Should Facebook Remove Holocaust Denial Groups?
When the Allied forces began to turn the tide of their conflict against Hitler’s Germany in 1944, one of history’s most disturbing events was about to be discovered.
Named the Final Solution by the Nazis, and subsequently known as the Holocaust around the world, concentration camps were found by Allied forces advancing toward Germany. The first major camp was Majdanek, which was found by the Russians in July 1944. This was followed by other camps in 1945.
The concentration camps were built for one reason – the extermination of the Jewish race by Hitler, in an attempt to breed the perfect Aryan race of blond hair and blue eyes.
While the exact number isn’t known, over six million Jews died in these camps – two thirds of the Jewish residents of Europe at that time. Of this number, one million children perished, along with two million women and three million men.
However, the numbers could be far more – many scholars feel the genocide of other ethnic groups by the Nazis, such as homosexuals, disabled people, Romani and other cultures, should be included. This would mean around 11 million people were murdered in the Holocaust, all because of one man’s twisted vision.
Over the years, there have been many claims by groups and individuals that the Holocaust never happened and that it was a myth created by Israel. Despite the public video footage; the images taken by Allied troops; the admittance of guilt by past Nazi generals – many still believe the Holocaust never happened.
It’s a viewpoint that’s raised questions on free speech and opinions and if, by denying the right to deny the Holocaust, people are having their own right to speak abused.
Now that debate and fight is involving Facebook.
Facebook and Free Speech
A caveat. I’m a huge believer in free speech and differing opinions, and often get shit on because of it – c’est la vie. I will admit I don’t agree on all speech being free – clear hate and sex crime/hate, for example, are some areas I feel opinions step over the line. But then does that make me against true free speech? Possibly.
That’s a personal opinion, though, and would affect very few people in the grand scheme of things (and only if I spoke out). A social network like Facebook, with over 700 million users, is a different kettle of fish. It’s a public platform that allows anyone and everyone to post (and access) status updates, thoughts, views and more.
Facebook’s policies look to encourage free speech and opinion, and rightly so. But is there a limit to which this should stop, and a different policy invoked?
That’s one of the questions currently being asked of Facebook by survivors of the Holocaust, in a plea to Facebook to remove groups that have been set up to deny the Holocaust ever happened.
In an open letter posted on the Simon Wiesenthal Center website, the survivors ask Facebook to re-evaluate their approach to what’s classed as free speech versus hate speech so that the atrocities of the past aren’t repeated.
In dialogue so far between the survivors group and Facebook, a Senior VP at Facebook has advised of the importance to “…maintain consistency in our policies, which don’t generally prohibit people from making statements about historical events, no matter how ignorant the statement or how awful the event.”
I’m not sure I can buy that.
Free Speech or Road to Conflict?
As I mentioned earlier, I’m a huge believer in free speech and opinion – yet should all speech be free? Opinion is different – you can keep that to yourself. But, by definition, speech is public and has the ability to change mindsets and start movements.
A speech by Hitler in 1938 led to a movement. It resulted in the deaths of at least six million people.
I’m not naive enough to believe that had the speech never happened, the Holocaust wouldn’t have. Hitler was determined in his path to the Final Solution, and if that speech hadn’t happened, others would have (some did). Nazism was much more than words from a balcony.
But if there’s one thing that history can teach us, it’s that words can be dangerous. When hate is powerful enough, it can see words become a powerful weapon. The world saw its results from Nazi Germany. It sees its results in countries where dictators rule by force, and people live in fear of their gender, sexuality, beliefs and religion being used against them.
Free speech is important – it differentiates true freedom from state-defined freedom. The question is, if free speech is silencing voices and historical fact – and has the potential to incite violence – should it still be free?
I don’t have the answers, just my opinion. You?
If one questions the existence of anything, it doesn't mean one promotes hate. If one denies the existence of God, it does not promote hate. How does denying the holocaust promote hate?
I was also very sad when facebook draw Muhammad Day page. Thats was a big shock for me...
While I believe people like Holocaust deniers and the "Westboro Baptist Church" are abusers of free speech, I'm not sure shutting them down is the answer. At least not by the "authorities." I think we as citizens should continue to work to make sure the truth is known in all of these events. It breaks my heart that some people are so ignorant that they believe their "right" should infringe on other people and their rights, but it's part and parcel of free speech. I know it's not really a great answer, but that's what I have. I don't think "authorities" should shut down people/groups like that.
danmoyle It's definitely not an easy call, Dan - my own feeling is if it incites to hate that leads to violence, it can't be condoned. I guess the problem there is where you track it back to.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, mate.
My latest conversation: Why You Don't Need to Impress Me
DannyBrown Inciting hate and violence...well-put. Although I wonder whether it's someone's "job" to stop hate (if that hate does not lead to violence)? I agree with you - I just wonder if there's a correlation. I'd say all violence is rooted in hatred, but not all hatred leads to violence. How is "hate-speech violence" any worse than "run of the mill violence?"
Now I'm rambling. In any case, your post is doing what it's meant to do: make us think and hopefully stop violence/hatred at a grass-roots level. Thanks for that. Cheers.
Facebook kept Draw Muhammad Day page. I was sad about it, but now I am happy with Google Plus :P
My latest conversation: Other sites
It is surprising a search of these comments for the name Timothy Sparapani comes up blank. He's Facebook's director of public policy and a former legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union when he was hired by the social network in 2009. Months before his hire, I met him at a Harvard conference and I recall him speaking smartly about privacy/security concerns.
I raise his name wondering where he is in this debacle.
My latest conversation: How Your Photo Tweeting Experience Changes
Ari Herzog Maybe I'm not on their radar, mate. They have other things to worry about - like whether the Skype deal means they need to get a new logo with a phone somewhere in it. ;-)
My latest conversation: A Special Livefyre Q&A with Geoff Livingston
DannyBrown I didn't imply they'd know of you, but that someone else commenting here would know his name. Based on the legalese provided by margieclayman and barryrsilver for instance...
My latest conversation: How Your Photo Tweeting Experience Changes
Ari Herzogmargieclaymanbarryrsilver Legalese is a bit different from a company monitoring their brand mentions. Besides, I would suggest they would be better off addressing the letter from the Survivors Group as opposed to a blogger just asking about free speech and instances like this.
My latest conversation: A Special Livefyre Q&A with Geoff Livingston
Glad you took this on Danny. I am not sure if censorship is the answer, though I think Facebook should be consistent with their TOS and if it is a violation they should pull the plug on any group that violates it.
There are all kinds of crazy and ignorance in this world, free speech is a great thing but I can't help but think certain groups have really been exploiting this freedom.
One thing is for sure reading those idiotic statements makes me want to redouble my efforts to do good.....
My latest conversation: Coffee Shop Insights from Dups
hackmanj I think that's one of the problems, Joe, the consistency. Like ameena falchetto mentions, they'll go after groups that talk about lactating and new baby issues, but they'll happily have stuff like this up. Be consistent and be strong in enforcing that consistency.
My latest conversation: Ford, Red Tape and Social Media Roadblocks
Inconsistent and cryptic enforcement of TOS will create legal issues and a lot of pissed off people. It will be part of their undoing. Facebook better get a handle on that now or I am afraid it will not bode well for them. You can really see the pent up frustration with Facebook in the adoption of Google+ and the zealous advocacy for the service.
My latest conversation: Coffee Shop Insights from Dups
I understand why people would argue that it makes it easier to identify those people who can be characterized as racists and anti-semites but I still see keeping them open as a mistake.
It doesn't identify those who don't post. It doesn't tell you who is posting under their real name and who under fake. But it does provide a global forum for 'like minded" individuals to collect and congregate. It does make it easier for them to find ways to work together and that is something to be concerned about.
And I will keep beating the drum that warns people to remember that these are not all stupid people. There are some very smart, very clever individuals who understand marketing, how to frame a compelling argument and how to use numbers.
They concern me because not everyone is smart enough to see the manipulation or educated enough to pick apart what is fact and what is fiction.
My latest conversation: The House That Jack Built
TheJackB You are so right Jack, seemingly normal and rational people are capable of believing extraordinarily crazy things. Where do you think the best place for people to get educated on objectivity and critical thinking is? I will definitely do my best to instill it in my offspring :)
My latest conversation: Coffee Shop Insights from Dups
This is such a difficult (agonizing) question. I once provoked a personal response from Abbie Hoffman (if you don't know him folks, google his name) over my opposition to his efforts to stop the CIA from recruiting on college campuses. My point: You don't like the CIA, someone else doesn't like the Peace Corps.
Q
But factually and historically incorrect hate speech is different. All the Holocaust denyers are doing is spreading lies, & counting on the rest of us to allow "free speech" to give them an excuse to do it. Facebook is a private company not a public square. They should shut them up (and off).
dariasteigman I think this is what makes this such an "interesting" conundrum, Daria (for want of a better phrase).
Facebook doesn't really fall under legal jurisdiction (from what I understand), so it's on its own when it comes to any decisions about stuff like this. Perhaps it comes down more to a moral question as opposed to a free speech one?
My latest conversation: Give Your Blog the Ring of Truth
When I was in graduate school, I had a professor, an African American, who hailed from South Carolina. One day we got in a discussion in class about how the "yanks" think they're so far above racism. After all, slavery was abolished in *most* northern states long before the Civil War. But he said something interesting.
In South Carolina, every Friday night, he could hear the KKK gatherings at the local high school from his house. He and his family stayed in. They knew where not to go. They knew who was at the gathering. It was all out in the open. When he moved to Ohio, he knew that there were KKK members around. He knew that the state was/is creeping with racists. But he couldn't pinpoint who was who. Everyone tries here to stuff it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist.
This story came to mind after reading your post. Although there is no word I can summon that describes my full opinion of Holocaust deniers, I say let them spout their hatred openly so that we can see who they are. So that we can point to those people and say, "Yep...there are really people who would say that on an online platform."
Free speech is a double-edged sword. We conveniently call out for it when we feel our voices are being deprived, but if someone else voices an opinion we don't like (or find abominable), well, then free speech doesn't matter so much. We need to get over that hypocrisy as a modern society. But, as people spew things that are harmful and hurtful, we need to find a way to overcome those cancerous cells and improve our society...somehow. Now how to do that? I have no idea.
margieclayman Completely agree on the double-edged sword comparison, Margie, and it's one of the biggest reasons I'm torn over the issue.
My heart says take them down and ban these idiots - my head says that's a conflict with the very notion of free speech. And while I agree that keeping them in the open helps keep tabs on them, at the same time if it fair to those it's so clearly causing pain to?
Not an easy answer...
My latest conversation: Give Your Blog the Ring of Truth
DannyBrownmargieclayman I'm old school, I just don't like wasting my time hearing or reading about the nonsense spewing out of the brains of blithering idiots. Life is too short for that. Shut them up at source :)
The problem with selective free speech is that as soon as you say something is "too serious" to joke about or "too hateful/ignorant" to allow, all other topics that don't fall into those camps are demeaned.
That said, Facebook is not the US government. It's not even exclusively used by U.S. citizens. If the company wants, it can erase the user accounts of all those who type tHiS wAy, think Lord of the Rings is an enjoyable film or book series, and neglect the Oxford comma (Which would be my first moves if I were president of Facebooktopia.).
I agree with the general consensus below that I prefer ignorance to be out in the open. Then others have the opportunity to engage in conversation, provide evidence, and perhaps - in some instances - effect real change.
Jana Quinn Okay, first, props for saying people should be kicked out of Facebook for abusing the Oxford comma - love it! Mind you, I probably fall into that camp at times, so I'm signing my own expulsion warrant. ;-)
It's a fair point - there was a trending topic on Twitter over the weekend, with the hashtag #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend. Obviously this is something that any right-minded person would avoid - or fight. Yet there were a bunch of tweets saying it was meant to be dark humour.
Thing is, like you say, there's a fine line between dark humour and poor taste, and it can open up a can of worms on other topics.
Although I don't think anyone with common sense would even begin to think the Holocaust deniers fall within a dark humour category - they're simply hateful idiots.
My latest conversation: Give Your Blog the Ring of Truth
DannyBrown Thanks, Danny! Between Oxford comma neglect and Wikipedia-supported arguments, Facebook can be a dangerous place. ;-)
I certainly don't think Holocaust deniers fall into the dark humor category at all (unless we're talking about The Onion here). They're hateful idiots, to be sure, and largely ignorant. They were likely raised with that view and have entrenched themselves so deeply into it that there's little chance for a paradigm shift. That's why I think it's more important to teach logic and debate in schools that the periodic table of elements, but hey - again, not president of Facebooktopia or any school board.
I think the audience is a far better barometer for dark humor versus poor taste than the subject matter. I can tell certain jokes in front of my friends that I would never say in front of coworkers. As a health care professional that works with children with cognitive impairments, I don't find any humor in jokes that include the word "retard." Then again, there are some groups that have an unexpected sense of humor; one of my good friends lost her mom to cancer earlier this year, and she was cracking jokes about her mom's death almost right away.
Anyhow, I've digressed so far from my main point that I shall simply wrap it up with this: you can't present someone with an alternative viewpoint if you don't know their opinions or worldview. There are only two peaceful choices: you can either adapt a don't-ask-don't-tell policy between you and that friend on that subject, or you can have a discussion. Letting people post their viewpoints in a public forum at least opens the door for the latter.
If I were the owner of Facebook, I would weed out those sorts of groups. It they want a platform for their nonsense, let them build it themselves.
I would also weed out most anti-Obama rants, anything that questions the "theory" of Evolution, 9/11 Truthers, and probably lots of other stuff that I don't feel adds value to my business. Because sorry, but when you're in my house, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply. You will be civil or you will leave.
And that's why it's good that I don't write public policy.
zaqqus Then you're not running a forum, you're running an echo chamber. I agree with a requirement of civility. It's possible to disagree vehemently, have polar opinions and remain civil (see marriage and parenthood). I do think certain classes get special handling when they object to "exercise of free speech" among them Holocaust survivors, victims of rape, incest, abuse and probably a few others.
barryrsilverzaqqus I think the thing with Facebook though, Zach, is that it's not a business forum. Yes, businesses are using it, but primarily it's somewhere for personal use. So, whatever beliefs someone has, there's no "business value" that they're worrying about (if that makes sense).
I think Barry makes a great point about that being an echo chamber, since it's only allowing views you want to hear. As I mention in the post, I'm all for free speech, but I'm wondering if there are limits (or should be). Instances like the one the post references, or the ones that Barry highlights, are the ones that (personally) I don't want to see. But does that give me the right to question whether others should see them too?
Probably not, which - going by the really strong points everyone is raising on both sides of the coin in the comments - is why it's not a clear cut topic.
My latest conversation: The Nike Method of Launching a Blog
I'm a big fan of freedom of speech. I've always felt that when it comes to hate groups, I'd rather have them spewing out in the open so I know what I'm facing. I feel that any that join the mind(less)set of hate are looking for it anyway. Anyone that uses quotes from Holocaust deniers to fuel anti-semitism is already an anti-semite. Better the debate is in the open where it is easier to debunk. I will defer all the above to the Wiesenthal Center. They know better than I. Still, limit speech even hate speech in a public forum is a slippery slope. One note to the Facebook staff quoting policy to the Wiesenthal Center: You're using a variation of "I'm just doing my job." Find better reasons.
barryrsilver I can't agree with you more about Facebook's response. I thought it was pathetic.
debmorello Thanks for the kind words. FB didn't become a giant by quoting policy.
barryrsilver For me, it's definitely a conundrum, mate. I can see the reasoning of things being in the open being easier to monitor. But then I ask, if it was me that was affected by the words and ideas being discussed, would I think differently?
And yes, that's a typically lame excuse from someone that doesn't want to take responsibility, good or bad.
My latest conversation: The Nike Method of Launching a Blog
DannyBrownbarryrsilver
If hidden how can you reply and rebut?
saragoldbergerDannyBrown Obviously you can't answer an opinion that isn't allowed into an (almost) open forum. It's a trade-off: Protecting the feelings of those already injured by the deeds of hate purveyors, at the request of the injured vs. allowing the hate in public to be replied, rebutted and hopefully not multiplied. As I've stated I give certain injured groups extra credence in a request for censure in an open forum.
barryrsilverDannyBrown
Sorry if I was unclear - Ia longer answer goes - don't think that these, or other hate groups, should be taken off the grid. Instead they should be out in the open to be fought. AND if they post on a server in a country where this kind of speech is allowed FB should have the integrity to leave it.
Let me give you an example, in Sweden we banned child porn on the internet. Yes, I find child porn sick to say the least and can understand the legislator. BUT the result is that the police now have trouble policing because the law has made it difficult for them to find the porn in question. Is that better? The police certainly don't think so. So somehow what stared out as a well-intended measure ended up shooting the "right" (e.g. the police) people in the foot. Just taking trash like that off, in this case FB, won't make it go away it will just become more difficult to monitor and rebut.
saragoldbergerDannyBrown I agree 100% but... shouldn't the victims of child porn have a seat at the table? And shouldn't the vote of victims of child porn carry more weight than most if not all.
barryrsilverDannyBrown
I don't see why. What happened to one man one vote? Sorry, for me that's not a road to take. Unfortunately as we have seen lately in Norway democracy and openness have a price.
saragoldbergerDannyBrown Referring to an earlier post, this will be where we agree to disagree in a civil manner. As for Facebook, the only vote that matters belongs to M. Zuckerberg. I wold hope Mr. Zuckerberg would place more wight on the feelings of the victims. As for one person, one vote that's for elections. One of the beautiful (and most frustrating) things about living in a representative democracy is that majority doesn't always rule. Sometimes a minority requires and receives special consideration.
Not that it's mine to offer, but in the name of civil disagreement I offer you last word on my contributions to this part of the stream.
Oh I'm so going to kick myself for answering before reading the (gasp) 103 comments... but I need to write it first, then go dig in.
I am, I admit, a huge proponent of Freedom of Speech. I only wish that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution were actually incorporated into the main body the first go round.But (and this is a BIG one) the 1st Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."See that very first word? The first phrase?
*Congress* shall make *no law* is the part everyone loves to gloss over.
Free speech? It means free from Government control. Not "free no matter who actually owns the platform you are using for free." And Facebook? Isn't a government. It's a business. A privately owned business. One that allows its users free use of their system, but not without first agreeing to a lengthy Terms of Service agreement.For all that Facebook is now larger in population than most countries in the world? It's not a government. It's not enacting laws. It's not telling you that you aren't free to say something - it's telling you that you aren't free to say something *on their privately owned platform.*
This isn't a Freedom of Speech issue. It's a "not understanding the nature of the players in the debate." You, no matter who you are, may be invited into my home and I may not charge you for that - but if you say something I find offensive? Bet your ass that I will throw you out and your 1st Amendment rights will do you no good - because I'm not a government entity. Neither is Facebook.
Now I'll go read all of the "missed the point" responses I know are down below.
LucretiaPruitt Hi miss,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment as usual - always makes me think.
I don't know the laws of the U.S. - heck, I barely know the laws of my own country! - so I won't try and say "Yay" or "Nay" to 1st Amendment, etc. And I agree - Facebook, or any other major network, isn't a Government (and hopefully I wasn't suggesting that in the post).
So I'll look at it from the business angle. I agree, Facebook is a business that has its own rules and policies, and these have been quoted to the survivors in their plea letter. From that view, businesses do fall under (or can) Government jurisdiction and come under scrutiny and investigation, should this be warranted.
This may or may not fall into that category - that would be decided by people far smarter than I. Which then perhaps begs the question - if this was a business like Ford or Sears or Apple, and they let their "employees" say anything, regardless of how false, hurtful or (potentially) dangerous the words might be, would people want to do business with that company?
Maybe that's something for Facebook to consider in examples like this?
My latest conversation: The Nike Method of Launching a Blog
DannyBrown The thing is? I would expect Facebook to *limit* the speech - as they have censored much already in bringing FB to countries with much stricter laws.
When you own a site, you have the ability to say "nope, sorry, not here buster." If they haven't? Then yes, I certainly would consider spending my advertising dollars and my time elsewhere.
What a thought-provoking post Danny. Words have power--and when that power is abused, we have to do what we can to make it right. Holocaust deniers spread their lies because they likely wish Hitler had finished the job.
I am a Jew (and no Jew I know has denied that millions of non-Jews were also slaughtered), so that obviously colors my thinking. My mom's family came to America following a pogram where my great-grandfather was shot (though not fatally). My dad's mother was sent from Poland to live with an aunt and uncle in America in the 1920s, which was a good thing, since the rest of her family was killed in the camps.
I grew up in the suburbs of NYC, where kids of all religions played together. Then I got to college in Missouri where one person told me I was so nice she couldn't understand why my people killed Jesus, was called a "kike" by another, and was--for real--asked where my horns were because "everyone knows Jews are the spawn of the devil."
All of those "offenders" were TOLD these things.For over 20 years I have lived next door to Muslims. I helped two of the kids (now in their 30s) start their business. Their father told them his whole life he had been TOLD Jews were bad people. But after living next door to one who was so nice to his kids, he realized he'd been "lied" to and was sorry he'd wasted so much time on hate.
Words that deny the holocaust, proclaim that kids raised as slaves were better off than black kids in today's America, or imply that all Muslims are terrorists are all hate speech. And hate speech comes with a very high cost.
Rieva I think that's one of the scariest potentials from all of this (and other denials), Rieva - if history is claimed to be either false, or non-existent, at which point does the truth end and the fabricated version take over?
And if the lies win, does that mean the next genocide is in the near future? Maybe that's a little dramatic, but then if people had said one man will be responsible for 11 million deaths, perhaps they would have been looked at as being "dramatic".
Thanks for the thoughts, Rieva.
My latest conversation: The Nike Method of Launching a Blog
G'Day Danny,
I've been sitting here saying to myself, "Will i, wont I?" I dunno. I'm from strong Irish- Catholic stock. The persecution of the Irish by the British over centuries is truly appalling. Even famous British historian Cecil Woodham- Smith claimed that " the treatment of the Irish by the British [during the Great Famine of the 1840s] is matched only by their treatment of their own soldiers in the Crimea."
Between 1 and 2 million Irish died in a few years as a direct result of British Government policy.
Even here in Australia Cetholics were not permitted to practice their religion in the early years of the Colony. Personally, I grew up in a period when anti- Irish and anti- Catholic sentiment was opanly displayed.
For all that, I dont believe in censorship. As my father used to say,"never lower yourself to the level of the competition."
That's good enough for me.
Regards
Leon
Leon I hear you, mate. Every nation pretty much has its own skeletons - I recall my uncle being a part of the British Army and being shocked at some of the things they were ordered to do in Ireland at the height of the Troubles.
Like you say, we only grow if we learn, and we only learn by being the bigger person. Your father sounds a wise man, mate.
Cheers.
My latest conversation: The Nike Method of Launching a Blog
Conversation from Facebook
I guess I would prefer that Facebook be only a channel, and not an influence in and of itself. Any action to promote or repress is, to me, an unfortunate reality of them having to turn a profit and be seen as a good corporate citizen. I like the Internet as an unmitigated melting pot of ideas, where people can get viewpoints from all over the world and make better informed decisions. I would never have watched/read Aljazeera, which I now consider to be among the best MSM outlets in the world, if "the powers that be" in North America had their say in what messages I could have access to. Same goes for Wikileaks, another one of my personal favourites.
Everett - Not sure if I'd agree with the Bell comparison. A phone call is private - Facebook is accessible to more than 700 million people, and therefore has more potential to influence someone's train of thought.
I agree, personal responsibility is key - but then, we both know there are less responsible people that don't care about facts and/or consequences. For them, moderation is often needed (think employees endangering businesses because of political or sexual orientation views being made on a public platform).
I think it's less important where the hosting takes place, and more important where the user is who is violating the law. To me, holding Facebook accountable for the actions of its users is like holding Bell responsible for a murder that's organized over the phone. You could say they have to monitor everything and respond accordingly, but in the end the accountability really should fall to the individuals.
Everett - It's a fair point, although much of what's said in the West is sanctioned by governments that don't want that kind of thinking shared. And I guess it boils down to where the host is - many sites may have international users, but the hosting is North American-based, so Facebook - or whatever site it may be - is within their rights to use U.S.-based laws, or similar.
Ah, Everett, you've come up against the corporate right to self censorship.
Am I the only one who believes that Facebook shouldn't remove anything at all that isn't illegal in the country from which it was posted? Free sharing of opinions is part of what will eventually bring people, and hopefully their governments, out of the dark ages and into a more progressive global society. Who are we to say that a message that is threatening to westerners (holocaust denial) be censored, but that messages from us (democracy, capitalism, women's rights, secularism) that are threatening elsewhere not be subject to the same sanctions? Seems hypocritical and myopic in the most West-centric way.
Danny - The question of enforcement of the law is a separate issue.
I grew up in a military family. I find the disrespect at funerals of service members to be abhorrent, and certainly not "what Jesus would do." Still, freedom of speech allows people to air their own views without fear of government reprisal. Compare that to what's been going on in repressive regimes. We Americans don't want to go there! Great question thanks for posing it.
Trackbacks
-
[...] Should Facebook Remove Holocaust Denial Groups? originally appeared on Danny Brown | Social Media Marketing Blog – The Human Side of Media and the Social Side of Marketing under a Creative Commons license. [...]
-
[...] Should Facebook Remove Holocaust Denial Groups? [...]
-
[...] I didn’t try my hand at photoshop and coding. I asked someone whose expertise I trusted Danny Brown and Bonsai Interactive’s creative director Lisa Kalandjian for help. The result speaks for [...]
-
[...] platforms like Facebook crack down on any particular person or group. But then, you find out that there are Holocaust denial groups all around Facebook, and you may stop and think, “Well, maybe we can get rid of them.” What are the [...]
-
[...] Danny Brown <— Click To Read More Smart Stuff! [...]
