After the killing at the Holocaust Memorial, I spotted a talking head on CNN maintaining that the greatest threat from hate groups comes from small, isolated groups. Having these groups online creates a way to track them that otherwise might not be available. The forum also acts as a forensic trail.

Um, I don't tell ideas to shut up. See my blog. However, I don't see anything wrong with a corporate entity like Facebook that controls speech ANYWAY with setting a civil tone itself and restricting hate speech when it has proclaimed it in its TOS. Either remove it from the TOS or defend it fully.

I think the old Blogger TOS was much more liberal (Google killed it when it took over) in that it said that unless somebody had a court order to remove speech as libelous or inciteful, Blogger would do nothing. And that's how it should be in the U.S.

Your arguments about the need for free speech aren't relevant to this discussion, as they are ostensibly available on your blog elsewhere on the Internet, and if a corporate blog has too-restrictive TOS, perhaps you can find your own  hosted server.

I constantly argue that in fact we have no place for the First Amendment to take place anymore. There is no public sphere where "Skokie" -- the ACLU defending the KKK's right to demonstrate -- can be played out.

My point is different -- that GIVEN that FB controls speech in a variety of ways, including in its fake governance gambit, and GIVEN that it purports to control "hateful speech" that it can control *this, too*. That Zuckerber doesn't seems to care and doesn't even connect the dots between his own TOS prescribing "hate" and these groups is merely part of that flippant Internet insolence that typifies these exchanges.

Of course FB "can" define what hatred is, as hundreds of other social media sites can and do by putting in TOS that says you could face censorship or banning for "hateful" speech -- whatever that is! You needn't hash that out with me, again, my problem isn't that I support overbroad interpretations of speech -- I don't. My point is that FB already makes discretionary decisions all over the place, and *it can on this, too*. It's a call for consistency by a corporate minder of a space, because I don't think you can expect corporations to provide the First Amendment for you -- otherwise, the right to freedom of speech trumps the right to free association, and that's legal nihilism.

Holocaust denial essentially does incite hatred because it assaults the cardinal experience of the Jewish people and makes it out to be a lie, which then denigrates them as a people, implying they lie to gain sympathy. That's morally wrong, and in some states, legally wrong, as well.

FB doesn't need to have some language spelled out that you can't criticize it. It has the authority and discretion in fact to remove people who do that. Does it? Do we know? Can we tell? You're going to tell me out of 357 million people, there are no arbitrary cases like that? I'm not aware of any, but the language of the TOS make it all too likely -- and it is very common for people to be expelled from services on a whim of the devs.

I think the solution to bad speech is to permit both bad speech and more good speech, eventually, people are educated and chose what is right and true. Of course, they will have a very hard time doing that in the climate of Internet ignorance, where, for example, it's common to propagandize on forums statements like "Christianity is responsible for the most killings in the world," when that dishonour belongs to communism. That's the sort of thing that fuels endless forums wars and yet shouldn't be required to demonstrate in an informed and civil society.

Please don't hector and lecture me about free speech. I'm an American citizen, and a human rights activist, I have a blogger's name that sounds Russian, and your prejudice about Russians has thus been abled to shine through, thank your.

Prokofy Neva,

Your post reads like a very different experience with Facebook than I have experienced.  Mind you, I'm not a big fan of social sites.  When I first joined, FB was a more business-oriented site, sort of a professional's equivalent to MySpace.  That community is still there, but it's faded into the background, to an extent.  But I wonder, if that was every really the case, if that's colored how FB approaches content on its site.

Basically, I don't see any reason why FB cannot evolve a policy that both enables criticism of itself and other public figures but does not tolerate Holocaust denial, on the simple grounds of invoking universal human rights as framed by the UN (not the U.S. Congress), where there is a bit more restriction on incitement of hatred and violence.

*Can* it do so?  Sure. But how do you define hatred?  If I were do say right now that I'm a believer in National Socialism, does that make this post hateful?  After all, National Socialism is literally the meaning of "Nazi."

For the record, I am no such thing.

This is why the USA is such a staunch defender of what you deem "convenient" free speech advocacy.  I have not read the FB pages being specifically referenced in this topic, so there's certainly the possibility that those particular pages *do* incite hatred and/or violence.  But denying the Holocaust, in and of itself, is no more hateful than the significant population that believe the Apollo Moon landings were faked.

I've also looked through Facebook's Terms, and nowhere in them do I find a prohibition against criticizing Facebook.  I haven't found one single takedown notice of any post, for example, that complained about the change to Facebook's Terms that caused such an uproar a few months ago.

Facebook and other services like Twitter are entrusted with the public commons now...

Are they?  I can't locate the posting right now, but someone here at Internet Evolution has already posted about how Twitter has experienced an explosion of users, but those users are rapidly moving on from it.  But let's assume for a bit that you're right, and Web 2.0 is the public commons of this century.  What is it, then, that we accomplish by trying to silence these opinions?  Nothing, I say.

Defending an idea is hard work.  If an idea cannot stand the hard scrutiny of reason and logic, then the idea dies under its own weight.  I happen to believe that denying the Holocaust is one such idea.  It cannot withstand reasoned, logical debate.

But you believe it to be speech that incites hatred, even violence.  And it must therefore be removed from any venue in which it is found?  Do you know what happens then?  It becomes, "The Fact They Don't Want You To Hear!"  Now, it's not denial of the Holocaust that cannot withstand scrutiny.  In the eyes of advocates for denial, it is The Holocaust itself that cannot stand up to scrutiny.  If it is such an historic atrocity, why will no one face those who say it did not happen?  Suddenly, the pillows with Jewish hair andthe lamps of human skin, and the stories of medical experimentation, and of gassing, and of torture for torture's sake, they lose some measure of credibility.  Why wouldn't they?  No one will discuss the flaws these deniers have found in eyewitness accounts, and of all the other "evidence" these deniers will claim to have that this was a huge fabrication, The Holocaust was.

An idea does not die because you tell it to shut up.

This is why you need walled gardens, and curated walled gardens, but a plurality of them.

What's really disgraceful about Facebook allowing the Holocaust denial trash is that they are conveniently invoking First Amendment protections for speech on this issue, and yet in general, not providing First Amendment protections on their service, which is governed by a restrictive TOS with many objectional facets to it.

Limitation of speech that Facebook management has built into their faux-democracy governance illusion lately, as they packed in their own people to managed groups, framed the debate themselves in propositions no one could edit, etc.

FB limits the numbers of friends, groups, etc. you can have. Teenagers IMing each other innocent in nonce groups of friends made on FB can find the heavy hand of the system coming in and telling them to stop sending so many messages or they will be banned. All this is supposed to stop spamming -- and yet, the worst spamming comes with the "friends you may like" function and ridiculous "themed" ads of FB itself.

I find it's often the case that social media is willing to invoke free speech for neo-Nazis, yet curb it when it comes to criticism of themselves and their policies.

Basically, I don't see any reason why FB cannot evolve a policy that both enables criticism of itself and other public figures but does not tolerate Holocaust denial, on the simple grounds of invoking universal human rights as framed by the UN (not the U.S. Congress), where there is a bit more restriction on incitement of hatred and violence.

Facebook and other services like Twitter are entrusted with the public commons now, which no longer exists anywhere else as newspapers are dying, people don't go to town hall meetings anymore, civic participation in real life is down. So you're right, they must treat this with the same seriousness that the moguls viewed their public trust. The problem is the moguls at least had ad buyers and subscribers to keep them in check; FB doesn't have the latter, and the former aren't motivated to comment on their speech policies.

You say the problem is for Zuckerberg to "grow up". But he could be 40, and be manager of a big IT corp in SV, and still have the exact same mentality, which is widespread among geeks of this world outlook -- maximum demand for freedom of expression about things that either they feel are important (net "neutrality" etc), or things that don't impact them at all and they don't care about (Holocaust denial) and minimal demand for evenhanded standards that would ensure debate on things they don't agree about (intelligent design, telecom restrictions, etc).

You aren't going to like this, but I think the only way to handle this is to have national governments (not the UN) control social media sites. The fact is, they do *anyway*, like it or not. And better that it be controlled by liberal and democratic governments than by bureaucratic corporate TOS and infantalist tekkies. In the EU, Holocaust denial would be a crime of racism, and software would block those sites. In the U.S., they might be visible, but groups might still lobby to have them removed from the public square.

Exactly the problems I have with banning ideas, itstima.

Ideas aren't defeated by trying to silence them.  If that were enough, China would have no need to open up its closed society, even the little that it has.  There would have been no bloodless revolution, as happened with the failed coup shortly after the fall of the USSR.  And so on.

I no more favor a tyranny of the majority than I do a tyranny of one.

As I noted in my initial response, I have very strong opinions on this.  I would not even be surprised to find them considered radical, and outside the mainstream.  I take my guidance from the principle espoused by Thomas Paine in Common Sense.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.

A content provider (which fits Facebook in this case) is, essentially, government.  So what place does TOS, guidelines about offensiveness, etc, play?  First, Facebook must decide for itself what kind of environment it wishes to be.  It has (fairly, I think) been rebuked for not clearly making this mission known.  If it, for example wishes to be "family friendly" and a place for social interaction, then I can see limiting access to so-called "hate" topics.  If, however, it instead seeks to be a place for serious as well as "social" discussion and interaction, then it must stand for the bare minimum imposition necessary to comply with legal mandates and obligations.

To be fair, Facebook isn't the town square, literally *or* figuratively.  While the content is available to all, the posting of same requires membership, and so it is a private venture, able to regulate itself accordingly.  This isn't a constitutional issue.

So, if the law doesn't provide a mandate, and I don't see where it does, do Facebook's Terms?  I looked them over, and I don't see any provision for hate speech, or definition of same.  So, if we are to ban such sites, what would be the basis?  Simply because some percentage of us deem it inappropriate?  A tyranny of the majority?  I don't find that at all comforting.  Not even:

My own thoughts are fixed around the "who" is banning rather than the "how" it is banned.

For example, in one blog site where I contribute, you have the ability to "ban" a poster.   (In fact, for anyone with Usenet experience, this is a standard feature of a good nntp newsreader -- you can rank posters to newsgroups with some degree of sophistication not seen instadard comments sections...once again, an example of an "old" Internet protocol being more sophiticated than its webby counter part). 

I like that you brought up the "bozo bin" in Usenet.  Some call it "plonking".  That's not banning.  The posted content is still posted for everyone else to see.  This is a software tool to choose not to see the content posted by that individual.  An individual choice, not a centralized effort to silence.

Ignoring content is not the same as banning it.  In an open forum, which is, I think, a fair assessment of Facebook in this context, everyone has the right to speak.  Just no right to be heard.  Which, I think, goes to the rest of your post, jabailo.  And I pretty much agree with the rest.

Hi Andrew,

You bring up some very valid points in your post. I am uncertain where i stand on this issue - not the one about Nazi history, but the one about whether a site/publication should control/edit/filter/block content and opinions on their site.

2 questions:

1. What would you say to - if an open policy was continued, could in some way educating 'hate' users/contributors be a better form of taking on this responsibility? Keeping them on the site, knowing who they are and attempting to reach out and engage them might just be a better option than shutting them off. They would simply find another outlet....does not really solve the problem.

2. A large number of readers and users might agree in this instance that the Nazis were the bad guys and their ideology is dangerous. But who decides when the topic at hand is more grey. Do the owners, shareholders, consumers, government, and/or someone else decide what content can be added and what should be banned?

 - Amit

You fight the idea, but you defend its right to be expressed.

Or you surrender far more by trying to silence them.

You write an excellent essay.

My own thoughts are fixed around the "who" is banning rather than the "how" it is banned.

For example, in one blog site where I contribute, you have the ability to "ban" a poster.   (In fact, for anyone with Usenet experience, this is a standard feature of a good nntp newsreader -- you can rank posters to newsgroups with some degree of sophistication not seen instadard comments sections...once again, an example of an "old" Internet protocol being more sophiticated than its webby counter part). 

When I say "surround" -- I am contrasting this with the centralized approach and believe I can incorporate what you are saying as well.

For example, we could all individually ban the hate groups.

We could form a social network to monitor their activities.

We could look for weak arguments and make them look very silly.

We could find out who is in these groups and maybe convince the weaker members that they shouldn't participate in such a group and get them to see the light.

We could engage them in a head on debate and demolish their arguments.

And so on.   I'm just saying there are so many tools with Social Media that extend beyond the hierarchical, we would be fools not to use them!

I stayed away from this debate because I have *very* vociferous opinions on the value of speech and the harm that truly happens by trying to halt it.  I was and am flabbergasted by the ideas expressed here.

Explicit physical threats and direct advocacy of violence are illegal aren't in the discussion.  Those violate every Terms of Service page I've ever read, and even a few laws.

So we're talking about alternative ideas.  Ideas used by hate groups, certainly.  but ideas.  The philosphy that ideas are fought by hiding them or denying them a channel of expression is anathema to the fundamental ideas of liberty and freedom.

But, even if we ignore this, because the Internet is no longer just about the United States (and, agreed, it probably hasn't been for quite some time), there's still another simple fact: silencing an opponent just doesn't work.  It drives the discussion underground.  And tightens the community being (ostensibly) silenced.

Freedom of Speeech isn't assured when you, and I, and holocaust deniers agree.  It's when you see an opinion, a viewpoint, an expression that turns your stomach and convinces you to fight with everything you've got that defines free speech.  You fight the idea, but you defend its right to be expressed.

Or you surrender far more by trying to silence them.

Yeah, I think this is the crux of reason.  There are a lot of conflicting opinions on what is tasteful or distasteful.  (personally, I find all religion distasteful)  However, "harm" is fundamentally dissimilar to "offense."  Offensive things vary a lot by context and audience.