
Facebook removed the US Declaration of Independence for violating hate speech - laurex
https://qz.com/1321639/facebook-removed-the-us-declaration-of-independence-for-violating-hate-speech-standards/
======
frogpelt
It was probably because of the phrase used by Thomas Jefferson, "merciless
Indian savages" which on one hand sounds hateful. But it was also an accurate
description of the way Indians fought.

We must study history and we have to accept it in context.

We cannot change it. We cannot revise it. And we cannot apply a new context to
it.

But if we study it and accept it in context, we can learn from it.

~~~
eesmith
"it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought"

Except that it wasn't. Or, if you want to use that language, the Allies were
merciless savages who firebombed cities full of German civilians -
"undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" \- and the US
forces were merciless savages who carpet bombed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Remember, by 1776 there had been 150 years of interaction between those
"merciless Indian savages" and the English colonists (to say nothing of the
French and Spanish colonists who had a different experience). We know it's
wrong to make the blanket statement that the Native Americans were merciless -
because they did show mercy.

English colonists learned combat skills from their Native American allies,
rather than the military formations of European combat. (Eg, Benjamin Church
in the early 1700s). How did did the English have local allies if the Native
Americans were merciless?

Finally, and I'll quote from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare)
:

> More recently, historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz contends that, in reality,
> Ulster Scots settlers, who were experienced in scalping as foot soldiers in
> the British occupation of Northern Ireland, introduced the practice of
> scalping to the Americas.[15] She points out that the practice of scalping
> is one example of how acts of brutality were and are attributed to
> inaccurate degrees to Indigenous peoples, while the usually greater violence
> of dominant settler-colonial groups is suppressed through various means. The
> imagined greater brutality of groups settler-colonial nations were and are
> exterminating, ethnically cleansing, dispossessing and looting was thus used
> as one rationale for these settler-colonial undertakings.

So, how do you know that "merciless Indian savages" is an accurate
description, and not a piece of propaganda to justify continued warfare and
colonial expansion?

Because what I've read of history, it's much more the latter.

~~~
crististm
The problem wasn't that the facts you describe were accurate or not.

They did not censor the text for its truth or accuracy.

They raised the abstraction a bit and categorized it as "hate speech". And
then they censored it for this reason that has nothing to do with historical
truth or the level yourself analyzed the text.

~~~
eesmith
My problem was with frogpelt's statement - the quote I started with. I wasn't
addressing what FB did at all.

------
BadThink6655321
Is the problem of mindless censoring of content the “mindless” or the
“censoring”? Or, as the first comment indicated, it’s not really a problem?

~~~
smt88
The problem, in my opinion, is that Facebook has too much control over public
discourse. Whom Facebook does/doesn't censor wouldn't be a big news story in
an ideal world.

Ignoring that point, Facebook has the right to censor its own platform and,
like any human organization, is going to screw it up, sometimes laughably
badly.

~~~
gremlinsinc
FB has the right to censor anything, they're a private owned company after
all. They could censor anything with a right wing bent at all for example, and
it'd be perfectly acceptable, unless the government took over facebook, and we
had communism instead of democracy.

Freedom of speech only goes so far as the government can't block speech on
public land, etc. Private businesses can expel people for using foul
language/etc and disrupting other customers.

~~~
eesmith
I don't think your view is quite right. That is, some private companies
operate as common carriers, and therefore are not allowed to censor what their
users do. For example, your local phone company cannot censor someone on the
basis of their political speech, nor can FedEx refuse to deliver material with
a right wing bent.

Also, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that "under the
California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to
free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the
public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers",
and that "under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with
broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so
long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights."
(Quoting from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)
.)

That is, there can be free speech rights even at a private business.

------
stephengillie
> _The paper questioned whether to put up the rest of the Declaration of
> Independence after the removal, because if Facebook found more content to be
> unpalatable, The Vindicator could lose its page on the platform, and thus a
> crucial way to disseminate its content._

Thus the chilling effect of censorship limits the free press from testing the
censor - out of fear for economic repercussions.

------
MiscIdeaMaker99
I have a hard time caring about this.

~~~
crististm
The implications are that "hate speech" is being defined by some entity.

And in whatever period of time you consider, those who get to define it are
the ones you least want to do this job.

In this case it seems it was the job of some algorithm. Good luck when that
algorithm (or person) gets to decide your fate besides telling you what (not)
to say!

------
shp0ngle
> merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished
> destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions

Well technically that is a hate speech, that justified genocide again native
Americans later. So yeah good call Facebook

~~~
loco5niner
Well, technically, it was an accurate description of how the Indians fought.

~~~
eesmith
Wasn't it an equally true description of how the English settlers fought?

As a reminder, and quoting from,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres)
.

>English colonists and Creek allies under former Carolina Governor James Moore
launched a series of brutal attacks on the Apalachee villages of Northern
Florida. They murdered 1000 Apalachees and enslaved at least 2000 survivors.

> In the Pequot War, English colonists commanded by John Mason, with Mohegan
> and Narragansett allies, launched a night attack on a large Pequot village
> on the Mystic River in present-day Connecticut, where they burned the
> inhabitants in their homes and killed all survivors, for total fatalities of
> about 600–700.

> Colonial militia and Indian allies attacked a Narragansett fort near South
> Kingstown, Rhode Island. At least 40 warriors were killed and 300 women,
> children and elder men burnt in the village.

~~~
loco5niner
Well, it's true that they killed a lot of indians, I'm not convinced that
means the settlers, in general, were a bunch of merciless savages.

It's interesting that in each of your examples it mentions that they were
attacking along with their "Indian allies"... perhaps that has something to do
with it.

~~~
eesmith
And I'm not convinced that the Native Americans, in general, were a bunch of
merciless savages.

What do you mean by "it" in "something to do with it"?

The first example I gave was the Apalachee massacre. Quoting from the
Wikipedia page:

> In 1703 ex-Governor Moore presented to the Carolina assembly and his
> replacement, Nathaniel Johnson, a plan for an expedition against the Spanish
> towns in Apalachee Province.[17] He promised that, unlike the St. Augustine
> expedition, the colony would not have to pay for anything; he expected its
> costs to be recovered by the taking of loot and slaves. On September 7,
> 1703, the Carolina assembly approved the plan, asking Moore to go "to the
> Assistance of the Cowetaws and other our friendly Indians, and to attacque
> the Appalaches."

How do "friendly Indians" become "merciless savages"?

Why is is that the Indians around the Great Lakes region, who had amicable
relationships with the French, rebelled under the new British rule after the
French and Indian War?

Eg, quoting from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War#Amherst's_poli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War#Amherst's_policies)
:

> Amherst and officers such as Major Henry Gladwin, commander at Fort Detroit,
> made little effort to conceal their contempt for the Native Americans.
> Native Americans involved in the uprising frequently complained that the
> British treated them no better than slaves or dogs.

