Facebook confirms removal of two Holocaust denial groups. Is it enough?

Facebook has confirmed my earlier suspicion that it has disabled two of the five Holocaust denial groups whose presence has caused much controversy over the past week, following attorney Brian Cuban's consistent pressure for the groups' removal.

Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said in an e-mail to Technically Incorrect: "Two of the groups have been disabled, but the other three remain."

He continued: "We are monitoring these groups and if the discussion among members degrades to the point of promoting hate or violence, despite whatever disclaimer the group description provides, we will take them down. This has happened in the past, especially when controversial groups are publicized."

This would suggest that Facebook is looking to the members of these groups to create the conditions for their own banishment.

It is a curious decision, as some would argue that the very existence of these groups fails to walk the line between hate and threat, if one can be defined at all.

In response to Facebook's comments, Brian Cuban said: "They have not addressed the issue. I find Barry Schnitt disturbingly dismissive and flippant about these issues."

How, indeed, should one interpret this posting, for example, from just before Mother's Day on a Facebook wall of one of the remaining Holocaust denial groups?: "Jews use the holocaust to achieve their agenda of killing innocents. Israel is the holocause (sic) of today."

Doesn't that feel like promoting hate?

One can only surmise that in the cross-disciplinary groups at Facebook that make decisions on policies such as these, lawyers have rather more influence than anyone else.

The Holocaust Memorial in Miami, Florida.

(Credit: CC Praziquantel/Flickr)

In a comment to a post from Michael Arrington at TechCrunch, Schnitt also said: "We are serious about our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and where there is content that violates these terms, we will remove it. We have spent considerable time internally discussing the issues of holocaust denial and have come to the conclusion that the mere statement of denying the holocaust is not a violation of our terms."

After the posting of Brian Cuban's open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Cuban's blog, the Cuban Revolution, Schnitt also addressed for the first time that for many at Facebook this is also a personal issue:

"Many of us at Facebook have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape. We believe in Facebook's mission that giving people tools to make the world more open is a better way to combat ignorance or deception than censorship, though we recognize that others--including those at the company, disagree."

He added: "We may be fools for doing the former but not 'cowards.'"

Naturally, it would be interesting to know who at Facebook opposes the company's stance and whether Facebook would be happy for those employees, whoever they might be, to air their opinions publicly. Perhaps even on the walls of the three remaining groups.

However, it seems clear that this will not be the last we hear of this issue. In a further e-mail to Technically Incorrect, Schnitt explained who had been consulted by Facebook before the company determined its stance: "The experts we've talked to have generally been Internet law experts, free speech people, and experts on radicalism and technology. They haven't been specifically related to the Holocaust but that is a good idea."

It will be interesting to see what those Holocaust experts might say.

[Wickedashtray]

sorry but people need to stop treating the holocaust with near religious fervor. Its an event in history that people, no matter how ignorant, should be allowed to disagree with in terms of its facts. At what point does the censorship stop? When the JDL can lobby the US to make similar laws to those in Europe where one can be actually jailed for disagreeing with the official numbers who died?

[renGek]

not if they incite a riot or become public nuisance. Disagreeing is one thing but when you are trying to illicit a reaction and urge extremists to further your opinion with more vigorous language, trouble will find its way there. Its no different than the religious nut who used to scream out bible passages outside my office window. I had to stick my head out to tell him to shut the * up because people trying to work. That didn't stop him. But when I call the cops, they certainly shut him up. I'm sure some fool would say he has the right to do it and its censorship blah blah blah but thats why there are public nuisance laws. The fact that this is happening virtually rather than physically doesn't change the behavior.

[GlennAllen]

Cops taking away someone for disturbing the peace has nothing to do with what the guy is screaming--it's simply the fact that he *is* screaming. Either people are free to express an opinion, or they aren't, regardless of how stupid some opinion may make them appear to others. There's a line in the movie, 'The American President', which states this perfectly concerning American citizenship (look it up for yourself). Free speech guarantees that every citizen has the right to express his/her opinions--even stupid ones. (All of which says nothing about what Facebook may or may not allow on their site.) Basically, you either believe in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights... or you don't.

[Jefferson101]

I agree with you. Considering there were politicians and people from all sides funding Nazi Germany, who knows where all the facts went to. I am not saying that 6 million did not die, I am only agreeing with you that it is their right to argue. Facebook, this lawyer, has gone to far.

[s5988]

"Its an event in history that people, no matter how ignorant, should be allowed to disagree with in terms of its facts."

Its facts are indisputable. It happened. 26 Million people were exterminated, fried, shot, burned, cooked, eliminated, annihilated; whatever terms are more acceptable to the viewer, and speaker. Photographs don't lie (Photoshop didn't exist then), the survivors didn't lie, the US Army, British Army, Australian Army, Canadian Army didn't lie. It happened. Anyone who attempts to claim it didn't happen are as guilty of attempting to incite hate toward Jews as is Hamas when it claims that it doesn't promote the annihilation of Israel and the Jews when it states exactly that in its Charter of 1988.

Europe's laws against such blatant "rewriting" of history are good laws as they are a real attempt to stop such criminal activity as that promoted by neo-Nazi groups and other Jew-hating groups that always proliferate in a down economy. Recessionary times always seem to promote a platform for those who simply don't have the work ethic...to work, or succeed. It is always easier to blame and hate someone else for their troubles than for these hate groups members to "go to work" and rise out of the morass themselves.

Pity.

[i_made_this]

@ Wickedashtray I suggest some edits just for your consideration.

"... people need to stop treating the holocaust with near religious fervor." - People naturally react with religious fervor because it was the most hideous, large-scale genocide of human beings since the Middle Ages over (1) mainly, their politics (2) secondly, their religious beliefs. In the Western world, it was and remains to this day the single, most massive genocide over religious beliefs.

"Its an event in history that people, no matter how ignorant, should be allowed to disagree with in terms of its facts." I agree with you completely about the freedom to disagree (but no one would debate that issue). I suggest you consider deleting the "ignorant" and extend to "all people."

You remember how America was discovered. Here's how I'd abbreviate an answer: all of the civilized world, including our greatest scientists of the time - until the 15th century - were certain the world was flat. Agreed - that's science but this is politics. The official holocaust count is, to the open mind, tenuous at best because post-WWII pols are the ones who started this holocaust count business as an issue which has picked up momentum amongst regular folks of all faiths since pols took positions on it globally. What do pols the world over do? Lie. It's just a matter of degree. They do what is best in order to insure they get re-elected. Lie is a hard word - I prefer the analogy of an actors' motivation. Great actors lie in this sense, too - they're brilliant at play-acting great roles -- and ditto for pols.

"At what point does the censorship stop?" Censorship stops when the new pols say whatever develops will be the new law(s) regarding censorship.

"When the JDL can lobby the US to make similar laws to those in Europe where one can be actually jailed for disagreeing with the official numbers who died?" All respect, no fair. You use a tiny extremist group known for what some would call terrorist behavior. No one - least of all the vocal, powerful Jewish leaders and spokespersons for the vast majority of the world's Jews worldwide - condone the JDL. Most important, I must challenge your comment that people in Europe can be jailed for disagreeing with the official numbers - sorry, but people in Europe cannot be jailed for disagreeing with the official numbers and I don't know where on earth you read that info.

The EU is kinda like the USA but across the Atlantic. We Americans have a natural bias in thinking that we know how to do this democracy thing better than anyone. But I would allow the possibility that the European Union might be smarter than us because they've been at this for more than fifteen centuries longer than us. And they've learned from most of their major mistakes like the one we're discussing today.

Reasonable people the world over - no matter their faith nor politics - are united in agreeing that the Holocaust was massive (no matter the exact numbers) and frightening as a cautionary tale because it occurred in modern times within the setting of highly advanced western civilization. Which means it could very well happen again, although the details and variables will certainly be very different the next round.

[JadedGamer]

"all of the civilized world, including our greatest scientists of the time - until the 15th century - were certain the world was flat. "

Nonsense, they knew it was round but believed it was in the center of the universe. The ancient Greeks had proven it was round, and had calculated its radius approximately, and the Church based most of its scientific understanding on the Greeks. Some peoples, like the Vikings, did believe it was flat though. When Columbus arrived in America he was trying to sail around the world to getto India "the other way" - because he knew he could - he just didn't know the land he hit was an (undiscovered) continent and not India.

[fwjs28]

<rant>
seriously, let people believe what they want, if you don't believe what these ass-holes deny, then don't read there comments or stalk them on myspace/facebook....COMMON SENSE peple...you guys serisouly need to stop bashing the bashers unless its well damndeserved
</end rant>

[Lerianis3]

Not a rant, and actually a good idea. If you TRULY want to stop these guys, post links to FACTS on their board... they will absolutely HATE that because they cannot get on your case for that.
The Holocaust was real, however the amount of people who were killed during it is a point of contention. The six million+ figure we are given just doesn't sit well with me, considering that the LARGEST mass-grave found had only about 2000 people in it, and even with Germany's METICULOUS records, we only found 1000 grave sites.

[Harrison912]

As a web site owner on FaceBook mainly for social marketing of my safety and security products, I'm always interested in what's going on at FaceBook. I tend to agree with Lerianis3. Instead of taking these groups down why not engage them with the facts. That would seem to be more in line with your mission of "...giving people tools to make the world more open is a better way to combat ignorance or deception than censorship."

[SX10 IS]

Lerianis3:

The only people buried were the ones shot in villages. The majority were deported to Oswiecim (Auschwitz-Birkenau), Sobibor, Belzec, where they were killed with Zyklon-B or CO gas and THEIR BODIES WERE CREMATED!!!

[unknown unknown]

Why is this news worthy?

[Fred_26]

Thank you!

[darfjono]

This.

Facebook is not newsworthy. ever. neither is myspace or any other stupid social networking site.

[Gabey8]

Let the genocide supporters start their own social network, then. Facebook has every right to put an end to any activity that they deem inappropriate and out of compliance with their terms of service. There is an IMMENSE chasm between that, and laws being passed by the US or any other government. Let's keep things in perspective here.

[rallynochaos]

As long as the speech does not turn violent, as FaceBook's policy states, then the groups have done nothing wrong.

Forcing the groups down would be nothing more than trying to force your views on another.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even opinions as ridiculous as denying the existence of something as documented as the holocaust.

[edenson]

I'm a big believer in freedom of speech, and while these groups have nothing to say that interests me, I think they have the right to say it, and that Facebook (and any other really large public area on the net) ought to let them say it. The European criminization of denial is a major step backwards in our civilization's promotion of individual freedom - surely the freedom to have and express an opinion is about as basic a freedom as there is after life, liberty, and (perhaps subsumed in) the pursuit of happiness. BTW I draw the line at active promotion of violence against anyone or their property. Cross that line and freedom of speech no longer applies.

[doofuspalooza]

"Freedom of Speech" as defined in the U.S. Constitution does not apply here. Facebook is not a government entity, therefore they have no obligation to protect your freedom of speech. The U.S. Constitution only protects your freedom of speech against GOVERNMENT intervention... i.e. the Government cannot keep you from saying what ever you want... Yes, you have freedom of speech, but Facebook does not have to provide the soapbox on which you stand.

[Lerianis3]

by doofuspalooza May 12, 2009 8:41 AM PDT
"Freedom of Speech" as defined in the U.S. Constitution does not apply here. Facebook is not a government entity, therefore they have no obligation to protect your freedom of speech. The U.S. Constitution only protects your freedom of speech against GOVERNMENT intervention... i.e. the Government cannot keep you from saying what ever you want... Yes, you have freedom of speech, but Facebook does not have to provide the soapbox on which you stand
_____________________________________

Again, WRONG! The fact is that Freedom of Speech is INCLUDED in private groups as well as in government. The Supreme Court has ruled MANY times that your free speech rights do NOT end on private property, period and done with.
People who keep on putting out this mistaken argument need to be slapped. The U.S. Constitution does NOT only protect your freedom of speech against GOVERNMENT intrusion, it also protects it against the intrusion of PRIVATE entities!

[JadedGamer]

So are you saying that a newspaper has a DUTY to print every letter to the editor it receives? Does every news agent have a DUTY to sell every publication in existence?

Well, they do not! Your right of expression does not imply a right to use someone else's resources to do so.

[nackereia]

Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever you want and the government can't arrest you for it. It has nothing to do with facebook. People try to blow it out of proportion and think that means you can say whatever you want, wherever you want and whenever you want. There are limits on freedom of speech. You can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and trucks with loudspeakers blaring off advertisements are no longer allowed down residential roads.

People have a right to say what they want, and I have the right to choose not to hear it or to ignore them.

[SIGHUP]

Hey I think if they kick the No holocaust dudes off they should kick the We Did Not Land On The Moon Dudes off too. Meanies

[Larry Fafarman]

I wonder -- how many people are going to spend the time to set up and contribute to a Facebook site on a controversial subject if there is a real risk that Facebook will arbitrarily delete the site in the future?

Here are some legal issues --

The federal statute 47 USC §230, "Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material," is at --
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html

47 USC §230 (c)(1) protects Facebook from liability for anything posted in Facebook sites by outside parties --
--(c) Protection for ?Good Samaritan? blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. --

Facebook is here the "provider . . .of an interactive computer service," and an owner and the contributors of a Facebook site constitute "another information content provider."

A Facebook competitor could attract business by making a credible promise of "NO CENSORSHIP."

Unfortunately, the following provision, 47 USC §230 (c) (2)(A), appears to give Facebook's act of censorship some protection --

--(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of?
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;--

A lot depends on how the term "good faith" is interpreted.

Also, 47 USC §230 (c)(2)(B) provides,

--No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of?
(A) - - - - -
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).--

Using IP addresses as the "technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)" -- which Facebook is already doing here -- is illegal or frowned upon in Europe and California. See --

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/05/facebook-restricts-access-to-its.html

-- and --

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/05/ip-address-blocking-is-illegal-in.html

BOYCOTT Facebook.

[unknown unknown]

As far as boycotting goes, they've said on at least two occasions they don't care protests as long as people are not delete/disabling their accounts. So if you want to be effective start get people to start disabling their accounts.

[Gabey8]

Facebook provides a service. They offer access to their site the way a person who is hosting a party is providing people the use of his house.

If someone stands in his host's living room, and starts making declarations that the host finds inappropriate, the host has every right to tell that person to leave.

The person might have the legal right to say those things, but the host has every right to respond, "Go and exercise your legal right somewhere other than my living room. Please leave."

Facebook, or any other service provder, has the right to determine what they consider appropriate content for their service, and act accordingly. Just because a person has the legal right to say something without being arrested for it, that doesn't negate the rights of an online service to allow or disallow said content as they see fit. If they feel that an item runs counter to their terms of service, they're gong to take it down.

[qst4]

@gabey, that's exactly what I was thinking. Maybe these groups should start their own version of facebook, then they could say whatever they want.

[dave_p_1]

There is a difference between denying genocide and promoting genocide and I think that Facebook is trying to walk that line to avoid censoring unpopular (and basically unsupportable) views.

While the deniers of the holocaust may be racists, that doesn't make their views wrong - facts make their views wrong. Censoring their ignorant opinions only lets them rant about the continuing conspiracy to suppress them. Much better to expose their absurd arguments in the light of reason.

[sting7k]

Agree, them rant all they want. The millions of witness accounts, photos, physical evidence, and memory of the world will no go away just because a few wakos want to debate if it really happened.

[Lerianis3]

There aren't 'millions of witness account'. There are photos, but photos were and are able to be faked, it has been done MANY times. The physical evidence (namely Auschwitz and the other CC's).... yes, that basically DOES prove that the holocaust actually happened, but there is a lot of disagreement with calling it the 'Jewish Holocaust'. Germany was killing a LOT more than Jews, if you look at the historical reports.... why are the Jews singled out for special status?

[darfjono]

because the jews rule the world, duh.

[Larry Fafarman]

What is to prevent an opponent of these sites from planting real hate-speech on them (e.g., "kill all the Jews") for the purpose of provoking Facebook to get rid of them? Duh.

[klrcc40]

Society learns from it's mistakes. I have mixed feelings when it comes to letting people have their right to free speech, depending on the topic is being dicussed. The events of World War II are documented in many different ways and fashions. The truth is out there for everyone to watch and to read. I find it hard to comprehend there are those individuals which believe the death of millions of Jews is a lie, or a 'made up version' of the history of world. If anyone has ever met a holocaust victum, listened to their story, saw the numbered tattoo on their arm...how could anyone not believe? The events of this time are there for us to learn so we don't make the some mistakes in the future. And our future is what is at stake here...isn't it. As a country and a world.Are these people just discussing the issue, or trying to brain wash people into believing the holocaust never happened? Everyone looks to the world for a place to fit in. I believe letting an open forum for some individuals who don't have the intellect to look for the truth themselves can only lead to them to try rebuild a past we all had to suffer through in one way or another. Living through another holocaust is not something I want for myself or my children. Block and take away the hatred. Or better yet, redirect those individuals to better educate themselves.

[unknown unknown]

"I have mixed feelings when it comes to letting people have their right to free speech, depending on the topic is being dicussed."

That's why we have it, cause it is controversial opinions that need the most protection. They're the ones targeted first by censors. People are entitled to their opinions.

"The events of World War II are documented in many different ways and fashions. The truth is out there for everyone to watch and to read. I find it hard to comprehend there are those individuals which believe the death of millions of Jews is a lie, or a 'made up version' of the history of world."

People can doubt just about anything. There people who believe the moon landing was faked.

[Lerianis3]

Actually, the moon landing disbelievers have some good evidence on their side (I've looked at it and see some VERY good problems with us actually having gone into space), such as the fact that there was almost NO radiation shielding on the lunar module...... the astronauts would have been dead by radiation if that small amount of radiation protection is all that they had.

[ghifarix]

If its so true why can't the world examine the evidence. Why there are laws protecting the investigation of such a tragedy? The victors made these laws. Germany fell and the entire country was open to a victor who spared no opportunity for an open investigation into what Germany actually did. Why haven't the same applied to the far greater massacres in Africa? The documentation(s) and supposedly mass amount of TY and Photo footage have never been examine and most people accepted these untested documentation merely because they are sheeped into film and photo scrutiny for lack of wanting or being able to read and think critically. There is exactly a similar behavior in the Iraq war and the run up to it. We were sheeped into hating a people we never knew or heard from- and now we say the amount of dead men women and children does not concern us. People in the West doesn?t want to know even if its in their living room. We lack critical thinking also. We think it is Ok to murder millions today once we have been thoroughly imbued into hating those whom our governments corporate and military elite rationalizes as collateral damage. One day this will all turn inward. What freedom does Americans really have other than to give blind extreme support to the victors?

[monkeyzero]

This is hilarious.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=80705196591&ref=mf

[mrbofus]

For me, the issue is not that Facebook allows these groups, which is fine in the spirit of free speech and all, but that Facebook actively searches for and removes pictures of mothers breastfeeding their babies. How/why does Facebook get to decide that breastfeeding babies is worse than saying the Holocaust didn't happen?

[Jason_Humphreys]

Again, you do a great disservice by not mentioning the thousands of JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force) activists who have been reporting this material and on this case for a much longer time than Brian Cuban.

This is not a one-man campaign - why CNET continues is propagate the myth that it is, is beyond me.

Oh wait, now I see:

http://news.cnet.com/marc-cuban-blog/?tag=bc

Why don't you express full disclosure and explain that Mark Cuban has some sort of professional linking with CNET which is obviously causing you to focus on just one aspect on this story?

[lynez9]

Look, everyone knows that there are many people in this world that hate everyone and everything but what they hate most is themselves. People who are happy don't have hate in their hearts. It's impossible. So, the obvious answer here is to help the people who are miserable. Help them by accepting them. Help them by showing them acceptance. Help them by showing them how to accept themselves and others. Teach them that to be happy, they need to look outside of themselves and help others. Love is the only answer! It may sound rosey colored glasses-ish, but this is just true!

[lynez9]

I would also like to add, bravo to facebook for not allowing hate to have a snowball effect on their site! By shuting them down, they just helped the planet. Why have people not commented on the way that facebook allows sites that talk about positive things to flourish there?

[Larry Fafarman]

Wikipedia, the big online user-edited encyclopedia, has also been practicing arbitrary censorship, and this censorship has fueled attempts to create or promote alternatives to Wikipedia -- see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/09/alternatives-to-wikipedia.html

However, though Wickedpedia's reputation has been greatly damaged by charges of censorship, these alternative encyclopedias have not been very successful in unseating Wickedpedia, largely because Wickedpedia's great size -- with millions of articles and many contributors -- has given it a big advantage because it is an encyclopedia. However, great size is no big advantage for Facebook -- much smaller competitors can offer everything that Facebook offers plus a no-censorship pledge (except for kiddie porn using live young kids as subjects) that is given extra credibility by 47 USC §230 (c)(1), which says, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

mrbofus said (May 11, 2009 5:02 PM PDT) --
--For me, the issue is not that Facebook allows these groups, which is fine in the spirit of free speech and all, but that Facebook actively searches for and removes pictures of mothers breastfeeding their babies.--

The breastfeeding sites are irrelevant because the censorship standard -- "redeeming social value" -- for pornography is different. BTW, I am certainly not against Internet porn -- one of my favorite websites has dozens of pictures of girls using strap-on dildos to sodomize guys.

[Larry Fafarman]

The only purpose of saying that all holocaust denial and revisionism is anti-Semitic is to try to shut down debate.

[Lerianis3]

Unfortunately, you are right. They are just trying to shut down debate on this issue.

[Larry Fafarman]

Also, the standard for judging the gravity of an incitement to violence should depend on the situation. There is one helluva difference between (1) posting an Internet statement that incites to violence and (2) inciting a mob to violence. Duh.

[lynez9]

Larry Fafarman, sorry, but all holocaust denial and revisionism IS anti semetic! Why on earth would anyone debate that??? Anti semites, maybe???

[Lerianis3]

No, it isn't. The fact is that holocaust denial comes from the fact that people don't believe that Germany could have killed anywhere NEAR the amount of people who they are accused of doing that to in the short amount of time that they had to do it.
I personally disagree with that, and I am not anti-semetic.... I don't like religion PERIOD!

[nackereia]

Um...the holocaust didn't just kill off the Jews. The Roma were affected as were the physically and mentally handicapped and the homosexuals.

Research. Please to be doing it.