8 ms·

Shocking response from Facebook about request to remove this offensive page

39 points by nreece 13y ago

tommi 13y ago
I think this was an excellent response from Facebook. I don't agree with the message, but I also don't want to increase censorship just because I don't like what others are saying.
- akie 13y ago
  I strongly disagree with you. How is encouragement to rape ever acceptable?
  - tommi 13y ago
    I don't consider acceptance to be the criteria for censorship, legality yes.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    It's not "acceptable". It's horrible. It's despicable. It's disgusting - and the person who posted that picture, and created that picture, should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely no reasonable person believes, for even a second, that that posting shouldn't be taken down, and immediately, and the person who put it up should also immediately apologize. The question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the original poster. I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up." But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument. [Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read through https://twitter.com/sammorril https://twitter.com/sammorril, and consider whether you believe twitter should be censoring his posts, for example, https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 is one that I reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable, but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what circumstances that power to censor should be used.)
    - TomGullen 13y ago
      > I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see That's pretty scary.
    - dchest 13y ago
      You're wrong: there can be no arguments about pro-censorship or pro-free speech regarding this picture. As mentioned right in Facebook's reply, they already censor content according to their guidelines. The argument is about whether this picture is "bad" enough to censor it.
      - ghshephard 13y ago
        The reason why it's a pro-censorship vs pro-free speech argument, is that almost everyone (for any reasonable definition of everyone) believes in some censorship in a civilized society. The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship, you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should, or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should. Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive speech their right to make it.
  - buster 13y ago
    As much as i don't think it's funny, i don't think it encourages raping per se. The picture is just one of those "trying to provoke people" pictures. I've recently been at a comedian show where everyone laughed at very, very offensive and racist sentences. But after all that was the comedians intension. Hard to explain... How is this different?
    - CaioAlonso 13y ago
      It says "Tape her and rape her". If this isn't encouraging rape, I don't know what would be then. Just because people are laughing doesn't mean it isn't encouraging horrible behavior by making certain actions seem less disgusting.
      - cabalamat 13y ago
        Genuine question: Do you think Sickipedia should be banned? ( http://www.sickipedia.org/ http://www.sickipedia.org/ )
      - buster 13y ago
        First of all: I don't feel encouraged to rape a woman at all after seeing the picture. Do you?! Second: Do you honestly believe that somewhere a woman is going to be raped solely because of this picture? Third: If you believe that this sentence leads to rapes, you also need to ban every comedy on earth that makes fun of blacks or jews because that would encourage racism. So no Seinfeld (jokes on jews!). No Simpsons (blacks AND jews and about everything). And current comedies like Family Guy, Southpatk or American Dad.. ouch.. that's some offensive stuff in there! Maybe not funny at all for you, but funny for many many people.
      - venomsnake 13y ago
        In the same amount the violent video games are responsible for school shootings ...
      - lifebar 13y ago
        "If this isn't encouraging rape," Exactly HOW is it encouraging rape?
  - officemonkey 13y ago
    Please note, I'm not defending the speech, just the right to say it. Well, there was an episode of Mad Men this season where Betty suggests her husband rape the teenager staying in the same house. Sure it was shocking, but I don't recall people asking AMC to censor the episode. I've also seen worse much worse jokes posted on reddit. Perhaps because it's an image macro that people are getting upset.
  - TomGullen 13y ago
    It's attempting to be humorous (badly). It's not intending to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable.
  - petepete 13y ago
    You can't censor humour; it's absurd to attempt to deem some subjects entirely off-limit. No, I didn't find this particular example funny, but that doesn't mean that comedy that touches on certain taboo subjects can't be.
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    Encouragement to rape is bad, because it harms society. Censorship is worse, because it harms society more; if you look at the countries with the most censorship they are all rotten places to live and I expect most of them have higher levels of rape than countries with less censorship.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Are you talking about government censorship? Or about societal pressure to not post deliberately deeply offensive stuff to a place open to 13 year olds and above?
      - cabalamat 13y ago
        > Are you talking about government censorship? Is government censorship really any worse than censorship by a corporation/website? If it's a small website, then one can simply go elsewhere. After all freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience. Set up your own website or whatever. But what if it's a big website, one that nearly everyone uses, such as Facebook? Sure, someone can argue: if you don't like the website don't use it and then say because you don't have to use it Facebook isn't being coercive. But with government censorship, one could say: if you don't like it leave the country and go live somewhere else. In both cases there's a counterargument: it's not as easy as that, therefore it makes more sense to regard it as coercive. To my mind governments and large corporations are similar in that both are powerful, and neither can be relied upon to have my interests at heart. Therefore I am wary when either limits freedom of speech.
        DanBC 13y ago
        Governments can put you in jail if you disobey their censorship laws. Facebook is weird because they removed images of women breastfeeding; and they took some time (and initially refused) to takedown images of women having their heads cut off.
- ceautery 13y ago
  What "Offensive Humor at its Best" is saying is take a woman by force against her will. That's hate speech. By choosing to not take the image down, Facebook is complicit in violence against women.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    You genuinely believe that this image is instigating action? You actually believe that someone could see this image and be motivated to rape?
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Regardless of the takedown issue, I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted. After all, it's how media campaigns have managed to change some society behaviors and expectations.
      - mhurron 13y ago
        This discussion can't be regardless of the takedown issue, that is the issue being discussed. > I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted. I don't think it is reasonable to say that at all, since this 'rape culture' in the US is basically a manufactured boogieman. This image is representative of an asshole going for shock value, nothing more. The intended effect is occurring, the image is making rounds and people are getting upset.
    - ceautery 13y ago
      I have no opinion on whether that will motivate people to action. That doesn't change the message, or excuse Facebook's inaction. It's clear from this and similar stories what side of the exalt/subjugate line they tend to choose, regardless of what their terms of service state.
  - 13y ago
- rooshdi 13y ago
  If this isn't hate speech, what is?
  - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
    Nothing should be. "Hate speech" is an absurd concept that should have no place in any civilized society that considers freedom of expression to be even slightly important. Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful. Now, harm may arise if somebody in turn acts after being exposed to such material. But the responsibility for that harmful act should lay solely with the individual or individuals who perpetrated it, not with people who merely expressed ideas that may have been observed by the perpetrator.
    - rooshdi 13y ago
      According to Facebook's community standards, it should be considered hate speech. The post is clearly an attack on people based on their sex.
    - 6d0debc071 13y ago
      > Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful. It is harmful in and of itself. I don't know if you've ever had people urging others to hurt you but it's immensely threatening, very scary. And for good reason - there's the knowledge that there's easy respect up for grabs in that hateful little group, something that encourages lonely bitter people to go do the things. The speech creates an incentive for the action. It's a difference of degree, not of type, between putting out a hit on someone and hate speech. It's just the payment that's slightly different.
    - cabalamat 13y ago
      Do you not think that ideas can, and often do, cause acts?
      - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
- sluukkonen 13y ago
  Facebook has rules forbidding hate speech. Is that not hate speech to you?
  - tommi 13y ago
    I consider it to be extremely distasteful but with the context of "Offensive Humor" I don't see it as hate speech.
    - sluukkonen 13y ago
      Fair enough.
- nmridul 13y ago
  If it was an image or a tweet on blowing up an airport or something like that, it would've been removed instantly and the person charged with an act of terrorism, to spend rest of his good life in prison. But inciting some one to rape seems to be completely acceptable under the rights of Free speech ?
  - tommi 13y ago
    Are you saying that overreactions to terrorism justify loosing rights to Free speech completely?
- mixedbit 13y ago
  In Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky makes a very similar point. He advocates for the right to publish a ridiculous book that denies Holocaust ever had place. Chomsky argues that the freedom of speech applies universally, even if a speaker is a harmful lunatic, he should still be given this freedom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
  - netrus 13y ago
    But you dont have to sell it in your bookstore. Facebook is not a country, but a private company.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Responses like this baffle me. It's basically saying "I don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech. Therefore, anyone not bound by law to honor it should censor things I don't like". Is this basically what you're saying? Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like? Do you think the concept "freedom of speech" is worthwhile beyond freedom simply from government censorship? I've always considered freedom of speech to be much more than a rule that government must follow. It seems that a lot of people would rather put that idea into as small a box as possible so they can justify coercing service providers to censor things they find distasteful. This is really disheartening.
      - SEMW 13y ago
        The argument isn't "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like". It's "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes". That including 'not publishing things enough people don't like'. It also includes 'not publishing things coloured blue, on an irrational whim'. You can point out the sillyness of not publishing blue things, or say it's bad business, but it isn't censorship. Censorship would be if publishers were banned from publishing blue things. Netrus was replying to mixedbit's Noam Chomsky comment, pointing out that, if facebook removed the post, that wouldn't be analagous to someone not having the 'right to publish a ridiculous book', it would be analagous to a private publisher having the right to decide not to publish it. [Edited to clarify, per mixedbit]
factorialboy 13y ago
WTF facebook? Encouragement of rape is not acceptable IMHO.
- SG- 13y ago
  It's not encouragement, it's someone's attempt at a joke. It's ok to joke about things, and sometimes it's offensive.
- white_devil 13y ago
  As much as I hate Facebook, it wasn't Facebook encouraging rape. It was whoever posted that picture, if even him. "Hate speech" is a non-issue. Everyone is free to ignore ideas they don't agree with, or perhaps even debate them. But it's not right to punish people for presenting ideas (no matter how idiotic they might be, or seem).
fastball 13y ago
I don't think that can even be considered humour, but I also disagree that the image is "hate speech". Women are not the exclusive victims of rape in any sense. Ridiculously stupid and unfunny? Yes. Putting down women for being women? I don't think so.
- curveship 13y ago
  It's hard to argue that this page isn't targeted at women when it specifically says "rape her". I understand your belief that there should be greater awareness of the male victims of rape, but that doesn't seem to apply here.
- skue 13y ago
  > Women are not the exclusive victims of rape. This is a ridiculously weak argument. According to RAINN, 9 out of 10 rape victims are women, and the majority of male victims are either prisoners or children, which is another whole class of crime in itself. What is being proposed by the photo (joking or not) is rape against women, pure and simple. And we have a worldwide epidemic: 1 in 6 women will be victimized in their lifetime. Maybe the majority of HN readers are too young or socially isolated to have a close relationship with a woman who has been a victim. But when you see what it does to real human beings, then it's hard to be so damn callous about this.
  - theorique 13y ago
    The oft-repeated RAINN data is suspect and based on questionable statistics and speculations. It is certainly not derived from actual criminal reporting data.
DanBC 13y ago
Facebook took a while to decide that videos of women having their heads cut off were not acceptable. I don't find Facebook's decision here confusing.
cotsuka 13y ago
I agree encouraging rape is not acceptable. Neither is racism. Or disrespecting other people. But we have decided that it is better to have freedom of speech than no freedom of speech. Is Facebook's response in the right? I think so. We should be angry at the person who put up the photo.
D4M14N 13y ago
I think context matters a lot, and this photo was posted to a page called "Offensive Humor" so people know the message is wrong and offensive, I doubt anyone would actually be on that page seriously agreeing with that message or being influenced to carry out its message. If this was posted to a page called "Women are scum" or similar etc then the photo would have a different meaning.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
clarkm 13y ago
I'm just wondering how you come across such a picture on Facebook in the first place. I imagine you have to go looking for it, considering it's in the group "Offensive Humor at Its Best," which I doubt anyone would share with their friends. The picture was posted on February 12th [1], but she didn't report it until about an hour ago [2], which only adds to the evidence that she went out of her way to find this. So my question is: why would you do this if it's going to ruin your day? There's bad stuff all over the internet, and it's not going away. It doesn't seem productive to launch a crusade to get it all taken down. Just block it if you don't want to see -- get some filtering software, install parental controls. I really hope no one tells or about 4chan or tor. [1] https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&set=168467446611226 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&... [2] http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&set=a.168468706611100.13857.168467446611226&type=1&comment_id=253779&offset=0&total_comments=11 http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&s...
ColinWright 13y ago
I offer this as a thought experiment for people on both sides of the debate: Is it acceptable to shout "Fire!" in a panic-stricken manner in a crowded theater? If not, then you accept that there are circumstances when "free speech" is not applicable. If so, please defend your position, when such an act may lead almost directly to serious injury and perhaps death. This question removes the connection with rape and perhaps might help to focus attention on "speech with consequences".
- pionar 13y ago
  Yes, it's offensive, yes, it's disgusting, but how exactly does it "have consequences"? Do you really think someone is going to go rape a woman just because of this tasteless rhyme? That's ridiculous.
  - ColinWright 13y ago
    Do you think speech like this has no consequences at all? That's what I'm trying to find out, whether people believe this sort of thing genuinely has zero effect. Personally, I think speech and communication in general goes both ways. It reflects what the source thinks and feels, and in turn affects what the listener/reader thinks and feels. I think there is an effect. Do you think there is none? And then there is the other aspect. Do you believe that speech with consequences should be censored or controlled? Or do you believe that all speech, even shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, should be uncensored and uncontrolled? You appear not to have answered the question I actually asked.
    - glomph 13y ago
      All speech has an effect otherwise no one would bother talking. The question is not whether it has an effect, but whether it causes enough harm to justify stopping it. Older than the fire in the theater example (which if I remember rightly comes from a supreme court case in the US) is John Stuart Mill: >An opinion that corndealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. But he then of course gives one of the most brilliant defenses of free speech in all circumstances other than direct harm ever written. Do you think this is going to cause direct harm?
nraynaud 13y ago
I guess a would make that a gender issue since it's mostly women who are target of rape jokes. The real craziness is this insistance in removing any female nipples (for some reason, male nipples are not sensored) and not dead corpses or guns even in countries where nudity is far more accepted than violence.
TomGullen 13y ago
I believe this is a result from this campaign: http://www.womenactionmedia.org/ http://www.womenactionmedia.org/ I can't get behind this campaign, because a large part of it appears to be advocating censorship of humour. The face value difference between genuine hate pages and humour is often subtle. But their intentions are completely different. A joke, no matter how crude is not attempting to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable. Because it's intentions are not to encourage the spread of hatred, it appears the reason they should be removed is because people are offended by them. If you find them offensive, don't view them. And I think it's pretty easy not to view those images unless you go looking for them. Here's the campaigns 'examples' page: http://www.womenactionmedia.org/facebookaction/examples/ http://www.womenactionmedia.org/facebookaction/examples/ There is a clear overlap between the jokes, and what I would consider hateful. The majority appear to be bad jokes, and the supporters of the campaign often (understandably) find it difficult to differentiate between the two. I can't support censorship of humour, no matter how offended I am by it. The campaign in my view has failed because it has not clearly defined it's boundaries, it's going to war with genuine hate pages and bad jokes at the same time and is causing a lot of confusion in the process.
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  I clicked through that examples page you linked, and I disagree with you about what these jokes are. Jokes need to be funny, there is very little humor in "This bitch didn't know when to shut up. Do you?" I agree with you about not censoring jokes, but seriously.. these are not the kind of jokes that are worth the time spent looking at them. Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
  - thedrbrian 13y ago
    Yes it would. It might not be funny to you but is to someone.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    And if it says - your CEO the day after you won the jackpot? Every employee under crap management will find it funny and the managers offensive ...
bigd 13y ago
If you get pissed by what you find online, then you're better off the Internet.
- bigd 13y ago
  I strongly believe that people which complains about the content of Internet, whatever it might be, should go trough "internet 101": https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Power_5 https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Power_5
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
qxcv 13y ago
Here[0] is where Facebook defines what they consider to be "hate speech": > Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed. We do, however, allow clear attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste (ex: jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.). Granted, it's a horribly distasteful image macro, but Facebook acted according to their written community standards, so I'm not sure why their response is "shocking". It's also important to bear in mind that the page is titled "Offensive Humor at its Best", so I'm not sure why it comes as a surprise that the images are, well, offensive. [0] https://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490/ https://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490/
venomsnake 13y ago
So there is something offensive on page called offensive humor at its best ... surprise. Now here is the thing with humor and offensiveness = with 7 billion people on this planet everything is offensive to someone. Also funny to someone else. This is a stupid joke - ignore it. If it got shared by a friend defriend him. If it got promoted to you by facebook sponsored - file a complaing. But trawling on pages for finding something to be offended by - it is way too close to censorship in my opinion.
stefan_kendall 13y ago
Fuck censorship. Depictions of violence are not violence. Movies, porn, video games. Do they encourage shooting people in the head? Not in real life.
general_failure 13y ago
Great response from facebook. I prefer that nothing visual be censored. People should just ignore shit that is offensive to them. And we as a society should just look down on people who create offensive shit.

39 points by nreece 13y ago

tommi 13y ago

I think this was an excellent response from Facebook. I don't agree with the message, but I also don't want to increase censorship just because I don't like what others are saying.

akie 13y ago
I strongly disagree with you. How is encouragement to rape ever acceptable?
- tommi 13y ago
  I don't consider acceptance to be the criteria for censorship, legality yes.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  It's not "acceptable". It's horrible. It's despicable. It's disgusting - and the person who posted that picture, and created that picture, should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely no reasonable person believes, for even a second, that that posting shouldn't be taken down, and immediately, and the person who put it up should also immediately apologize. The question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the original poster. I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up." But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument. [Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read through https://twitter.com/sammorril https://twitter.com/sammorril, and consider whether you believe twitter should be censoring his posts, for example, https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 is one that I reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable, but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what circumstances that power to censor should be used.)
  - TomGullen 13y ago
    > I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see That's pretty scary.
  - dchest 13y ago
    You're wrong: there can be no arguments about pro-censorship or pro-free speech regarding this picture. As mentioned right in Facebook's reply, they already censor content according to their guidelines. The argument is about whether this picture is "bad" enough to censor it.
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      The reason why it's a pro-censorship vs pro-free speech argument, is that almost everyone (for any reasonable definition of everyone) believes in some censorship in a civilized society. The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship, you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should, or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should. Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive speech their right to make it.
- buster 13y ago
  As much as i don't think it's funny, i don't think it encourages raping per se. The picture is just one of those "trying to provoke people" pictures. I've recently been at a comedian show where everyone laughed at very, very offensive and racist sentences. But after all that was the comedians intension. Hard to explain... How is this different?
  - CaioAlonso 13y ago
    It says "Tape her and rape her". If this isn't encouraging rape, I don't know what would be then. Just because people are laughing doesn't mean it isn't encouraging horrible behavior by making certain actions seem less disgusting.
    - cabalamat 13y ago
      Genuine question: Do you think Sickipedia should be banned? ( http://www.sickipedia.org/ http://www.sickipedia.org/ )
    - buster 13y ago
      First of all: I don't feel encouraged to rape a woman at all after seeing the picture. Do you?! Second: Do you honestly believe that somewhere a woman is going to be raped solely because of this picture? Third: If you believe that this sentence leads to rapes, you also need to ban every comedy on earth that makes fun of blacks or jews because that would encourage racism. So no Seinfeld (jokes on jews!). No Simpsons (blacks AND jews and about everything). And current comedies like Family Guy, Southpatk or American Dad.. ouch.. that's some offensive stuff in there! Maybe not funny at all for you, but funny for many many people.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      In the same amount the violent video games are responsible for school shootings ...
    - lifebar 13y ago
      "If this isn't encouraging rape," Exactly HOW is it encouraging rape?
- officemonkey 13y ago
  Please note, I'm not defending the speech, just the right to say it. Well, there was an episode of Mad Men this season where Betty suggests her husband rape the teenager staying in the same house. Sure it was shocking, but I don't recall people asking AMC to censor the episode. I've also seen worse much worse jokes posted on reddit. Perhaps because it's an image macro that people are getting upset.
- TomGullen 13y ago
  It's attempting to be humorous (badly). It's not intending to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable.
- petepete 13y ago
  You can't censor humour; it's absurd to attempt to deem some subjects entirely off-limit. No, I didn't find this particular example funny, but that doesn't mean that comedy that touches on certain taboo subjects can't be.
- cabalamat 13y ago
  Encouragement to rape is bad, because it harms society. Censorship is worse, because it harms society more; if you look at the countries with the most censorship they are all rotten places to live and I expect most of them have higher levels of rape than countries with less censorship.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Are you talking about government censorship? Or about societal pressure to not post deliberately deeply offensive stuff to a place open to 13 year olds and above?
    - cabalamat 13y ago
      > Are you talking about government censorship? Is government censorship really any worse than censorship by a corporation/website? If it's a small website, then one can simply go elsewhere. After all freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience. Set up your own website or whatever. But what if it's a big website, one that nearly everyone uses, such as Facebook? Sure, someone can argue: if you don't like the website don't use it and then say because you don't have to use it Facebook isn't being coercive. But with government censorship, one could say: if you don't like it leave the country and go live somewhere else. In both cases there's a counterargument: it's not as easy as that, therefore it makes more sense to regard it as coercive. To my mind governments and large corporations are similar in that both are powerful, and neither can be relied upon to have my interests at heart. Therefore I am wary when either limits freedom of speech.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        Governments can put you in jail if you disobey their censorship laws. Facebook is weird because they removed images of women breastfeeding; and they took some time (and initially refused) to takedown images of women having their heads cut off.
ceautery 13y ago
What "Offensive Humor at its Best" is saying is take a woman by force against her will. That's hate speech. By choosing to not take the image down, Facebook is complicit in violence against women.
- mhurron 13y ago
  You genuinely believe that this image is instigating action? You actually believe that someone could see this image and be motivated to rape?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Regardless of the takedown issue, I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted. After all, it's how media campaigns have managed to change some society behaviors and expectations.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      This discussion can't be regardless of the takedown issue, that is the issue being discussed. > I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted. I don't think it is reasonable to say that at all, since this 'rape culture' in the US is basically a manufactured boogieman. This image is representative of an asshole going for shock value, nothing more. The intended effect is occurring, the image is making rounds and people are getting upset.
  - ceautery 13y ago
    I have no opinion on whether that will motivate people to action. That doesn't change the message, or excuse Facebook's inaction. It's clear from this and similar stories what side of the exalt/subjugate line they tend to choose, regardless of what their terms of service state.
- 13y ago
rooshdi 13y ago
If this isn't hate speech, what is?
- PommeDeTerre 13y ago
  Nothing should be. "Hate speech" is an absurd concept that should have no place in any civilized society that considers freedom of expression to be even slightly important. Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful. Now, harm may arise if somebody in turn acts after being exposed to such material. But the responsibility for that harmful act should lay solely with the individual or individuals who perpetrated it, not with people who merely expressed ideas that may have been observed by the perpetrator.
  - rooshdi 13y ago
    According to Facebook's community standards, it should be considered hate speech. The post is clearly an attack on people based on their sex.
  - 6d0debc071 13y ago
    > Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful. It is harmful in and of itself. I don't know if you've ever had people urging others to hurt you but it's immensely threatening, very scary. And for good reason - there's the knowledge that there's easy respect up for grabs in that hateful little group, something that encourages lonely bitter people to go do the things. The speech creates an incentive for the action. It's a difference of degree, not of type, between putting out a hit on someone and hate speech. It's just the payment that's slightly different.
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    Do you not think that ideas can, and often do, cause acts?
    - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
sluukkonen 13y ago
Facebook has rules forbidding hate speech. Is that not hate speech to you?
- tommi 13y ago
  I consider it to be extremely distasteful but with the context of "Offensive Humor" I don't see it as hate speech.
  - sluukkonen 13y ago
    Fair enough.
nmridul 13y ago
If it was an image or a tweet on blowing up an airport or something like that, it would've been removed instantly and the person charged with an act of terrorism, to spend rest of his good life in prison. But inciting some one to rape seems to be completely acceptable under the rights of Free speech ?
- tommi 13y ago
  Are you saying that overreactions to terrorism justify loosing rights to Free speech completely?
mixedbit 13y ago
In Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky makes a very similar point. He advocates for the right to publish a ridiculous book that denies Holocaust ever had place. Chomsky argues that the freedom of speech applies universally, even if a speaker is a harmful lunatic, he should still be given this freedom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
- netrus 13y ago
  But you dont have to sell it in your bookstore. Facebook is not a country, but a private company.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Responses like this baffle me. It's basically saying "I don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech. Therefore, anyone not bound by law to honor it should censor things I don't like". Is this basically what you're saying? Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like? Do you think the concept "freedom of speech" is worthwhile beyond freedom simply from government censorship? I've always considered freedom of speech to be much more than a rule that government must follow. It seems that a lot of people would rather put that idea into as small a box as possible so they can justify coercing service providers to censor things they find distasteful. This is really disheartening.
    - SEMW 13y ago
      The argument isn't "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like". It's "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes". That including 'not publishing things enough people don't like'. It also includes 'not publishing things coloured blue, on an irrational whim'. You can point out the sillyness of not publishing blue things, or say it's bad business, but it isn't censorship. Censorship would be if publishers were banned from publishing blue things. Netrus was replying to mixedbit's Noam Chomsky comment, pointing out that, if facebook removed the post, that wouldn't be analagous to someone not having the 'right to publish a ridiculous book', it would be analagous to a private publisher having the right to decide not to publish it. [Edited to clarify, per mixedbit]

factorialboy 13y ago

WTF facebook? Encouragement of rape is not acceptable IMHO.

SG- 13y ago
It's not encouragement, it's someone's attempt at a joke. It's ok to joke about things, and sometimes it's offensive.
white_devil 13y ago
As much as I hate Facebook, it wasn't Facebook encouraging rape. It was whoever posted that picture, if even him. "Hate speech" is a non-issue. Everyone is free to ignore ideas they don't agree with, or perhaps even debate them. But it's not right to punish people for presenting ideas (no matter how idiotic they might be, or seem).

fastball 13y ago

I don't think that can even be considered humour, but I also disagree that the image is "hate speech". Women are not the exclusive victims of rape in any sense. Ridiculously stupid and unfunny? Yes. Putting down women for being women? I don't think so.

curveship 13y ago
It's hard to argue that this page isn't targeted at women when it specifically says "rape her". I understand your belief that there should be greater awareness of the male victims of rape, but that doesn't seem to apply here.
skue 13y ago
> Women are not the exclusive victims of rape. This is a ridiculously weak argument. According to RAINN, 9 out of 10 rape victims are women, and the majority of male victims are either prisoners or children, which is another whole class of crime in itself. What is being proposed by the photo (joking or not) is rape against women, pure and simple. And we have a worldwide epidemic: 1 in 6 women will be victimized in their lifetime. Maybe the majority of HN readers are too young or socially isolated to have a close relationship with a woman who has been a victim. But when you see what it does to real human beings, then it's hard to be so damn callous about this.
- theorique 13y ago
  The oft-repeated RAINN data is suspect and based on questionable statistics and speculations. It is certainly not derived from actual criminal reporting data.

DanBC 13y ago

Facebook took a while to decide that videos of women having their heads cut off were not acceptable. I don't find Facebook's decision here confusing.

cotsuka 13y ago

I agree encouraging rape is not acceptable. Neither is racism. Or disrespecting other people. But we have decided that it is better to have freedom of speech than no freedom of speech. Is Facebook's response in the right? I think so. We should be angry at the person who put up the photo.

D4M14N 13y ago

I think context matters a lot, and this photo was posted to a page called "Offensive Humor" so people know the message is wrong and offensive, I doubt anyone would actually be on that page seriously agreeing with that message or being influenced to carry out its message. If this was posted to a page called "Women are scum" or similar etc then the photo would have a different meaning.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

clarkm 13y ago

I'm just wondering how you come across such a picture on Facebook in the first place. I imagine you have to go looking for it, considering it's in the group "Offensive Humor at Its Best," which I doubt anyone would share with their friends. The picture was posted on February 12th [1], but she didn't report it until about an hour ago [2], which only adds to the evidence that she went out of her way to find this. So my question is: why would you do this if it's going to ruin your day? There's bad stuff all over the internet, and it's not going away. It doesn't seem productive to launch a crusade to get it all taken down. Just block it if you don't want to see -- get some filtering software, install parental controls. I really hope no one tells or about 4chan or tor. [1] https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&set=168467446611226 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&... [2] http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&set=a.168468706611100.13857.168467446611226&type=1&comment_id=253779&offset=0&total_comments=11 http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&s...

ColinWright 13y ago

I offer this as a thought experiment for people on both sides of the debate: Is it acceptable to shout "Fire!" in a panic-stricken manner in a crowded theater? If not, then you accept that there are circumstances when "free speech" is not applicable. If so, please defend your position, when such an act may lead almost directly to serious injury and perhaps death. This question removes the connection with rape and perhaps might help to focus attention on "speech with consequences".

pionar 13y ago
Yes, it's offensive, yes, it's disgusting, but how exactly does it "have consequences"? Do you really think someone is going to go rape a woman just because of this tasteless rhyme? That's ridiculous.
- ColinWright 13y ago
  Do you think speech like this has no consequences at all? That's what I'm trying to find out, whether people believe this sort of thing genuinely has zero effect. Personally, I think speech and communication in general goes both ways. It reflects what the source thinks and feels, and in turn affects what the listener/reader thinks and feels. I think there is an effect. Do you think there is none? And then there is the other aspect. Do you believe that speech with consequences should be censored or controlled? Or do you believe that all speech, even shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, should be uncensored and uncontrolled? You appear not to have answered the question I actually asked.
  - glomph 13y ago
    All speech has an effect otherwise no one would bother talking. The question is not whether it has an effect, but whether it causes enough harm to justify stopping it. Older than the fire in the theater example (which if I remember rightly comes from a supreme court case in the US) is John Stuart Mill: >An opinion that corndealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. But he then of course gives one of the most brilliant defenses of free speech in all circumstances other than direct harm ever written. Do you think this is going to cause direct harm?

nraynaud 13y ago

I guess a would make that a gender issue since it's mostly women who are target of rape jokes. The real craziness is this insistance in removing any female nipples (for some reason, male nipples are not sensored) and not dead corpses or guns even in countries where nudity is far more accepted than violence.

TomGullen 13y ago

I believe this is a result from this campaign: http://www.womenactionmedia.org/ http://www.womenactionmedia.org/ I can't get behind this campaign, because a large part of it appears to be advocating censorship of humour. The face value difference between genuine hate pages and humour is often subtle. But their intentions are completely different. A joke, no matter how crude is not attempting to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable. Because it's intentions are not to encourage the spread of hatred, it appears the reason they should be removed is because people are offended by them. If you find them offensive, don't view them. And I think it's pretty easy not to view those images unless you go looking for them. Here's the campaigns 'examples' page: http://www.womenactionmedia.org/facebookaction/examples/ http://www.womenactionmedia.org/facebookaction/examples/ There is a clear overlap between the jokes, and what I would consider hateful. The majority appear to be bad jokes, and the supporters of the campaign often (understandably) find it difficult to differentiate between the two. I can't support censorship of humour, no matter how offended I am by it. The campaign in my view has failed because it has not clearly defined it's boundaries, it's going to war with genuine hate pages and bad jokes at the same time and is causing a lot of confusion in the process.

RyanZAG 13y ago
I clicked through that examples page you linked, and I disagree with you about what these jokes are. Jokes need to be funny, there is very little humor in "This bitch didn't know when to shut up. Do you?" I agree with you about not censoring jokes, but seriously.. these are not the kind of jokes that are worth the time spent looking at them. Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
- thedrbrian 13y ago
  Yes it would. It might not be funny to you but is to someone.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  And if it says - your CEO the day after you won the jackpot? Every employee under crap management will find it funny and the managers offensive ...

bigd 13y ago

If you get pissed by what you find online, then you're better off the Internet.

bigd 13y ago
I strongly believe that people which complains about the content of Internet, whatever it might be, should go trough "internet 101": https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Power_5 https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Power_5

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

qxcv 13y ago

Here[0] is where Facebook defines what they consider to be "hate speech": > Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed. We do, however, allow clear attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste (ex: jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.). Granted, it's a horribly distasteful image macro, but Facebook acted according to their written community standards, so I'm not sure why their response is "shocking". It's also important to bear in mind that the page is titled "Offensive Humor at its Best", so I'm not sure why it comes as a surprise that the images are, well, offensive. [0] https://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490/ https://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490/

venomsnake 13y ago

So there is something offensive on page called offensive humor at its best ... surprise. Now here is the thing with humor and offensiveness = with 7 billion people on this planet everything is offensive to someone. Also funny to someone else. This is a stupid joke - ignore it. If it got shared by a friend defriend him. If it got promoted to you by facebook sponsored - file a complaing. But trawling on pages for finding something to be offended by - it is way too close to censorship in my opinion.

stefan_kendall 13y ago

Fuck censorship. Depictions of violence are not violence. Movies, porn, video games. Do they encourage shooting people in the head? Not in real life.

general_failure 13y ago

Great response from facebook. I prefer that nothing visual be censored. People should just ignore shit that is offensive to them. And we as a society should just look down on people who create offensive shit.