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

Facebook spokesman says the groups remaining will be monitored more closely. It is unlikely that the debate will end there.

[Larry Fafarman]

FiresideLL said (May 12, 2009 2:16 PM PDT) --
--"47 USC 230 only protects Facebook, and I'm not quite sure what you think its applicability is here." --

47 USC §230 (c) (2)(A) provides Facebook with protection from civil liability for censorship of offensive material only when the censorship is done in "good faith." To me, discriminatory censorship is not in "good faith."

--"Facebook is not bound by the constricts of the First Amendment. "--

You are begging the question. The courts have determined that the First Amendment freedom of speech clause can be applied to private entities in particular situations -- the broadcasting Fairness Doctrine is a good example.

--"I'm not quite sure how you analogize Miami Herald to the situation at hand." --

The law challenged in Miami Herald v. Tornillo is a law that you folks think is not possible: a law -- upheld 8-1 by the Florida Supreme Court (!) -- that applied the First Amendment freedom of speech clause to private newspapers. And even when you folks see this law with your own eyes, you still don't believe that it ever really existed.

--First, your basis for the Miami Herald argument is seemingly DESPITE the fact that the Flori-duh Supreme Court's decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. Such an argument is thoroughly unfathomable--making an argument based on caselaw overturned by the highest court in the nation? On what planet does THAT make sense? --

On my planet, the planet earth. It is noteworthy that the law in question was upheld 8-1 by the Florida Supreme Court. Also, the US Supreme Court's decision in Miami Herald v. Tornillo is very badly flawed -- I discuss the flaws in the following post on my blog (Item #8 in the post) --
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/05/legal-arguments-for-fairness-doctrine.html

Unlike a lot of people, I don't just blindly kowtow to everything that the US Supreme Court says. Also, the Facebook situation differs from the Miami Herald situation in important ways.

--"Second, the 'fairness doctrine,' which by the way, was not a mandatory rule, only applied to *broadcast license holders*."--

So what? I am not proposing that the fairness doctrine -- which, BTW, is now dormant -- be applied directly to Facebook. And the fairness doctrine was not mandatory only in the sense that it was not strictly enforced -- it would be impractical to try to strictly enforce it.

--"Show me where Facebook needs to get a license from the FCC for their website."--

What in the hell does licensure have to do with it? Does the First Amendment say anything about licensure? Is the Miami Herald licensed to sell newspapers?

--"SCOTUS overturned the application of the Florida statute based on the fact that it applied to NEWSPAPERS (who are unlicensed with a much broader competition base) rather than broadcast media.--

If all of this is so obvious and indisputable, then why didn't the Florida Supreme Court also strike down the statute instead of upholding it by a vote of 8-1? Were the judges of the Florida Supreme Court stupid? Anyway, this striking difference between two major courts -- a 9-0 US Supreme Court ruling that overturned an 8-1 Florida Supreme Court ruling -- shows that the courts can be very unpredictable, doesn't it? Maybe unpredictable enough to rule against Facebook's censorship of the holocaust-denial sites?

BTW, major newspapers do not have a broad competition base -- even major cities have just one or just a few of them.

--"Clearly a website is MUCH more akin to print newspapers than it is broadcast media, for much the same reason--anyone can start up a website to compete or espouse their personal views, no license required."--

You are really hung up on this "license" thing.

To me, a big difference about websites is that comment space is virtually unlimited and virtually free on websites but limited and expensive in newspapers and broadcast media -- thus, allowing lots of outside comments is a big burden to newspapers and broadcast media but not a burden to the owners of websites. There are many factors involved in the issue of freedom of speech in the media.

Also, by your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as censorship because someone blocked in one forum could always find another forum for presenting his/her views. Telling censored people that they are free to go to a less desirable forum is a "let them eat cake" argument.

--Put simply, if you went to law school, and that is the best legal reasoning you can do, you should ask for a refund. If you haven't, then I suggest not trying to engage in meaningful "legal analysis" until you do. --

"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

This nitwit is not a worthy adversary for someone of my great legal acumen.

[badfish303]

This is just another push of the capitalist agenda. Yes Holocaust Denial is wrong but that is not the reason that facebook is pushing this.
I wrote a blog article about it at freespace7.blogspot.com. It talks about how they leave all the other racist groups but only delete these ones because they lose some cash?.