
Facebook Employees Speak Their Mind On Holocaust Denial - mshafrir
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/15/facebook-employees-speak-their-mind-on-holocaust-denial/
======
johnnybgoode
Arrington is wrong, because he's said something along the lines of, "Hey I
support free speech but Holocaust denial is so bad that I make an exception."
Be consistent, Mike. Free speech isn't just for the stuff you like. If you're
against free speech, just say so.

Facebook is wrong if they think this is a First Amendment issue. It's not.
They are well within their rights to remove any comments that deny the
Holocaust. However, it seems inconsistent for them to call pictures of
breastfeeding mothers "offensive" and remove them if they're going to allow
Holocaust denial on their site.

~~~
furyg3
Came here to make the same point about breastfeeding.

 _There is a common theme - that protection of free speech outweighs any
damage caused by the existence of this content._

Really? I fail to see this common theme... Let's not pretend that Facebook is
a group of libertarian constitutionalists who's first priority is protecting
its users free speech rights. I had a friend who was TOSed for uploading
innocent pictures from a spa trip where a tiny fraction of a friend's nipple
was visible over her towel.

I'm not arguing the plight of my nippley friend, or that Facebook should allow
this or that on their (privately owned) web site. Just that this whole
Holocaust-denial debate smells like an opportunistic effort on the part of
Facebook to portray themselves as protectors of free speech, when that's
nowhere near the truth.

~~~
axod
I don't think you can compare 'nipples' to 'the holocaust didn't happen'.

Sadly, a large number of people are offended by pictures of naked or semi
naked people. I don't think so many are offended by historical ignorance :/
Anyway, it's apples and oranges.

~~~
johnnybgoode
As furyg3 and I pointed out, if Facebook is going to take a self-righteous "We
support free speech on our site!" stand on Holocaust denial, it is absurd for
them to ban nipples.

And believe me, a lot of people are offended by Holocaust denial. It probably
wouldn't be illegal in many Western nations otherwise. (Many Western
countries, aside from the US, are not so big on free speech.)

~~~
axod
Are pictures even in the same bucket as speech though? I don't see the
similarity here.

~~~
johnnybgoode
Yes, that's why it's sometimes called "freedom of expression" instead of
"freedom of speech."

~~~
axod
It's probably more logistics though.

Banning nipples makes a clear and easy line. If they didn't have the line
there, where would it be? Nudity? erect penises? Hardcore? Logistically they
need a line on how they moderate pictures.

Text/groups on the other hand, is just text. Personally, I don't really find
text offensive unless it's directed at me or my family, in a threatening way -
eg "We're going to hunt axod down and skin him like a fish". If it's just
idiots ranting on about how they hate some group of people, trying to ban or
moderate that only draws attention to them.

------
cousin_it
A fun argument I just made up: liberal folks should encourage diversity of
opinion even when it leads to hate crime, for the same reasons that they
encourage racial diversity which demonstrably leads to more crime. Otherwise
they'd just be using a double standard to attack their ideological opponents.

I wonder if this line of reasoning can be quickly refuted or it contains
something deeply true.

------
danw
An interesting article here about a holocaust deniers conference, a
recommended read when looking at this issue:
[http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0201-FEB_DENIERS_rev_2?sr...](http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0201-FEB_DENIERS_rev_2?src=rss)

~~~
johnnybgoode
That _was_ interesting. Apparently there are nuances even when it comes to
Holocaust deniers.

------
anigbrowl
SO much fucking bullshit. The 1st amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no
law limiting freedom of speech. Facebook isn't the congress, it's a private
company; one which apparently thinks the revenue from a few neanderthal
racists outweighs that which might be lost from people who take offense.
Facebook can do what they want, just as PG can wipe my account for swearing on
HN if he sees fit. They own their site, which now includes playing host to a
bunch of Nazis, most of whom would be happy to see Mark Zuckerberg die because
of his surname.

I fucking hate September. GTFO my lawn.

------
johnnybgoode
Now that it's been established that Facebook can do what it wants here, I
don't think it's such a great idea for them to host this stuff on their site.

Facebook is a popular networking tool, and allowing this kind of stuff there
obviously helps grow the deniers' ranks. Remember that even if it's automatic,
Facebook is actively putting resources into hosting and serving these posts.
You might say they just host everything and it's not like they're picking and
choosing what to host, but if they can employ hundreds of people to find and
remove breastfeeding photos and the like, they can regulate this as well.

Upon seeing an anti-Semite somewhere preaching his or her bullshit, there's a
difference between leaving him or her alone in recognition of free speech
rights and providing the idiot with a megaphone. Facebook is doing the latter.

