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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.