Comments on: Facebook: Holocaust denial repulsive and ignorant

Following Brian Cuban's attack on Facebook's policies on Holocaust denial groups, company spokesman offers detailed response, describing the difficult decisions it has to make daily.

[Jason_Humphreys]

It's a shame CNET does not recognize the effort of the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) about these issues:

http://wwww.thejidf.org

As they wrote on your other piece, no other organization has been more on top of these issues:

* 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
* 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

This is just another piece of PR for Facebook.

The fact of the matter is, they never took the needed action until the Jewish Internet Defense Force inspired thousands of people to speak out against these issues.

[Semperlex]

Nor you recognize the truth or even admit of your wrongdoings.

[Dalkorian]

Censorship is repulsive and ignorant. Repulsive because it assumes I don't have the intelligence to make up my own mind and come to my own conclusions, ignorant because it assumes the problem goes away by sweeping it under the rug.

Facebook is repulsive and ignorant. Oh, and a time vampire for self absorbed zombies who think they have something useful to offer the world when in fact they are total wastes of flesh and resources. In the old days people who frequent Facebook were the ones who were killed first by wild animals.

[stephen7144]

It's a weak excuse to criticize censorship when dealing with hate and terror. It's ludicrous to deny the Holocaust. It almost seems that Facebook is only concerned about preventing the preaching of hate in Countries where it is illegal. Hate is disgusting whether legal or not and Facebook has a responsibility to it's users to not help propagate hate, just as it decides on the appropriateness of other types of content. If a group started on Facebook to deny that slavery existed in the United States in the past and promoted hatred toward African Americans, how long do you think that would be allowed to continue?

[StennG]

Considering there are Turkish nationalists groups on Facebook with user postings that deny historic truths such as the Armenian Genocide I don't understand your point.
Genocide denial, of the Holocaust or other genocides is abhorrent, but one cannot act against one group of deniers and not against all groups.

[think_tomorrow]

As repulsive as this kind of speech is, I would hesitate to ban groups of this kind just for being ignorant. Unless they're actively promoting violence or discrimination (which some of these groups would ostensibly be doing, I assume) we simply have to put up with them. Holocaust denial is one of the most incredibly ignorant and poorly supported conspiracy theories on the planet, and if people want to broadcast to the rest of the world that they're stupid or biased enough to fall for it, well, that just helps me avoid them in the future.

[Larry Fafarman]

Brian Cuban said, "Private companies such as Facebook are free to regulate speech however they see fit." WRONG. Being private will not necessarily protect Facebook from lawsuits for violation of 1st Amendment rights. TV and radio stations are private but subject to government regulation of 1st Amendment rights. And Facebook is so big that it is a de facto public forum.

The interviewer asked, "You mention that you have 'recently begun to block content by IP in countries where that content is illegal.' " 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

Also, it is not Facebook's job to enforce these foreign laws against holocaust denial.

[Semperlex]

Good point in fact I revised this further and there are a few blunders in here.

[Eric_Larson]

Imagine that 60 years ago your father's parents were murdered in their home. The coroner declared them dead at the scene, and newspaper articles chronicled the capture, trial, and conviction of their murderers. Your father was present during the murders, but escaped.

Since then, your father has passed away. So has the coroner, the sheriff, and the neighbors. The murderers were executed. There is no one who can vouch for first-hand, personal knowledge of the act.

Now a group of people are saying that the murders never happened. They are de facto calling you - the bearer of a traumatic family history - a liar, someone wanting to gain attention or sympathy to achieve some political or financial agenda. Bystanders say that they just have different "ideas" that deserve to be heard. They are "debating history." Here's how Facebook's spokesman puts it:

"The bottom line is that, of course, we abhor Nazi ideals and find Holocaust denial repulsive and ignorant. However, we believe people have a right to discuss these ideas and we want Facebook to be a place where ideas, even controversial ideas, can be discussed."

Let's cut the crap. It's one thing to debate whether the South was justified to start the Civil War. It's another the deny the existence of the Civil War. It's not ignorance that motivates Holocaust deniers, or honest belief in a "controversial idea."

What it is is no less than the same kind of evil that would motivate someone to libel or slander your grandfather.

I would like to see Holocaust deniers prosecuted under libel and slander laws. This might happen. In light of this possibility, it is imperative that the company minimize its exposure to litigation by closing the accounts of those who engage in such libel.

[Semperlex]

My understanding of the EU directives on blocking the content by IP is that FB attempted to make a correction, but in terms have violated EU laws.
In addition, the individual founders of the HD groups could be deemed personas non gratas in Europe and could possibly be prosecuted like in the case of Dr. Fredrick Toben who was arrested during transit under the EAW - European Arrest Warrants, "an arrest warrant to allow the arrest of criminal suspects and their transfer for trial or detention which is valid throughout the states of the European Union"

So by FB illegally allowing HD groups and its content in 13 European countries where the content is banned, they allowed their members to commit crimes that are not barred by statue of limitation and could be prosecuted retroactively.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/australian/adelaide-institute/hrc-introduction.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/10/germany

[Semperlex]

So if FB is blocking illegally blocking the content of HD groups in 13 EU countries, were HD content is banned, FB failed to account that some members of these groups reside in these nations and within European nations that are part of the EAW. So, if charges are filed on the corresponding nations, members of these groups could be subject to arrest and subsequent extradition.

[Larry Fafarman]

Semperlex said (May 10, 2009 3:35 AM PDT ) --
--"My understanding of the EU directives on blocking the content by IP is that FB attempted to make a correction, but in terms have violated EU laws."--

So you agree that Facebook is violating EU laws or policies against using IP addresses to block Internet communications?

--In addition, the individual founders of the HD groups could be deemed personas non gratas in Europe and could possibly be prosecuted like in the case of Dr. Fredrick Toben who was arrested during transit under the EAW - European Arrest Warrants--

The attempt to extradite Toben from Britain to Germany failed.

Facebook is too eager to cooperate with these foreign censorship laws. Facebook should be supporting the US Constitution, not foreign censorship laws. And of course Brian Cuban's request that these holocaust-denial sites be removed altogether to comply with foreign censorship laws is completely off the wall.

Does Facebook block foreign access to homosexual sites? There are countries where these sites are illegal. I presume that Facebook is afraid to arouse the ire of influential homosexual groups.

[Semperlex]

@ Larry Fafarman
FB appears to be aware of the IP blocking restriction by issuing the following statement,

"blocking individual content in individual markets is not a trivial technical challenge." Now, the question should be directed to FB and the method is presently using to block IP's and also avoid violation of international laws. However, Facebook also acknowledges that their "infrastructure" must be in "compliance with international laws."

Besides, I am aware of that Toben was not extradited to Germany, but as you know he was detained in London under an EAW. I set the example from the perspective that HD content could trigger similar cases and unsavory situations for FB members.

I don't perceive FB "too eager" to cooperate with international laws, instead, I perceive FB as a relative new company that acknowledges their "committed to learning" and realizing that by allowing HD content on their site they are infringing on international laws. I think that FB is assessing the situation and perhaps is currently discussing the topic with a group of experts. It is likely that FB will adopt a new set of responsible policies not solely with the purpose to avoid potential lawsuits, but because in essence the collateral effect is the same as in the Yahoo and Ebay cases. FB permits the building of a page within a community and host a group where people gather openly expressing hatred, therefore permitting the building of an organization fomenting and allowing ?hate? material.

I?ll interpret your statement regarding the US Constitution as ignoring the fact that FB corporate, has a global responsibility not limited to the United States, but extended to all countries in which it offers its services.

Besides a simple statement by Mr. Cuban summarizes the complexity of the First Amendment. In my opinion freedom of speech is restricted when it promotes, potentially persuade, and incite ?lawless actions?.

[Semperlex]

Correction - Besides a simple statement by Mr. Cuban summarizes the complexity of the First Amendment. In my opinion freedom of speech is restricted when it promotes, persuades, and incites to -lawless actions-.

[Larry Fafarman]

by Semperlex said (May 10, 2009 11:00 AM PDT) --

--FB appears to be aware of the IP blocking restriction by issuing the following statement,

"blocking individual content in individual markets is not a trivial technical challenge." --

I was talking about the legal issues, not the technical issues. And I don't think that it is a big technical challenge -- IP address blocking is done all the time.

--Besides, I am aware of that Toben was not extradited to Germany, but as you know he was detained in London under an EAW.--

The extradition attempt failed even though both Britain and Germany are EU countries.

-- I don't perceive FB "too eager" to cooperate with international laws, instead, I perceive FB as a relative new company that acknowledges their "committed to learning" and realizing that by allowing HD content on their site they are infringing on international laws. --

These censorship laws are national laws, not international laws.

-- I think that FB is assessing the situation and perhaps is currently discussing the topic with a group of experts. --

FB is doing more than just "discussing the topic with a group of experts" -- FB says that it is already blocking access to the HD sites.

--FB permits the building of a page within a community and host a group where people gather openly expressing hatred,--

Holocaust denial is not necessarily hateful -- it has been falsely smeared as always hateful in attempts to shut down debate. My own view is that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. What is hateful about that statement?

--l interpret your statement regarding the US Constitution as ignoring the fact that FB corporate, has a global responsibility not limited to the United States, but extended to all countries in which it offers its services.--

Facebook's primary responsibility is to the US Constitution and US laws.

--Besides a simple statement by Mr. Cuban summarizes the complexity of the First Amendment. In my opinion freedom of speech is restricted when it promotes, persuades, and incites to lawless actions-.

There are many subjects where there is a risk of messages that incite to lawless actions -- why single out holocaust denial?

[Semperlex]

by Larry Fafarman May 10, 2009 1:34 PM PDT

I was talking about the legal issues, not the technical issues. And I don't think that it is a big technical challenge -- IP address blocking is done all the time.
R// The legal issues is not clear and I am not going to make a statement that assumes FB is violating international laws when in fact I have no direct knowledge.


The extradition attempt failed even though both Britain and Germany are EU countries.
R// Yes, the extradition failed, but Germany was willing to prosecute him, besides Britain is not the only country in the EU, there are other 26 countries.

These censorship laws are national laws, not international laws.
R// There is no censorship, simply request for compliance. There are members of these groups residing within EU countries where HD is a crime.

FB is doing more than just "discussing the topic with a group of experts" -- FB says that it is already blocking access to the HD sites.
R// That is a false statement since the groups are active.

FB permits the building of a page within a community and host a group where people gather openly expressing hatred,--
R// Therefore as you stated, if "Holocaust denial is not necessarily hateful" you are a revitionist attempting to glorify instead to repudiate. "...smeared..." is what HD is attempting to do by denying the holocaust. There is a hidden agenda behind these groups and I am quite familiar with their story.

Facebook's primary responsibility is to the US Constitution and US laws.
R// Your opinion is prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant, and xenophobic.

There are many subjects where there is a risk of messages that incite to lawless actions -- why single out holocaust denial?
R// So you are so concern with my reasoning that you rather I dedicate my time to other lawless actions? There are six million reasons for which Holocaust denial is of my primary concern.

[Semperlex]

Dr Toben spoke in the course of this inquiry of freedom of speech, but it must be acknowledged that the freedom which he seeks in the material which he has published, deprives others of their freedom of speech, if they are so humiliated and intimidated they are no longer able to access that freedom. I am satisfied that is one of the consequences of the vilificatory, bullying, insulting, and offensive material contained on Dr Toben?s Adelaide Institute website. Dr Toben also referred to freedoms in Australia: it is my view one of the freedoms promoted by the Racial Discrimination Act is that of diversity and tolerance. Dr Toben sought support for this diversity and tolerance for the promotion of his views and interests: however the form in which he has chosen to promote his views and interests are such that they do not accord tolerance and respect for the interests, rights, and freedoms of others. Under these circumstances, it seems to me appropriate to make a determination that Dr Toben cease the unlawful dissemination of this material on the Adelaide Institute website. In order to do this, the material must be removed from the website and not re-published elsewhere by Dr Toben.

I am also of the view that, bearing in mind the very public nature of the publication of this material and the public way in which Dr Toben conducted his engagement in the inquiry process, it is appropriate that a public apology be provided to the complainant. This is particularly the case as no financial compensation is sought by the complainant. I also consider it appropriate that the apology should appear on the respondent?s website, should this be maintained.

The complainant also sought a determination that the respondent should at his own expense undertake a course of counselling by a conciliation officer of the Commission. I understand no such course of counselling is available and I shall not make any direction along those lines.

Pursuant to section 25Z(1)(b) I make the following determinations:

1. I find the complaint substantiated;
2. I declare that the respondent Dr Fredrick Toben, representing the Adelaide Institute, has engaged in conduct rendered unlawful by section 18C of this Act in the publication of material racially vilificatory of Jewish people, on the Adelaide Institute?s Internet site. This conduct is rendered unlawful by Part IIA of the Act;
3. I declare that the respondent Dr Fredrick Toben, representing the Adelaide Institute, should remove the contents of the Adelaide Institute website from the World Wide Web and not re-publish the content of that website in public elsewhere;
4. I declare that the respondent Dr Fredrick Toben, representing the Adelaide Institute, should make a statement of apology to Mr Jeremy Jones and those members of the Jewish community of Australia whom he represented in this complaint. That apology should be made in writing to Mr Jones, and further should appear on the home page of the Adelaide Institute website. The terms of the apology are to be as follows:

"I hereby unreservedly and unconditionally apologise to you and to the Australian Jewish community for having published materials inciting hatred against the Jewish people in contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act. I undertake that neither I nor any employee or agent of mine (actual or ostensible) will publish any such material in the future and that all such material which is presently published by me, or by any employee or agent of mine (actual or ostensible) in any print or electronic media (including the Internet) will forthwith be withdrawn from publication".

I certify that this and the preceding thirty-eight pages is a true copy of the Reasons for Decision of Ms Kathleen McEvoy, Inquiry Commissioner.

Hearing Solictor:

Date: 5 October, 2000

[Larry Fafarman]

Semperlex said (May 10, 2009 2:04 PM PDT) --

--"Facebook's primary responsibility is to the US Constitution and US laws. "
R// Your opinion is prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant, and xenophobic. --

If that is what you really think, I don't see much point in my continuing this discussion.

[sscohn]

Check out an academic paper on the topic: http://holocaustdenialishate.wordpress.com/