Facebook defends free speech
We read:
"Facebook has again come under fire for ignoring racism on the site after it refused to ban controversial groups that deny the Holocaust. It will instead attempt to block the groups from being viewed by users in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.
The social networking site says it will remove groups that are sponsored by recognised terrorist organisations or that "express hatred towards individuals", but it will not take down groups that "speak out against countries, political entities or ideas".
However, months after Facebook said it would remove groups with racist content - including "F--- Islam", "I Hate Israel", "You're in Australia ... SPEAK ENGLISH!!!", "Aussie Pride!!! Love it or GET THE F*CK OUT" and "I cannot tolerate SOUTH AFRICAN ACCENT" - all of those groups, and many more, are still open and continue to spread their message.
The latest controversy relates to the Holocaust denial groups on the site including "Holocaust: A series of lies", "Holocaust is a Holohoax" and "Holocaust is a myth". A US attorney had complained that the groups violated the site's terms of service and would leave Facebook legally liable in countries where Holocaust denial is a crime, such as in Germany and Israel.
The groups are still accessible in Australia, where there are no specific laws prohibiting Holocaust denial. However, our courts have made it clear that the practice is a form of racial vilification.
Gollan said there were limits to "free speech" and likened the Holocaust denial groups to similar groups that deny the existence of the stolen generations. [The "stolen generation" is a myth concocted by Leftist Australian historians -- so we can see that Mr Gollan is at least as dangerous as those whom he attacks]
Facebook said in a statement that it had to "strike a very delicate balance" between giving Facebook users the freedom to express their opinions and ensuring people do not feel threatened when using the site. The social networking site said it had blocked the Holocaust denial groups in some parts of Europe but refused to delete the groups altogether.
"For example, homosexual content is illegal in some countries, but that does not mean it should be removed from Facebook," it said. [Touche!]
Source
15 comments:
Is not denial of the holocaust, (or anything else) simply someone's opinion?
And do jews have the right to limit free speech simply because they don't like certain aspects of it?
And if they do, does that "right" extend to other religions as well?
Facebook is acting very responsibly and they are going to take their lumps from the "tolerant" left for this.
Once we allow the least tolerant (aka the most easily offended) to set the standard (on any issue), we can't even discuss the weather!
ME: It's kinda cool today, isn't it?
AGW Proponent: You warming denier!
I guess if someone were to start a group spreading 'The truth about Islam' it wouldn't last a day...
"And do jews have the right to limit free speech simply because they don't like certain aspects of it?"
---Facebook isn't owned by jews, anonymous. They can censor anyone the want just like Jon Jay Ray can delete any comment he likes.
Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant. Left to cluster in dark corners these people gain strength but left to speak in the open they illustrate their ignorance. Yes they will gain some converts but that was going to happen either way. Sadly hate and ignorance will always exist and banning them will not change that.
You want to see a freedom of speech case gone awry????? follow me!
Bobby said...
"Facebook isn't owned by jews, anonymous. They can censor anyone the want just like Jon Jay Ray can delete any comment he likes."
Bobby, who owns Facebook is not the point. That the original complaint came from jews, is. And if censorship becomes the rule, should it not apply to all?
Hate, like love, is a human emotion, and can not be outlawed or legislated away.
"Hate, like love, is a human emotion, and can not be outlawed or legislated away."Roger that, anon.
I hate Facebook so I just do not access the site.
"Is not denial of the holocaust, (or anything else) simply someone's opinion? "
Truth/Reality is not subject to anyone's opinion. We either acknowledge it and profit from that acknowledgement, or attempt to deny reality and suffer the consequences.
What is, is. Reality has a way of smacking down those who try to pretend otherwise.
Is not truth and reality simply your opinion of what's true or real? Is the glass half full, or half empty?
Pontius Pilate said it best - "What is Truth?".
"Bobby, who owns Facebook is not the point. That the original complaint came from jews, is."
---So you're blaming the jews for complaining? Why not blame facebook from listening to those complaints? The truth is anyone can complain.
"And if censorship becomes the rule, should it not apply to all?"
---I look at facebook the same way I look at the Boy Scouts of America, they have the right to accept and reject members. Facebook is not a free speech zone.
Craiglist and youtube are great examples, they tolerate almost anything but if the users find something objectionable, they can "flag it" and if an item gets enough flags it will be removed.
Freerepublic.com does the same thing.
"Is not truth and reality simply your opinion of what's true or real?"
So tell me, does this "truth" apply to everyone? Or just to you?
Is not truth and reality simply your opinion of what's true or real? Is the glass half full, or half empty?
Truth and reality are not simply a matter of one's opinion. If one believes there is no such thing as gravity and walks off a second story ledge, he will still fall and hit the ground hard, regardless of his opinion or perception.
Truth (the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) and reality do exist, and personal opinions do not change them. Someone may have heard a half-truth (e.g., a man was seen at the scenes of several suspicious fires, but not tried for any of them), and believe differently than if he had the whole truth (e.g., that the man in the earlier example is a firefighter). It's not a matter of truth being a matter of opinion, but a matter of whether one has learned enough of the truth to know the whole truth.
Post a Comment