Spotlight on Facebook Groups Affects Microsoft

NewsCloud writes "After Slashdot reported Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech, the company removed its F**k Islam group for a day (it's back up now). According to the New York Times, 'Facebook declined to comment on Friday on the subject of hate speech or on what steps had been taken.' It turns out that Microsoft is the digital advertising provider for Facebook serving up ads for companies such as NetFlix, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and Coca Cola. But for now, the Microsoft-served ads for all Facebook group home pages (even those complying with Facebook's Terms of Use) appear to have been taken off the site. For its part, NetFlix told me to address any concerns about its own ad placement along obscene speech with Facebook. T-Mobile said they would look into it."

Comments

ok but

[sdedeo]

This problem -- with user-generated content not being properly vetted by marketing departments before being juxaposed with ads -- is common to the "Web 2.0". Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day. Not to be some kind of bizarre technoutopian, but actually people think and act in ways that may be unpleasant to their fellows. The world doesn't actually look like one of those 1980s "Buy the World a Coke" ads.

Re:ok but

[Tackhead]

> This problem -- with user-generated content not being properly vetted by marketing departments before being juxaposed with ads -- is common to the "Web 2.0". Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day.

I propose the following solution: Fuck Web 2.0, fuck marketing departments, and fuck advertisers.

> Not to be some kind of bizarre technoutopian, but actually people think and act in ways that may be unpleasant to their fellows. The world doesn't actually look like one of those 1980s "Buy the World a Coke" ads.

Fuck the world. I just wanted a Pepsi. (And they wouldn't give it to me...)

Re:ok but

[Toonol]

Watch the language, man. You'll drive away all of Slashdot's advertisers.

Re:ok but

[blowdart]

There are ads? Damn my adblock for taking away revenue from slashdot's non-news stories.

Re:ok but

[Gnostic Ronin]

What's taking them so long to learn it though -- it's been true for all of human history. Free people have a habit of offending people by saying what they actually think rather than what they're "supposed" to say. It's been true since Guttenberg -- If you give people the ability to speak without censorship, they'll speak. So the "solution" is to get rid of the freedom part. Make sure every post and every site is preapproved by the suits, and you'll have a safe site for advertisers. Nothing offensive will appear underneath the ad. Of course, the problem with that environment is that if you can't say anything offensive, you probably haven't said anything worth saying. The least popular person in the room is the guy who says exactly what he's thinking, but that guy has a much better chance of being right than the guy saying everything is fine. I think the FU** Islam people are wrong, but I don't want them banned.

Re:ok but

[lymond01]

"I just wanted a Pepsi. (And they wouldn't give it to me...)"

I know that song. About a kid in his room and his parents think he's on drugs....good stuff.

Re:ok but

[rdoger6424]

Institutionalized by Suicidal Tendencies
It's in guitar hero II

Well that's too bad.

[LACMA]

You'd think Microsoft would have known that a social networking site comprised mainly of college students would feature at least a few obscenities and outspoken and unpopular opinions. Personally I have no problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, but if Microsoft does, does anyone really think that a Microsoft-served ad provides an endorsement of the groups opinions? If it does, why hasn't anybody been all over Google?

Re:Well that's too bad.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Read TFA. See who posted the summary. The guy essentially fabricated a story out of nowhere. Tailor-made slashvertising... Nice.

Re:Well that's too bad.

[Frosty Piss]

What I find interesting is how one group (left-leaning Slashdrones) can make such a stink about free-speech they don't like from another group (reight-leaning xenophobes) with a straight (acting) face.

Re:Well that's too bad.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Tailor-made slashvertising... Nice.

It's a DUPE too! We had this story before.

Re:Well that's too bad.

[rucs_hack]

Its interesting to me that there are adverts on Facebook. I've never seen any, didn't even know they existed there.

Its amazing how adblock changes the web experience. I used an undergrad lab computer last week, and was taken aback by the amount of adverts on sites I use all the time.

Re:Well that's too bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it does, why hasn't anybody been all over Google?

You realise you're on slashdot; right?

Re:Well that's too bad.

[ozbird]

You'd think Microsoft would have known that a social networking site comprised mainly of college students would feature at least a few obscenities and outspoken and unpopular opinions.

I would imagine a "F*ck Microsoft" group would be exceedingly popular, or has that been censored already?

Re:Well that's too bad.

[1u3hr]

What I find interesting is how one group (left-leaning Slashdrones) can make such a stink about free-speech they don't like

What I find interesting is how you can state that "left-leaning Slashdrones" are the only ones who would be offended. Actually, the submitter is obviously trying to get big companies like Microsoft to react, and they are the opposite of "left-leaning Slashdrones" in every way. And if anyone is really offended it's likely to be conservative middle-Americans.

Re:Well that's too bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Slashdrone:

Your post does an excellent job of supporting the Parent. In fact, it's Rolling On The Floor funny.

You are such a lap dog.

Re:Well that's too bad.

[hkmwbz]

What I find interesting is that someone can shoot himself so thoroughly in the foot by not even understanding what free speech is all about. Criticizing someone's speech doesn't make it less free. Get a clue, Bush lover.

Is it just me or..

[ttapper04]

Havn't we seen this before?

fuck hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

wait, what?

Um

[Joe Jay Bee]

So Microsoft provides the advertising for a site whose users created a group called Fuck Islam. And they're at fault? Typical Slashdot spin...

This isn't just shooting the messenger. This is shooting the guy that made the uniform that the messenger wears.

Re:Um

[rtyhurst]

Um, what?

Surprised there's no banner ad saying "F**k Open Source"?

I'm sure it's just because Microsoft hadn't got around to it yet.

Silly

[drhamad]

This whole "spotlight" on the group is silly. First off, the name notwithstanding, the group really isn't that full of "hate." But even if it was, who cares?! It's a group of people that think a certain way, and it's on a site that allows people to create groups to talk about whatever they want. Why should the group be censored? I don't want to have to worry about what somebody is going to let me say, on a social site.

Re:Silly

[darkmeridian]

What's really scary is the reaction from the Muslim posters on Facebook.

The group in question simply objected to extremist Islam because they were killing civilians with car bombs and beheading innocents. The group directly confronted what it thought was a politically-correct reluctance to challenge extremist Muslims who wanted to kill Westerners and infidels. In response, lots of pro-Islam groups started to suggest killing Jews and Westerners. Existing Muslim groups (roughly paraphrasing, groups titled "Israel is not a real country, delist it") began to spout extremist threats. Even moderates on those boards refused to disavow terrorism, beheadings, car bombs, crashing airplanes into skyscrapers, killing Jews, and similar violence. The moderates said they were against violence, but you have to understand the kind of threats the Muslims are facing.

Anyone who dug into this would see the Muslim supporters on Facebook tend to be far more extreme and just flat-out crazy than anyone on "Fuck Islam." But it is too politically-sensitive to say this, thereby proving the point of the Fuck Islam groups.

Moderate away, my friends.

Re:Silly

[1u3hr]

The group in question simply objected to extremist Islam

No one is objecting to that. It's simply calling themselves "FuckIslam". If that isn't courting confrontation and asking for a similar response, I don't know what is. If you want to solve a problem, you don't start your argument by saying "fuck you". If you want a brawl, go ahead, but don't whine that no one listens to your points.

Re:Silly

[tbannist]

I think that's kind of the point. They're deliberately provoking Muslims to show what their reaction is. The reasonable response is "No, fuck you" not "I will kill everyone you've ever met".

Re:Silly

[1u3hr]

The reasonable response is "No, fuck you" not "I will kill everyone you've ever met".

So, has anyone been killed? So it looks like an appropriate response then.

Re:Silly

[hkmwbz]

Perhaps no one will be killed, but threats are bad enough. As are demands that the group be taken down. The reaction from the Muslims was oh-so predictable...

F**k taboo

[athloi]

Let the kids say whatever they want, even if you or I don't agree with it. This applies to the so-called obscenity as much as the derision for Islam. Humanity will someday grow up and realize we'll never all agree, and then we can stop being offended by our disagreement, including wanting each other dead.

Re:F**k taboo

[ResidntGeek]

You don't actually think humanity's going to grow up, do you?

good

[thatskinnyguy]

I'm glad they put that group back up. It's not that I'm a bigot or anything. I just believe the old mantra that the freedom to criticize or hate is the greatest freedom.

Re:good

[LWATCDR]

Interesting. The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it? I mean the people in that group could always put up their own site? Think about things like newspapers. Just because you write a letter to the editor they don't have to print it. Just because you want to put an ad in they don't have to take it, even if you are a reporter the editor has the right to not publish what you write.

Re:good

[thatskinnyguy]

I'm also a firm believer that the First Amendment is meant to restrict the government and not businesses. Facebook and other sites like it have every right to remove inflammatory content in order to keep their clientèle. I was just applauding them for being an outlet for free speech.

I don't agree with the group in question necessarily, but they have a right to say what they want in whatever outlet they want. It's just the outlets also have a right to be the gatekeepers.

This raises another question. Shouldn't these websites have something in their ToSs that defines what are considered to be actionable offenses when it comes to groups like the one in the article?

Re:good

[king-manic]

Interesting. The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it? I mean the people in that group could always put up their own site? Think about things like newspapers. Just because you write a letter to the editor they don't have to print it. Just because you want to put an ad in they don't have to take it, even if you are a reporter the editor has the right to not publish what you write.

I guess the point was that 'F*ck Islam' was removed due to vocal dissension from another facebook group and the concerns of the advertisers (partly due to this other group). While other groups such as 'F*ck Jews', 'F*ck Christianity' and other semi-legitimate criticism groups were left alone. It was a company pandering to a vocal minority. As well the 'F*ck Islam' group was reported to be more along the lines of vocal criticism of problems within Islam vs an explicit hate group. It angered many over the hypocrisy and on the fact that various groups within this religion has a habit of using any means including murder to silence opposition.

Re:good

[LWATCDR]

I didn't know that the other groups exist. My guess is that to be fair they too should have been removed as well.

Re:good

[mdwh2]

The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it?

This strawman keeps cropping up. No one is claiming that sites like Facebook don't have a right to put up what it likes.

However, we are free to decide which situation we would prefer: an online "user" site where material is removed if it offends anyone, or the advertisers - or an online site where this does not happen. I, and presumably the OP, prefer the latter. Which do you prefer?

Re:good

[LWATCDR]

Both can exist but I find zero value in groups of that nature. If you wish to criticize some aspect of Islam do so. But there is great value in civil dialog and little to none in this kind of hyperbole, it isn't subtle, clever, or insightful. It will do nothing positive at all.

Inappropriate overreaction...

[C10H14N2]

Canceled NetFlix over this?

You'd think a /. submitter would understand the vagaries of such advertising relationships and the rotation systems employed. It's not like NetFlix specifically paid to be seen by members of "Neo-Nazi movie-lovers for the destruction of Israel."

Sending them snarky letters as if that was the case is pretty childish...

Re:Inappropriate overreaction...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are just looking for something to be butthurt about. I'm sure he'll run over to Apple, where the instruments used for inducing butthurt are "more colorful and pretty".

I signed up for Netflix yesterday and think it's neato!

P.S.: Fuck Islam!
P.P.S.:j/f/a

sjbsfj!

Re:Inappropriate overreaction...

[Xzarakizraiia]

My thoughts entirely.

Meh

[kevin_conaway]

I find it hard to believe that MS would pull the ads so quickly, if at all. Perhaps Facebook rotates its advertising providers and today is Microsofts day off?

So what exactly constitutes "obscene speech"?

[RickRussellTX]

Simple question, really. You can choose to agree with speech, and you can choose not to agree with speech. I'll even stretch the concept and say that speech which wanders into explicit sexuality might be considered "obscene" under a traditional judicial concept of pornographic obscenity.

But what makes the Facebook site obscene? The use of the F-word alone?

Netflix is not the problem

[IronWilliamCash]

I think the only real problem in this situation is the loser who closed his Netflix account because he doesn't understand how the web works...

Free speech

[be-fan]

This is sort of thing is absolutely the point of having free speech. Of course, since FaceBook is a private entity, they do not have no legal obligation to be a forum for free speech, but it would be great if they were.

That said, I'm kind of curious to see how far this tolerance goes. I think a FaceBook group attacking overly conservative Islamic culture is a perfectly valid and topical political point. Can I have a FaceBook group called "F**k Negros", to attack the inner-city black youth culture that fills the city I live in with violence? Can I have a "F**k GWB" group to attack the dumbass president who is screwing things up in the Middle East? Can I have a "F**k the Jews" group attacking the whiny Jews who scream "anti-semitism!" in order to stifle legitimate debate? If so, I have a lot more respect for FaceBook than I used to...

Re:Free speech

[Omnifarious]

I agree. One of the worst thing about all these advertising driven social networking sites is the potential for advertisers to use threats to suppress free speech.

These groups are seemingly well meaning but basically horribly evil. This one wants to suppress F**k Islam. One on LiveJournal (which LJ partially caved in to) wanted LJ to clear out any accounts that listed pedophilia as an interest. It is most distressing to me, and quite telling how one of the first things they try to go for is the advertisers.

I guess, like the bonsai kitty protesters of years past, they don't really understand free speech or the full ramifications of their actions. I do not want to live with a whitewashed Internet, and I don't think most members of the various groups in question do either. But they become blinded by hatred and intolerance towards one particular idea that they feel doesn't deserve to be heard and they take the steps to make it so eventually no controversial idea will be heard.

And even worse, though it seems that the commenters here recognize this attempt at censorship for what it is, it doesn't seem like the people who write the article blurbs do.

Re:Free speech

[dstiggy]

That said, I'm kind of curious to shee how far this tolerance goes.
I can tell you from what I know there was a group actually called F**k (insert name) of a specific person who a lot of people at my college didn't like. This group was banned from facebook. So it seems to me that being hateful towards a specific group is tolerated, but towards a specific person is not. That being said I wonder if this would extend from a normal Joe to someone more famous such as a major political figure. An example of this would be if you created a group called F**k Bush because a group of you didn't like President Bush.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason Microsoft would object to a 'fuck islam' group is because their belief is more akin to 'fuck everybody'.

A little more honesty in their ad campaigns might not go amiss...

Windows Vista: Another forced upgrade, get your wallet out and drop your pants

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "F**k Hot Chicks" for those of us who like f**king hot chicks?

Re:Free speech

[morgan_greywolf]

An example of this would be if you created a group called F**k Bush because a group of you didn't like President Bush. I dunno about you, but I started a group called F**k Bush, it wouldn't have anything to do with the current President of the United States (or even the band 'Bush'.) ;)

Re:Free speech

[that IT girl]

Mod parent up...

Re:Free speech

[The One and Only]

"Islam" is a religion. "Negroes", "GWB", and "the Jews" are people. There's a difference between attacking a belief system and attacking people. "Fuck Judaism" would be more appropriate.

Re:Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

That's drop your pants and pick up your wallet!

Smells like FUD

[Miltazar]

Facebook, like many of these sites, uses an advertisement service. In this case, as mentioned in the summary, it uses Microsoft. So let me get this straight, someone is mad because a vaguely random placed ad is on some hate speech group thats part of user-content created website? From that Idealog link, it really sounds like he thinks some marketing guy up at Netflix said to himself, "Hey, look at this F**K Islam group, lets buy an ad space there." More likely they just bought ads with Microsoft to be place anywhere that uses Microsoft's ad service. Its not facebook's fault, and definitely not Netflix/T-Mobile's fault. This isn't television where you can specify during what show you want your ad on. Its a dynamic ad, it places it randomly among whatever sites use the system. Netflix bought a service from Provider A, doesn't mean they support Random Hatespeech Facebook Group B. This really must be a slow news day.

Re:Smells like FUD

[sdhoigt]

> Its a dynamic ad, it places it randomly among whatever sites use the system.

Yeah, like it could even show up on my netflixsuxhairygonads Facebook page. What's the bid deal?

Ummm... as for the advertising part...

[RobertM1968]

Who cares? It means I am less likely to see an ad when I log in to FaceBook. Hooray!

To blame any of MS's ad placement on MS is ridiculous. That they (possibly) took their ads offline because they did not want them associated with a hate site is a good thing - regardless of anyone's view on "Freedom of Speech".

Now that I look

[LACMA]

I have to agree with you. This "NewsCloud" guy has written a couple sensationalist articles decrying a couple expletives. I doubt he is "just" enforcing Facebook's own TOS agreement - and frankly, if Facebook starts enforcing it in an overly puritanical way, they risk losing members in their target demographic, one that likes to be vulgar and obscene.

Free speech.

[king-manic]

I'm not too sure but did free speech just trump economic interest and aggressive religious interests?

Should we celebrate? I'm so confused.

I think the real reason this guy is angry

[Derek Loev]

is because somebody removed him from their top 8. :)

Re:I think the real reason this guy is angry

[insertwackynamehere]

i really wish there was a mod parent misinformed option :P

The Ron Paul FaceBook Group has +21k members

[SonicSpike]

The Ron Paul FaceBook Group has +21k members:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737

The convergence of political activism on FaceBook is starting to become prominent.

False equivalence.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

"Fuck hate speech" is not hate speech. Hate speech is an action, freely chosen by its perpetrators, that targets a set of people on the basis of characteristics that they either do not choose (skin color), or which, in the face of their perpetrators, are so central to their identity that they cannot easily or sincerely choose otherwise (religion). To make things worse, in the latter case, the definition of the victim group in terms of religion, something where technically they could choose otherwise, is just a scapegoat; racists (religious chauvinists, xenophobes, whatever you want to call them) aren't very well known for being very precise and discerning about who they target; in the racist mind, "muslim," "towelhead" and "sand nigger" might as well mean the same thing. Just ask Christian Arabs who get shit for speaking Arabic.

Double-edged sword

[notclevernickname]

Facebook is in a unique position here. If they start vetting groups based on "hate speech" or some other term, they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity, and therefore, ad revenue. However, if they continue to allow these groups, the whiney liberal bitch types will whine to the advertisers, resulting in pulled ads, and lost revenue. My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads. If they bitch, all you have to say is that you were not censoring them, that it was a community decision. And to the whiney liberal bitches, if they start complaining, all you have to do is tell them to get off their pot smoking asses and mod them down. They should probably limit this to groups, though. It would suck if one day you check your facebook profile and see that it had been moderated to -5: Geek whos probably still a virgin.........

Re:Double-edged sword

[Dunbal]

My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads.

      Heh. Like the moderation system here on slashdot really works to filter out the "dickwads" as you say. No, it also works to "filter out" anything the moderator doesn't want to hear. Instead, people should engage the gray matter between their ears and THINK about what they read, and if they don't agree, make a sighing sound and MOVE ON. Censorship just gives power to those who appoint themselves as "censor".

Re:Double-edged sword

[mdwh2]

Facebook is in a unique position here. If they start vetting groups based on "hate speech" or some other term, they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity, and therefore, ad revenue. However, if they continue to allow these groups, the whiney liberal bitch types will whine to the advertisers, resulting in pulled ads, and lost revenue. ...

Liberal? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I wouldn't call people calling for censorship "liberal".

SIgh

[Anonymous Coward]

All this blame and finger pointing and "political correctness" has made America the nation of pussies that it is today.

America, where a cop can arrest a worker for putting too much salt in a burger. Yup. Pussy.
America, where someone leaving a paper bag full of dogshit on someone's doorstep (a favorite Halloween "trick") is arrested for "terrorism". Yup. Pussies.
America, where Mooninites cause panic in... never mind.
America, where all people who are full of hate blame other people for being full of hate. Yup. Need I say more?

WE DON'T WANT YOUR BRAND OF FREEDOM

Strange...

[gillbates]

This is odd. I thought free speech in America only applied to those opinions with which a significant portion of the general public agrees.

For the site to be back up suggests that at least someone in America values free speech to the extent that they would tolerate an opinion with which they disagree.

Truly strange indeed!

Re:Strange...

[Keeper]

"Free speech" only applies to the government; ie: the government is not able to restrict what you say, how you say it, or whom you say it to. That being said, the government is able to hold you responsible for the consequences of whatever speech you do make. The government can't make a law against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they can hold you accountable for the injuries that result from such an action.

"Free speech" also does not mean citizens must listen to or promote whatever crap another citizen spews. It also does not mean that people have to sit there and "take it" as you insult them, which is something you should probably keep in mind before driving around Alabama in a car spraypainted with "Nascar sucks" along the side...

Re:Strange...

[mdwh2]

Note that the concept of "free speech" can apply to anything. The First Amendment of the United States however applies only to the US Government.

Basic problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the "fuck Islam" group pretty much has it right.

Is Islam peaceful?

"Thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough." - Al-Akhbar, government sponsored newspaper of Egypt, April 18, 2001

http://www.zawaj.com/editorials/harry_potter.html
"Once they have learned to love what Allah loves and hate what Allah hates..."

http://www.obmonline.net/index.php?cmd=3&path=Articles/Aqeedah/Effects%20of%20Imaan.htm&hd_elm=2&depth=1

"So the first sign and proof that you love and hate for the sake of Allah is that you obey Him and follow the Messenger Muhammad (SAW).

The second sign is to declare hatred and animosity to those who do not believe in Him, and those who desire to rule by other than what Allah has revealed."

Sura 8, 9, and 48 of the Koran, summed briefly: "Kill the infidels."
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.

Sahih Muslim 19/4294: "Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.... "

Summation:
Step 1: Demand they convert.
Step 2: Demand they become slaves.
Step 3: Orf wiv their 'eads.

Islam: RELIGION OF HATE.

P.S. Yeah, I'm posting as an AC. I don't want they coming to try to kill me like they did with Salman Rushdie, or Theo van Gogh, or Adrian Marriott, or the poor korean guy, or the poor indonesian schoolgirls, or the Jews the Muslims who signed up to join the SS killed, or so on...

Re:Basic problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction:

Summation:
Step 1: Demand they convert.
Step 2: Demand they become slaves.
Step 3: Orf wiv their 'eads.

Should read:

Summation:
Step 1: Demand they convert.
Step 2: Demand they become slaves.
Step 3: Orf wiv their 'eads.
...
Step 4: Prophet!!!

*** There, fixed it. ***

Re:Basic problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fuck Islam group is offering a simple solution - clearly Islam needs to get laid! I bet Islam would totally chill out after a few wild nights of sex. We'll probably have to buy Islam a hooker who will doing anything for money, because you know Islam wants to be nasty to the girls.

Properly vetting

[benhocking]

I don't want to mention the site's name, but a company I used to work for had a web-site geared towards children that for many years went without advertising. After it had built up quite a large audience, my boss decided to allow an advertising agency to place a single banner advertisement on the top of the pages. The agency had assured him that the ads would be tasteful (i.e., not flashing, etc.) and child-appropriate. After a week or so of this revenue, the agency slipped up somehow and allowed an inappropriate advertisement through its filter (and a parent complained about it). After verifying that this mistake was made, he got rid of the agency and went ad-free again (i.e., the site continued to lose money). I just checked, and there is still no banner ads on most pages. The only banner ad I saw was on a single page and was for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. There is a button, however, that allows parents to make donations. I have no idea if this covers the cost of the site.

The point is that, evidently, it's still risky to contract out banner ads to 3rd party companies.

Re:Properly vetting

[walt-sjc]

A number of years ago, I worked for a .com that used a service that rhymes with "bubbledick" Same kind of thing. Our policy was no java, no animated gifs, and no adult content. They routinely violated our rules. I would never use an outside service again.

I know it when I see it...

[Overzeetop]

That, and tomatoes are vegetables.

(my apologies to the international /. community and those under 30 for the SCOTUS references)

To me, it's speech which promotes or incites others to commit violent acts. And there are too many gray areas to provide good legislation for (well, against) it.

Re:I know it when I see it...

[Oktober Sunset]

Incites violence? Sorry, don't see that part, no where on the groups page does it say, go and bash the Muslims with a rock.

The Koran on the other hand...

and don't forget the legal department

[User 956]

Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day.

Well said. The huge problem with huge companies is that a large portion of their decisions in this regard are made by their legal department(s). And the cowardly results are a direct result with the fact that the legal department's "success metric" is the number of cases in which they become engaged.

Re:and don't forget the legal department

[Anonymous Coward]

What a delightful example of political correctness being at odds with freedom of speech. Of course, in America we have the constitutional right to express ourselves freely. Isn't it interesting that we don't have the "right" to not be offended?

I have the fever of a convert in supporting free speech, peoples rights to exercise it and COMPANIES who choose to support it. I think its high time that we as consumers and users punish firms that choose censorship over freedom of speech. If Facebooks chooses to censor groups--they're free to do so--but I hope any individual who loves free speech chooses to to stop using Facebook.

I think bayimg.com says it best in their FAQ: There is this myth about freedom of speech being a nice comfortable idea, well it's not. It's annoying, appalling and sometimes even dangerous. But the opposite is way worse.

"Free Speech"

[LMacG]

Everybody wants to go on and on about free speech. For the record, the first amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See, it's about what Congress can not do. It has pretty much no effect on how a privately owned website operates. Facebook could ban all groups or user profiles with the word "gun" or "fuck" or "Linux" in them and it still wouldn't be a "free speech issue."

Re:"Free Speech"

[Samgilljoy]

No one is saying that Free Speech as a guaranteed right is being infringed. Free Speech is also a valued idea and practice in our society. No private entity must allow freedom of expression, but they can certainly come under criticism for not doing so, particularly when they market themselves as venues for self-expression. Like many people with a narrow view of the world, you don't seem to get that the Constitution is a small document that has some things to say on some large issues antecedent to and vaster than the document itself. It only circumscribes the meaning of ideas like free speech or privacy or whatnot, when in a court. These ideas and the discourse upon them have a much wider existence.

Re:"Free Speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

See, it's about what Congress can not do. It has pretty much no effect on how a privately owned website operates. Facebook could ban all groups or user profiles with the word "gun" or "fuck" or "Linux" in them and it still wouldn't be a "free speech issue."

Absolutely right, but you left out the second half of the explanation: Facebook's prerogative to remove that group and/or any other content it decides it doesn't want, stems from the same First Amendment as freedom of speech, ti wit: freedom of association.

You are free to say what you want, and I am free to not only say what I think about what you said, I am free to disassociate from you if I'm pissed off enough -- and that includes asking you to leave *my* property.

Without property rights, ultimately, none of the other rights have so much as a leg to stand on.

(Yes, that idea does have extremely far-reaching logical consequences, including the identification of why the supposed "opposites" of socialism and fascism invariably have the same end result.)

Re:"Free Speech"

[mosb1000]

Free speech and other fundamental rights aren't just about the laws congress can write, they are a statement of the fundamental values that the majority of U.S. Citizens hold. An amendment overturning the first amendment could be passed if it hand popular support. One would hope that a website that claims to be a place for free social interaction would respect the fundamental right of free speech, even though they are not bound to do so by law. If the general public demands that speech like this not be allowed, and forces the website to take down the inflammatory speech, then the general public does not respect the right to speak freely, and laws infringing on that right can and will be written by congress.

Re:"Free Speech"

[mdwh2]

Everybody wants to go on and on about free speech. For the record, the first amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

And for the record, "free speech" doesn't just mean the first amendment.

I haven't see anyone going "on and on" about the first amendment.

Re:"Free Speech"

[mgblst]

Yes, there may be no legal recourse. But it will affect how people will see the site, and whether people will stick to it. If facebook comes down too hard, they may get a lot of bad press, and start to lose a lot of people.

Inconsistent naming.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Can I have a FaceBook group called "F**k Negros", to attack the inner-city black youth culture that fills the city I live in with violence? Can I have a "F**k GWB" group to attack the dumbass president who is screwing things up in the Middle East? Can I have a "F**k the Jews" group attacking the whiny Jews who scream "anti-semitism!" in order to stifle legitimate debate?

But, by your logic, shouldn't the second of these groups you propose be called "Fuck White People"?

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[be-fan]

Not really. I think a "fuck white people" group would be perfectly appropriate for other reasons, but the folks who want to muck things up further in the Middle East do not self-identify with white people in the way the other groups self-identify with blacks, muslims, and jews, respectively. Perhaps "Fuck Neo-Conservatives" would be more apropos.

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

[...] the folks who want to muck things up further in the Middle East do not self-identify with white people in the way the other groups self-identify with blacks, muslims, and jews, respectively.

And this is a classic symptom of white privilege. The fact that "white people" are held to be the hegemonical race in the USA affords said "whites" the privilege of thinking of themselves in non-racial terms; members of minority groups don't have the advantage of thinking of themselves in "neutral," non-racial terms. What you point out and what I just said are also intimately related to projecting the actions and beliefs of a select subset of a minority group to the whole (using inner-city youth as the image of black people in general, assuming all Asian-Americans are good at math), or judging minority group members by how they meet or diverge from the stereotype ("You're really articulate!").

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[Omnifarious]

Though I am a white person myself, if I were to see a group disparaging white people I would assume it would target self-absorbed suburbanites with their cookie-cutter consumer culture and fleet of SUVs.

Just as there are light colored people who participate in black inner-city youth culture, I'm sure there are dark colored people who participate in the bland suburbanite culture I describe. But I still associate it with white people.

I think what you describe as 'white privilege' might be better described as an inferiority complex on the part of people who use that term. Note that having an inferiority complex in no way implies any actual inferiority.

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[The One and Only]

members of minority groups don't have the advantage of thinking of themselves in "neutral," non-racial terms

Don't hold me responsible for how other people think of themselves. I would like nothing more than for minorities to think of themselves first as individuals and not as members of an ethnic group, and many of them do (immediate counterexample), but those who don't need to take responsibility for themselves. Sure, most people do identify themselves with a stereotypical group of people with undifferentiated interests and preferences, but they're supposed to outgrow it after high school.

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Don't hold me responsible for how other people think of themselves.

Don't accuse me of something I haven't done.

All I'm asking people to be responsible for is the consequences of their actions. This requires understanding what the actions are, and what the consequences are. Most so-called "white" people in the USA fail it very badly, on both counts; they perpetuate racism through their actions without understanding that they do so, all the while thinking that they're moral examples of acceptance and tolerance. That's no more vicious than it is morally virtuous, I'll grant; what does border on the vicious, however, is the energy that is spent on preserving the self-assessment whenever somebody dares to contradict them.

I would like nothing more than for minorities to think of themselves first as individuals and not as members of an ethnic group, and many of them do (immediate counterexample), but those who don't need to take responsibility for themselves.

Who said that they think of themselves first as members of a group? You're making stuff up.

The way ethnic minorities are treated, day after day after day, is full of constant reminders that they are seen as members of a racially defined group. No matter how they may choose to think of themselves, they can't control how others see them, so they have to deal with the consequences of how other people see them, in their everyday interaction. They share a forced commonality with people of the same "race" as them, whether they like it or not.

Sure, most people do identify themselves with a stereotypical group of people with undifferentiated interests and preferences, but they're supposed to outgrow it after high school.

Congratulations, you've just compared people of color to adolescents.

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[be-fan]

The issue you miss is that the groupings I gave are based on _self_ identification. I'm not projecting anything, I'm taking groups on their word for which people they claim to represent. Obviously the groups themselves are projecting, for their benefit, to make their numbers seem larger than they are, but that is really a separate issue.

The neo-cons with designs on the middle east, on the other hand, do not not self-identify with white people. Heck, a lot of them aren't white people (there are a good number of jews and middle-eastern expats in there). They identify with "Americans", or "Conservatives", or "Patriots", or other more specific groups. So no, I don't think your point is applicable to this _particular_ case.

As for projecting the beliefs of subsets to the group as a whole, it's regrettable, but in my experience it's not all that misleading. The thing is that membership in a group affects behavior. I know several Asian-Americans who are bad at math, but most of the ones I know are very good at it. More to the point, in almost any major science/engineering school in the country, you'll see Asian-Americans vastly over-represented relative to their numbers in the overall population.

As for black people, try living in downtown/midtown Atlanta for a few years and tell me about the "stereotypes" of black people. A definite majority of the young black men running around here wearing the uniform of the inner-city rap culture. That doesn't make them criminals, of course, but it's a tacit support for a deleterious social element, and is at best in bad taste. I'd liken it to a young muslim running around in an Ayatollah t-shirt...

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[The One and Only]

Congratulations, you've just compared people of color to adolescents.

No, only people who use their race as an excuse to avoid developing an individual identity.

The way ethnic minorities are treated, day after day after day, is full of constant reminders that they are seen as members of a racially defined group. No matter how they may choose to think of themselves, they can't control how others see them, so they have to deal with the consequences of how other people see them, in their everyday interaction. They share a forced commonality with people of the same "race" as them, whether they like it or not.

That's an oversimplification. In reality, one's mannerisms, mode of dress, and dialect also have an effect. If you choose to act out your racial stereotype, you're more likely to be racially stereotyped. People categorize by nature--if you whole-heartedly adopt a certain culture or subculture, you're going to be identified with it by others.

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

That's an oversimplification. In reality, one's mannerisms, mode of dress, and dialect also have an effect. If you choose to act out your racial stereotype, you're more likely to be racially stereotyped. People categorize by nature--if you whole-heartedly adopt a certain culture or subculture, you're going to be identified with it by others.

Yeah right. Tell that to middle-class black people who, no matter how they dress, act or talk, regularly have to deal with people who assume they aren't well-educated and/or economically solvent. Like going into a store and having the shopkeepers try to shoo them out because they assume they can't afford anything, or follow them because they think they're going to steal something. Or they can't get as good terms on a mortgage as white people with equivalent education or income. Or they're out working in their lawns, and somebody approaches them thinking they're professional landscapers. Or they get people telling them all the time that they're "so articulate," and "not like the other black people," or "a credit to their race," or, in general, just bringing up their race out of the blue when it ought not to be relevant to the situation. News bulletin: this shit is totally commonplace in the USA, and it's got nothing to do with how they dress, walk, act or talk, and everything to do with how their skin looks, and the inferences other people draw when they see that skin color.

Anyway, I made a general statement about the experience of being a minority in the USA, which applies to very many different situations. You responded to it by applying a racial stereotype.

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[The One and Only]

You know, calling me a racist doesn't actually accomplish anything other than lowering the level of discourse. Yes, people still have to face racist assumptions. That doesn't forcibly prevent people from thinking of themselves in non-racial terms. I have no respect for people who choose to identify themselves based on the way they're treated by others. Choosing to accept the dictates of society unquestioningly is what denies minorities the privilege of thinking of themselves in non-racial terms.

Re:Inconsistent naming.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

You know, calling me a racist doesn't actually accomplish anything other than lowering the level of discourse.

Well, I never did that. Now you've taken my detailed response to what you said, and summarized it as nothing but name-calling.

Why does Slashdot keep posting this crap?

[hanssprudel]

"Fuck Islam" is not hate speech, any more than "Fuck Christianity", "Fuck Scientology" or "Fuck Atheism" is. If you don't like a set of ideological beliefs and superstitions (ie, a religion) then you have the right to voice that opinion, and the people who try to silence that are the ones who ought to be punished. If you can't handle that not everybody likes what you like, then I recommend you don't read it. In any case, stop perstering us about it.

That said, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech, but maybe the site in question has a policy of tolerating obscene speech. It is their choice after all.

Re:Why does Slashdot keep posting this crap?

[walt-sjc]

That said, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech, but maybe the site in question has a policy of tolerating obscene speech. It is their choice after all.

In YOUR moral view and the moral view of many lawmakers, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech probably due to the use of the word "Fuck". It's not obscene to everyone however. Some of non-stereotypical /.'ers associate the word "Fuck" with a very pleasurable act, and use it as freely as the word "Sandwich." Of course, the stereotypical /.'er doesn't know anything about sex beyond his dates with Rosey Palmer. :-)

Discourse raped by political correctness?

[megaditto]

So someone says "fuck islam" and all hell breaks loose...

Islamic sensibilities are being affected by private non-Muslims exercizing their right to Free Speech? Well, laa dee fucking daa, don't you wish for once they'd get just as offended by suicide bombings, indentured servitude/slavery, personal vendettas, and public beheadings everpresent in their societies.

Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslims worship Mo-HAM-HEAD - literally. They worship a mass murderer, multiple rapist, bigamist sexual obsessive pervert, and a paedophile, who 'married' a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL, when he was FIFTY FOUR, and already had FIFTEEN 'wives'.

Funny how muslims don't talk about this when introducing your CHILDREN to their CULT. What a bunch of insane fascists they are... And everybody knows it.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[megaditto]

I for one don't really mind if they believe whatever they like. After all, I believe in burning shrubs, talking snakes, and God that became a carpenter, walked on water, and died for my sins...

My problem with religion starts when its members begin to impose undue burden on non-members (I am looking at you, scientologists, sectarian fundies, and radical Muslims).

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[Tony Hoyle]

Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

Sounds like a good reason to me!

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[rainman_bc]

Muslims worship Mo-HAM-HEAD - literally. Typical American ignorance, posted by an AC nonetheless.Muslims worship Allah. Mohammed was a prophet of God, just as they view Jesus as a prophet of God.

Agree or disagree, it's against Islam to push your religion on others. As opposed to Christianity that acts like massive MLM scheme.

What a bunch of insane fascists they are... There's as many muslim fanatics as there are Chrstian fanatics. Or do we forget Waco?

How come when a fanatical group like the Taliban comes out, Christians don't look to Waco and draw parallels?

Me, I'm atheist, but I certainly laugh when I see ignorant BS like the GP posted.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[rainman_bc]

My problem with religion starts when its members begin to impose undue burden on non-members (I am looking at you, scientologists, sectarian fundies, and radical Muslims). Just to point out that it's forbidden for Muslims to go door-to-door pushing their religions - at least with some Sunni that I'm familiar with.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[brkello]

Smart move not listing "Christians". But really...it seems like most groups of people try to impose their beliefs on others. Even I am guilty, I try to make everyone I know watch Firefly with me.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[WilliamSChips]

Well, of course, disliking Firefly means you go to the special hell...

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[rtyhurst]

Also, I assume from your login you're Canadian like me.

We have a slightly different attitude to hate speech than the US: it's illegal if it incites hatred toward a particular group.

Like Holocaust deniers: we deported one to Germany where they're having lots of fun with him...

In the US, the 1st Amendment is basically unfettered.

IMO that still doesn't make it right to say "Fuck Islam".

That's ignorant, useless, and unhelpful, no matter what the law says...

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[Vorghagen]

You just had to post that didn't you? Now I have to go home and watch Firefly AGAIN. My girlfriend will not be impressed.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[ultranova]

Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

Yes. It will go on until the muslims make the mistake of angering the japanese, at which points it's ninjas vs. muslim terrorists, both flipping out and killing people and themselves and not even thinking twice about it.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[Oktober Sunset]

Actually, Firefly hell and Firefly heaven are the same place. You are forced to watch Firefly 24/7, the only difference is the fans love it, and for everyone else it is torture.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem with religion starts when its members begin to impose undue burden on non-members (I am looking at you, scientologists, sectarian fundies, and radical Muslims). Actually, in contrast to what the oldTube/youTube may have fed you, Muslims are against compulsion in religion... they believe in living and letting live. Most of the radicals are radicals for geo-socio-political-economic reasons.

I for one don't really mind if they believe whatever they like. After all, I believe in burning shrubs, talking snakes, and God that became a carpenter, walked on water, and died for my sins... Interesting you left Christians out of your list, seeing how they've put the most undue burden on "the other" and have the most blood on their hands. Sad but true

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[rainman_bc]

Does my religion demand i send my child to hack your head off if you offend my god? Probably not, and neither does Islam.

Consider the ten commandments. If you don't follow them, you will create trouble for yourself within your surroundings. That's the trouble with you Christians. You observe the old testament when you like, and the new when you like.

Do you eat shellfish? That's a sin you know...

It does not matter whether you are a Jew,Christian,Hindu,Atheist,or Agnostic. Do you think these came from man? Yes actually. We have to take Moses word for it that it was the word of God. He disappeared and came back with the Ten Commandments and said it was God's word.

Give me a fucking break.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice play at taqiyya. It is the very core of Islam to spread its ideology through any means necessary, as dictated by it's "prophet".

If you want to really learn what Islam teaches, don't waste your time listening to the appologists for the religion. Research the issue yourself. Read the Koran. Yes thats right, the Koran.

Google some of the more unspoken terms like, taqiyya, Dhimmi, Dawa. Understand the meaning of prayer of Salat one of the five pillars of Islam.

"Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; "

Know that this prayer recognizes that:

"The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'" Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 52, Num. 177 also 179 and 180.

That by religious obligation, every Muslim must be an anti-Semite and hate the Jews.

For more information, go check out Jihad Watch Urban Infidel, or Little Green Footballs

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness?

[h2_plus_O]

Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

Nooooo, it's much worse than that. Anybody can get mad and blow someone up. Not everybody can do it and still be the victim of your oppression when you express your disapproval of that sort of thing.

The natural response to F**k Islam, etc

[heretic108]

F**k Atheism

MOD PARENT DOWN AS SPAM

[sgarringer]

Wow, I was on the edge of my seat trying to figure out how you'd get Ron Paul involved in this story.

Mod parent down, SPAM.

I'm so tired of hearing about Ron (no chance) Paul.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN AS SPAM

[nomadic]

Wow, I was on the edge of my seat trying to figure out how you'd get Ron Paul involved in this story.

Every election cycle a small minority of slashdotters settle on a candidate, and spam us constantly. At least Ron Paul is a reasonably sane candidate*, in 2004 we got spammed on behalf of that lunatic Badnarik. In 2000 I think it was Nader.

* Not that I'd ever vote for Ron Paul (it's not a "he'll never win" thing, it's an "I don't believe in most of his positions" thing).

That;'s not even obscene

[Anonymous Coward]

Onscene is "Fuckin Your Sister Now"! or along the lines of "Bush in 2008"!or worst of all "Clinton in 2008"! I am all in favor of Fuck Islam as a new worldwide creed. Did you know that by 2030 more than half of Europa will be populataed by muslims and islam extermists? It is true. Germany. Belgium. UK. Many, MANY, influx of muslims.

Re:That;'s not even obscene

[Anonymous Coward]

> Did you know that by 2030 more than half of Europa will be populataed by muslims and islam extermists?

That is, assuming that current trends continue at the same rate. Which is a pretty stupid assumption to make.

Re:That;'s not even obscene

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, assuming that current trends continue at the same rate. Which is a pretty stupid assumption to make. Please take a trip to belgium before saying such nonsense. Everything the other coward says is backed up with proof and islamization is true as much as fear of nazist takeover was before the war... http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/09/europe_and_terror.php

What we don't need now in the age of information is censors and "useful idiots" like you who despite evidence assume that this is not taking place.

Cheers,
Another Coward

Bad assumption.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

"Fuck Islam" is not hate speech, any more than "Fuck Christianity", "Fuck Scientology" or "Fuck Atheism" is.

You're assuming that vulgar racism distiguishes its targets from the rest of society at large in a careful, sophisticated, fine-grained and discerning manner. Or, in other terms, that the people who the title "Fuck Islam" appeals to, in general, give much of a fuck whether it says "Fuck Islam," "Fuck Arabs," "Fuck Towelheads," or "Fuck Sand Niggers."

Islam is a religion that's perceived through a racial lens in the USA.

Re:Bad assumption.

[mdwh2]

Islam is a religion that's perceived through a racial lens in the USA.

You make a good point - though it depends on what the group in question actually promotes. On the one hand, people talk about Islam in a racist sense (e.g., accusing them of immigrants coming to live here, or based on what they look like). However, other times it is specifically about religion. The text for the Facebook group says:

The Quran contains many lies and threats. Islam is false, no god exists, and someone should say that loud and clear. Heaven and hell are fables, prayer is a waste of time, and angels and jinn are obviously mythology.
This is not a group against Muslims. They have it bad enough. If you doubt that go to Palestine. If you hate Muslims or are here to harrass them or promote your religion, go away. Muslims can be and usually are peaceful and respectful.
The best thing for the whole world is a rejection of all religions and a renewed discovery of the love for humanity and naturalism.
Fuck Christianity and Judaism as well. These religions are just as false and have a variety of disadvantages. There are other groups devoted to each of these false ideologies. Here is one devoted to religion in general: http://unm.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2225572075
and here is one for Christianity: http://unm.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5857745671

Which to me seems clearly about Islam as a religion, not a race (especially noting that they hold the same views towards other religions - in my experience, those who say they dislike Muslims when actually they are being racist are people who have nothing against Christianity).

Now, whether some people use this group to push racist views, I don't know, but on the whole this seems to be an anti-religion group. Just because some anti-Islam views are actually racist, doesn't mean that criticisms specific to the religion Islam are racist (another example would be the cartoon controversy - this was not a racist issue, despite often being reported as such).

Re:Bad assumption.

[The One and Only]

And you're assuming that the people who support a sentiment like "Fuck Islam" are, indeed, "vulgar racists" who would support the other sentiments as well. You're essentially saying it's impossible to oppose a belief system without hating the people who believe in it (or, by your account, the racial groups who are largely perceived as believing in it). In essence, you're dismissing entire classes of ideas you disagree with by not only conflating them with different but easier-to-refute beliefs (straw man fallacy) but by attributing this conflation to the people who hold the belief you're dismissing (thus to avoid the appearance of a straw man fallacy).

Re:Bad assumption.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

You make a good point - though it depends on what the group in question actually promotes.

I won't let this one pass by. You're privileging intent over consequences. It is of very little comfort to the victims of racism that most of the very real racism that they are subjected to comes from people with perfectly good intentions, who sincerely wish everybody would just get along. (As it is in fact.) People should strive to understand the consequences of what they do, and take responsibility for the results, regardless of their intent.

Intent does figure in the moral calculus, but it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Re:Bad assumption.

[mdwh2]

You're privileging intent over consequences. It is of very little comfort to the victims of racism that most of the very real racism that they are subjected to comes from people with perfectly good intentions

If people are being racist, then I agree that that is bad no matter what their intent (and I'm well aware of people who use criticism of Islam as a cover for racism). But my point is that if they are criticising religion, it is not racist to start with. Racism is bad - but I also dislike it that people play the "racism" everytime they get offended by something said about their beliefs.

Do you have evidence that this group is a cover for racism?

Re:Bad assumption.

[Oktober Sunset]

OK, from now on, no-one is allowed to criticise communism, because it might encourage people who are racist against the Chinese. No-one can criticise the actions of Israel as that would be anti-Semitic. No-one can point out embarrassing old testament laws, as this is just hate against Christians. No-one is allowed to have ago at parliamentary democracy, cos it is racist against white people. No one is allowed to dislike basketball cos it is racist against black people, and no one can refuse to drink wine, as this is racist against the French.
In fact, no-one should ever express an opinion ever gain about anything ever, cos if they do, they are an evil racist, who eats a baby a day.

Whole Atricle is a Troll!

[Nom du Keyboard]

I think this whole article is a troll. Someone didn't like criticism of Islam, and it taking every avenue to censor and suppress it -- and trying to get the rest of us to go along. Islam is richly deserving of criticism and scholarly discussion, but try that in an actual Islamic country and you may easily find yourself in jail, if not having already had your head cut off. If you support Free Speech on the Internet, then you must be against this censorship, even if you find the site itself distasteful.

Re:Whole Atricle is a Troll!

[mdwh2]

Agreed - and I'm amused that the poster thought Slashdot would be a good place to get support, given the strong anti-censorship leaning of this place! (And it's not like people tend to be supporters of religion on the whole, either...)

Re:Whole Atricle is a Troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's a troll. The scary thing is that he seems dead serious about it. If this were about printed material he'd probably stage an autodafé.

It's Not Hate Speech

[logicnazi]

"Fuck Islam" is no more hate speech than "Fuck Creationists" or "Fuck Republicans". They both are ways to express strong rejection of a certain belief system. Merely because people label their beliefs religious doesn't magically make them immune from criticism.

More precisely the concept of hate speech is incoherent. It is impossible to at once give a definition of hate speech that makes it clear why it is significantly worse than things like "Fuck Republicans" but yet also makes it obvious that the things termed hate speech, e.g., "Fuck Islam", qualify.

I agree that speech that involves the phrase "Fuck Islam" is more likely to be motivated by thoughtless prejudice than other sorts of speech but mere correlation doesn't get you very far. There is going to be a correlation between "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" and ignorant prejudice as well but this doesn't make the statement of evangelical beliefs hate speech.

A religious belief is a belief like any other and it's explicit rejection of evidence or proof doesn't means if anything it deserves less protection from criticism than our other beliefs not more. Of course we need to combat hate directed against the people who are muslim, christian or whatever. The fact that they believe something stupid doesn't warrant hating them, most of us believe some stupid shit. However, the way to do this isn't to treat phrases criticizing the belief differently than phrases criticizing conservatism. That just encourages people.

Re:It's Not Hate Speech

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

"Fuck Islam" is no more hate speech than "Fuck Creationists" or "Fuck Republicans". They both are ways to express strong rejection of a certain belief system.

Neither Republicans nor creationists in the USA are perceived in a racialized manner in the mainstream culture. Islam is. There are millions upon millions of people in the USA who could care less what the difference is betwen the statements "Fuck Islam" vs. "Fuck Arabs." Compare this with "Fuck Republicans" vs. "Fuck White People."

Merely because people label their beliefs religious doesn't magically make them immune from criticism.

It doesn't. When somebody calls a group "Fuck Islam," however, I have to be skeptical of how serious their criticism is.

More precisely the concept of hate speech is incoherent. It is impossible to at once give a definition of hate speech that makes it clear why it is significantly worse than things like "Fuck Republicans" but yet also makes it obvious that the things termed hate speech, e.g., "Fuck Islam", qualify.

In mainstream American culture, party affiliation is seen as a voluntary choice, and the choice is not conceived in a racialized way. Being Arab, however, is not a voluntary choice, and Arab ethnicity is seen as going hand-in-hand with Islam. A careful, scrupulous distinction between Arabs and Islam is not the rule in the USA; it's the exception. A careful, scrupulous distinction between whiteness and party membership, on the other hand, is taken for granted.

I agree that speech that involves the phrase "Fuck Islam" is more likely to be motivated by thoughtless prejudice than other sorts of speech but mere correlation doesn't get you very far.

The correlation gets you very far, because the contemporary understanding of racism among people who study it (or whatever you want to call it in this particular case; don't bring out the lame "Islam is not a race" non-point) isn't about the motivation of individual actions; it's about how these sorts of measurable correlations result in many very small everyday indignities which, in the aggregate, conspire to make their victims' quality of life measurably worse.

There is going to be a correlation between "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" and ignorant prejudice as well but this doesn't make the statement of evangelical beliefs hate speech.

Christianity is not conceived in racialized terms in mainstream USA culture. If you're a Christian, people take it for granted that your religion has nothing to do with your race.

Hate speech is nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what is so bad about "Fuck Islam". I mean, if I said "Fuck religion", would that be worse because it includes all religion? Should I outline and elaborate on the countless people who have been killed in the name of God to give you an idea why I hold this sentiment?

I mean, people act like forming an online community of people who dislike the beliefs of Islam is a crime against humanity. They are just as justified in harboring a dislike of people who believe in Islam as you are in disliking them for their dislike of people who believe in Islam.

At least I don't see any "Fuck Islam" online communities killing innocents and claiming credit for it. They have at least found a nonviolent way of expressing their opinions which is more than I can say for the other extreme.

Also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfG-FEQedyI&mode=related&search= and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upbq9bwBxkA&eurl=

(Incoming -1)

Re:Double-edged sword-BOTH ARE LEFT SIDES

[Nom du Keyboard]

they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity,

Doesn't that describe the current college campus rather well?

Definition of hate speech

[nurb432]

If you dont watch it, most any religious group will be considered to spew hate speech.( which they all do at one point or another )

Personally i say if words hurt you, there are more fundamental issues going on. Dont like what is being said? Then dont read it. Its that simple.

Re:Definition of hate speech

[WilliamSChips]

Okay then, since words have no effect on you, I hope your entire family gets raped because you're (insert ethnic quality here). I'm kidding, but somebody else isn't.

Re:Definition of hate speech

[nurb432]

Like i said, words dont effect me. WORDS. Now, if you take action, thats a different story. But im not the least bit afraid of words, regardless if they are kind or hateful.

Fuck Islam

[Kurt Wall]

I couldn't care less what happens at Facebook or if Microsoft gets unfairly tarred as a supporter of so-called hate speech. The fact is that what some people call hate speech others call free speech. So, in the spirit of free speech, FUCK ISLAM.

Re:Fuck Islam

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, and fuck all the rest of the Abrahamic zealots as well. On the other hand, did you realize that New Age rhymes with sewage?

Win for one group...

[AlanCramer]

At least the F**k Advertising group now doesn't show any ads on their group page

thinkers:idiots

[king-manic]

The thinker to idiots ratio on that group is better then 50:50 so I think it aught exist and be supported by people who respect the ability to voice an opinion without censure.

You've missed the point.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I think what you describe as 'white privilege' might be better described as an inferiority complex on the part of people who use that term. Note that having an inferiority complex in no way implies any actual inferiority.

No, you failed to understand the notion of white privilege. White privilege is about things that "white" people, in general, have the luxury of taking for granted, because of how they are perceived when they interact with others.

There is definitely something to what you said, but it falls under the consequences of racism on its victims, not under white privilege.

Seriously, when is Jeff going to back off?

[variablast]

Why is this guy throwing his weight around? Is he trying to spread his Islamic beliefs? That's the only possible explanation for his hyperactive opposition to my group. He has more influence than he merits. His site automatically censors the word fuck when you post it there, and he hasn't responded to any of my comments, even though I'm the one that made the group and I'm here with a white flag. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, Jeff, but my opposition to Islam doesn't really stop you from doing anything in your life. It just seems like you've made it a goal to stop me from saying "Fuck Islam", but you aren't really defending Islam are you? We both agree about the worth of Muslims, and we might even agree about the worth of their belief system. It seems like the only difference between us is I'm willing to say "Fuck", and you will do almost anything to stop that word from being uttered. What's so threatening about an atheist's point of view, may I ask? Why aren't you out there campaigning against the sites that say "Fuck Variable Variable" (facebook.com/group.php?gid=4042647661) , which actually qualify as hate speech. If you were I would ask you to let them be, since it really doesn't matter, and trying to keep people quiet just makes them louder.

Re:Seriously, when is Jeff going to back off?

[variablast]

BTW, so that I'm not misunderstood, when I say we agree about the worth of Muslims, I am saying that they are valuable as people. They should have respect, but their ideas don't necessarily deserve respect. Is it so hard to understand that you can oppose a belief and not a person? Is it automatically hate speech when there is a curse word in the title? Can we not say anything bad about religion? Jeff, these aren't rhetorical questions. You seem to take the opposite stance that I do on each of them. Why can't you just live and let live? If you want to encourage Islam or inundate it from criticism you can do it in your own life, but you have no right to try to get others to do the same. Or more appropriately, you have that right, but it displays low class, and I hope it fails. Why don't you want attempts to censor to fail as well? You've never made a case against my group, simply calling it hate speech without any justification. Anyway, do reply, I'd like to talk about this, so we can stop working at cross-purposes.

Mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mod this troll as a troll or flame bait?

Popular speech?

[Aussie Osbourne]

So the /. readership (and presumably facebook) seems to be OK with a group called "fuck Islam".
This is fine but it does make me wonder if these same people would be OK with a group called -

"Fuck the Jews - Hitler was right"

or

"Fuck America - Bin Laden is right"

People tend to think that free speech is fantastic, but only when they agree with what is being said, perhaps I need to be in the "fuck everyone" group.

Slashdot is the hateful one...

[RecycledElectrons]

Actually, since Islam teaches that all of us who refuse to practice their religion must be enslaved or killed, and since Islam teaches that anyone who makes fun of that genocidal, child-rapist of a false prophet must be killed...Islam is not a religion. A religion is a group of ideas about God that encourages people to help each other. Islam is a cult. Cults have a view of God that encourages them to hurt other people.

The genocidal nut who posted this story should be punished.

Andy Out!

Yet more astroturfing

[pw201]

I've been reading about this over on the OP's site. He's a one man campaign on this one. Here's the post I just made on that site:

Jeff writes:

I've just been writing about the fact that they don't seem to be enforcing their own policies and the impact this has on their brand and business partners.

That's pretty disingenuous. You're pursuing Facebook, via the advertisers, yourself and drumming up publicity for your pursuit as a campaign tactic, as the admins who deleted your post to Metafilter recognised (and the admins of Slashdot haven't recognised, but they never were the sharpest tools in the box). Neither are you interested in the details of Facebook's TOS. I'd be more impressed if you'd been up-front about what this is about, namely that you don't like the way Variablast has expressed his dislike of Islam.

So, what of Variablast? I agree that what he's done is crude, but here's the thing: the propensity of some Muslims to be offended is their problem, not his. He may be a troll who knows exactly the effect his words are going to have, but sane people, even religious ones, know when they're being trolled and don't start riots or issue death threats as a result.

Islam is not a race and non-Islamic Arabs and Pakistanis in the UK are a bit fed up of the authorities' bumbling attempts to be multi-cultural by asking the imams what "the community" thinks. So the group cannot be racist, any more than the "Fuck Christianity" group is. Do you also object to that group? What is it about "Fuck Islam" that has you so riled?

Re:Yet more astroturfing

[variablast]

Notice also that he avoids answering direct questions. You ask if he opposes the Fuck Christianity group, and he doesn't respond. I've been talking to him on there and he has been weaseling about, trying to find steady ground on which to censor. I wonder if he'll provide some closure to this, or retract any of the misinformation he has spread about Fuck Islam.

It's "Fuck Islam", not "Fuck Muslims", you Mormon

[Anonymous Coward]

I have fucked Muslims, and Muslims have fucked me. Nonetheless I would never issue a public call for fucking Muslims. It's just too dangerous for them. They can be stonewalled, you know. Literally.

Nor would I ever say it in a figurative sense, because I don't love or hate people just because of their beliefs (to the exception of fascists), and also because most Muslims don't have a choice. They've never been asked and they can't just renounce. In some states it's even legally impossible for a Muslim to become a non-Muslim.

"Fuck Islam" is clearly not about sex, so why do you think it's obscene? It's against an ideology, not against a group of people, so why do you consider it hate speech? Do you really think religions are exempt from criticism?