4 ms·

Arrington is wrong, because he's said something along the lines of, "Hey I support free speech but Holocaust denial is so bad that I make an exception." Be cons

Arrington is wrong, because he's said something along the lines of, "Hey I support free speech but Holocaust denial is so bad that I make an exception." Be consistent, Mike. Free speech isn't just for the stuff you like. If you're against free speech, just say so. Facebook is wrong if they think this is a First Amendment issue. It's not. They are well within their rights to remove any comments that deny the Holocaust. However, it seems inconsistent for them to call pictures of breastfeeding mothers "offensive" and remove them if they're going to allow Holocaust denial on their site.

furyg3 17y ago
Came here to make the same point about breastfeeding. There is a common theme - that protection of free speech outweighs any damage caused by the existence of this content. Really? I fail to see this common theme... Let's not pretend that Facebook is a group of libertarian constitutionalists who's first priority is protecting its users free speech rights. I had a friend who was TOSed for uploading innocent pictures from a spa trip where a tiny fraction of a friend's nipple was visible over her towel. I'm not arguing the plight of my nippley friend, or that Facebook should allow this or that on their (privately owned) web site. Just that this whole Holocaust-denial debate smells like an opportunistic effort on the part of Facebook to portray themselves as protectors of free speech, when that's nowhere near the truth.
- axod 17y ago
  I don't think you can compare 'nipples' to 'the holocaust didn't happen'. Sadly, a large number of people are offended by pictures of naked or semi naked people. I don't think so many are offended by historical ignorance :/ Anyway, it's apples and oranges.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    As furyg3 and I pointed out, if Facebook is going to take a self-righteous "We support free speech on our site!" stand on Holocaust denial, it is absurd for them to ban nipples. And believe me, a lot of people are offended by Holocaust denial. It probably wouldn't be illegal in many Western nations otherwise. (Many Western countries, aside from the US, are not so big on free speech.)
    - axod 17y ago
      Are pictures even in the same bucket as speech though? I don't see the similarity here.
      - johnnybgoode 17y ago
        Yes, that's why it's sometimes called "freedom of expression" instead of "freedom of speech."
        axod 17y ago
        It's probably more logistics though. Banning nipples makes a clear and easy line. If they didn't have the line there, where would it be? Nudity? erect penises? Hardcore? Logistically they need a line on how they moderate pictures. Text/groups on the other hand, is just text. Personally, I don't really find text offensive unless it's directed at me or my family, in a threatening way - eg "We're going to hunt axod down and skin him like a fish". If it's just idiots ranting on about how they hate some group of people, trying to ban or moderate that only draws attention to them.
  - berntb 17y ago
    Are KKK members allowed to express their views on blacks, with the N-word? (If you really didn't know -- Holocaust denial is standard fare in antisemitic groups.)

furyg3 17y ago

Came here to make the same point about breastfeeding. There is a common theme - that protection of free speech outweighs any damage caused by the existence of this content. Really? I fail to see this common theme... Let's not pretend that Facebook is a group of libertarian constitutionalists who's first priority is protecting its users free speech rights. I had a friend who was TOSed for uploading innocent pictures from a spa trip where a tiny fraction of a friend's nipple was visible over her towel. I'm not arguing the plight of my nippley friend, or that Facebook should allow this or that on their (privately owned) web site. Just that this whole Holocaust-denial debate smells like an opportunistic effort on the part of Facebook to portray themselves as protectors of free speech, when that's nowhere near the truth.

axod 17y ago
I don't think you can compare 'nipples' to 'the holocaust didn't happen'. Sadly, a large number of people are offended by pictures of naked or semi naked people. I don't think so many are offended by historical ignorance :/ Anyway, it's apples and oranges.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  As furyg3 and I pointed out, if Facebook is going to take a self-righteous "We support free speech on our site!" stand on Holocaust denial, it is absurd for them to ban nipples. And believe me, a lot of people are offended by Holocaust denial. It probably wouldn't be illegal in many Western nations otherwise. (Many Western countries, aside from the US, are not so big on free speech.)
  - axod 17y ago
    Are pictures even in the same bucket as speech though? I don't see the similarity here.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      Yes, that's why it's sometimes called "freedom of expression" instead of "freedom of speech."
      - axod 17y ago
        It's probably more logistics though. Banning nipples makes a clear and easy line. If they didn't have the line there, where would it be? Nudity? erect penises? Hardcore? Logistically they need a line on how they moderate pictures. Text/groups on the other hand, is just text. Personally, I don't really find text offensive unless it's directed at me or my family, in a threatening way - eg "We're going to hunt axod down and skin him like a fish". If it's just idiots ranting on about how they hate some group of people, trying to ban or moderate that only draws attention to them.
- berntb 17y ago
  Are KKK members allowed to express their views on blacks, with the N-word? (If you really didn't know -- Holocaust denial is standard fare in antisemitic groups.)