Mark Cuban's lawyer attacks Facebook over Holocaust denial groups
Mark Cuban's brother and attorney for his companies, Brian, has written to Facebook demanding to know why the social-networking site allows Holocaust denial groups.
In a sustained and persuasive argument in his own blog, the Cuban Revolution, and his Twitter feed, Brian Cuban lays out his objections to five Facebook groups with names such as "Holocaust: A Series of Lies" and "Holohoax."
His opinion is that this is not a First Amendment issue.
"The belief that the First Amendment protects speech in the private social media arena or at your place of employment is a common misconception," he says.
Facebook is able, as a private entity, to choose its own rules with regards to free speech. However, he believes its terms of service very clearly limit the content that can be featured on any Facebook page.
You cannot "upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law."
Although Holocaust denial is not illegal in the US, it is a crime in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Israel, Slovakia, and Switzerland.
To Cuban, any Holocaust denial group is clearly committing an illegal act in those countries. He has therefore written to Facebook asking the company why it permits the five Holocaust denial groups he has found on the site.
He says Facebook has not replied.
According to a tweet he sent Monday, Cuban suspects that Facebook's belief is: "if the countries in which H(olocaust) D(enial) is illegal do not complain, why do anything."
However, last week Facebook saw fit to remove a KKK group from the Isle of Man with 95 members.
So one might think it would have the manpower, legal judgment, and basic humanity to at the very least address the existence of these five groups that appear to have a total of 357 members, some from countries in which Holocaust denial is a crime.
Silence seems a very peculiar response indeed.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
dang, looks like i did anyways.
but seriously dude. conspiracy theories vs denying genocide. not the same thing.
He was being sarcastic I think. If not, that's pretty sad, I agree.
Sample Chapters and Contents for New Book:
http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com
DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton, PhD
Publisher's Note: This is a non-Revisionist title for Theses & Dissertations Press. It will be the first book on the Holocaust, in publishing history, that will not take a Traditionalist or a Revisionist point of view.
http://www.amazon.com/Debating-Holocaust-Look-Both-Sides/dp/1591480051/
Founded in 2000 the publishing company Theses & Dissertations Press is at the center of a worldwide network of scholars and activists who are working -- often at great personal sacrifice -- to separate historical fact from propaganda fiction. The founder of Theses & Dissertations Press is Germar Rudolf. Who is currently serving prison time for his published works and will be released on July 4, 2009. He will no longer be associated with Holocaust studies upon his release.
As the new director of TADP.org, I wish to express my outrage that the Holocaust, unlike any other historical event, is not subject to critical examination. Furthermore I deplore the fact that many so-called democratic states have laws that criminalize an examination and understanding of the Holocaust. It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislatures bodies and courthouses.
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
The poor people(Jews, Poles, Gypsies) slaughtered by the Nazis were not so lucky......
I'm sorry, containers of Zyklon B, the Wannsee conference, eye witness accounts, the depopulation of european jews, german documentation, including the Einsatzgruppen Reports, tens of thousands of feet of german produced film, and the army signal reports alone pretty much make it an open and shut case for the validity of the Shoah. This material along with millions of other data points have been examined for decades now. There has been strong and contentious debate over the details and motivations behind the Final Solution but no one, not a single reputable scholar, denies that it happened. The only people who deny the underlying facts of this genocidal madness are cranks, nazi scum, and pinheads. Which one are you?
1. "A" people were p--d off by "B" people.
2. "A" people then decided to kill off "B" people including elderly, women and children, and carried that decision off.
If "A" - German, and "B" - Jews, it's Holocaust, it's horrible.
If "A" - Jews, and "B" - Amaleki, it's completely kosher. Just ask rebe Gellman.
I wouldn't ban them from making their cases to the world, as pathetically transparent as they are. However, if I were Facebook, I'd cause all their sites to be labeled as amatuer fan fiction.
http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com/
Everyone has heard that the Nazi regime systematically killed some six million Jews in Europe during World War II, most of them in gas chambers. We?re told this repeatedly on television, in motion pictures, in books, and in newspaper and magazine articles. Holocaust education courses are obligatory in many schools. Holocaust remembrance ceremonies are held annually across the country. Every large American city has at least one Holocaust museum. In Washington, DC, the official US Holocaust Memorial Museum attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
Scholars Challenge Holocaust Story
But not everyone accepts the familiar Holocaust story. Skeptics include Dr. Arthur Butz of Northwestern University, Roger Garaudy and Prof. Robert Faurisson in France, and best-selling British historian David Irving.
These ?revisionist? writers do not ?deny the Holocaust.? They acknowledge the catastrophe suffered by Europe?s Jews during World War II. They do not dispute that large numbers of Jews were cruelly uprooted from their homes, forced into overcrowded ghettos or deported to concentration camps. They acknowledge that many hundreds of thousands of European Jews died or were killed, often under horrendous circumstances.
At the same time, revisionist scholars cite impressive but often ignored evidence to support their view that there was no German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, that numerous claims of mass killings in ?gas chambers? are false, and that the figure of six million Jewish wartime dead is an exaggeration.
Many Holocaust Claims Abandoned
Since World War II the Holocaust story has changed quite a lot. Many extermination claims that were once widely accepted have been quietly dropped.
For example, it was authoritatively claimed for years that Jews were killed in gas chambers at Dachau, Buchenwald and other concentration camps in Germany proper. That part of the extermination story proved so untenable that it was abandoned many years ago. No serious historian now supports the once supposedly proven story of ?extermination camps? in the territory of the pre-1938 German Reich. Even famed ?Nazi hunter? Simon Wiesenthal acknowledged that ?there were no extermination camps on German soil.? [1]
Prominent Holocaust historians now claim that large numbers of Jews were gassed at just six camps in what is now Poland: Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno and Belzec. However, the evidence presented for gassings at these six camps is not qualitatively different than the now-discredited ?evidence? for alleged ?gassings? at camps in Germany proper.
At the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946 and during the decades following the end of World War II, Auschwitz (especially Auschwitz-Birkenau) and Majdanek (Lublin) were regarded as the most important ?death camps.? The victorious Allied powers charged at Nuremberg that the Germans had killed four million at Auschwitz and another 1.5 million at Majdanek. Today, no serious historian accepts either of these fantastic figures. [2]
In addition, striking evidence has become available in recent years that cannot be reconciled with the allegations of mass extermination at these camps. For example, detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau on random days in 1944 -- during the height of the alleged extermination period there -- show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys or masses of Jews awaiting death, all of which have been alleged and which would have been clearly visible if the extermination claims about the camp had been true.
The postwar ?confession? of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss, which has often been cited as a key piece of evidence for the Holocaust story, is now known to be a false statement that was obtained by torture. [3]
Other Absurd Holocaust Claims
At one time it was seriously claimed that the Germans manufactured soap from Jewish corpses, [4] and that they systematically exterminated Jews with steam and electricity.
US officials charged at Nuremberg that the Germans had killed Jews at Treblinka, not in gas chambers, as is now claimed, but by steaming them to death in ?steam chambers.? [5]
American newspapers, citing a Soviet eyewitness report from the just-liberated Auschwitz camp, told readers in 1945 that the methodical Germans had killed Jews there using an "electric conveyor belt on which hundreds of persons could be electrocuted simultaneously [and] then moved on into furnaces. They were burned almost instantly, producing fertilizer for nearby cabbage fields." [6]
MORE: http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com/
? Rudolf Höß, Auschwitz camp commandant, Nuremberg testimony."
We take the user experience on Facebook very seriously, have developed policies in our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to protect this experience, and will react quickly to take down groups that violate our policies. Specifically, we are sensitive to groups that threaten violence towards people and these groups are taken down. We also remove groups that express hatred towards individuals and groups that are sponsored by recognized terrorist organizations. We do not, however, take down groups that speak out against countries, political entities, or ideas. The goal of these policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving Facebook users the freedom to express their opinions and beliefs ? even those that are controversial or that we may find repulsive ? while also ensuring that individuals and groups of people do not feel threatened or endangered.
When dealing with user generated content on global websites, there are occasions where content that is illegal in one country, is not (or may even be protected) in another. For example, homosexual content is illegal in some countries, but that does not mean it should be removed from Facebook. Most companies approach this issue by preventing certain content from being shown to users in the countries where it is illegal and that is our approach as well. We have recently begun to block content by IP in countries where that content is illegal, including Nazi-related and holocaust denial content in certain European countries. The groups in question have been blocked in the appropriate countries.
In addition, our user operations team exchanged a few emails with Mr. Cuban on November 11 and 12 of 2008 where we gave a similar explanation to the one above. I understand that he doesn?t like our answer but his claims of a lack of response are not accurate.
Chris, in the future, we?d really appreciate the opportunity to comment. Just send a quick note to me and my colleagues at press@facebook.com. We do our best to be responsive.
You make the claim that Facebook is "sensitive to groups that threaten violence towards people and these groups are taken down." The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has proof that this is not true at all times. Facebook has rules against the promotion of hatred toward any entity. Israel is an entity, yet Facebook allows "Hate Israel" groups which are overwhelmingly filled with promotions of hatred and violence. Facebook did not start taking action against any terrorist groups or hate groups until the JIDF started getting press on the matter and got more and more supporters to report the material. However, there's still hundreds of groups with thousands of members which remain despite thousands upon thousands of complaints from our activists. If you took the time to visit the groups in questions, you can see that Holocaust denial and the hatred of Jews go hand-in-hand. You can also see how many of these groups are promoting violence.
On another note, we'd just like it stated that we were the first to bring up this issue and bring it to Mr. Cuban's attention, as you can see in his original piece here:
The Face(book) of Holocaust Denial
http://www.briancuban.com/the-facebook-of-holocaust-denial/
Where Mr. Cuban stated:
"According to this article which initially brought my attention to this issue, the following groups promoting Holocaust Denial are currently active on Facebook (as of the writing of this article)." ---And linked to our site here: http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/letter-to-facebook-regarding-illegal.html
On our site one may also find:
JIDF Guide to Hostile Facebook Groups
http://www.thejidf.org/2003/07/jidf-guide-to-hostile-facebook-groups.html
You can also read about our latest ACTION ALERT regarding hate groups on Facebook:
In Honor of Israel Independence Day, JIDF Launches Mass ACTION ALERT Against "HATE ISRAEL" Facebook Content
http://www.thejidf.org/2009/04/in-honor-yom-haatzmaut-jidf-launches.html
And other posts such as:
* Zuckerberg: No need for Facebook to be proactive on antisemitism
* SUCCESS!!! JIDF TAKES OUT MASSIVE "HATE ISRAEL" FAN PAGE WITH OVER 122,000 FANS!
* New status update of the "Hate Israel" fan page: "i killed half the jews and left the other half for you to discover why i killed the first" [hitler]
* Facebook Censors Martin Scorsese and Robert DeNiro, but not Hamas and Hezbollah
* (Video) FOX NEWS Covers More Issues at Facebook
* JIDF Account Deactivated Again!
* 100 New Antisemitic/Pro-Jihadist Facebook Groups
* 40 New Hate/Terrorist Groups on Facebook
* Top 20 Newest and Most Active Terrorist and Antisemitic Groups on Facebook
* JIDF Guide to Facebook Groups
* Regarding material on Facebook
* Mujahideen Groups on Facebook
* Hezbollah: Swapping MP3's on Facebook
* Small Sampling of This Week's Terrorist Activity on Facebook
* JIDF Pride
* Thousands Use Facebook to Celebrate Terrorist Attack Today
* Facebook Endorses Hamas?
* A Terrorist Group Planning and Calling for the Bombing of Egyptian Border (on Facebook!)
* Oboler: The Rise and Fall of a Facebook Hate Group
* JIDF Letter to Facebook Regarding Illegal Content
The bottom line is that no one has been more on top of the issue than the JIDF.
Thanks
-JIDF
I guess the above logic means KKK groups could and might threaten violence, while holocaust deniers are not directly exercising threats, etc? I dunno... it's a slippery slope, but it is also a social networking site (just ban the groups, tomorrow people will forget, and free speech will still exist - and move on).
It also begs your definition of violence, albeit probably a legal one would be most pragmatic. Can belief or irrational thought be spun into violence? Personally, I think it can without a shadow of a doubt. In fact, free speech is important, but the less intelligent people are when reacting to emotional beliefs the more likely they are to be violent. I am no lawyer, but I guess that might end up being what it's about?
Social Media is all about transparency, accountability, and real conversation. So that might be an argument to limit moderation and allow the community to police itself. But it's also about creating a mutually respecting and safe environment for people to trust one another in conversation and interaction. If you don't believe that, think about the dive MySpace took for the lack of accountability for the members, and lack of real knowledge of their intentions. People want to feel safe in their online interactions, I think it's safe to say.
I am not sure it is that big a deal. FB should just remove them and move on, my two cents. But if you are needing an argument for free speech and letting them stay around, at least have a little fun and create a fake account to infiltrate the groups and have your creative way with them. ;^D
http://www.hrabaconsulting.com/blog
http://www.twitter.com/hhotelconsult
In response to my question to Mr. Wu, Facebook sent me a canned hate group answer like the one above is. I replied, stating that they did not answer my question in that I asked about the fact that HD denial was a crime in many countries in which FB had a presence. I , DID NOT ask whether they considered HD groups hate groups, this was their response:
To: brian.cuban@dallasmavs.com
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 10:03 AM
Hi,
The Facebook Team has received your inquiry. We should get back to you soon. In the meantime, we encourage you to review our Privacy and Security Help page (http://www.facebook.com/help.php?topic=privacy). There, you'll find answers to many common questions.
Thanks for contacting Facebook,
The Facebook Tea
I NEVER HEARD FROM THEM AGAIN!
and challenge Barry to put out the entire email string between myself and Facebook on this matter. I waiver any right to privacy I have as to that string. Regardless I will be responding and putting the email string on my blog shortly.
FB Emp:*****702
To: brian.cuban@dallasmavs.com
Hi Brian,
The email you sent to Alex Wu was forwarded to me for review. Thank you for bringing these groups to our attention. We take our Terms of Use policy very seriously, and react quickly to take down groups that violate these terms. Specifically, we are sensitive to groups that threaten violence towards people and these groups are taken down. We also remove groups that express hatred towards individuals and groups that are sponsored by recognized terrorist organizations. We do not, however, take down groups that speak out against countries, political entities, or ideas. The goal of these policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving Facebook users the freedom to express their opinions and beliefs, while also ensuring that individuals and groups of people do not feel threatened or endangered. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.
Thanks,
Peter
User Operations
Facebook
Subject: Re: URGENT: Facebook Groups that support Holocaust Denial
To: brian.cuban@dallasmavs.com
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 12:46 AM
Hi Brian,
The email you sent to Alex Wu was forwarded to me for review. Thank you for bringing these groups to our attention. We take our Terms of Use policy very seriously, and react quickly to take down groups that violate these terms. Specifically, we are sensitive to groups that threaten violence towards people and these groups are taken down. We also remove groups that express hatred towards individuals and groups that are sponsored by recognized terrorist organizations. We do not, however, take down groups that speak out against countries, political entities, or ideas. The goal of these policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving Facebook users the freedom to express their opinions and beliefs, while also ensuring that individuals and groups of people do not feel threatened or endangered. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.
Thanks,
Peter
User Operations
Facebook
From: Brian Cuban <brian.cuban@dallasmavs.com>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Facebook Groups that support Holocaust Denial
To: ?Facebook Support? <abuse+nvjejmn@facebook.com>
Cc: awu@facebook.com
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 5:38 AM
Peter and Alex:
Thank for your response. It is much appreciated. I understand your response and Facebook?s need to be sensitive to free speech rights. If you review my email to Alex, my question however was specifically referring to the Facebook TOS provision:
?upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law.?
Your answer while giving me Facebook?s general policy does not address my specific question.
Since Holocaust Denial is illegal in Germany, why is the above TOS paragraph not applicable or not applicable?
A response would be appreciated. Thank you again for your time in answering these questions.
Sincerley
Brian Cuban
From: Facebook Support <abuse+nvjejmn@facebook.com>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Facebook Groups that support Holocaust Denial
To: brian.cuban@dallasmavs.com
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 10:03 AM
Hi,
The Facebook Team has received your inquiry. We should get back to you soon. In the meantime, we encourage you to review our Privacy and Security Help page (http://www.facebook.com/help.php?topic=privacy). There, you?ll find answers to many common questions.
Thanks for contacting Facebook,
The Facebook Team
As everyone can see, Facebook sent me a ?canned? answer regarding their position on controversial groups. They did not address the questions I asked regarding illegality in Germany. I never asked them anything related to Holocaust Denial as a hate group. I wrote again pointing this out. They sent me an even more egregious canned answer. One they send out to every Facebook user who writes in with a concern. That was the last I heard from Facebook. I therefore stated that they had not responded to me because they did not respond to my question EVEN AFTER I pointed it out.
I am sorry you were "too busy" to address such an important issue but we know have the record set straight on your "responses". Yes, I admit FB send me emails. They were canned answers that did not come close to answering the question asked but you sent them.
If you think there is a relationship between what you sent to the question I asked, I am curious as to how you get there.
2) Brian Cuban nor CNET did not give credit to the organization who originally shed light on these issues, the Jewish Internet Defense Force (3)
3) Interesting piece regarding Brian Cuban's article:
Internet plagerism or sloppy journalism? You decide.
http://starcmc.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/internet-plagerism-or-sloppy-journalism-you-decide/
www.briancuban.com/about
I am a Dallas Attorney working for Mark Cuban Companies doing whatever that happens to entail at any given moment. I am also the Executive Director of the Mark Cuban Foundation currently administering The Fallen Patriot Fund.
So you're changing your tune? Earlier you said:
"Mr. Brian Cuban did not state, act or represent himself as an attorney for Mark Cuban, at least it is not stated in any portion of the article."
Now you're saying that is wrong. Fact is, "a Dallas attorney working for Mark Cuban Companies" is very different than "Mark Cuban's lawyer" - Mark Cuban has many lawyers, and I highly doubt his brother is considered his main lawyer as the headline makes it seem.
Regarding plagiarism, I did not make that claim, I merely pointed to an article. Plagiarism is defined as:
* a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work
If you look at Mr. Cuban's original piece on the issue, you can see that he gave credit to the JIDF, for introducing him to the issue. In the latest piece he did not. It is very clear if one takes a side by side comparison of the JIDF article and Cuban's that he took a lot of their research w/out credit or citation.
According to my attorney, plagiarism is the intentional or unintentional use of another's words or ideas without acknowledgment.
There are four common forms of plagiarism:
* The duplication of an author's words without quotation marks and accurate references or footnotes.
* The duplication of author's words or phrases with footnotes or accurate references, but without quotation marks.
* The use of an author's ideas in paraphrase without accurate references or footnotes.
* Submitting a paper in which exact words are merely rearranged even though footnoted.
If you compare the JIDF's original piece found here:
http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/letter-to-facebook-regarding-illegal.html
to Brian Cuban's piece, it appears to be plagiarized to me. However, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I making any legal claims whatsoever, just stating my opinion on the matter.
You also contradicted yourself by asserting that it is plagiarism and citing "four common" forms of it, while at the same time inexcusable justifying and retracting your accusation and labeling it as "just" an opinion. Mr. Cuban made a "commentary" on a FB issue, not on a JIDF issue. The fact that two bloggers decided to pay close attention to the same matter, grants more merits and attention to the actual problem and this is where the JIDF has failed as an organization. The JIDF continues to succeed as an antagonistic polarizing source, instead of "...leading the fight against antisemitism and "Promoting ...Unity".
- by Larry Fafarman May 9, 2009 4:06 PM PDT
- Barry_Schnitt said (May 5, 2009 3:58 PM PDT) --
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by JadedGamer May 15, 2009 6:10 AM PDT
- Enforce? No. Adhere to? Yes. The same issue was faced by eBay operating in France where sale of Nazi memorabilia is banned; eBay of course had the options of not doing business in France, or obey the laws governing businesses there.
-
-
- by ecotony June 21, 2009 1:42 AM PDT
- Larry,
-
-
(40 Comments)--"We have recently begun to block content by IP in countries where that content is illegal, including Nazi-related and holocaust denial content in certain European countries. The groups in question have been blocked in the appropriate countries. "--
It is not Facebook's job to enforce these laws against holocaust denial.
Being private does not give Facebook immunity from prosecution for violation of 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights. TV and radio stations, for example, are private but are subject to government regulation of freedom of speech.
Using IP addresses to block Internet communications is illegal or frowned upon in Europe -- see
http://bradleysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/mark-cubans-attorney-challenges.html?showComment=1241889960000#c6735543100533160443
A private entity can do what ever it wants. TV and Radio stations are subject to the FCC and the Commerce Commission because they broadcast their content over the public airwaves. There, you see some issues with 1st Amendment rights. But the 1st Amendment applies to the government not impeding your ability to speak out on any topic in any way you wish (with some practical limitations). It doesn't interfere with private entities blocking your ability to speak out.
Also, it is Facebook's job to block content that violates laws where it does business. In the US, child porn is illegal. While any porn violates the TOS, Facebook is OBLIGATED to block child porn or be subject to prosecution in the US - and many other countries as well.
Same would apply to holocaust denial in certain countries. It's illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany, so they would be OBLIGATED to block that content there. Plain and simple.