I think this was an excellent response from Facebook. I don't agree with the message, but I also don't want to increase censorship just because I don't like what others are saying.
I've always considered freedom of speech to be much more than a rule that government must follow. It seems that a lot of people would rather put that idea into as small a box as possible so they can justify coercing service providers to censor things they find distasteful. This is really disheartening.
It's "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes".
That including 'not publishing things enough people don't like'. It also includes 'not publishing things coloured blue, on an irrational whim'. You can point out the sillyness of not publishing blue things, or say it's bad business, but it isn't censorship. Censorship would be if publishers were banned from publishing blue things.
Netrus was replying to mixedbit's Noam Chomsky comment, pointing out that, if facebook removed the post, that wouldn't be analagous to someone not having the 'right to publish a ridiculous book', it would be analagous to a private publisher having the right to decide not to publish it. [Edited to clarify, per mixedbit]
But facebook isn't "pubishing" anything, which implies some sort of editorial process and an endorsement of the content. Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. It must be that way.
My gripe with netrus' comment was that his wording implied that because facebook wasn't bound by law not to censor, that they necessarily should censor.
If you're going for the legal perspective, it's more complicated than that. Depending on jurisdiction, service provider immunity may not work after they're notified about the illegal content but decline to remove it. E.g. [1]. (Note that some causes of action may have more specific defences for operators of websites, e.g. [2]).
But really, that isn't relevant here. No-one's suggested that the image here's illegal. This is just about facebook being able to decline to publish whatever it likes.
> when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing
I don't agree. As you yourself pointed out two sentences before that one, facebook don't editorially filter stuff before putting it up. So if they're notified that a thing they don't want to host has been put up, any action they take is always going to be "after the fact"!
How can the right line to draw be between a provider that filters after publishing and one that filters before, such that the former is "censoring" but the latter is "not publishing"? Filtering after publishing (in response to user reports) is, for a website with a userbase the size of facebook's, just more efficient than doing it before. I don't see any moral difference between the two, just a practical one.
(And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison).
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/m...
>And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison
After rereading the comment and its parent more carefully, you may be right.
The question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the original poster.
I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up."
But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument.
[Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read through https://twitter.com/sammorril, and consider whether you believe twitter should be censoring his posts, for example, https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 is one that I reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable, but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what circumstances that power to censor should be used.)
That's pretty scary.
The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship, you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should, or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should. Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive speech their right to make it.
Just because people are laughing doesn't mean it isn't encouraging horrible behavior by making certain actions seem less disgusting.
Second: Do you honestly believe that somewhere a woman is going to be raped solely because of this picture?
Third: If you believe that this sentence leads to rapes, you also need to ban every comedy on earth that makes fun of blacks or jews because that would encourage racism. So no Seinfeld (jokes on jews!). No Simpsons (blacks AND jews and about everything). And current comedies like Family Guy, Southpatk or American Dad.. ouch.. that's some offensive stuff in there! Maybe not funny at all for you, but funny for many many people.
Well, there was an episode of Mad Men this season where Betty suggests her husband rape the teenager staying in the same house. Sure it was shocking, but I don't recall people asking AMC to censor the episode.
I've also seen worse much worse jokes posted on reddit. Perhaps because it's an image macro that people are getting upset.
No, I didn't find this particular example funny, but that doesn't mean that comedy that touches on certain taboo subjects can't be.
Censorship is worse, because it harms society more; if you look at the countries with the most censorship they are all rotten places to live and I expect most of them have higher levels of rape than countries with less censorship.
Is government censorship really any worse than censorship by a corporation/website?
If it's a small website, then one can simply go elsewhere. After all freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience. Set up your own website or whatever.
But what if it's a big website, one that nearly everyone uses, such as Facebook? Sure, someone can argue: if you don't like the website don't use it and then say because you don't have to use it Facebook isn't being coercive. But with government censorship, one could say: if you don't like it leave the country and go live somewhere else. In both cases there's a counterargument: it's not as easy as that, therefore it makes more sense to regard it as coercive.
To my mind governments and large corporations are similar in that both are powerful, and neither can be relied upon to have my interests at heart. Therefore I am wary when either limits freedom of speech.
Facebook is weird because they removed images of women breastfeeding; and they took some time (and initially refused) to takedown images of women having their heads cut off.
> I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted.
I don't think it is reasonable to say that at all, since this 'rape culture' in the US is basically a manufactured boogieman. This image is representative of an asshole going for shock value, nothing more. The intended effect is occurring, the image is making rounds and people are getting upset.
Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful. Now, harm may arise if somebody in turn acts after being exposed to such material. But the responsibility for that harmful act should lay solely with the individual or individuals who perpetrated it, not with people who merely expressed ideas that may have been observed by the perpetrator.
It is harmful in and of itself. I don't know if you've ever had people urging others to hurt you but it's immensely threatening, very scary. And for good reason - there's the knowledge that there's easy respect up for grabs in that hateful little group, something that encourages lonely bitter people to go do the things. The speech creates an incentive for the action.
It's a difference of degree, not of type, between putting out a hit on someone and hate speech. It's just the payment that's slightly different.
If an act does occur, it's because one or more people decided to made that act happen.
The words in a book, or the sounds in a recording, or a JPEG image on Facebook have no inherent power to control people. Nor do the person or persons who created such works.
If somebody performs a specific act after viewing such material, it is that person who is responsible for any harm that may occur.
I asked someone to pass me the salt, and they passed me the salt. I can only assume you believe there was no causal connection between those two events.
The truth is that everything people deliberately do is caused by what they think, and what they think is very strongly affected by the symbolic communication they have with others. That is, after all, the whole point of language: to alter someone else's mind-state.