Facebook Won’t Ban Holocaust Denial Groups

[Purveyor]

May 10, 2009

SYDNEY, Australia (JTA) -- Facebook, the popular social networking Web site, will only ban groups that deny the Holocaust in countries where it is a criminal offense.

Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said that although the organization does “abhor Nazi ideals and find Holocaust denial repulsive,” the popular social networking Web site believes that people have a right to discuss these ideas, CNN reported Friday.

“We want Facebook to be a place where ideas, even controversial ideas, can be discussed,” Schnitt said.

Facebook wants “to strike a very delicate balance between giving users the freedom to express their opinions and beliefs -- even those that are controversial or that we may find repulsive -- while also ensuring that individuals and groups of people do not feel threatened or endangered,” he added.

Schnitt said that in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, such as Germany and Israel, users would be denied access.

Groups currently on Facebook include “Holocaust: A series of lies,” “Holocaust is a Holohoax” and “Holocaust is a myth."

MORE...

JTA: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/10/1005046/facebook-wont-ban-holocaust-denial-groups

[MadBadger]

1. Good, they shouldnt. They may be wrong, but in the real world, you cant just ban their group.

[Dorian Gray]

10. Let people belong to such a stupid

and bigoted group. At least I'll know who I never want to be friends with.

[Recursion]

18. Bingo

Facebook gives us the opportunity not only to see how many holocaust deniers there are, but who they are. This is a service.

[cali]

13. the holocaust denial hate group I saw

on facebook was an out and out hate site. same with the anti-Muslim group I saw there. hideous stuff, and I think facebook damned well should ban hatee groups. why should they host them? It's no different than the American legion hosting the KKK.

[Recursion]

17. Because once they ban a legal group...

...there will be no end to the pissed off interests demanding they ban this or that group.

[cali]

20. uh, so what? Why the fuck should hate groups be hosted by

private etitities in cyberspace? That isn't tolerated in the physical world. What's the diffeerence?

[Recursion]

25. It's the cost of user-generated content

This question is as old as the Internet (hell, the Facebook groups are tame compared to what you'll still find today on Usenet). As I tell Republicans about sex on TV: if you don't like it, don't look at it.

[demwing]

29. Because then any fundie Christian group could insist

That any Gay Rights group was an Anti-Christian Hate group.

Do we want to go there?

[cali]

32. Oh, bullshit. so what? They's lose that argument.

[NeedleCast]

38. No, they don't always lose that argument, and that's the problem

For every person out there who wants the Holocaust deniers shut down, there's a fundy who wants Harry Potter taken out of the school library for teaching witch craft...and some schools have caved to that pressure. The point is that everyone is entitled to free speech, or no one is. I may disagree vehemently with these people but that doesn't remove their rights.

[demodonkey]

2. Good god. The existence of the Holocaust is not an "idea" it is history.

If somehow it was a hoax, then where did all those millions of people go? They were living in Europe before WWII and they were gone after it was over. Did the Klingons just beam them up???

Shame on Facebook.

On edit: YES YOU CAN ban a group that is racially offensive. And to perpetrate the crazy notion that the racial/ethnic/religious attacks on specific populations during WWII never happened is highly offensive.

[MercutioATC]

3. I disagree.

Even loons like Holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a right to express their opinions.

[Mythsaje]

6. Hell, yes. I always figured that I prefer them to be where we can keep an eye

on them, not lurking in a basement somewhere.

[demodonkey]

7. So you think that the KKK and other white supremacy nuts should have Facebook groups too?

As a "foreigner" kid with an ethnic name and parents from Eastern Europe, my father first-hand saw what the KKK and other hate groups can do when he was growing up. He passed our family's story on to me.

Denial of of the Holocaust -- actual history -- as "opinion" by these nutballs is nothing more than a coverup for pure racial, ethnic, and other hatred. Dangerous.

I stand by what I said. No one should have any "rights" when it comes to organizing hate groups. Shame on Facebook for allowing this, and shame on anyone who agrees with them.

Once YOUR family has to overcome the stigma of crosses being burned against them, then come back and tell me you think organized hate groups are still OK. Otherwise STFU about these hate groups' "rights".

[IDFbunny]

15. Take you self rightious attitude back home then.

We are NOT ashamed of our first amendment rights to freely associate with whom we want. Yes that allows some unsavory groups to organize but I wouldn't want PC police telling me who I can and can't associate with.

[demodonkey]

28. I AM HOME and my family / religion has the right not to be threatened by racists claiming "rights".

I am a third-generation United States Citizen and I AM HOME.

YOU are the one with the self-righteous attitude, claiming "rights" for racists. I hope you enjoy your "right" to associate with the cross-burners, lynch mobs, and murderers that you are "not ashamed" of associating with.

Hate groups have a long history of harassment, violence and murder. Refusing to give them a place to organize is far beyond being politically correct or not, it is a matter of other people's dignity and safety. Does YOUR family have direct experience with the what groups like the KKK does to people? Well, mine does.

Just remember that under that same First Amendment you so self-righteously tout, I have the same rights as you do. So you can take YOUR attitude back "home" as well.

[IDFbunny]

48. You're the one that's high on his PC horse.

With the moral authority to 'shame' people for supporting absolute 1st amendment rights. You're the one that wants to abolish the 1st amendment in you crusade to end all hate groups and racists and other 'dangerous' ideas.

[demodonkey]

51. First Amendment rights mean NOTHING in this case....

Facebook is a private space and can legally exclude anyone they want to from their service. That said, I have a perfect "right" to my opinion saying SHAME on them for allowing hate groups to participate.

DOUBLE SHAME ON YOU for your racist remark telling me, a United States Citizen, to go "home" to a country my grandparents left nearly 100 years ago because I don't agree with YOU.

Ugh.

[IDFbunny]

76. You're the one hung up on 'shaming' everybody

because you feel a little morally superior, don't you?

My love-it-or-leave-it attitude doesn't make be racist.

[demodonkey]

79. So I only "love it" (and am fit to live here) if I agree with YOU, huh?

Oh, but you, YOU are not superior, noooooo just a hard-workin' regular Amurrikan.

Yes it IS racist to tell a third-generation United States Citizen to leave their native-born HOME and go to a country of their ancestors that they have never seen, because they don't "love it" in Amurrika to YOUR satisfaction.

As I said, UGH.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I come from a Jewish family in Chicago, and I had relatives die in the camps.

And yet, I understand why the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie. I understand why they had a right to.

Still, facebook is a private website (much as is DU) and they have a right to control what content they permit. So it's not exactly a 1st Amendment issue, here.

[demwing]

33. Simmer down

No one here is saying hate groups are "OK"

But there are worse things that can happen if you allow banning of speech with which you disagree. Overturning constitutional limitations on censorship doesn't just affect the haters - it affects everyone. One day, you could be in a group defined as a hate group. Democratic Party, Gay Activists, Progressives, Internet bloggers... name it, someone one out there is opposed to it. Let those fuckers get in power and suddenly we are in the way of a shit storm.

You say shame on anyone who disagrees with Facebook, well, you're saying shame on the US Constitution. If I had to pick sides between you and the constitution, you would lose. Sorry. :|

[demodonkey]

35. I never said "shame on the US Constitution" -- DO NOT put words in my mouth

The US Constitution allows the right to peaceably assemble in public spaces and in private spaces that allow said organizing. I don't disagree with that. However under that same Constitution I HAVE THE SAME RIGHT to speak out and say SHAME on Facebook for allowing hate-group organizing in their space on the Internet, and say shame on anyone who agrees with them.

Why is my opinion any less valid than those of a hate group? I am a third-generation US Citizen of Eastern-European descent whose family had KKK crosses burned against them -- and upthread I was just told to go "home" for saying that I do not approve of hate group organizing.

WTF is wrong with this picture???

[MercutioATC]

43. Absolutely

...and PETA and the Shriners and WWF Wrestling fans and any other nut with an opinion.

Prohibiting certain actions is acceptable. Censoring thoughts is dangerous.

[demodonkey]

47. The groups you mention do not have a history of killing millions of people, or...

...rewriting history in active support of those who did so.

There IS a difference.

I stand by what I said. SHAME ON FACEBOOK.

[MercutioATC]

49. Holocaust deniers have killed millions of people?

If you want to go down that path, Christians have killed millions of people. Should Facebook ban Christian groups and those who support them?

[demodonkey]

52. If they actively support movements or people that killed or want to kill non-Christians, yes.

My belief is that any group that idealizes or supports persecution in the form of violence or death should be excluded from private space.

For example I don't think any newspaper should accept advertising from a Christian church that advocates persecution to Muslims, Jews, etc.

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, it has to do with human decency.

[LeftyMom]

58. I believe in free speech for everybody.

As a "foreigner" kid with an ethnic name and parents from Eastern Europe

Me too. Okay, g'parents in my case, but you get the idea. Just because my family dealt with a shitpile of bigotry, that doesn't mean that I want to set the horrible precedent of shutting people up based on their opinions. Even if said opinions are stupid, horrible and demonstrably wrong, it's still a terrible precedent and likely to be used on the merely expression of speech which is merely inconvenient or unpopular once suppression of unpopular speech is widely accepted.

And it's precisely because my family knows oppression that I won't tolerate the faintest whiff of it, even for people that I absolutely loathe.

[demodonkey]

60. So I guess I guess in the name of fighting oppresion you have no problem ...

... if someone on here called you "dumb pollack" or "hunky" or "bohunk" or whatever nasty name has been used in the past for Eastern Europeans? You'd be OK with being told to go "home" to the country your grandparents left, by some "American" you don't agree with, as I was upthread?

Do you think DU is wrong for not allowing people to use the n-word in the expression of their "opinion" of African-American members?

[LeftyMom]

63. I prefer to defeat the speech of the stupid with the words of wiser people.

Banning Holocaust deniers just allows them to claim that they're being oppressed because they are a threat, or that the govt/media/whoever has something to hide. Letting them speak gets their ideas out there, and then it's easy enough to prove that their ideas are stupid.

[demwing]

77. Is DU wrong? No, this is a private forum

If DU were to block free speech in a public forum, then yes, that would be wrong, even if you found the speech abhorrent. Free speech means NOTHING unless it is free for all people. Otherwise, it's controlled speech, which is the virtual equivalent of censorship.

[cali]

14. and there are plenty of sites where they can do that.

I don't know if I think there should be- not talking about CT groups generally- Why should hate groups be hosted by private companies?

[MercutioATC]

45. You'd rather governments host them?

They're hosted by private companies for the same private companies do everything....money.

...and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Zynx]

21. Yes, but private forums do not have to tolerate them.

[MercutioATC]

46. You're correct. Facebook (or whomever) is free to ban them.

There's no 1st Amendment issue here.

I still believe that it's more dangerous to censor opinions that people find distasteful than to allow people to speak their minds.

[demwing]

78. Facebook is free to ban - or allow - them

I just disagree with the mindset that condemns free speech, or condemns private forums for not censoring speech, or which seeks to silence people -- like telling them to shut the fuck up if they disagree with your (the rhetorical "your") world view.

[smalll]

80. You are exactly correct - it is history, not an "idea" -- the very reason you should not be afraid -

of people claiming otherwise. In the "marketplace of ideas," their "idea" will remain dead in the water. Stupid, evil stuff loses when people can talk about everything.

[bowens43]

4. They shouldn't be banned.

this is a good decision. Banning speech we disagree with is a very bad idea.

[KittyWampus]

19. big difference between "banning" and restricting access to.

[Matariki]

5. Good. Take names and buy them European vacations

:evilgrin:

[Lex]

8. The way to counter non-factual speech is through MORE speech, not less.

nt

[Xithras]

9. Exactly. Bans are the knee-jerk reaction of the unthinking.

Banning speech merely reinforces the anti-societal positions of supremacists by bolstering their position that the world is governed by a conspiracy against "their people". It also ignites interest in people who wonder what the "government is hiding".

Let them air their stupidity. We're much better off doing so, and then simply demonstrating WHY their positions are stupid.

[cali]

22. in the public square, sure. but this isn't a free speech issue.

this is a private company. why should private companies host hate groups?

[dem629]

27. Exactly. A private company.

They can host what they wish. Unless, of course, it violates current laws, which it doesn't, and we don't want to go down that road do we?

This group should be free to air their wacko conspiracy crap, and others should be free to defeat them with even more speech.

[cali]

30. So you'd support the VFW, for example, renting out space to the

KKK, right? And if not, why not? What's the difference?

[dem629]

31. Like the ACLU, yes I would.

Unless and until they violated a law, such as inciting, or any violence, etc.

I'm a free speech absolutist (again, pretty much like the ACLU and just about every liberal USSC justice) and I believe that right only ends when that speech presents a clear and imminent threat to the safety of others.

[cali]

36. uh, as far as I know, the ACLU, of which I am a member

does not support the example I gave. I wish DUers would grasp that free speech largel doesn't apply to private entities. Notre Dame can keep anti-choicers from protesting, the VFW can refuse to rent there facilities to hate groups.

[dem629]

37. Of course the VFW can refuse. That's their right. But that's not what you asked. (EDITED)

You asked if I supported the right of a private entity to host a group I find objectionable.

The ACLU doesn't represent the KKK? Wrong. Here's one example: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11081prs20010815.html

I suggest reading a little on the ACLU. Here's a good book: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html

When the Nazis Came to Skokie
Freedom for Speech We Hate
by Philippa Strum

EDIT: And, by the way, when you say you "wish DUers would grasp that free speech doesn't apply to private groups," you're defeating your own argument.

[Lex]

34. Free speech applies to private companies.

If I have a private company and am stupid enough to place an obnoxious racist or homophobic billboard for my company on the side of the road, my company has the right to do so, and the public has a right to stop using my company and publicize how my company sucks for its hateful speech. And my competitors have a right to condemn my hateful speech and request customers to come their company for services.

[cali]

40. huh. A private billboard company absolutely has the right

to refuse to run an ad from a hate group. If someone own the billboard company and runs support ads for hate groups, I believe you may be right that they have the right to run hate ads- though I'm not sure. My point isn't that private companies don't have the right to free speech, but that they can't be forced to endorse others' hate speech.

[dem629]

41. Your original question was: "why should private companies host hate groups?"

Answer: It's up to them.

What's the disagreement here?

[cali]

53. I don't disagree with that. That's correct. Some people are

arguing that this is a free speech issue, or that provide companies should host hate groups for whatever reasons. I don't agree. I think they should be pressured by the public to not host hate groups.

[Lex]

56. I'm just saying private companies have the right to host or not host

any kind of speech (even that I disagree with).

Whether they "should" or not is up them.

[dem629]

62. That's what we have: people pressuring for silence.

It happens on both sides.

I'm not sure we have a disagreement here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. The answer doesn't follow the question.

[dem629]

61. Please review. It doesn't appear that you understand the discussion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Q. Why should private companies host hate groups?

A. Because the 5th amendment protects their right not to incriminate themselves at trial.

There, see? It just doesn't follow.

[dem629]

66. You're right.

It doesn't follow if you ignore the context of this subthread. It's all here. Read up.

Start with post 22 and you will might see.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Read it, it still doesn't follow.

[dem629]

68. Oh well.

Everyone else got the context, regardless of their position on the topic.

You're on your own, I guess.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Everybody else gets that your answer doesn't follow.

[Lex]

57. Of course the private billboard company can refuse to run a hate ad

or they can decided to run one.

That's the point.

[dem629]

69. I think the three of us in this subthread actually agree.

It just got muddled with the misuse of the term "free speech," as a matter of legal application.

[dem629]

26. Yes!

[NeedleCast]

39. Exactly, Well Stated.

Martyring them is exactly what they want. Ignoring them usually makes them go away, or crawl back into whatever dark hole they live in. Threatening their rights gives them legitimacy.

[KamaAina]

11. Is there one of those Facebook gizmos I could use to hit them with a pie in the face?

"KamaAina hit you with a pie in the face at 8:50 AM." :evilgrin:

edit: header

[WeDidIt]

12. Might have to kill my facebook account. n/t

[Recursion]

16. This is what "Web 2.0" means

User-generated content. Short of enforcing explicit laws IMO it's really not facebook's responsibility to filter content.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. unless they try to show moms breastfeeding, of course.

Then, they're outta there. :eyes:

[cali]

42. ding, ding, ding. breast feeding moms? evil influence. Anti-semites, Muslim haters,

etc? No problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Apparently, corporate advertisers go bonkers at any hint of an exposed nipple.

It would seem Nazis, OTOH, aren't a prob.

[rucky]

44. Let 'em go on record. That's fine by me. n/t

[maseman]

50. There are people who believe the earth is flat,

that the US never landed on the moon and this invisible thing in the sky called God.

[cali]

54. not necessarily. n/t

[Evoman]

65. Good...it's something I'd like to know if any of my friends belonged to it.

I'm pretty sure none of them do, but it would be interesting to find out.

[derby378]

71. Does Facebook ban flat-earthers, phrenologists, Lawsonians, etc.?

As tempting as it is to ban Holocaust deniers, the best way to deal with bad ideas is to counter them with better ideas.

I attended a lecture where some of these no-Holocaust theories got debunked by a guy who masqueraded as a Holocaust denier, laid out his theories against the Holocaust, and then turned around and debunked each and every denial myth as just that - a myth.

[cali]

72. hate groups are a little different from phenologists

I see no reason why they should host hate groups- and btw they banned a breast feeding group.

[derby378]

74. I agree - banning a breastfeeding group is just plain wrong

The reason I lumped hate groups in with phrenologists is that they're both relics of the past - they're like the sociological equivalent of a museum specimen, just interesting enough to study from a historical perspective, but by no means to be taken seriously.

[northzax]

81. um, no they didn't

in fact, there is a large group on FB protesting that issue.

what FB did was tag photos for deletion that users had flagged as potentially obscene that included breastfeeding. Photos, and other content, are deleted when other users complain, and it appears that some people had a serious issue with breastfeeding, which was stupid. But FB does have a clear policy that female nipples are not permitted. Which may be a double standard, but it is the current generally accepted social and legal construct in the US. (if you don't believe me, put a picture of your 15 year old son at the beach on your desk in a pair of trunks. next to it put a picture of your 15 year old daughter in the exact same outfit. see which one your boss objects to)

[Bjorn Against]

73. Good, as much as I loathe the ignorance behind those groups I don't want them censoring opinions

Once they ban one group then people will demand other groups are banned as well, before long legitimate opinions will start getting shut out as well.

[inwiththenew]

75. Facebook is a private entity

If they want to host or give a forum for this crap let them do it. If you don't like it, don't go to it.