
Shocking response from Facebook about request to remove this offensive page - nreece
https://twitter.com/tentspitch/status/338244602735779840
======
TomGullen
I believe this is a result from this campaign:
<http://www.womenactionmedia.org/>

I can't get behind this campaign, because a large part of it appears to be
advocating censorship of humour.

The face value difference between genuine hate pages and humour is often
subtle. But their intentions are completely different. A joke, no matter how
crude is not attempting to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable.

Because it's intentions are not to encourage the spread of hatred, it appears
the reason they should be removed is because people are offended by them. If
you find them offensive, don't view them. And I think it's pretty easy not to
view those images unless you go looking for them.

Here's the campaigns 'examples' page:
<http://www.womenactionmedia.org/facebookaction/examples/>

There is a clear overlap between the jokes, and what I would consider hateful.
The majority appear to be bad jokes, and the supporters of the campaign often
(understandably) find it difficult to differentiate between the two.

I can't support censorship of humour, no matter how offended I am by it. The
campaign in my view has failed because it has not clearly defined it's
boundaries, it's going to war with genuine hate pages and bad jokes at the
same time and is causing a lot of confusion in the process.

~~~
RyanZAG
I clicked through that examples page you linked, and I disagree with you about
what these jokes are. Jokes need to be funny, there is very little humor in
"This bitch didn't know when to shut up. Do you?"

I agree with you about not censoring jokes, but seriously.. these are not the
kind of jokes that are worth the time spent looking at them. Would a picture
of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut
up." be a joke? I think not.

~~~
TomGullen
> Jokes need to be funny

No they don't, humour is not objective. Regardless of how distasteful a joke
is, it's intentions are not to incite violent acts. So the only casualty is
how offended you are by them. If they are offensive, simply don't view them
which is very easy to do.

> Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't
> know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.

Honestly I might find it funny, it depends on who executed it, how it was
executed and how it was presented. It would be hard to execute in such a way
where I would find it funny, but it's definitely possible.

Either way I don't think your example is very good. Your presenting an example
of targeting a named individual, and what's actually going on is most of the
'humour' images are targeting demographics.

A better example would be a picture of a bloodied man with the caption "He
still hasn't mowed the lawn" or whatever. I would probably chuckle because the
image was so bizarre but I don't think it should be censored.

~~~
clarkm
Whenever I hear people try to argue that certain jokes "aren't funny" and
therefore shouldn't be permitted, I get the urge to ask them what they think
of postmodern art. I've learned from asking that most people don't hold
consistent positions.

About 100 years ago when Duchamp put a urinal on display and titled it
_Fountain_ , you bet people were screaming "that's not art!" And that was just
the beginning.

There's anti-art and anti-jokes. There's institutional critiques, inside
jokes, and meta-humor. It's not all appropriate, and it's not all good.

The rule is: if you don't get it, then it's not for you.

~~~
TomGullen
Paradoxically I find purposefully unfunny jokes to be some of the funniest

------
tommi
I think this was an excellent response from Facebook. I don't agree with the
message, but I also don't want to increase censorship just because I don't
like what others are saying.

~~~
akie
I strongly disagree with you. How is encouragement to rape ever acceptable?

~~~
ghshephard
It's not "acceptable". It's horrible. It's despicable. It's disgusting - and
the person who posted that picture, and created that picture, should be
ashamed of themselves. Absolutely no reasonable person believes, for even a
second, that that posting shouldn't be taken down, and immediately, and the
person who put it up should also immediately apologize.

The question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down
these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the
original poster.

I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed
to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who
are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be
arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up."

But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument.

[Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read
through <https://twitter.com/sammorril>, and consider whether you believe
twitter should be censoring his posts, for example,
<https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560> is one that I
reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the
Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor
that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't
necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable,
but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating
what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what
circumstances that power to censor should be used.)

~~~
dchest
You're wrong: there can be no arguments about pro-censorship or pro-free
speech regarding this picture. As mentioned right in Facebook's reply, they
_already_ censor content according to their guidelines. The argument is about
whether this picture is "bad" enough to censor it.

~~~
ghshephard
The reason why it's a pro-censorship vs pro-free speech argument, is that
almost everyone (for any reasonable definition of everyone) believes in some
censorship in a civilized society.

The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where
the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship,
you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should,
or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should.
Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are
offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive
speech their right to make it.

------
fastball
I don't think that can even be considered humour, but I also disagree that the
image is "hate speech". Women are not the exclusive victims of rape in any
sense. Ridiculously stupid and unfunny? Yes. Putting down women for being
women? I don't think so.

~~~
skue
> Women are not the exclusive victims of rape.

This is a ridiculously weak argument.

According to RAINN, 9 out of 10 rape victims are women, and the majority of
male victims are either prisoners or children, which is another whole class of
crime in itself.

What is being proposed by the photo (joking or not) is rape against women,
pure and simple. And we have a worldwide epidemic: 1 in 6 women will be
victimized in their lifetime.

Maybe the majority of HN readers are too young or socially isolated to have a
close relationship with a woman who has been a victim. But when you see what
it does to real human beings, then it's hard to be so damn callous about this.

~~~
theorique
The oft-repeated RAINN data is suspect and based on questionable statistics
and speculations. It is certainly not derived from actual criminal reporting
data.

------
qxcv
Here[0] is where Facebook defines what they consider to be "hate speech":

> Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race,
> ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation,
> disability or disease is not allowed. We do, however, allow clear attempts
> at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or
> attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste
> (ex: jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.).

Granted, it's a horribly distasteful image macro, but Facebook acted according
to their written community standards, so I'm not sure why their response is
"shocking". It's also important to bear in mind that the page is titled "
_Offensive_ Humor at its Best", so I'm not sure why it comes as a surprise
that the images are, well, _offensive_.

[0] <https://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490/>

------
cotsuka
I agree encouraging rape is not acceptable. Neither is racism. Or
disrespecting other people. But we have decided that it is better to have
freedom of speech than no freedom of speech. Is Facebook's response in the
right? I think so. We should be angry at the person who put up the photo.

------
venomsnake
So there is something offensive on page called offensive humor at its best ...
surprise.

Now here is the thing with humor and offensiveness = with 7 billion people on
this planet everything is offensive to someone. Also funny to someone else.

This is a stupid joke - ignore it. If it got shared by a friend defriend him.
If it got promoted to you by facebook sponsored - file a complaing. But
trawling on pages for finding something to be offended by - it is way too
close to censorship in my opinion.

------
ColinWright
I offer this as a thought experiment for people on both sides of the debate:

Is it acceptable to shout "Fire!" in a panic-stricken manner in a crowded
theater?

If not, then you accept that there are circumstances when "free speech" is not
applicable. If so, please defend your position, when such an act may lead
almost directly to serious injury and perhaps death.

This question removes the connection with rape and perhaps might help to focus
attention on "speech with consequences".

~~~
pionar
Yes, it's offensive, yes, it's disgusting, but how exactly does it "have
consequences"? Do you really think someone is going to go rape a woman just
because of this tasteless rhyme? That's ridiculous.

~~~
ColinWright
Do you think speech like this has no consequences at all? That's what I'm
trying to find out, whether people believe this sort of thing genuinely has
zero effect.

Personally, I think speech and communication in general goes both ways. It
reflects what the source thinks and feels, and in turn affects what the
listener/reader thinks and feels. I think there is an effect.

Do you think there is none?

And then there is the other aspect. Do you believe that speech with
consequences should be censored or controlled? Or do you believe that all
speech, even shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, should be uncensored and
uncontrolled? You appear not to have answered the question I actually asked.

~~~
glomph
All speech has an effect otherwise no one would bother talking. The question
is not whether it has an effect, but whether it causes enough harm to justify
stopping it. Older than the fire in the theater example (which if I remember
rightly comes from a supreme court case in the US) is John Stuart Mill:

>An opinion that corndealers are starvers of the poor, or that private
property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the
press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob
assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the
same mob in the form of a placard.

But he then of course gives one of the most brilliant defenses of free speech
in all circumstances other than direct harm ever written. Do you think this is
going to cause direct harm?

------
clarkm
I'm just wondering how you come across such a picture on Facebook in the first
place. I imagine you have to go looking for it, considering it's in the group
"Offensive Humor at Its Best," which I doubt anyone would share with their
friends.

The picture was posted on February 12th [1], but she didn't report it until
about an hour ago [2], which only adds to the evidence that she went out of
her way to find this.

So my question is: why would you do this if it's going to ruin your day?

There's bad stuff all over the internet, and it's not going away. It doesn't
seem productive to launch a crusade to get it all taken down. Just block it if
you don't want to see -- get some filtering software, install parental
controls.

I really hope no one tells or about 4chan or tor.

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&set=168467446611226)

[2]
[http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&s...](http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&set=a.168468706611100.13857.168467446611226&type=1&comment_id=253779&offset=0&total_comments=11)

------
D4M14N
I think context matters a lot, and this photo was posted to a page called
"Offensive Humor" so people know the message is wrong and offensive, I doubt
anyone would actually be on that page seriously agreeing with that message or
being influenced to carry out its message. If this was posted to a page called
"Women are scum" or similar etc then the photo would have a different meaning.

------
factorialboy
WTF facebook? Encouragement of rape is not acceptable IMHO.

~~~
SG-
It's not encouragement, it's someone's attempt at a joke. It's ok to joke
about things, and sometimes it's offensive.

------
nraynaud
I guess a would make that a gender issue since it's mostly women who are
target of rape jokes.

The real craziness is this insistance in removing any female nipples (for some
reason, male nipples are not sensored) and not dead corpses or guns even in
countries where nudity is far more accepted than violence.

------
bigd
If you get pissed by what you find online, then you're better off the
Internet.

~~~
bigd
I strongly believe that people which complains about the content of Internet,
whatever it might be, should go trough "internet 101":
<https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Power_5>

------
general_failure
Great response from facebook. I prefer that nothing visual be censored. People
should just ignore shit that is offensive to them. And we as a society should
just look down on people who create offensive shit.

------
DanBC
Facebook took a while to decide that videos of women having their heads cut
off were not acceptable.

I don't find Facebook's decision here confusing.

------
stefan_kendall
Fuck censorship. Depictions of violence are not violence.

Movies, porn, video games. Do they encourage shooting people in the head? Not
in real life.

