And allow them the opportunity to play on the fears and prejudices of a great many uninformed souls, winning them for their cause? No, thank you. I'd rather have someone with a conscience step in and say: "We won't allow this here. I have the moral right at my side and I will make it as hard as possible for them to spread their lies."
If you are affraid to do the right thing, then you are enabling the wrong thing, which makes you just as guilty of the consequences.
Restricting the spread of information is not the act of those who think that truth is on their side. Those against such restrictions aren't "afraid to do the right thing", they're for doing the right thing, which is allowing those who disagree to speak.
Those against such restrictions are naive in believing that the truth will triumph, simply because it is the truth. History and psychology both prove otherwise. The truth is often hard to accept or to understand.
For instance, we like to believe the general German populace in WO II was innocent, because they were powerless or in the dark. The fact is that they were taken in by Hitler and are guilty of that, but the painful truth of the way this happened is that it could happen to most of us. In 'most of us', I include myself: I can perfectly dream up scenario's in which I become Eichmann, despite what I am saying now. I'm no stranger to fear or prejudice and given a convincingly presented threat from the outside, who knows how you react to protected your loved ones?
Finally, their are two types of 'the right thing'. There is the morally right thing, based on principles and there is the morally right thing, based on the goal to be achieved. These often do not overlap, especially not when we have to acknowledge our oh-so-human shortcomings.
The tools of information/speech suppression are worse, as a rule, than the information or speech being suppressed. Even if you don't agree in this case, you should hope that suppression doesn't become the accepted tool, because those without scruples are far more likely to be able to use it effectively. Don't support the building of the tools of your own destruction, to reduce it to a soundbite.
From a moral point of view as well as from Facebook's business point of view I fully agree one should be as reluctant as possible with banning contents. But considering that Facebook already bans a range of contents, I don't think it would have been noted if they just banned holocause denial.
I wonder what they will do when a group of radical Muslims start an anti American group. Would the tone of the responses here be different then?
BTW, I think those without scruples are always a step ahead of us: the tools already exist and are used as effectively as they can get away with.
Careful. There is an inherent difference between "hate speech" and "holocaust denial".
Suggesting all holocaust deniers are anti-semitic and want jews dead is as bad if not worse stereotyping.....
(indeed I would classify it as worse: many Holocaust deniers are simply delusional and historically uneducated, or brainwashed. Branding them anti-semitic and hateful is a considered opinion in the face of reasonable evidence. And, well, hateful.....)
Agreed. I should have explained more, what I was referring to wasn't holocaust denial per se but the hate speech threads/posts within the category (which seem to go hand-in-hand).
Everything is information. Holocaust denial is only extremely weak information about the Holocaust, but it's much better information about the speaker. :)
If you are affraid to do the right thing, then you are enabling the wrong thing, which makes you just as guilty of the consequences.