agree with you michael, but interestingly enough i want to know your opinion on the following -, so what about the danish cartoons were presented of Muhammad – Do you call that freedom of speech??? do you agree with it???
Isnt that seeding hatred??? couldn’t that lead to another holocaust aswell???
AND SINCE when did Techcrunch become so politically involved in worldly affairs?
FYI I believe the Holocaust did happen for sure no doubt 100%…and i pray to God it does not happen again to any nation or race.
What about the christian right-to-life the blows up and kills doctors, nurses and patients that do abortion?
So all christian groups need to be banned to, right.. since they are anti pro-choice and have been linked to bombing/terrorists and terrorism.
We all believe in free speech until an act of free speech encroaches upon something we hold sacred, then we find technicalities to exclude that offensive speech.
That’s what’s happening here. Jewish people tend to be preemptively sensitive about issues of the Holocaust or Israel’s occupation. The Israeli government censors almost all news about human rights abuses and military atrocities in Gaza etc, in the name of “security”. It’s somewhat understandable, but in the long run doomed to fail.
I don’t know if Michael is Jewish, and don’t care, but there seems to be a bias here that goes beyond genuine concern for the public welfare and internet expression.
Opinions are not equal to racism, sexism and other hate-based believes. Any “opinion” which purpose is to deny the rights of other individuals or group of individuals should not be permitted.
not so fast there. Big holes can be poked in that. I have the opinion, for example, that committing certain crimes should lead to a person being denied rights (prison). Under your argument that opinion shouldn’t be permitted.
The key here, if we must debate it on legal grounds, is that this is hate speech (which is easily banned) masquerading as a legitimate debate over a historical event. It’s a sham that needs to be described as what it really is.
I agree. The obvious impliciation of Holocaust denial is that the Jews are engaged in some kind of incredible world-conspiracy, without which it would have been impossible to create the “false history”.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of insanity. And there’s a point when you’ve got to be pragmatic about free speech, even. The nazis came to power democratically, lest we forget.
@Joseph
… umm…. no it’s not actually, those are your thoughts. If you’re genuinely interested in a more interesting approach, check out Holocaust Industry by Normal Finkelstein:
http://en.wikip...ocaust_Industry
… oh I forget. TC readers don’t read books! They’re all 30 and Google stuff up, and then they think they’re as educated as anyone has ever been.
Yeah Mike is right on this one. That dude made no sense.
well said michael. and joseph. why are all these other people so ridiculously ignorant and naive? ive tried to answer this question for a long time and perhaps the only answer is that these people have somehow lost some portion of their free will and cannot think clearly. the “NotADenierOfAnything”s and the “facebookwhatever”s of the world need to reclaim their free will somehow and lift the mask which covers their eyes from seeing the clear and indisputable truth. i wonder if these people also think OJ was innocent. after all, he fwas found to be not guilty by the jury so i guess that means he didnt do it, right? I rly have a passionate hate of naivety… sry for the rant
@Jason. I actually don’t think they’re any different than anyone else. In fact, this kind of insanity can affect even the most intelligent and well-educated among us. Basically, I believe it is just people getting lost and latching onto crazy ideas. Sometimes that’s militant Islam or Crusadist Christianity. And sometimes its anti-Semitism.
The unfortunate truth is, almost no one is immune to this stuff, and that is why the ideas are so extremely dangerous.
I completely agree with this point. For the second time in recent days i feel compelled to congratulate michael arrington. Well done on standing up against this shit. This is hate speech and one of the few topics banned around the world in otherwise liberal, free speech supporting countries. There’s no place in the world for this, becuase it isn’t even debate, this is nazism masquerading as debate, which is incredibly dangerous.
Holocaust never ever equaled with Jews only. Holocaust meant Eastern European minorities including Gypsies, Jews etc. minorities.
While Holodomor killed up to ten million people in Ukraine just because Stalin decided to collectivise Ukraine’s agriculture.
Holocaust have been denied by Eastern Europeans for a very simple reason. Even Stalin had his hands full during the 30’s Great Purge in Russia. How many he killed? How many did he send to concentration camps starting from the beginning of the 30’s?
6 000 000 is overestimated number by far. Hitler was a little boy compared to Stalin and Soviet concentration camps. He couldn’t kill 6 000 000 even if he desired to do during 39-45. There was no time, no way to kill them ( gas? ROFL ) and they as many other Eastern Europeans were used as workers in concentration camps rather than just killing them massively.
Numbers are irrelevant.
Here the world saw a systemic killing of a segment of people.
Freedom of speech is not the discussion. The discussion here revolves primarily around the fact that this speech of hatred and Holocaust denial is a jumping board for the further destruction of the Jewish people.
(BTW 6,000,000 is an underestimate)
Sure thing!
Let’s overlook :
Darfur
Sri Lanka
Eastern Europe
Rwanda
Mozambique
Balkan – Bosnians
Zanzibar
Japanese
Palestinians
Syrians
Now let’s make laws just to keep Jewish fine and let them continue to kill innocent people at Middle – East? While overlooking people who need help AT THE MOMENT. Who are KILLED by their own people like in Sri Lanka and Dafur AT THE MOMENT.
These conflicts never matter of course just to keep the “underestimated” “6 000 000 Jews were sent into gas chambers and ovens by Hitler himself”. There were no 6 000 000 Jews in Europe. Underestimated? Im laughing out loud.
There were about 50 million killed in Eastern European front total. Soldiers and civilians.
50 million :
1) Stalin’s Great Purge started at 1930’s
2) Holodomor. Ukraine’s people were left starving. Up to 10 million died because there was no food.
3) Frontline. Germans attacked Soviets 1941 up to Moscow and St. Petersburg. Soviets attacked back at 1944. Killed tens of millions of civilians
4) Concentration camps at Eastern Europe
That 4 points resemble 50 million people.
If you come to me after my grandparents and relatives were sent to concentration camps at Siberia and start telling how OVER 6 MILLION Jews were killed in somewhere gas chambers then I say your just plain too dumb. Overlooking the fact that Eastern Europeans who were relocated or sent to prison camps and who happened not to be Jews is just plain dumb.
You take that 6 000 000 out of think air. That’s it. My grandfather was in Siberia with around 15 000 prisoners at concentration – work camp and it was huge area. Mind telling me where do you put “over” 6 000 000 Jews? ROFL
What’s your point: that you’re a retard?
I’m sorry, but I think this is a ridiculous article.
For a start, describing people who accept that these people should be able to voice their opinions as “pro-Holocaust deniers” is offensive and intellectually dishonest.
More importantly, though, the best way to beat these disgusting views is to throw light on them, and to watch them whither under scrutiny. Attempting to ban a conversation about any other contentious issue would tend to demonstrate a paucity in the argument of the person trying to do the banning. Here there is clearly no such paucity – the Holocaust clearly happened – but all you are doing is giving credence to the denial argument by trying to suppress it.
First rule of trolling: ignore them and they will go away.
Yes, exactly.
You’re an idiot….both of you.
The issue isn’t about the opinion…. THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT’S HATE SPEECH.
There’s a reason why hate speech is banned in many countries and is supposed to be banned on Facebook….because it almost always leads to violence, you morons.
Read the post. I never said the issue was about the opinion.
Hate speech is clearly unpleasant, but it should never be banned. There is a clear delineation between hate speech and speech that incites violence. They are *not* the same thing.
Also…morons? Grow up.
Yeah, I HATE Violence. So much so, I will beat up anyone who even thinks about being violent.
Well there’s a boatload of hate groups across facebook targeting all races,ethnicities and religions. Now I know most people care more about the holocaust than say islamophobia,but I think the message should be more “no more hate groups”.I actually stand by facebook on this one.Its either freedom of speech or no hate speech.No favoritism.
that would also be in compliance with their own terms of service, which they are choosing to ignore in this case.
People deny many things, so why only this?!
I understand that someone who hate Jews will deny the holocaust.
But not everyone denying it hates the Jews, or wants them to be wiped of the planet!
At least try to convince us, don’t just tell us!
If you debate the Gravity laws, that doesn’t mean you hate Newton!
Now if you want the “physical threats” for example to be deleted, I’m with you. But don’t fight the freedom of thoughts and speech.
..
And about the breastfeeding photos. Yeah, it’s natural.
But so is the sexual intercourse, and child birth
But that doesn’t mean that i can show pictures of it on my page!
You are exactly right about FB being able to ban nipple shots, just as they have a right to censor any posts that do specifically incite violence and or directly oppress, without scholarly evidence. Free speech is the right to say anything you want, but there is an inherent responsibility of each poster to know whether what they are saying is germaine. As far as FB’s reps specifically saying that holocaust deniers are stupid, whether true or not, they bear the burden of being a non-biased party when commenting from a professional standpoint. If they are to personally comment then they should do so as a private party and not as a business.
“But I actually think even engaging in this debate is dangerous.”
Refusing to refute the arguments of others only makes their case, no matter how stupid it may be, look better.
The Holocaust happened because anyone who wanted to speak out was afraid. The Holocaust happens when you stop people from speaking out.
“Holocaust denial is a seed. A seed that will grow into a fully bloomed second Holocaust if ever allowed to germinate.”
This comment actually offends me. The world is not so hell bent on hating Jewish people that they are looking for an excuse. Any Holocaust denial movement that began to gain respect and power would be fought tooth and nail by many and millions of others who believe in the rights of every man to live a happy life. This seed will not germinate because there are people like me who would not stand for it and are united with you for its prevention. But please don’t alienate us by acting as if we do not stand strong with you.
I don’t expect you to agree with me for the moment and that’s fine, I’m not actually saying you are wrong. Most Holocaust denial groups are full of idiots who do nothing but spread hate, certainly outside of the bounds of the TOS and rightfully deleted. But please don’t alienate the people who stand with you by acting as if we could be so fleeced by a Hitler once again. I choose to think the world has learned something from this experience and that my fellow Americans at least, as troubling as their decisions may be at times, are not so stupid as to fall into this same trap. Perhaps I’m too optimistic, but I choose to believe that strong speakers like us do tremendously more than simply blocking out the problem ever could, and that the people cannot be so easily fooled.
Yes, you’re being too optimistic. People are getting fooled non-stop about everything and they don’t even realize it.
Heck, almost everyone still think that vaccines are safe and effective… just proving how easy it is to fool everyone. It’s easy to fool people that don’t care all that much about anything except their own comfort. It is easy to fool people who “educate” themselves through CNN and don’t make the effort to think by themselves and read independent sources. Moreover, people have a natural tendency to follow. If others (authorities like government, medias, scientists, religion) tell them to believe a particular thing, they will believe that particular thing because that’s the easiest thing to do.
Exactly like the “elevator experiment” : A man enters in the elevator and he sees that everyone is standing at the opposite side of the door. The man looks confused at first but slowly… he turns around and do like everyone else.
It is sad to say but right now I would certainly not put my trust in people to prevent a second holocaust. If it only remains small facebook groups then there is no problem. But if for whatever reason, an “authority” like the government would decide to join them, the rest of people would slowly turn around and do as instructed. It is easy to fool people that don’t care enough about important issues.
I was an optimistic guy in the past too… but the more I read and discover the world as it really is, I have to conclude that humanity doesn’t learn all that much from their past mistakes.
Sorry… It was a bit off-topic but still relevant I think.
I appreciate your point of view but I feel you don’t quite disagree with me either:
“If it only remains small facebook groups then there is no problem.”
That’s precisely what I’m saying, really. That we’ve got to convince people on the streets that they are crazy so no government can ever fleece the people in the way you describe.
perhaps you would appreciate that going by your argument, it is possible that you may have been “fooled” into believing the anti-anti-jew propaganda. (a full fledged “authority” called israel is involved in “telling” you things)
the world does not have enough free time to keep conspiring against the “great” jews.
Get over *your hatred* and you will find that the human beings are crazy but not that bad to live with on this planet.
I’m not going to discuss the Jews Vs Muslims issue with you. The point I’m trying to get across is that most people will slowly change their way of thinking according to what the authorities are telling them. History has proven this numberous times.
Like I said, my post was a bit off-topic and I was directly responding to Eric remark : “[...] people cannot be so easily fooled.”
other genocides have happened since WWII (don’t we learn?):
-Rwanda
-Darfur
-Zanzibar
-West Papua
-Bangladesh
-Eastern Europe [under Stalin]
-Burundi
-Kurds
-Bosnia and Herzegovina
We were clearly fooled into thinking there were WMDs in Iraq!
@Frank
So, your argument is that having Facebook groups is fine, but a government official could join one of those groups and then everyone becomes an anti-semite and Holocaust denier?
“And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.” – Trent Lott, speaking about the racist Dixiecrat ticket of 1948
Due to extreme public backlash over that comment, he resigned as Senate Majority Leader exactly 15 days later.
I don’t think people are as easily swayed as you want to believe.
It’s hard to justify the Isreali state tho. It’s hard to justify mass murderers in Gaza Strip and Palestine.
It’s hard to justify financial criminals like Madoff who blow 50 billion and get help by the New York Stock Exchange and are only “GROUNDED in their luxury houses”
Ever wonder how many people have died because of this Financial Crisis and how many Madoff’s there are?
I can tell you that sending aid to African, South American and South Asian poor countries has dropped dramastically.
Go and say to Darfur people, Sri Lankan people that sorry we can’t send you aid anymore because of the Wall Street retards.
What does justifying Israel have to do with Holocust denial? What “mass murders” are you speaking of? More muslims are killed each year by other muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan than were killed by Israel in the last 9 years combined. Not to mention the fact that the large majority of them were terrorists.
You’re just spewing more anti-semitic crap. Most of Madoff’s big victims are prominent Jews and Jewish charities whose contributions have basically ended as a result.
Stick to the subject!
The State of Isreal was based on the “6 000 000 Jews were killed, they suffered SO much more than any others and now we need to give them a State to live at”. Not because “Bible – the book – says so”
And so Isreal was born just to start bullying countries and people surrounding them .
Learn to spell, moron.
We can DISAGREE with other religious beliefs.
We must not DISRESPECT other religious beliefs.
Hence, true Muslims must remove Jewish and Christian references from Quran.
Catholic Church has already done that.
http://tr.im/kWxV
“If my religion is true, it will stand up to all my questioning; there is no need to fear.” — Unknown
Have you met a Jew? Oh wait, your best friend’s a Jew, right?
This is an extremly important topic. It’s not about being stupid or not. It happened in Germany in the 1930’s, it can occur anywhere, we cannot let that happen, and we need to stand-up.
I’m going to make myself clear: I love Facebook. But deleting my Facebook account is the only way to protest, so if this issue is not resolved, I’ll do that and convince my friends to do the same and find another way to get in touch with them.
I will delete my Facebook account if this issue is not resolved, and if such groups promoting hate are not prohibited. It’s that simple.
I believe that would be the 1940’s, 1940-45 to be more precise.
Cmon, dont let historical accuracy get in the way of the facts!!
i encourage you to keep your word.
I don’t understand how that helps. No one at the Facebook office is going to notice if you cancel your account, and you’re effectively silencing your own voice against this issue. Speaking out is better than remaining silent, let’s debate this issue openly and show these deniers how ignorant they are!
I think it would be useful to look at the US legal picture here to understand why this is happening. I am assuming, and I have not researched this, that Facebook is not a publisher but a “platform” protected under the safe harbours of DMCA.
Nipples are banned presumably because of child protection legislation (COPA) in the US so that they can avoid people certifying they are over 18. Nipple banning can be done in a systemic way i.e. using software. What’s the point ? It does not threaten their position as a neutral tech platform.
Holocaust denial must fall into a category where the law forces them to act. Incitation to hatred is certainly enough grounds to act in the EU, not sure about the US. But does Holocaust Denial per se invite hatred ? Mike’s point is well made that there are no examples that I know of of historians who do not agree with the Endlosung as a project. But would the court consider that being a “mere” denialist makes you an inciter ? Probably not.
I have a feeling that FB is in a tough position where it cannot be seen to moderate content so as not to screw up its “platform” positioning. If it starts to actively moderates, it might be considered a “publisher” and hence responsible to all that happens on FB (child grooming anyone ?). Think of the recent Ebay, IMEEM, YouTube travails and you will see it’s not a theoretical debate.
For my part I think Facebook shows us humanity in all its gloryand misery, and reminds us of the horrors bestowed upon us, often in the name of God and sometimes in his absolute absence. Let’s fight the Denialists, not the Platform.
When in a tough position, all you have to do is the right thing. Everything else will work itself out.
If you are about doing the right thing – then when in a tough position all you have to do is just that.
Facebook is again simply acting in its best interest – which has nothing to do with what is right, what is good nor what is in the interests of it’s users.
Are you still active on facebook? Is it the right thing for you to do? Or are you too willing to turn the other cheek because facebook, doing the wrong thing, is also still in your best interest.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Facebook is just a case in point. Peel a few more layers off this onion and you will find questions on the nature and intent of internet, business, society … and eventually (faster then you think) you will run into yourself and the choices you make.
Talking about the right thing is fairly easy to do. Doing it … well… give it a try and see what happens.
Simplifying the debate is the prerogative of “he-who-does-not-take-the-decision”. That’s why e.g. those in power always disappoint those who voted for them.
FB can start interacting with user content ad-hoc and next year possibly shut it down. I would be a grand gesture for sure and possibly a great ethical statement (”FB commits suicide to draw the line under Holocaust Denial”) but if they become a publisher and get condemned, the whole world will sue them.
It ain’t that simple.
FB could compromise and have only 1 token holocaust denial group, just to remind us all how stupid they are, look and think. Ezra Callahan should be able to realize that by concentrating this denial and poison in one place, you get to keep it under control, just like you get to keep a tumour under control.
I’d like to see the main idiot come out in public and complain about not having enough ’space’ when that forum really experiences some freedom of speech .
Facebook is doing the right thing.
… the reasoned, moral compass of ‘Victoria’ speaks!
This is the best post I have read from you.
I think he important point you make is about the seeding if the idea and letting people subscribe to the idea. Sure most people know they are stupid, but what if they convert people into their way of thinking?!
That needs looked at.
It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some people will go to claim deniability as a fact.
Well done Mike for speaking out in such a logical and well thought out manner. I hope the ‘tin ears’ over at FB are listening.
@CLS – individuals are just that – individuals regardless of the religion they are born into. Their bad behavior should be attributed to the choices they have made.
It sounds like you are blaming the Wall Street mess entirely on the Jewish population forgetting how many other nationalities and religious convictions make up the powerful individuals on Wall Street. They are not all Jewish.
I am a Jew and I agree with this article, but I dont think its very TechCrunch like and would have prefered to have read this article somewhere else.
I disagree. I am happy that Michael Arrington posted this. Continue until you bring FB to their knees.
There is a statement said regarding history, “Those that ignore history are bound to repeat its mistakes”
Let us all learn from history or we will all suffer from its mistakes.
Apart from the common mistake between race and religion, Mike is right on the main point: more than any other topic, anti-jews attitude is quick to resurface, despite what happened and despite the progress made in fighting it.
But he is wrong on how to prevent it. There are laws in many countries that have been passed to condemn people crossing the line. And these laws are actively enforced by authorities. It is up to the judicial system to ban those groups, this is not the task of a badly-trained Facebook staff member following the imprecise and ever-morthing sites’s terms of use.
Mike, I’m 100% behind you here in principle, but my concern is with general freedom of speech, and specifically, who decides where the line is.
While I think any rational person would be happy to eliminate any manner of Holocaust-denial from Facebook or any social network, what next? Where do we draw the line on moral acceptability? Is it just here, with this, or does the slippery slope of which you speak flow both ways?
This is a bit of tangent, but you may recall the incident with the Girls Aloud ‘torture porn’ case (BBC: http://news.bbc...yne/7684327.stm). Now this story is a minor distraction compared to the broader issue of Holocaust denial but it caused an uproar on the internet when it broke, not because of what the (clearly deranged) chap in question had decided to write, but because his right to do so was being question. The content was, for many, less of an issue than his legal position to be able to share it.
I think Facebook should employ great caution when it comes to the limits of tolerance regarding any kind of ‘hate’ group on the network, but the right to voice an opinion is not something that can be easily denied without significant repercussion for all of us, not just those we desire to silence. I also suggest that because FB have closed down some groups that got “got more out of hand” they are acting somewhat responsibly.
I concur that Facebook’s stance on the breastfeeding issue is a nonsense but these are apples and oranges comparisons. I very much doubt that Facebook blocks any groups (or individuals) that choose to discuss breastfeeding, which is a truer context than your example.
That said, let me ask you this: if they lifted the ban on the breastfeeding pictures, would you yourself be prepared to turn a blind eye to the groups that discuss/endorse Holocaust-denial? Would you accept a Facebook that had an ‘anything goes’ attitude to morality (somewhat similar to how CompuServe used to be in chat rooms), or will you only accept a Facebook that mirrors your own?
I think Arrington was arguing that Facebook is being idiotic in both instances of Holocaust denial and breast feeding. Not that you let one issue slide if the other were fixed. Besides…
Breastfeeding is not a crime.
Hate speech is a crime.
Breastfeeding is only being used to show how Facebook has no sane rhyme or reason to their judgement.
I’m not sure where I stand on this. Despite having a Jewish education for most of my life, my first thought was: “Pshh, why worry about Holocaust denial? Anyone who knows anything knows that it happened.”
And yeah, that’s true right now: only ~60 years after the Holocaust, anyone who knows anything knows it happened because there are still people around who saw it happen, who had relatives who died, etc. My grandpa, whose parents and seven sisters all died in the Holocaust, is still around. It clearly happened when people lived through it. Millions of people don’t just make this stuff up…
But the scary thing is that in 50 years, it might not be nearly as obvious. Hmm.
What I’m wondering is: how does Facebook decide which Holocaust denial group should be removed (which they sometimes do if members are “promoting hate and/or violence”) and which ones stay on?
How can you pour this into a policy? I’m guessing you can’t, which means these are decisions being made by individuals, but on what grounds?
That’s exactly why I wouldn’t touch this if I were FaceBook.
Facebook is a platform. It’s a soapbox. It’s like newspaper pulp. It’s made up of web servers.
It is NOT an editorial service.
Mike said it himself – he went out and read all these hate-group pages. It’s not like they came to him. He sought it out. I have never ever ever been offended by one of these morons, because I don’t waste my time on their crap (except on occasion to laugh at their idiocy).
If you want to not be offended by the morons, don’t waste your time on them.
We should end this discussion now, because we’re only giving the morons attention. Morons wouldn’t find other morons, except that we provide free advertising for them.
I think there is another issue here. It’s not just about free speech – it’s about the moral responsibility of Facebook owners for what appears on their website. I used to run a blog for a long time and struggled with this issue – to what extent was I responsible for hateful things that commenters said on the blog. They weren’t my comments. They weren’t my opinions. I enjoyed debate and fully believe that the best way to tackle idiots like holocaust deniers is to take them on directly and show evidence as to why they are wrong. BUT BUT BUT that didn’t change the fact that it was my blog, and if someone found a comment on it that was deliberately cruel then I was responsible for that appearing on the web. As time went on I became increasingly willing to delete comments that amounted to hate. It was my blog and my responsibility to ensure that whatever appeared on it was fair and responsible. “Free speech” is just a cop-out that allows the internet to descend into a school yard fight where the bullies win and the lowest common denominator prevails. I don’t think anyone should make any apology for demanding high standards and fair rules of engagement.
Facebook should step up. Instead their arguments are ludicrously inconsistent. If they are seriously, equating breast feeding with pornography, it illustrates exactly how immature these frat boys really are. They have huge power. If they won’t exercise it responsibly, someone will take it off them.
As someone said on the previous post- with great freedom comes great responsibility.
Great post Michael.
Ditto!
To deny the occurance of the Holocaust is like denying the that the earth is round!
If it wasn’t true, why would people in countries all over the world still be talking about its horrors?
And where did the photographs & historical texts come from?
LIES eventually die, but TRUTH lives forever.
I deny the existence of the whole 20th Century. It was all just a bad dream.
Common sense : if you want peace then you have to be peaceful. Yelling things like Holocaust while killing Palestines, Syrians, Egyptians and other innocent people at Middle – East does not get Jews any respect.
Wall Street and Jews? During Jewish holidays trading is stopped purely on the basis that there would be no point for trading. Wall Street has tons of Jews.
And I did in particular point out Madoff, who is a Jew, who is a criminal and who scammed 50 billion dollars and is getting away with it.
Terrible analogy. Wall Street has other religions as well and Madoff could have been a Christian or some other religion and nothing would have changed. Madoff is not getting away with what he did.
Wall Street has never closed on a Jewish Holiday. Your statement of fact has no truth to it what so ever and nothing to back it up.
Your comment is inflammatory and racist.
Perhaps we need a Facebook court of sorts to take our grievances to.
By the way United States dropped two nuclear bombs and kept Japanese at concentration camps like they did with indians and kept blacks as slaves.
Since when are the Jews only ones who suffered?
This whole post was made up to bring fierce battle between commentators. A so called sensation to keep TwitterCrunch’s readers numbers from tanking any further.
What next? Politics?
Extremely poor example…
- The Japanese declared war on the US (i.e. Pear Harbor).
- 6 million jews were slaughtered and tortured for no reason other than they shared a common religion — in an attempt to wipe out an entire religion.
One is warfare, and one is genocide.
How do you even begin to compare the two events is beyond me.
Nuclear bombs killed civilians. War or not you don’t mass murder civilians.
Genocide? Wonder how many genocides are at the moment going on without big countries stepping in?
The Second World War wasn’t started by Hitler and Stalin on the purpose of killing as many Jews as possible. Gays, Gypsies and other “Non Arian” people were treated the same way. Instead they don’t get any laws that would help them or even bring it up.
Instead Stalin and Soviets were treated as heroes and war winners who happened to kill and torture tens of millions of Eastern European people.
There are even statues for these soldiers who bravely killed, raped and tortured civilians in Eastern Europe countries up to this day. Guess what? There are no laws bringing this theme even up. How sick is it?
Michael,
Is it possible that you can clarify to us non-lawyers of how FB violates the law here? If it is the hate speech they’re violating, tell us here of the specific section, act and clauses in the law book that says what FB is doing is illegal in allowing holocaust denial?
It is hard to put forward an argument, with out knowing what FB has actually violated according to some specific act, section , clauses, etc, in the law.
I tend to agree with FB here, and as Voltaire once quoted, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it“, which is still true today. I’ll have to wait and see your detail explanation of the law here regarding FB’s approval of holocaust denial groups posting messages on their site.
uhh…He never said it was against the law. In fact, he clarified (in a previous post) that private websites get to make their own rules. The face that many countries ban hate speech only illustrates that Facebook is ignorant of the issues here.
He was just saying that Holocaust Denial violates their own Terms of Service….which specifically bans hate speech.
Basically, he’s saying that you have to be pretty ignorant to not see how Holocaust Denial isn’t hate speech….(The same kind of ignorance that bans photos of breast feeding).
Freedom of speech is not Freedom of saying whatever you want. Facebook has a moral duty to shut down those hate groups. I can’t believe breast feeding is more important to them than holocaust denial. Something is really F…D up with the law
great post mike. your best
Ouriel – the law is not (and never has been) about what is right. At best it is about how to punish what is wrong. Between what is wrong and what is right there is a huge gap – that can only be filled by personal responsibility and choice.
There is nothing f—-d up with the law but there is definitely something f—-d up if people expect it to take over their personal moral responsibilities.
Making this a debate about wrong or right is empty and pointless and walking into exactly the same trap Michael wisely avoids in the article.
The thing to do is ask yourself what is your position on this and what to do about it?
Are you still active on facebook?
Ouriel said…
Freedom of speech is not Freedom of saying whatever you want.
We all know that and that’s why I asked Michael in my previous message if he can clarify what’s the actual law that FB has been violating?
Freedom to speak of anything may lead to defamation. Defaming is not free speech and that’s why I agree with you that freedom of speech is not freedom of saying whatever you want to say. But, in this case, FB is not defaming anyone, so it would be better if Michael can elaborate a bit more of what FB has actually been violating according to the law book?
He never said Facebook was violating the law (see my post above). He made it very clear that it’s the Terms of Service that should be examined and enforced, in this case.
There are huge regional differences in what is socially acceptable in conversation, however the web has opened up communications and now cultural differences come into stark focus.
In some cultures it’s just not a big deal to make anti jew/racist/sexist remarks. In our small town there will be a gay pride event during the summer – the local council has requested 1000 riot police attend – being openly gay is not socially acceptable and people will be in danger. Some people just make anti gay comments on forums, but this will lend support to those who would make physical attacks.
The problem that Facebook is experiencing now is an indication of future trends – as the web internationalises (with English as the most common language) we will have to negotiate huge cultural differences.
I agree with Facebook on this one. On balance, it is preferable to allow people to express their views – no matter how ignorant, stupid or insane – than to censor them. Holocaust deniers and anti-semites expressing their views on Facebook are opening themselves up to public ridicule.
In the words of Voltaire: “Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire” – I hate what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.
Geoffrey -
I have been following this with very mixed emotions and can’t seem to find my footing on it. It’s a tough line to draw. I think your Voltaire quote really reflects well on the right position to take. It’s the high road. Are we capable of taking it? I am trying to figure that out. Because those comments make me as mad as everyone else.
Great post and courageous position.
Come on ! Give us a break.
Do you know how many sites I have seen around telling the most terrible things about Islam ?
Would you think anybody would ever think of possibly being able to ban them ?
I agree with Michael that it’s a disgusting Facebook decision. Doesn’t hate speech violate their terms of service, as other posters have pointed out? All hate groups should be eliminated from Facebook, plain and simple.
Bizarre and unbelievable.
Nicola you miss the point of the anti – gay people.
People are against gay pride events simply because the impact that it can have to young people.
Normal people don’t hate gays, they just don’t like the gay events. Gays don’t need to show off themselves by doing a big parade.
CLS–interesting to see you hiding behind a non-identifiable user handle. If you feel so strongly about your POV, make your comment using your FB credentials. Game?
(btw, I’m Israeli which I think technically makes me a super Jew, sans cape)
I think you´ve just justified CLS´claim for anonimity.
Why first of all anonymous comments allowed here? And TC people need to grow up.
Well said CLS, i also hate noisy gay promoters, even noisy non-gay people who promote loudly.
Great way of justifying CLS’s decision to post anonymously.
What was your plan ? Sending mean messages or attacking him personally in public ?
Grow up.
Nonsense. I’m questioning the convenience of hiding behind anonymity while claiming that the targeting of ethnic groups is legitimate.
I haven’t experienced too much personal antisemitism, but I can tell you this: it was always either by a group of people banding together, or by anonymous individuals. NEVER by single person that was proactive in identifying himself.
Az ani maniah she noladeta kan, ve ein leha musag kalush ma ze beemet antishemiut, ve lo halahta makot biglal she ata “JID” betor yeled, ve lo halhta makot ki ata “Rusi Masrih” betor naar.
So get off your theoretical antisemitism high tree.
Online anonymity is important, and it helps people like him, which are entitled to their opinion, avoid being harassed and contacted personally by people like yourself.
So what do you think of Israel, Ando ?
Adrian, I live deep behind the green line. Sorta speaks for itself, doesn’t it ?
Cheers
You’d hope so, non-Muslim whiteys such as us wouldn’t do too well beyond it.
Roi Carthy is a stalker and harasser.
What is this “impact” you speak of?
>>>But I actually think even engaging in this debate is dangerous.
These are those little and “innocent” beginnings of fascism – the idea that some ideas are so dangerous that people should not be allowed to discuss them, which means that there has to be some higher people to decide which ideas should be banned to those lower people. Who is the higher people? You? Isn’t this kind of sorting people what started the holocaust in the first place?
I am a Jew who grew up in a totalitarian country and this is what makes me scared – not those idiots who deny the existence of holocaust despite all the evidence. Because this makes me feel like Jew again – I am just a lower form of life who is to be governed by some higher authority who gets to decide which ideas and which groups on Facebook should be banned.
Let people talk and nothing is going to happen except a few fools shouting out and every one else ignoring them. Try to ban them – and you give them exactly what they want – they will use it as a proof that the conspiracy really exists and they are good guys just fighting for the right to know the truth. That’s how they gain power… and that’s how we loose our freedoms.
Please just ignore them – that’s what they deserve. Fighting fascism by making a fascist of yourself banning ideas – that’s a sure way to hell.
I 100% agree with you…
Again, completely agree with Michael’s argument…
1. Facebook breast feeding nipple pics ban enforcement is proof that effective control on hate content is possible.
2. Facebook’s argument is pandering to an twisted and flawed version of “liberal political correctness” while genuine liberals would never side with those who want to wipe out a ethnic-religious group.
Breast feeding pix are hate content?
No, but enforcement of the ban proves that content can be effectively moderated.
A genuine classic liberal would never side with removing unpopular speech. These principles are exactly why we allow the KKK to flounder around instead of shutting them down.
A modern liberal of course would ask which side his Union political donors wanted him to take.
Arrington’s being neither in this case, just pathetically short-sighted. TechCrunch was better before it became an anti-free speech site.
Very well put, Mike.
Facebook sounds like they’re trying to claim the moral high ground by allowing free speech at all costs, but in reality nobody can do that.
I’m quite sure if a user makes personal threats against another individual, FB would have no problem removing that user.
Even if you were to allow these evil groups to exist, many of the comments on them amount to nothing more than threats – but on a much larger scale.
The line has to be (and is being) drawn somewhere. Facebook have chosen to draw it in entirely the wrong place.
I also wonder what the legal position is for FB in those countries where holocaust denial is against the law. By acknowledging the existence of these groups but refusing to do anything about them, are they liable?
Michael,
Totally agree with you.
This is going to hurt, but until FB stops this crap I’m boycotting their site!
I know that this sort of crap is illegal in Germany, possibly once a country threatens FB with litigation they might remove these hate groups.
Nothing like threating a company’s image on a global scale to cause a change in policy.
I guess I’m going to have to move all my social media action to Twitter
good riddance.
oh, and get your english right (threating??)
i’m sure they will simply block the content from being accessed in those countries, and allow citizens of countries with real free speech to make their own minds up about this issue.
by the way, no one will miss you on facebook. boycott if you like, it’s really your loss. besides, you were likely replaced thousands of times over in the time it took you to type your ill-thought out response.
Just curious why you all keep bringing up the breast-feeding photo argument. It really has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing Holocaust deniers. I understand the motivation, but honestly it just looks like you’re taking potshots in some sort of smear campaign and at the same time diverting attention from the real issue.
exactly, it’s not the same debate.
Honestly, we just have to do a short mental experiment. If facebook had to block these sorts of groups in certain countries–say, the 11 that ban this sort of “speech” already–or be in violation of local laws and liable for large monetary damages, would they ban these groups? withdraw from those countries? make these groups visible wherever they were not explicitly banned? I think it’s pretty clear that, rather than lose money, they would ban these groups as part of their terms of service and cite the overhead, costs, and “impossibility” of policing so many groups individually (despite their ability to police, for example, private photos or their heavy-handed manual intervention with individuals accounts).
Now, where does the stance of the company come from, then? Simply put, I think that people at facebook actually feel better about themselves for doing what they view as the “hard thing” … facebook employees, I’m willing to bet, feel as if they are better for having staved off the “easier” solution that has less P.R. damage. Especially if the person making the decision feels that they are flying in the face of their own self-interest. It’s human nature to feel better about doing something difficult if it helps you show how you think about things larger than yourself.
Personally, I’m not using these to scenarios to attack or defend facebook’s position, but I agree that the debate seems to be stifled.
The moral counterbalance, to me, is weighing the ubiquity of facebook and how easy the site makes it to organize and form a community (and how much these conveniences aid hatred and more serious consequences) versus having these groups visible and, potentially, moderated or monitored–I don’t think it’s a serious point that people this disconnected from reality can be converted by having dozens of well-intentioned facebook denizens shower them with facts.
Personally, as someone who has personal connections to the issue, I would prefer this sort of thing be banned. I don’t think that, if “boobs and penises” can be banned, there can’t also be a blacklist of racist terms and slurs that form a rubric of demarcation for what speech is acceptable for a site that is meant to appeal to everyone. Threats against users are also good ways to separate “allowed” from “disallowed” … If people want to have a civil, facts-and-figures based discussion on their denial of tragic historical events, then that probably makes the cut as repugnant but not banned. Although, as Michael had stated, the debate and the hate are usually found together… So this remaining group would likely be very small.
Maybe facebook should start rating groups content, if they refuse to ban based on objective criteria. Certainly, if one’s 13 year old child is on the site, a parent should be comfortable they won’t be seeing this sort of thing.
-DJT
Well said DJT.
Thanks David! Glad you agree.
But arent FB users supposed to be 18 and above?
Well, High School’s are valid networks and educational institutions, so I would guess that, while it may technically be a restriction, it isn’t a true one and isn’t enforced.
Mike, I respect your willingness to speak up on such a serious non tech topic. Freedom is such a precious gift we each possess. When we govern our speech with the principle of treating others the way we would like to be treated, doesn’t it stand to reason that we would be deeply hurt & shocked when we saw others writing about how they hate us & wouldn’t mind seeing us exterminated?
For Facebook to actually live in some world of denial is ridiculous but not surprising, I suppose, from a group of ‘inexperienced in life’ people … of which from the CEO on down seem to fill the hallways of that organization.
This is a very odd post, especially since Michael is a lawyer. Why would anyone want to ban people just for opinions, no matter how controversial [to be clear, i don't support the deniers]?
Removal of pornographic (or questionable) content from facebook is understandable for me because facebook is one of the few sites where teenagers hang out a lot – and i understand facebook is pushing it to the limit because they have corporate interest in that. If facebook decided to ban holocaust deniers, they would also have to ban anti-nazi groups and so on and so forth. They simply don’t want to be involved in the flame war.
“they would also have to ban anti-nazi groups”
What’s wrong with that?
Sorry, my mistake.. ANTI nazi groups…
So, it’s okay to ban pro-Nazi groups, which is what you thought the post originally said, but when you realized it said anti-Nazi, that changed your opinion? Basically, you’re saying that it’s perfectly okay to ban groups of people that you simple disagree with.
How very American of you.
@daniel awesome point!
Because banning ant-Nazi groups does not violates the US Law, and providing platform for holocaust deniers does.
It doesn’t matter what I, you, Ezra, Michael or Randi Zuckerberg believe in.
It’s even not questionable, Facebook is not above the law, period.
By providing platform for denying the holocaust they participate in illegal activity.
Really? What law would that be?
“Removal of pornographic (or questionable) content from facebook is understandable for me because facebook is one of the few sites where teenagers hang out a lot”
Oh yes, because there is nothing more damaging to a teenager than seeing a pair of boobs. But by all means they should be allowed to read anti-jew propaganda on Facebook cause that’s not bad. Right. And now I remember what’s wrong with America. We’re more ashamed of a naked body than stupidity. So sad.
The whole issue is a slippery slope. I feel like starting as many offensive Facebook groups as possible to just see which one’s get remove. While the “Boob of the Day” would surely get shut down, I wonder if “Worst Non-White Person of the Day” would?
Would you also criticize hate groups targeted at Racists?
And as a Jew I just want to add – those denial groups does not offend me – your idea that “I actually think even engaging in this debate is dangerous” does.
And BTW – my experience is that people in USA or generally western world who grew up in free world appreciate freedom much less then us who have the experience of living in a country that is not free. You just does not have that experience – to know that terror did not start out of pure hate – it was started and supported by people who truly believed (exactly like you believe right now) that they were right, they were fighting for better world and they had a moral right to fight and suppress that evil – the evil being Jews or capitalists or… now Holocaust deniers?
If anybody hurts someone – ok, lets send them to prison. But everybody has the right to talk. Holocaust deniers make you sick – I get it. But that is the point of freedom of speech – that even those whose opinions make you sick are allowed to talk.
You’re my new favorite person in this discussion. Well written. The deniers are wrong, but that doesn’t mean they should be shut up. Someone else made the point that Michael is basically saying “because you say X, you must think Y, and that leads to another holocaust”. I agree with that assessment. Michael is wrong about this.
To the point. Precise. Correct.
another great comment!
Concise and complete.
Good point here. Don’t fight fire with fire.
I am jewish, too, and I am not offended by Holocaust deniers. Actually that’s their problem, not mine.
Western culture grands freemdom of speech. That’s why I shrug my shoulders about ignorants.
Thinking, talking are different things than actually killing people. As long as the difference is intact I don’t fear the deniers – I laugh about them.
Michael Arrington however took a stance in this issue and I don’t think that he shoot against freedom of speech but criticized Facebook’s double standard: close all denial groups or none.
On the other hand, we should not mix the genocide with the Holocaust. Crime remains crime but there is no competition among the dead.
The hollocaust never happened.
Now you have to delete this.
See Michael? That’s why this is a slippery slope. You’re declaring a “war on Holocaust deniers”. You won’t win (ref: war on terror; war on drugs)
Monitor any site as large as Myspace or Facebook and you’ll see just how pointless this argument is.
FB and Myspace can’t even get rid of child porn and spam. Why do you think they can get rid of holocaust deniers? I know your answer, as I’ve heard the logic applied on this site before: “You can’t get rid of all of them, but you can get rid of the big offenders”.
If that’s what you’re looking for, then I guess you’re really just about whether or not you can sleep soundly at night. fight that good fight! Get the gold star! But you’ll still be letting all sorts of hollocaust deniers through. You’ll never stop them.
But if you really are taking facebook to task for not wiping out every instance of holocaust denial, you’re delusional, and a fool. Shit, you can’t (or won’t) even get rid of references to “Nigger” on your own site (and all it would take is a word filter):
http://www.goog...en&filter=0
Facebook set some rules, and is sticking strictly to them, in the same way we hope our government does, and boss does, and our landlords ….
Harrah for them. The holocaust was a horrible thing. But nothing is so horrible that we let fear govern our decisions rather than logic and principle.
Tech news please not political rants. Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries for some reason – surely you’d agree we can think what we like and that thought-crime is a bad idea? There are various views of history – not 1 we should all accept as fact. Personally I think the deniers are misguided racists but even misguided racists ought to be allowed to have opinions.
Thank you Michael for making such a strong stance on this and continuing to cover it.
Never though Techcrunch would publish an article like this. What about the Armenian holocaust, the Rwandan etc etc.
His article was not about the horrible acts that have happened in history but about allowing hate groups to easily and freely spread hate.
and by making this post on techcrunch, michael is doing the exact same thing — easily and freely spread hate.
Wessel you are absolutely right. No one ever cares about these other genocides – Michael thinks that go ahead, you can deny them freely on Facebook and that any other racist or hatred behavior can be tolerated. You can spread any filth against Rwandans, Bengalis, Armenians, Arabs, Muslims, anyone who isn’t Jewish deserves to be attacked and belittled. Deny all their atrocities but don’t dare speak of Jews! They should be treated better and must be protected against any and all criticism.
Why should we treat the Jewish Holocaust any differently than we treat any other Holocausts that are more relevant? What about minorities who are STILL undergoing abuse and genocide, unlike Jews? What about the Kurds (who also suffered a genocide) and whose existence is being threated despite them having no state whatsoever, despite them truly being denied their rights regardless of where they go, despite them having absolutely no aid or protection from foreign powers, unlike the Jews who have considerable more power, a huge military, their own luxurious State.
Please. The level of shit coverage here is just hitting the ground. What an ignorant turd Arrington is.
Instead of wasting our breath on a small set of Holocaust deniers, can we do something about the Kurdish Holocaust *currently in progress*?
Arrington appears to have an agenda to build Twitter up and fling mud on FB — daily.
well put!
The issue at hand was regarding these holocaust denier groups, there was no mention of other issues. No to defend Arrington, but you are speaking out of your ass. Stick to the topic. I mean shall I use this thread to mention how much I want the Lakers to win the championship, perhaps someone reading this will then comment on it.
Marcus – you are a fucking idiot. The entire point about other issues is that if Facebook is compelled to shut down Holocaust denial groups then it should be equally compelled to shut down *ANY* group that espouses similar hate and denial of any other ethnoracial group.
All hell breaks loose in the media whenever any mention is made of the Holocaust, but here are some other equally stupid groups that also deserve to get shut down, but won’t simply because it’s their freedom of speech on Facebook:
http://bit.ly/7aXcW
http://bit.ly/IqzVu
As a universal global social platform you could only allow yourself to police so far.