While surfing the New York Times site, I came across an article about Facebook taking a stand against censorship. The headline was: “Holocaust Deniers Gather on Facebook.” The article outlined how Facebook refused to remove pages about the Holocaust being a hoax, as long as they didn’t move from expression of information into hate speech based on the definition they provide in their Terms of Use. Not surprisingly, Facebook has taken some pretty hard knocks for allowing any of these sites to remain active.
Facebook released a statement saying that they check every site like this for violations in the Terms of Use and if none exist, it is allowed to remain up. They continued on by saying that while they find “Holocaust denial repugnant and ignorant,” as long as groups remain within the Terms of Use, the groups are allowed to continue. They are trying to remain true to their idea that “ignorance or deception” is better fought through openness rather than censorship.
Facebook has a strong desire to remain a place where all ideas, even the controversial ones, can be discussed. I admire how Facebook is sticking to its guns. Clearly, they understand that removing one controversial group abiding by the Terms of Use could lead to another controversial group requested for removal, and another, and another, and so forth. It’s nice to know that librarians have allies in the technical world of people who understand how censorship works and why intellectual freedom is an important cause to champion.
4 comments:
Beth,
I also discussed this topic in my blog post, citing CNN’s article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/05/08/facebook.holocaust.denial/index.html. Very interesting response and point of view to FaceBook’s response to the Holocaust Denial movement group web pages. I do agree that all points of view on any topic need to be made accessible for “intellectual consumption” and learning. You make a strong case for how intellectual freedom is being protected and ensured on the Internet by others, such as FaceBook. Though I find this historical theory revolting, as an information specialist, I need to be able to objectively present both sides of a case. Great work and a finely written entry focusing on the need for intellectual freedom!
~Julie
It is so easy to trample on the rights of others when one is so sure that the others are so wrong. It shows a strength and understanding of the need to have equal rights even if, or especially if, we do not understand or are offended by the position of another. In the same vein we do not have to be quiet about it. We too have a voice.
Julie, though I agree that the deniers have a right to their beliefs, I would caution against viewing Holocaust denial as a "historical theory" or as another "side." That's one of the denier's tactics (also used by creationists)--when scientific/historical evidence is lacking, couch your argument in terms of free speech--ie, the deniers will argue that the scientific/historical community won't let them present their argument not because their argument is crap, but because the establishment wants to suppress their freedom of speech.
Or think of it this way: If you honestly believe that HD should be put on equal footing with real history as another "side," then why not do the same for flat-earthers?
I also agree that it is refreshing to see FB stand up for free speech.
I wouldn't call Holocaust deniers "the other side" of the issue. I would call it an alternate view maybe? I don't think there are just two sides to the story, either it happened one way or the other. (That may be semantics, but I just want to get the point across that it's not just a matter of showing both sides to an issue. There is often a full spectrum of issues and alternate theories that are not even on the spectrum.)
I do agree that it is can be difficult and yet very important to support the free speech of individuals with whom you do not agree. If you believe in free speech it doesn't mean that you only believe in free speech for people who agree with you or people who are on the right side of the argument. It must be for all people regardless of personal opinion.
Post a Comment