4 ms·

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 wha

• 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]