Facebook Lets Beheading Clips Return To Its Site

another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again. The social network had placed a temporary ban on the material in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage. The U.S. firm now believes its users should be free to watch and condemn, but not celebrate, such videos. One suicide prevention charity criticized the move. 'It only takes seconds of exposure to such graphic material to leave a permanent trace — particularly in a young person's mind,' said Dr. Arthur Cassidy, a former psychologist who runs a branch of the Yellow Ribbon Program in Northern Ireland. 'The more graphic and colorful the material is, the more psychologically destructive it becomes.' Decapitation videos are available elsewhere on the net — including on Google's YouTube — but critics have raised concern that Facebook's news feeds and other sharing functions mean it is particularly adept at spreading such material."

Comments

No boobies though.

[MightyYar]

Thank God, because that would be obscene!

Re:No boobies though.

[couchslug]

I can't wait for easy, lifelike CGI so we can post Wholesome Biblical Anecdotes to Facebook.

Let's see how parents try to censor these:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Suck a boob, you're an X. Cut it off, you're an R" -- Jack Nicholson on US-Movie-Ratings...

Re:No boobies though.

[LoRdTAW]

It is ironic as a pair of tits, hell a dude ramming another guy/girl up the ass like its the end of the world is FAR less traumatizing than a decapitation video. If someone said you child has to watch 10 hours of porn or one brutal decapitation video id let the kid watch the porn.

Re:No boobies though.

[tverbeek]

Boobies, dicks, and drawings of imaginary naked people will still get deleted, and the posters put in detention. Photographs that depict actual violent murders are OK, though?

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't it be both?

Captcha: propose

Re: No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

not in my case---my parents cut off my foreskin and covered my eyes during r-rated movies...the idea is that they won't have to hear about teenage pregnancy because i have no clue what sex is--it worked--my childhood sucked...if i had merely decapitated someone i'd have been sent off and none of the neighbours would be the wiser

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

And nothing will help you if those "boobies" are flat and undeveloped. Deleted? Ban? Nope! Jail and entire life screwed over for you!

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

The action is pointless; Facebook requires real world validation before anything is posted. How many decapitations do you think will be shown with this requirement?

Re:No boobies though.

[rhyder128k]

Good point. (redundant post to work around mis-moderation error)

Re:No boobies though.

[Opportunist]

Sadly I don't have the skill to draw good cartoons. Trust me, I have enough ideas that I would have loved to do, sadly I wouldn't be able to draw anything legibly enough to piss off anyone.

Re:No boobies though.

[Opportunist]

Yes, you haven't watched a lot of US TV lately, have you?

Quite frankly, if the average action movie would have to come with the same kind of "action" that the average romance movie has to do with, people would run around pointing their index fingers at each other while screaming "bang bang!"

Re: No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

> not in my case---my parents cut off my foreskin and covered my eyes during r-rated movies

You were circumcised during an R-rated movie???

Re:No boobies though.

[Aighearach]

*pew*pew*pew*pew*pew*

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, you can get Daz Studio free, it works like Poser, you can make cartoons and art with little/no drawing skill:

http://www.daz3d.com/products/daz-studio/daz-studio-what-is-daz-studio

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is more because Zuckerberg generation greaw up on playing computer games rather than chasing women / men....
Sad we live in society where sexuality is inceasingly forbidden while violence is encouraged

Re:No boobies though.

[Opportunist]

Hey, thanks!

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP did say good cartoons.

Re:No boobies though.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Photographs that depict actual violent murders are OK, though?

Are you trying to train a population to sit around all day and boink or send their children off to die in skirmishes to satisfy some politicians' power lust?

Re:No boobies though.

[Bite The Pillow]

So far, this post is the only source for this quote. here is a great place to start for when you want to use it again, correctly.

Your version loses the essential Jack, but of course the original is not available.

"If you suck on a tit, the movie gets an X rating," he once told an interviewer.

"If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG."

I prefer :

"Shoot, shoot, bang, bang, kill, kill, is fine. But show seven sets of genitals, everyone go crazy!" -Francesca Fiore

Re:No boobies though.

[dave420]

No, one must simply not conflate the religion of the perpetrators with the act, as if they are one and the same thing. You know - just be an adult about it. Again here you go showing that your not unsubstantial intellect has become perverted somewhere in your history, leaning you to tilt at perceived injustices, which serves only to highlight your failings as an honest intellectual, and your rather large axe which you seem to love to grind. Strange.

Re:No boobies though.

[Pino Grigio]

There are some images you can't un-see aren't there. The one and only time I ever watched one of these was back in the 1990's when I was at University. It was a movie of a Russian soldier having his throat cut by some Islamist lunatics. I won't say I was traumatised by it; only that seeing one is enough. From that clip I learned all I would ever need to know about both the ability of people to suffer and their ability to inflict suffering on others. I can honestly say I haven't looked at clip like that since (15 years later).

With respect to images of sex, what you say is correct but what we're talking about here are taboos and taboos aren't necessarily rational. I agree that if you're going to ban hardcore pornography, it's kind-of silly to not then ban images of people being brutally killed.

Re: No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

And they used your severed foreskin as a blindfold???

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

No, one must simply not conflate the religion of the perpetrators with the act, as if they are one and the same thing.

I agree that one should not conflate the religion of the perpetrators with the act; however it is an important point to make if the act was performed in the name of the religion (regardless of what the majority of believers think).

If a Christian man kills someone because he was pissed off at work, bringing his religion in to the discussion is irrelevant. If however a Christian man kills someone because "God told him to", then bringing his religion in to the discussion is very relevant.

It would be wrong to say that "Christianity promotes killing" (based on this event alone), however it would NOT be wrong to say that "Christianity can be used as an excuse or reason to kill", because it quite clearly was so.

There are a lot of people that are anti-Islam because of the acts of a number of Islamic extremists. The religion itself (from my atheist perspective) is about equally as dangerous and violent as Christianity. There certainly are people that use it to justify violence towards others and there is a strong community ethic bound to the religion that brings other people in to commit the same acts when they previously might not have.

Christianity is currently going through a 'reasonably quiet' period as far as violence goes (although definitely not completely quiet) but history (even relatively recent history) shows that it's not always so. There's nothing inherent in Islam that makes it any better or worse.

Re: No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their holy book, which they are required to believe is the unalterable, inerrant word of God, in no uncertain terms tells Muslims to behead enemies of the faith ("strike off their heads").

Re:No boobies though.

[Chrisq]

Thank God, because that would be obscene!

Its the ideal implementation of Sharia law; women must be covered but plenty of enlightening clips of Kaffirs being brutally murdered.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no, boobies are OK. Just the nipples are obscene.

Re:No boobies though.

[gbjbaanb]

does it come with a Zuckerberg head, so our cartoons can be... you know, more appropriately targetted.

Re: No boobies though.

[behrooz0az]

I don't think so, The skin is almost see-through and they certainly didn't have enough skin to be able to fold.

Re:No boobies though.

[TapeCutter]

If that really is your definition of "true manliness", then do it yourself little boy, Don't sit on your fat arse and point to what others have or have not done, live your principles, or be seen to be talking out of ones own arsehole. PS: Sorry if I just "punished" your opposing view, I would have preferred to punished it with a "-1 Blow hard", but sadly that's not an option.

Re:No boobies though.

[dintech]

Just because you're free to say something doesn't mean other people have to like it.

Re:No boobies though.

[TapeCutter]

Jesus your full of shit today. I for one don't want to watch beheading videos, by the same token I don't want to stop people with (what I consider) extraordinarily bad taste from watching these things. And a lot more people are like me these days, "religious violence" is what we are talking about, we're more into personal responsibility these days, we don't give a flying fuck which imaginary friend ordered the fucking psychopaths to do it.

Re:No boobies though.

[Zorpheus]

They even do the same in Europe. This is so absurd.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

/freespeech

FUCK YOU CRACKER! /freespeech

Re:No boobies though.

[martin-boundary]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see Saddam being beheaded, than seeing Saddam's boobies :/

Re: No boobies though.

[moronoxyd]

And the bible doesn't contain similar statements?

When the IRA commits some acts of terror, I don't see people blame the Catholic Church as a whole.

So yeah, Islam is treated differently. And that's wrong.

Disclaimer: I'm Catholic.

Re:No boobies though.

[tverbeek]

I thought we were talking about Facebook.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I'm sure they'll eventually allow it - but only if they are condemned.

Re: No boobies though.

[MysteriousPreacher]

And the bible doesn't contain similar statements?

When the IRA commits some acts of terror, I don't see people blame the Catholic Church as a whole.

So yeah, Islam is treated differently. And that's wrong.

Disclaimer: I'm Catholic.

I agree that Islam shouldn't automatically be blamed whenever a Muslim commits a crime. However, when an Islamist group cites Islamic texts as justification then I don't see how one could not make the connection. It's not wrong to draw valid connections between world-views and actions.

It's worth considering differences in how scripture is read. Most Christian sects have spent thousands of years arguing over canon and apocrypha. Today there are major sects using different canons - this is not a fringe exercise. Even within a given canon it's rare to have the literalism and inerrancy common to Islam. Based on discussions with Muslims, the general idea is that there is one Koran, and it is free from error and practically untouched by human hand. This leads to a pretty hardline and self-claimed definitive interpretation, which I reflects in the practices of the religion. There are some exceptions, such as the Sufis, who are are more likely to read allegories where others would see literality.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that explains FB's crackdown on latex fetish and bondage fetish accounts. LOL Hypocrasy.

Re:No boobies though.

[fatphil]

I had an easy-going moderate muslim workmate, fairly intelligent, and a hard worker who had the project's best interests in mind at all times. Well, I say moderate, as he appeared that way until the topic of religion came up in conversation one day, which was an interesting discussion until he basically interrupted me and said "don't end that sentence or I will have to kill you", and I could tell from the look on his face that he was serious.

Whackjobbery abounds.

Any religion which encourages its followers to murder people simply for expressing opposing opinions *is* worse than any religion that doesn't do that. So I think you're wrong - there is something inherent in 21st century Islam that makes it worse than many other 21st century religions.

Re:No boobies though.

[I'm New Around Here]

It's a silly comparison though.

Scenes of murder and mutilation in a move are not real. They aren't the real body parts, and people aren't really dead. The weapons are props, and the blood is fake.

Show a guy sucking on a woman's nipple, and it is really a guy sucking on a woman's nipple. Ask Michael Douglas about that one, and what his young son told him.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we were talking about Facebook.

... which expanded into mentioning the American culture that this American company is immersed in, since that is in fact relevant to what they consider acceptable to display. You short-sighted topic nazi fuck!

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because child rape is the new medical marijuana. Legalize it.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd get the exact same effect in an animated movie, though.

Re:No boobies though.

[arthurpaliden]

Can't wait for this scene

And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; for after the 40 days and nights God let up the rains and gazed down upon the Ark looking resplendent in a sea of dead and bloated babies and children. Their faces contorted in the agony of drowning while the carrion birds of the ocean did feed on their bloated and discoloured corpses. And they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark. And the Lord God smiled and was joyful for he knew then that his retribution had been slow and painful and without mercy for even the young and innocent. (Genesis 7:23)

Re:No boobies though.

[VortexCortex]

I can't wait for easy, lifelike CGI so we can post Wholesome Biblical Anecdotes to Facebook.

I don't visit that site, but you could post this there if you like.

Re:No boobies though.

[Evtim]

Bloody hell, you also saw this? Me too.

It was the most revolting thing I've ever seen on a screen. Because I knew it was real. The most horrifying thing for me was how the body of the decapitated soldier reacted - like a rabbit or a chicken to which you have cut the head off - trembling and convulsing.

The idiots in my country (perhaps we are from the same place?) let this video be shown on the central news at 20:00 , Channel 1. I don't know how many were sacked afterwards...

Re:No boobies though.

[strong_epoxy]

In the last century Atheists slaughtered more people than Christians and Muslims combined, so there's that.

Re:No boobies though.

[wvmarle]

Why are we allowed to see people kill one another (and not just the pretend-version, Facebook allows the real thing with these beheadings), but not people enjoying one another?

Furthermore we may assume the guy sucking the girls nipple has her consent to do so, and is happy to do this, while the person being beheaded has not given consent to having his head chopped off.

Re:No boobies though.

[wvmarle]

I'm decades past being a kid, and I've no interest AT ALL in seeing someone being beheaded.

Some years ago I watched a movie that depicted killing - no blood, but they did it nevertheless in such a realistic way, from the victim's pov, that I really didn't like watching it and still don't really like that I ever watched it. The rest of the movie was quite OK though, and the killing part was an integral part of the whole story.

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

Any religion which encourages its followers to murder people simply for expressing opposing opinions *is* worse than any religion that doesn't do that. So I think you're wrong - there is something inherent in 21st century Islam that makes it worse than many other 21st century religions.

If you think that was my argument, then you're right to call it wrong. I agree with you 100%.

That however was not my argument. My argument was that both Christianity and Islam in general and according to their own beliefs are equally as bad. The way it is practiced in the 21st century shows a clear difference; however there are passages in the Bible that could (and have been in the past) interpreted to also mean that followers of it should murder non-Christians. This interpretation isn't actually a particularly larger leap than the passages in the Qur'an that are used to justify the same behaviour.

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

In the last century Atheists slaughtered more people than Christians and Muslims combined, so there's that.

Whether true or not (actually, I don't think it is) it's also totally irrelevant to my point. Those people were for the most part not slaughtered "in the name of atheism". It seems quite certain that more people have been slaughtered 'for believing something different to the thing the slaughterer believes' than 'for believing something when the slaughterer has no religious belief'.

Or to quote Steven Weinberg:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Re:No boobies though.

[Opportunist]

Needn't be too accurate, any 8 year old on a management chair will easily be identifiable.

Re:No boobies though.

[mjwalshe]

Not withstanding the well know quote from a certain A Hitler about being born a catholic and dieing as one ?

Re: No boobies though.

[mjwalshe]

The PIRA (which is what your talking about) where a hard very hard left Marxist group

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

Not withstanding the well know quote from a certain A Hitler about being born a catholic and dieing as one ?

While his religion is certainly debated, I personally believe that this quote and the evidence does point towards him being religious...

I'm not quite sure if you misread my post though - you seem to be backing up my point (that I don't think it is true that atheists have slaughtered more than religious folks have), but in a way that sounds like you're disagreeing. Sorry if I misinterpreted though.

Re:No boobies though.

[Pino Grigio]

I saw it on a website - someone in a forum somewhere had linked it - can't remember where it was now. Not on TV. I didn't watch it all the way through. That kind of thing disgusts me, though not so much if it's fiction because I understand that no real suffering is involved (unless it's a terrible movie, in which case the suffering is all mine). I didn't know it would disgust me before I saw it. I suppose you could say I learnt something about myself.

Re:No boobies though.

[hazah]

For the most part I agree, however, a nit pick I have with your line of thinking is that there's some arbitrary distinction between islam and islamist extremeism. True islam demands extreemeism from its subjects. It is perscribed. Western notion of moderation do not really apply. It resolves to violence as its M. O. I would concider it to be both anti-civilized and far more dangerous than either Christianity (Invented to passify an overly diverse citystate) and Judaism (Surviving oral traditions of an ancient egyptian cult of sun worshipers).

Re:No boobies though.

[hazah]

Not only is it off topic to begin with, it adds nothing of value. You're only saying it to scratch your own personal itch, which no one happens to give a shit about except you. However, you've deluded yourself into thinking that your verbal diarea is actually relevant to someone. Not surprising that you'd be so perplexd that reality, once again, ignores you into oblivion after a couple of comments pointing out that your thoughts do not justify your presense. Go ahead speak. Show yourself the fool you are.

Re: No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, please provide a New Testamemt containing a similar statement? Nowhere in the Gospels or Epistles will you find anything that can even remotely suggest killing non Christians for the sake of the faith.

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

For the most part I agree, however, a nit pick I have with your line of thinking is that there's some arbitrary distinction between islam and islamist extremeism. True islam demands extreemeism from its subjects.

While I agree that true Islam demands extremism, I would also argue that true Christianity does as well. It just happens that Christian extremists are not quite as common (or perhaps not quite as vocal or noticeable if they are) as Islamic extremists at this particular point in history.

Western notion of moderation do not really apply.

I know quite a few people who describe themselves as 'Muslim' but pay very little attention other than observing a few things here and there because "that's the way they were brought up". To me, these are about the same as the lip-service Christians who go to church once or twice a year, don't pray, don't really examine the tenets of their religion and so forth but nevertheless profess to be 'Christian' (these are very common; my wife is (unfortunately) one of them).

Re:No boobies though.

[fatphil]

As someone who was a god-botherer in his fucked-up youth (I'm now an igtheist that considers Dawkins and Hitchens to be moderates who are soft on theists), the stance that the fairly modern church I went to drilled into me was that wherever the new testament contradicts the old testament, the NT takes precedence. For example Matthew 5:38-48 (the "turn the other cheek" passage) basically wipes out all excuses for revenge. Gone. Kaput. And sure enough, there's almost no reference to revenge or vengeance in the new testament compared to the OT or the Apocrypha:
$ zgrep -c -i '^..O.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
62
$ zgrep -c -i '^..N.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
12
$ zgrep -c -i '^..A.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
38

Delving into those 12 NT quotes, many of them are telling stories referencing OT times, and many others about how god himself will be vengeful. One's good old-fashioned drug-induced gibbering (Revelation). However, one is borderline (Romans, surprise, surprise), it does imply that a just theocracy may take vengeance upon evil as an agent of god.

So I would say that "according to [my christian] beliefs", the christians were not "equally as bad". I can't think off the top of my head think of any gospel passages that "could be interpreted to also mean that followers of it should murder non-Christians". The only NT thing that comes to mind would be in Paul's letters (surprise, surprise again, he indeed is the loose cannon), Romans 1:24-32 (the "gays deserve to die" passage) but that's worded as a "historical" OT recollection of god smiting the evil poofs complete, admittedly with perverted approval, rather than an order for humans to do the smiting henceforth and forthwith.

So I do think that I can drive a tram sideways between the christian scriptures and instructions to kill people, but I can't even get a cigarette paper between the hebrew or muslim scriptures and direct orders to kill people. I.e. I do consider it a "particularly larger leap".

Of course, these are matters of opinion. Opinion in a subject I do like to discuss, for further historical, literary, cultural, and even personal, enlightenment (hence accedentally nearly getting killed by a workmate). I could happily chat about this with you down the pub for hours!

OT - regarding your homepage link, just today in the pub at lunch a good friend of mine said "Phil, don't ever do acid". Oddly enough, the topic of conversation at the time was that of my *ig*theism and how it deviated from his atheism.

Re:No boobies though.

[Stan92057]

Its painfully obvious you have never read a single word from the qur'an. That religion states in plain text the non beleaver must be killed and says its often.And it states kill the non beleavers at any cost and any way possible. So don't stick up for a religion you know nothing about.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Re:No boobies though.

[hazah]

While they may identify themselves as muslim, muslims would identify them as infadels. There's really not much grey area here. It could be that they are ignorant of what is demanded of them, but then they are not representatives of islam to begin with. This is a warrior culture from beginning to end, and lends itself very poorly to comarisons with Christianity. The norse mythologies offer far better insights into the mentality of islamic intoctrination.

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

I would honestly love to discuss it further with you, because you seem to be really knowledgable on the topic (probably more so than me), but I've got a business trip over the coming three days and am not really one for reviving four day old discussions on slashdot (unless you really want to, in which case, reply to this in three to four days so that it's fresh for me!). I could have written out a quick off-the-cuff reply now, but I think I'd prefer to actually sit and think about my answers with you on this topic, which I sadly just don't have the time for right now.

As for your OT comment to my homepage link (and also sig) - I would strongly disagree with your friend. People who like to really examine things both deeply as well as broadly (thinking around all aspects of a topic), which it seems you are, are exactly the kind of people who should try LSD at some point in their lives (preferably in the right kind of environment and frame of mind of course... hence the topic of my book)

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

While they may identify themselves as muslim, muslims would identify them as infadels.

And while my wife identifies as Christian, "Christians" would identify her as as apostate.

See how that works?

Re:No boobies though.

[hazah]

There is no one single definition for Christianity. Note that Christianity defines itself through the acceptance of Christ alone, and purposfully removes the notion of good deeds as a method of salvation. Therefore Christianity has no actual doctorine beyond Christ, and you are free to interpert God's word differently than another Christian without ever having to feel like there is conflict. While you can almost call it sects within Islam, there is *a lot* less ambiguity. I can understand the drive to be inclusive, but in this case, the parallels are almost non existent.

Re:No boobies though.

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Is this like a bug report for the bible?

If truth was out the whole fucking thing should be on somebodies report. Worthless pap fiction.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saddam wasn't beheaded, he was hanged. And I find it disgusting, offensive, and illustrative of America's sick state of mind when I was on holiday in the US during the Christmas season that they broadcast it on every public news channel while I was there.

To clarify, I don't find it offensive that a war criminal was tried and executed for his crimes, I find it disgusting that it was publicly paraded on every TV channel in an ongoing carousel of depravity.

Re:No boobies though.

[Bongo]

funny how despite being modded to prominence with +5 interesting, no flame war actually ensued.

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have come to the conclusion that the Bible contains a profecy to the future: It predicted internet.

Mates, there's violence a plenty and genocide, a cleal alusion to HTF!! there's wrestling, yeah, wrestling with God Almithgy (check this out: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+32%3A22-32&version=NIV) and lot's of pr0n (ezequiel 23:20 for instance) and absurd stuff.

The only thing that it needs to be 100% like the internet is cats, tons of them!!!

Re: No boobies though.

[murphtall]

There's plenty of boobs. I see full on sex videos. It's not hard for a nerd lke me to figure out and I'm so young my first modem was 2600 baud!

Re: No boobies though.

[MightyYar]

On Facebook? Wow...

Anything

[djupedal]

. . . for a buck. Can't wait to see (or not see) what's next.

Re:Anything

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2jX3wr5y_Y#t=10m48

Better That Than Tits

[rueger]

Does Facebook still ban breastfeeding pictures? Just wondering.....

Yup.

FB page Bitchin' Parents is the latest to be targeted by FB censors for sharing their members breastfeeding images. As a result they have been asking members to share their BF images here instead. Incredibly sad this is still an issue on FB. http://www.facebook.com/ParentsUncut

Re:Better That Than Tits

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you really want to stop the beheading videos on FB the logical solution is to have tits tattooed on your forehead when you're going to the middle-east.

Re:Better That Than Tits

[Anonymous Coward]

In several incidents I reported extremist Sunni/Wahabi groups in Facebook and the website rejected my complain.

One of the groups is "Anti Christian, Anti Shia" (basically Anti anything other than hardliner Sunni Islam) movement of Malaysia organized by hardliner Sunni and Wahabis in Malaysia. The group has 45000 members and they did not do anything about it.

Re:Better That Than Tits

[martin-boundary]

To be fair, there is a point though.

As a society, we frown upon women going around topless in certain places, such as shopping malls, restaurants, corporate buildings, etc. and not others, eg. the beach. We also frown upon both men and women peeing in the streets in full view of passers by. These are natural states of being, and natural bodily functions, and yet it is considered inappropriate to flaunt them in public. Similarly, breastfeeding is perfectly natural, yet being discreet about it makes perfect sense.

People can totally approve of women breastfeeding, and yet not want to see it happening when they're walking about town, and expect discretion.

Re:Better That Than Tits

[jonr]

That makes no sense, we frown upon be-headings too... or what?

Re:Better That Than Tits

[sI4shd0rk]

To be fair, there is a point though.

A completely illogical one.

Re: Better That Than Tits

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually sounds like a pretty good plan if you were hoping to be beheaded.

Re:Better That Than Tits

[wvmarle]

So, because some people don't like to see breastfeeding, it should be banned on Facebook.

Then if some people don't like to see beheadings, they also should be banned on Facebook.

I suspect there are more people that really don't like to see beheadings, than that there are people that really don't like to see breastfeeding. Yet one is allowed on Facebook, the other not.

Ridiculous.

Re:Better That Than Tits

[Richy_T]

As a society, we

It's a big world.

Re:Better That Than Tits

[SleazyRidr]

But beheading people in shopping malls, restaurants, corporate buildings etc. is fine.

Priorities

[wiredlogic]

Thank god there won't be any breastfeeding moms to corrupt the mind when one is looking for snuff pictures.

Re:Priorities

[Opportunist]

Boobies ain't for little kids!

Re:Priorities

[erikkemperman]

Boobies ain't for little kids!

You, sir, owe me a fresh cup of coffee and a new keyboard.

Re:Priorities

[Opportunist]

Very well, but you do NOT want to know where the milk comes from.

BDSM plz plz .....

[Anonymous Coward]

BDSM plz plz .....

Re:BDSM plz plz .....

[__aaltlg1547]

Nope, that's banned apparently because (a) the behavior is consensual and (b) nobody dies.

This is not about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

If I walk into just about any decent sized store or public building (large enough to have security) and start shouting political slogans, I'll be escorted out of the building. Facebook and Google own their premises and can and should enforce whatever policies they think is appropriate, above and beyond what the law requires.

It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned. If that doesn't occur to Zuckerberg and Page immediately, they are thinking way too hard.

Re:This is not about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

Re:This is not about free speech

[demonlapin]

More than just machetes... I've seen them with machetes, sure, but plain knives and even once with a chainsaw. Apparently part of the machismo code for the Mexican drug gangs is that you don't react while you're being beheaded.

Re:This is not about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook owns the platform but social media relies on users sharing both points of view, personal information and commentary, without it what does there platform become ? people are entitled to freedom of speech, why have an exclusion zone on social media ?

Re:This is not about free speech

[duke_cheetah2003]

It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned. If that doesn't occur to Zuckerberg and Page immediately, they are thinking way too hard.

You haven't been here long, have you? Common sense is in short supply here.

Re: This is not about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's obvious from the Mexican drug cartel videos that they actually drug their victims before decapitation. Quite "humane" of them.

Re:This is not about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you even want to watch this stuff?

Re:This is not about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This. The analogy with public buildings or stores doesn't hold up: Their purpose is entirely different, be it as it may that both they and facebook are corporations. It's like facebook wants to be, oh Hyde Park including its famous corner along with lots of other things. It owns the platform on which it invites you to express yourself, in fact there would be very little left if you take that out.

So them enforcing their Ts&Cs means that they have deliberately put themselves and their corporate rules into free speech its way and are trying to go corporate on its ass. You can't just say "well it's a corporation, it has to do that", that's just not good enough. Then again, the country they're in is a little fuzzy on the subject, since interpreting corporations to be persons and therefore having free speech rights. Which means that they have the right to say whatever they want, but their users are not. Talk about double standards.

Personally I think corporations aren't a "natural person" however much they are, for the law, some entity in whose name legal acts can be committed. I also think that they're making like a government, and should either be forbidden from doing that (since they are not a government) or need to be licensed as such (since they are acting like a government) and then must uphold the same rules as the government does, including free speech for their users.

Re:This is not about free speech

[sI4shd0rk]

It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned.

"common sense"? What does that even mean? Are you saying that such a belief is common? If so, who cares? Are you saying that it makes sense? I don't agree with that, since I'm all for freedom of speech.

Saying that something is "common sense" is utterly worthless. In some places, it might have been "common sense" that the sun revolved around the Earth.

This is very much about freedom of speech, and especially so if by "banning," you mean that the government should ban such material.

Why?

[jfdavis668]

would anyone post that, or watch it?

Re:Why?

[AHuxley]

The posting is for war propaganda. You have the US backed freedom fighters showing what they do in liberated areas.
You have other groups showing what happens when the US backed freedom fighters take an area over and start cleaning up.
It also helps the sockpuppets offer a why the Anglosphere has to stay in parts of the world diatribe.
Basically a lot of CIA backed NGO's and freedom fighters offering both sides of their fav dirty wars.
Web 2.0 is seen as part of that effort. You also have the USA telco/NSA aspect - better to have it on a US friendly network :)

Re:Why?

[LoRdTAW]

Good question. The other night an old coworker I was friends with posted one of those decapitation videos. I have never seen anything more disturbing in my life. A masked thug (presumably a mexican cartel goon) cuts a womans head off ...... with a fucking box cutter or small knife. No quick chop and lights out. No this was a brutal murder in which this guy starts slicing around her neck like she was a side of beef until her head comes off. And she was fully conscious and alive when he started.

Why did I watch it? I honestly have no idea. Morbid curiosity perhaps? At first I thought it was fake thinking why would someone post something this fucking horrible on FB. I am sorry I did. Damn video has been haunting me for the past few days. Nothing bad but I keep thinking of it every now and then, that poor woman.

One this it does illustrate though is how the wonderful war on drugs has given those shit stains on the underwear of humanity the ability to do this almost entirely unchecked.

Re:Why?

[BenJeremy]

Except in this case, it is an Islamist who beheaded his wife for "cheating" on him. ...AND it managed to get 2500 likes on Facebook. Way to go , Facebook, that sure looks like condemnation.

I guess restricting beheading videos would be considered racist.

Meanwhile, posting pictures of a girl's head and elbows while she's in a bath, suggesting (only to the lame Facebook censors who have never seen an actual naked woman) boobies will get you banned.

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

The Mexican cartels are some pretty fucked up dudes. I've seen the full gamut: axe, machete, small knife, chainsaw. I'm a long, long way from squeamish, and a couple of them even bugged me a little.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us are sick fucks.

Re:Why?

[LoRdTAW]

Im not the squeamish type either but watching a person who has done nothing wrong cut up like a piece of meat is beyond fucked. The disturbing part isnt the blood or the head coming off but the fact that someone is so apathetic that they can butcher someone and not think twice. Especially if that someone has done no harm to anyone else. Those guys make serial killers like dahmer, bundy and gacy look like mouseketeers. At least they had a drive and motivation. These guys are doing it as if its nothing, just another day on the job.

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

I don't think I'd categorize the people executed by the cartels as innocents. If the bonds were on the other set of hands, they'd be just as happy to wield the knife.

Re:Why?

[artor3]

It's the modern goatse. Some people get perverse pleasure in forcing other people to witness terrible things against their will. Some of their victims later decide to show how tough and unfazed they are by trying to find something even worse to post.

This isn't a free speech issue. Facebook isn't the government. They were wrong to change this policy -- it's making the site friendly to mentally ill trolls, and worse for everyone else. Even from a strictly amoral, financial viewpoint, it's a bad decision.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I'd categorize the people executed by the cartels as innocents. If the bonds were on the other set of hands, they'd be just as happy to wield the knife.

Except for, you know, the journalists who are targetet, executed, and their corpses put on public display because they dared to report on these wastes of flesh.

Re:Why?

[LoRdTAW]

Wait, what?

"I don't think I'd categorize the people executed by the cartels as innocents."
Then what would you categorize them as? Please elaborate.

"If the bonds were on the other set of hands, they'd be just as happy to wield the knife."

Why would they be happy to kill in such a brutal manner? What would be their motivation to do so? The cartel shit stains are getting paid to do it and go to the extremes to send a clear message. And they aren't ordinary men, these are cold, callous monsters plain and simple.

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

The people the cartels execute by beheading are members of rival gangs.

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

Fair enough.

Re:Why?

[Zontar The Mindless]

The people the cartels execute by beheading are members of rival gangs.

..and the occasional teenaged girl... but please don't let this get in the way of your generalisations...

(And now I've posted my first--and hopefully last--link to a snuff video. Thanks for that.)

Re:Why?

[kwbauer]

The really sad part is that it is just another day on the job.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are tens of thousands of gang members all over the area. Therefore the final solution for the problem requires committing war crimes: 1. systematic targeting of civilians of particular affiliation, 2. declaring no quarters given, 3. use of heavy weapons on a civilian population. The equally unrealistic alternative? Remove illegal drugs demand from the picture.

Re:Why?

[dryeo]

Are thought to be members of rival gangs. I doubt they go worry about evidence.
Then there are the people who are just in the way, journalists, cops and even politicians.

Re:Why?

[AmiMoJo]

Doesn't it bother you that you removed a little bit of that poor woman's dignity by watching her be murdered? She obviously never gave consent for the video to be made or published, and although we can't know for sure her feelings on the subject it seems like most people would not want to have others watch them being killed and their bodies treated like meat.

Not having a go at you personally, just trying to make a point that seems to be missing from this debate. It might sound obvious but the people in the videos are people with rights and human dignity.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe she would want as many as possible to see it to make people aware of what goes on and push for change

the famous Vietnamwar photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc is that a humiliating picture of a badly hurt girl or
a picture that shows the horrors of a war and might have helped end it?

Re:Why?

[Xest]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but let's be honest, this is no more sick than half the stuff on hostel which all looks pretty real with modern effects.

I think it's a wider societal problem. I never understood how something like Hostel or the Human Centipede are allowed to be shown and there seems to be very little uproar, but you're allowed to shoot people in CoD's almost cartoonish graphical environment and it's "OMG THIS IS GOING TO DESTROY OUR CHILDREN".

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

She is described as a member of the Zetas on that page. Rival gang member.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just determined to find a way, no matter how convoluted, to blame someone in politics that you disagree with, aren't you? By moving the blame from the actual beheader to someone else, you are committing a huge error in assigning responsibility. Nobody made that guy behead anybody. He is the primary one responsible for his sick choice. He should be blamed. If he were a decent civil human being rather than a mere worse-than-any-animal animal, her blood wouldn't be on his hands.

You're making the same mistake the Nazi's did when blaming their superiors for why they did evil. I don't care if the beheader had a "boss" who told him to, and whether his boss was motivated by greed seeking an opportunity to make easy money in drugs which are so high priced because of the war on drugs. Anyone whose heart is in the war on drugs is at least opposed to beheadings.

Re:Why?

[chihowa]

Dignity is an imaginary concept and there is nobody keeping tally of it. The people in the videos aren't "people with rights and human dignity" because they're dead. "We can't know for sure her feelings on the subject", because she doesn't have any feelings because she has been murdered. Keeping her brutal murder a secret "to preserve her dignity" only empowers her killers. Crimes like this need to be in the public eye, in all of their gory horror so that we can't sit back and ignore them. We should be more worried about the human rights of actual living humans than the "dignity" of the dead.

Her cause will be better served by actual exposure and people being aware of what happened to her. A video like that will impart far more impact on people than a news headline would, even if there was a news headline (which there apparently wasn't). Censoring "affronts to human dignity" is just a euphemism for sweeping distasteful realities under the rug. It doesn't make the world a nice place; it just makes it easier for people to feel ok about not doing anything to make it better.

Re:Why?

[AmiMoJo]

I never said keep it a secret, only that she might not want video of it broadcast to the world. The law recognizes people's rights and dignity after death.

You seem to think that psychological harm isn't real. Physically harming someone or their family is clearly wrong, but psychologically harming them is fine. People are who bullied to death are not victims, it's their own fault for being weak minded.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion we should not prevent people watching child pornography, because seeing a child brutally raped has far more impact than a news headline. Never mind the child's rights or that such things are distasteful, censorship is a greater crime and lets people ignore the problem of child rape.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even your description is having a psychological effect on me. As far as I'm concerned face book has become another tool for social engineering. It is in the best interest of its leadership to ban bible verses about loving your neighbor even if (s)he is an enemy and allow brutal beheading videos to be shown.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Child pornography should be legal, yes. Free speech is free speech. Watching evidence of a crime should not be illegal.

Child pornography is also a loaded term and covers a wide variance of topics and ideas. A 13-year-old boy filmed masturbating alone in 1972 who completely is fine with it being around and people looking at it, even now that he is in his 50s, will still get people 10 or 20 year sentences or even life sentences for possession of one video. a 16-year-old who takes a picture of themselves erect and voluntarily spreads it around is cause for people going to prison for possessing it. Yes, there are very nasty, very fucked up videos of tragedies and abuses of children, but the videos do not create demand for more, even if lots of people look at it, because the vast, vast majority of child pornography is not sold but instead given away, often on Usenet or TOR where demand is inelastic and uncorroborated.

Re:Why?

[chihowa]

Firstly, beyond laws forbidding the desecration of corpses, the dead don't actually have any rights. The estates of deceased people, as legal entities, have certain rights, but not the deceased themselves.

Secondly, how did you manage to read from my post that I don't believe in psychological harm or think such victims are weak minded? I neither said, nor implied, anything of the sort. My post solely concerned the supposed rights and dignity of the dead and my desire to put the needs of the living over the dignity of the dead.

I suppose if you want to extend my argument to child rape, it gets trickier, since I was specifically talking about the dead. While I have no interest in seeing any of this, including beheadings, I do think that censorship is a greater crime against society (and the individuals that it is composed of) than witnessing something that is "distasteful". I don't have a problem with keeping videos from the public in order to protect the privacy of living victims (breaching the privacy of living victims is a greater crime against them than censorship is against society), but the right to privacy doesn't extend to the dead.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Keeping videos from the public" should not mean that individual citizens should be thrown in prison for decades simply for possession of a video that they did not create that invaded the privacy of a person (say an ex- releases sex tapes). The person who created, then released the video may be guilty of a crime, but once such a video gets out into the wild, other people found in possession of the video should not be punished. So when you say to keep videos from the public to protect the privacy of living victims (presumably people who were raped), it depends on what you mean by it. It should not be illegal to look at evidence of crime, if you were not otherwise involved.

My young mind hasn't been the same since...

[ZecretZquirrel]

"I want you kids to get ahead" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-x6FBuF4JM

All for Cash

[TranquilVoid]

From the company that removes photos of breastfeeding mothers...

To be 'fair' I've noticed that, since they went public, they've been a lot more permissive with the soft porn pages. You probably still can't show nipples, but labia outlines through a bikini are apparently fine. It's all a short-term grab for eyeballs and advertising dollars.

As far as I know Facebook doesn't have an 18+ category like YouTube so this move does a bit blunt.

scarred for life, eh?

[rubycodez]

killing innocents by drones and dumping ordinance, also scarring relatives, friends, neighbors, rescuers minds: good. posting video of beheading: bad posting video of breastfeeding, sex, or just being naked: bad

ok, got it.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because one can't object to beheading videos and the drone war at the same time.

ok, got it.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[rubycodez]

hey, that sounds like naked people watcher talk. you perv.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[cold fjord]

If you are deliberately killing innocent people with drones, you aren't doing it right. That is why they don't deliberately target innocent people.

Pakistani General - Actually the drones are awesome

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[rubycodez]

thank you for those words from a general of a country that can't rule its own territories, on what is happening over a thousand miles from him

the proof is there, the USA isn't doing it right, it is slaughtering innocents including those who stand in the way of the CIA's narcotics-for-funding program

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[Zontar The Mindless]

That is why they don't deliberately target innocent people....

They don't have to. "Collateral damage" and all that.

(Do you think we were all born yesterday, or what?)

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[beckett]

If you are deliberately killing innocent people with drones, you aren't doing it right. That is why they don't deliberately target innocent people.

That's the point: they don't deliberately target innocent people. Drones seem to still kill a fuckton of civilians, though.

Former US drone pilot quits, regretting bombing innocents, including children

U.S. Accused of Using Drones to Target Rescue Workers and Funerals in Pakistan

Living Under Drones: Stanford International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic"

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[Richy_T]

Somehow we have gone from "War is hell. Sometimes to achieve your goal, innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire" to the glib "Collateral damage, innit?".

If ever there was a reason that slippery-slope arguments shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand, this is it.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[wvmarle]

They target people believed to be members of Taliban, or otherwise people they believe they don't like for their ideas.

It's not that those people ever had a chance to defend themselves. They're killed before that.

The US is not at war with Pakistan or Afghanistan, so even that excuse doesn't fly. They just kill based on certain intelligence, without guarantees that this is correct (just think of Saddam's massive stockpile of WODs that still hasn't been found). And that's not even counting collateral damage, such as people getting caught in the line of fire, that just happen to be there while going their merry way.

These drone-killings are murder, plain and simple.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[geekoid]

Sigh.
The amount of innocent deaths using drone s is less them manned lights.
No it's not perfect, but you are putting drones against an unrealistic goal. That being go from a decent system to a perfect system.
There won't be a perfect system.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[geekoid]

"Collateral damage" "
which is far less with drones than manned flights.

Each generation of war since WWI has been more accurate, and less innocent bystanders killed.

War should always be the last resort, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it intelligently.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[geekoid]

"otherwise people they believe they don't like for their ideas."
no. People they believe are making plans to attack the US.

Not 'don't like their ideas'

"It's not that those people ever had a chance to defend themselves"
um, no they all ahve that chance, they just don't take it. Anyone on the list could go to the courts get a trial.
They could turn themselves into local authorities, and so on.
The target aren't random people.

"These drone-killings are murder, plain and simple."
But if it was man controlled Apache helicopter, and fighter jets that would be OK? Even though they have a higher error rate?
You're beef is with policy of target acquisition and action, not 'drones'.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[mjwalshe]

As opposed to area Bombing? to give two examples not all the people who died in Dresden or Coventry where directly working for the war effort.

Luckly my relations where not in their house (near to the biggest spitfire plant in the world) when the luftwaffe bombed it back in ww2 or I woudl not be here.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[wvmarle]

"It's not that those people ever had a chance to defend themselves"
um, no they all ahve that chance, they just don't take it. Anyone on the list could go to the courts get a trial.
They could turn themselves into local authorities, and so on.
The target aren't random people.

If only those lists were public, and these people were actually summoned to court. They have NOT been convicted of a crime, and as such are not guilty of any.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[rubycodez]

you haven't a clue, have you.

what is happening is that the CIA is running tens of billions of dollar of narcotics, using drones and our armed forces to kill anyone that gets in their way. Also, defense contractors are making big coin along with congressmen in their pockets.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[rubycodez]

as opposed to not bombing people at all, who didn't attack us. we are not accomplishing any good purpose there, and are even "negotiating" with the Taliban. the war is pointless. Al Qaeda and the "taliban" who hosted them are long, long gone from there. we put that fight on back burner to go after the all important goal of invading Iraq, for things that weren't there.

Re:scarred for life, eh?

[mjwalshe]

They hosted people that have committed war crimes

Facebook should stop banning anything.

[pauljlucas]

Facebook should get out of the censorship/banning business. You should only be able to report things that are against the law, e.g., child pornography. If you don't like anything else, don't look.

If it's on a page you've "liked," unlike the page and stop following it. If a friend posts something you don't like, either learn to accept your friend is his or her entirety, or simply unfollow or unfriend your friend. Facebook shouldn't be your nanny.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Against whose law? What's against the law in one place is religion in another.

A civilized society can draw a line. Allowing material that glorifies or incites people to murder over religious beliefs is nothing but cowardice.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[foobar bazbot]

Facebook should get out of the censorship/banning business. You should only be able to report things that are against the law, e.g., child pornography.

Devil's advocate:
I'd rather not have Facebook telling people "We only remove illegal content; if you don't wanna see beheading videos, take it up with your Congressman.", because it's all too believable that some congressclown would take up the challenge, and push through legislation making such content illegal.

The rest of the internet is clearly better off if prominent sites such as Facebook engage in censorship, because this reduces the number of idiots getting riled about it and therefore the odds that the government applies censorship to the whole internet. Now whether this benefit to the rest of the internet is worth the harm of having Facebook censored is ... debatable, at best, but there is a not-absurd argument there.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[__aaltlg1547]

1. Facebook has to obey local laws in jurisdictions where it operates, thus, no kiddy porn or [em]animal[/em] cruelty in the USA.

2. Facebook is an advertising company. If their sponsors don't like it, it's verboten.

3. Facebook sponsors apparently like snuff films, but not sex.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[artor3]

Facebook should be in the business business. If they can make more money by making the site more family friendly, at the cost of kicking out some of the dregs of 4chan, they should do so. Hell, they have an obligation to their shareholders to do so.

Free speech means the government doesn't control what you say. It doesn't mean that everyone has to let you post pornography on their property.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[pauljlucas]

Facebook should be in the business business. If they can make more money by making the site more family friendly, at the cost of kicking out some of the dregs of 4chan, they should do so. Hell, they have an obligation to their shareholders to do so.

They can accomplish the same thing by allowing people to self-tag posts as "adult." (Or they could even have several tags such as "violence", "sex", etc.) Minors wouldn't be able to see such content (based on what tags their parents allow them to see). At worst, adult content that's not self-tagged as such would simply be tagged as such by Facebook if/when they're alerted to it. Adults who've chosen not to filter their content will get to see everything. It's a win-win and it's certainly better than outright banning.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Facebook sponsors apparently like snuff films, but not sex.

Apparently they are from the christian right.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then all your friendly neighbourhood activist group has to do is get a law passed that bans the object of their ire. Like videos of beheadings, or more likely, this being America[tm], videos of boob slips. Since all that takes is the right connections and those in turn can be bought, just ring up whichever specialist firm you like. Such a group might even put it on kickstarter or some similar place.

That is why censorship (which this is, even if it is "alright" because it's in their Ts&Cs) is such a finnicky thing: It's entirely arbitrary. The more curious thing here --and a good illustration of the finnickyness-- is facebook's edict that you can post disturbing violence, but only if you "condemn", and won't "glorify". That's some scary thought control right there.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the internet is clearly better off if prominent sites such as Facebook engage in censorship, because this reduces the number of idiots getting riled about it and therefore the odds that the government applies censorship to the whole internet.

This pretty much says that people and politicians both are by definition short-sighted and unscrupulous, while at the same believing they are acting in the "common good", when clearly they have no idea what that is (other than "I think so therefore everybody must think so too").

Thus proving that common sense isn't. It's like people won't grow up or something. I mean, if every politician was mature enough to shrug off the demands and able to explain just why we won't do that sort of thing any more, that puts a stake through the censorship-demanding stakeholders.

Of course, I think that a world without censorship would be better off, but since I have no proof I'm no better than those who call for censorship. Who am I to impose a world-wide ban on censorship out of, well, ideology? I'd have to have some sort of objective proof that drawing this rather arbitrary line of what to censor at "nothing at all".

The internet seems a case in point, but not an actual proof. Is trying to find one worth the hassle?

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[sI4shd0rk]

A civilized society can draw a line.

One that despises free speech, you mean.

Allowing material that glorifies or incites people to murder over religious beliefs is nothing but cowardice.

Censorship is cowardice. Sacrificing freedom because you believe you'll get some degree of safety in return is cowardice.

The fact that you think allowing people to have free speech is cowardice only shows your disdain for freedom.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[sI4shd0rk]

Of course, I think that a world without censorship would be better off, but since I have no proof I'm no better than those who call for censorship.

I believe that is incorrect. The ones who impose censorship are infringing upon others' freedoms, and without evidence. Since opposing censorship simply means not infringing upon people's right to free speech (a fundamental right), I believe you to be far better than cretins who call for censorship.

In fact, even if the world is a better place with censorship, freedom is speech is far more important than safety, so censorship shouldn't be allowed either way.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[wvmarle]

I think the average beheading is pretty much against the law.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[mjwalshe]

beheading people is also beyond the law

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[pauljlucas]

I think the average beheading is pretty much against the law.

The act is, but photos or videos of it are not; so while your statement is true, it's irrelevant. However, even photos or videos of child porn (i.e., after the fact) are also illegal.

Not for facebook

[jblues]

There are plenty of other places people can see these videos. I don't think it should be on Facebook.

Re:Not for facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of other places people can see these videos. I don't think it should be on Facebook.

why is that ? is there some reason that the basic human right of freedom of speech should somehow have an exclusion zone on social media, unfortunately freedom of speech is a double edged sword, while you may like some things being discussed and argued you may be vehemently revolted and aghast by other things people say and show, they still have a right to voice there opinions and to show those barbaric acts occurring such as beheading, just because you do not agree is irrelevant, you have the choice to not watch or listen about these acts, these people have a right to voice there opinions and show these acts occurring, you also have the freedom of speech to protest peoples freedom of speech your opinion is your own, and this is just my opinion both of which we are entitled to.
     

Re:Not for facebook

[scott9693]

While you're right, the freedom of speech applies to government not restricting your freedom. Facebook is perfectly within its rights to restrict whatever it likes.

I agree that governments censoring is a bad thing but private corporations should censor if it within their policy. I don't want to watch beheading videos, and I won't want my children to when they're old enough to use facebook/G+/whatever if they wish to. It is called "creating a safe environment".
Perhaps I should go to my children's school and show the beheading videos there too since its freedom of speech? No.

Re:Not for facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Facebook should only be for giving away our privacy! Enough of these tasteless pictures or videos.

Chop someone's head off

[msobkow]

...and you're good to go.

But heaven forbid you should show a nipple!

Art

[JazzXP]

That's nice that something grotesque is allowed, but me trying to post some artistic nudes (even with everything hidden) get taken down...

More "graphic material" needed?

[iamhigh]

Sometimes I wonder if the lack of "graphic material" has caused a dissonance from death. As a young kid my father killed pigs so they could eat (or at least watched it). He saw them get sick and die. Several family members died unexpectedly in his youth. He had real life experience with death.

Granted, I never did any of that as I didn't grow up on a farm, nor did I experience unexpected family deaths, and I came out pretty normal. Maybe it takes two generations. Even those in richer families 100 years ago were much more exposed to death than the average kid is now.

One of you psych grads now working in IT, does that make any sense?

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[demonlapin]

Want some graphic material? Search for "evil does not need guns" and watch the video at liveleak. The action starts at about 3:00. NSFW, and they don't both die the same way.

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually hate spoilers, but I wish I had a spoiler for this one that prevented me from watching it.

1. Two guys describe their jobs to the adversary drug gang. The thin one mentions he was risking his life for less than 30 USD.
2. The thin one gets decapitated with a chainsaw quickly.
3. The chubby guy gets decapitated with a knife, slow and terrible. The sound he makes while gasping for air is terrible.
4. The murderer puts the chubby guy's head over his body, it falls.

I really recommend not watching it, I don't know why I did.

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[Jimbookis]

I agree we do lived in a death and gore sanitised world. I don't like such gore as entertainment like we get now with Dexter or any number of other splatter fantasies as it's not tempered in the west with the agony of injury and pain and the finality of death. Gimme living boobs anyday for entertainment! I remember visiting an Indian friends house and a newspaper he had showed a large front page picture of the woman who blew up Rajif Ghandi pieced back together as much as possible - head, arms and legs only. It was pretty jolting to see as a teenager but I think the West needs more of such doses reality.

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[demonlapin]

Interesting. Don't speak enough Spanish to really understand what they were saying myself.

BTW, if you think the chubby guy sounded bad, I've heard a lot worse in some similar videos. Really gruesome.

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[beckett]

Sometimes I wonder if the lack of "graphic material" has caused a dissonance from death. As a young kid my father killed pigs so they could eat (or at least watched it). He saw them get sick and die. Several family members died unexpectedly in his youth. He had real life experience with death.

I'd like to see something similar for war: show death instead of glamour. Instead of showing shiny war machines, guns, and bombs via "embedded reporters", report from a hospital emergency ward and show the effect and damage of the war machines, guns, and bombs. Instead of interviewing specially-selected soldiers and operators to propagandise the war effort, have an "embeded doctor" talk about the difficulties involved in blast injuries or treating pediatric bullet trauma.

If we were forced to see the death, injury and destruction, I wonder if we would be so complacent about the bloody conflicts the world is currently mired in.

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[couchslug]

I'd suggest it does. My father's generation fought WWII and many of them grew up on farms which meant killing your own dinner.

They by and large didn't turn into sadists. Death was understood not to be glamorous.

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[wvmarle]

If we were forced to see the death, injury and destruction, I wonder if we would be so complacent about the bloody conflicts the world is currently mired in.

Which is indeed why TPTB don't let us see this part.

Oh, and it's bad for ratings to boot.

About the worst thing to be shared online

[Haoie]

Just imagine this posted on your timeline:

"Hey dude, I just saw this guy get his head lopped off and I totally thought of you!"

But think of the children!

[dkleinsc]

I'm against all censorship. Period. Including of things that are horrific.

It's not like you can really shield people completely from the horrific violence of the world. In some places, the kids not only see it, but they're forced to be a part of it as child soldiers. In other places, kids aren't supposed to see it, but are encouraged to enjoy a fantasy version of that horrific violence so that they'll grow up into 18-year-olds who want to join the military service and kill people. In lots of places, even the kids who aren't supposed to go into the service (typically because their parents are rich enough) get exposed to horrific violence via something called "evening news". At best, you can try to create a fantasy bubble in which the bad stuff only happens in places very far away from where you are - this usually involves willfully ignoring the assaults, murders, robberies, rapes, car crashes, etc that are probably happening fairly close to you right now.

Also, the reaction of children to real violence is the same as adults: horror. They might enjoy a good scare in October at a haunted house or a murder mystery story, but the real thing leaves kids (and lots of adults) crying, screaming in fear, defacating, vomiting, etc. If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly have no children if that's how you think they should be raised. I hope you're not allowed near children

Re:But think of the children!

[scott9693]

Serious question, are you a father?

Are you suggesting I should show my 5 year old son a beheading video? I love my son and want to protect him from harm, both physical and psychological. When he is old enough, and curious enough to view these things he will in his own time.
Suggesting that because other children experience this is it ok for mine to see it is not a good reason. Why do you think violence transcends generations?

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

Unless they really are suicidally depressed. People in such states are looking through a different lens. They could - okay they will see things like this and start craving their own death even more. Just like it is a bad idea to leave a gun in the house of someone suicidal, so are images like these.

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late. At least for me. I totally agree with dkleinsc and have two kids of my own. My 3 year old wasn't even a bit phased by the videos. My 11 year was like 'cool'. And before you think I'm mad there isn't any doubt this is disturbing. That doesn't mean it should be censored. It's simply showing us the reality of the world we live in. I'm less concerned about this than what the US government is doing to us. The criminal justice system is a joke. There is no justice and the victims are primarily those within it. The violators are not the ones effected by the 'criminals' arrested. It is the police, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, guards, wardens, politicians, and you! You have this idea that justice is getting revenge. That's f'd up. Personally I'd rather make life a breeze for those incarcerated. These are the people who have been most victimized. More so than anybody else. You don't get into a life of violent crime (or otherwise) without some environmental or psychological problem and chances are it isn't self-inflicted. Being harmed by such crime is a matter of life. Deal with it (as much as that sucks, and yes, we should try to help those negatively impacted take the brunt, but no less or no more than those who acted in ways which were violating another).

Re:But think of the children!

[artor3]

In some places, the kids not only see [horrific violence], but they're forced to be a part of it as child soldiers.

So... what? Since pedophiles exist we should force all children to watch child pornography?

Just-World thinking contributes to mental health. Forcing people to see all the morbid shit that goes on just depresses them. There is no upside. Just spreading misery. It's not like we could fix the armies of child soldiers just by getting a bit more awareness *coughkony2012cough*.

If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

You have absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, you have evidence against it: the child soldiers you referenced. They witness lots of horror. It doesn't stop them from participating. If anything, it desensitizes them.

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching horrific violence is bad for you; you start thinking that assaults, murders, robberies, rapes, car crashes etc are the norm and that your kids might start beheading each other unless they're shown how it's done.

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

yes but on fb? that is supposed and intended to be accesses by younger folk?

widespread, easy (key words) exposure leads to general acceptance in society

at least that's true for pornography :P

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw one beheading video - I think it was Daniel Pearl's - and it was the most atrocious thing I have seen in my life. I am sorry that I clicked on it. All of these anti-violence in movies and video games groups are idiots - there was literally a magnitudes of difference between anything I have seen on TV or in a video game and this beheading video. Even the jihadi or US military videos on liveleak are so far beneath the sheer terror and horror that the Daniel Pearl video showed.

So Facebook is going to expose all of these young children who use it to these horrific videos. Fuck Facebook. Never used it, never will....and I am not pro censorship...the opposite...but this is just too much.

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

That ain't a bad thing. We're already too sensitive. Less censorship would be a *good thing*.

There is zero scientific evidence this stuff leads to anything. There are lots of meaningless studies you can point to. The problem is they aren't scientific and the results can't be relied upon. IE If you do a study in a prison for instance your going to find all the pedophiles are criminals. There is no scientific way to reliably pull data from the non-criminal group because of societal criminalization. That is just a good easy to understand and follow example. Despite that there are lots of studies which try and make connections and yet overlook the glaring flaws in there own studies. Then again- many of those studies are themselves biased.

This long term detriment stuff is baseless. If people are actually negatively impacted long term they have deeper psychological issues and were already f'd. It almost certainly wouldn't have mattered either way if they had seen the supposedly harmful pictures. The only difference is they'd end up pointing to something else (like a mother breastfeeding). If even that's non-existent they'd point to the communists, liberals, conservatives, etc.

Re: But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

In my personal experience, those that are well informed and educated tend to become depressed/suicidal before they reach 30. Ignorance is truly blissful.

Re:But think of the children!

[phantomfive]

If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

That's the most hilarious idea I've seen all day. Where did he get the data to support that assertion? It's probably not even anecdotal, how many kids does he know who want to go around beheading themselves? It's just a wild crazy guess. I agree with your comment.

Re:But think of the children!

[dkleinsc]

Are you suggesting I should show my 5 year old son a beheading video?

No, I'm suggesting that your 5-year-old seeing it, probably by accident, will almost definitely not encourage him to behead someone (or himself). I'm not a father, but I've taken care of lots of kids before, and one of the things I've learned to do is not shelter kids too much, because kids who are overly sheltered have a harder time dealing with the bad stuff in life once they're 25.

Re:But think of the children!

[mythix]

It is forbidden for 5 year olds to have a facebook account. So you are already teaching your kids to disobey the rules?

THey have recently lowered the age to 12+, but if they want to include such content, it should be pulled up to 18+ again.

Re:But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

That's the most hilarious idea I've seen all day. Where did he get the data to support that assertion?

Probably from A Clockwork Orange.

Re:But think of the children!

[couchslug]

Nobody is being "forced". Internet use is voluntary.

Unplug the fucking computer or enforce parental discipline. If your kid gets to do anything it wants it will have much worse issues than seeing a few Cartel or Muslim neck shortenings.

Only (based) In America

[hyades1]

So death porn is fine, but if you try to post a picture of a woman breastfeeding, they'll crap-can it and threaten to close your account faster than a businessman can pick a pocket.

Must be American.

Re:Only (based) In America

[OhANameWhatName]

So death porn is fine, but if you try to post a picture of a woman breastfeeding, they'll crap-can it and threaten to close your account faster than a businessman can pick a pocket.

What if it was a video of a breast feeding woman having her head cut off? That would be a real tizzy.

Re:Only (based) In America

[hyades1]

You have a disgusting, perverted sense of humour...which might explain why you've got me sitting here at the computer all by myself, laughing like a frickin' idiot.

Best line I've heard all day, with nothing even a close second.

Re:Only (based) In America

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, there's an easy way to close Facebook accounts?!

Re:Only (based) In America

[stealth_finger]

So death porn is fine, but if you try to post a picture of a woman breastfeeding, they'll crap-can it and threaten to close your account faster than a businessman can pick a pocket.

What if it was a video of a breast feeding woman having her head cut off? That would be a real tizzy.

Black bar over the tits.

If they had any business sense

[mozumder]

they would do what advertisers demand. That is Facebook's customers, after all, and where 100% of their revenue comes from.

It seems Facebook is going to learn the hard way that advertisers don't particularly want their brand name right next to a decapitation video.

Really, any advertising-based brand is going to learn the hard way that user-generated content is complete garbage. Ultimately they will ALL be removed, since no advertiser is interested in placing their brand next to a decapitation video or next to a photo of your college friend throwing up.

The real lesson is: There is no reason for any company to allow individuals to express themselves. Individual voices must be silenced in media, in favor of more advertiser friendly views.

Professional media companies know this already - the power of information filterers, editors, and gatekeepers. Professional media companies learned long ago that the average person should never be given a voice, and only the most talented should, after going through a painful vetting process. Editors at media companies spend YEARS perfecting their voice through internships and other voiceless activities.

Amateur media companies like Facebook and YouTube are just finding out how useless they are.

Eventually these amateur media companies will silence individual voices in favor of more professional ones.

The fewer people speak, the better.

Article: Facebook Lets Beheading Clips Return...

[klingers48]

...More on this below the cut.

Should fix their stock price....

[bricko]

Once this hits Drudge.....will be too funny. Although I do miss watching a few ragheads make fools of them selves in front of the world. That is why Islam will never be much more than 3rd world dog shit pseudo religion.

Apocalypse Now:

[Hartree]

Colonel Kurtz: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene."

Human psychology is all kinds of weird.

Re:Apocalypse Now:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mistah Kurtz—he dead.

Re:Apocalypse Now:

[AmiMoJo]

This actually makes perfect sense. We want soldiers to stick to our rules, no matter how arbitrary or non-nonsensical they seem at the time. Enforcing discipline, even when it's silly, is important because it gives us confidence that they will only drop fire on the people we order them to and stop as soon as we order them to.

It doesn't actually work very well, but there is at least a coherent thought behind it.

Re:Apocalypse Now:

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you support it despite saying "it doesn't actually work very well".

Re:Apocalypse Now:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is American psychology, not human psychology

Re:Apocalypse Now:

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they would keep to the rules if they made sense?
It's a lot easier to keep to the rule of "don't kill people" than it is to "don't pee".

Re: Apocalypse Now:

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they would keep to the rules if they made sense?

We don't want them to only keep rules that make sense. They don't have the whole picture (some of the intel may be classified) and sometimes their orders may not make sense, but at the end of the day you want them to come back and report that they did exactly what they were told.

Re:Apocalypse Now:

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep telling yourself that.

Zuckerberg knows best

[jmhobrien]

Who needs a dislike button when censorship can be enforced?

How to make Death Penalty humane ?

[burni2]

Kill behind curtains.

Think of the human rights and THE CHILDREN!

Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

America. Where a half-second flash of a boob causes an outcry, but videos of people being decapitated with a chainsaw is just dandy.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

If you see it and watch it anyway, and end up with severe damage, you already were severely damaged. No loss.

What happens to people and what happens after that, is up to them, no one else's problem. They make the best of their choices, or not.

Lesson Learned

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is not being condemned, despite them showing the video... but Facebook, who re-introduced the videos? Condemnation! Bastards. Don't worry about Google though.

For the record, I generally like Google as a company. On the other hand, I REALLY dislike Facebook (and my dislike starts at the top).. But I recognise the hypocrisy and will defend anyone (even a CEO that I think is a complete asshat) if they deserve it. I also support Facebook's new decision, even though I won't watch the videos myself.

No boob jobs though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as obscene as decapitated boobies.

Oh Fun Facebook: The Real World Invites

[Anonymous Coward]

Gladiolus Zuckerburg Thumbs Up Beheading.

Why!

His financial backers and sexual slaves [Ah, Oh dear, there I go again, Sorry Princes Bride], are in Saudi Arabia stupid!

Lets hope that Gladiolus does not authorize Penis Beheading.

Ha ha :-D

I don't believe people are injured by content

[kawabago]

If they are already having destructive thoughts, what they look at isn't the problem!

Re:I don't believe people are injured by content

[geekoid]

You would be wrong.

For example if a popul;ar person commits suicide, you will see a spike in suicide.

This policy will change

[onyxruby]

This policy will change just as soon as someone posts a beheading video of a friend or family member of a high ranking executive of Google or Facebook. Until it's personal it's an abstract that gets clicks and makes money.

Meanwhile they will zealously block the boob in the name of family values. America, where boobs are abhorrent and snuff videos are protected for profit. Something is very wrong here.

If you have a problem with videos on the Internet,

[Anonymous Coward]

then don't fucking watch them and stfu.

The way I see it is this...

[rsilvergun]

I don't worry about my kids beheading people. I do worry about my kids getting knocked up and/or knocking someone else up.

Re:The way I see it is this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that your kids are your kids even when they reach adulthood. So does your statement still stand throughout time? If so, why did you have kids if you are so intent of erasing your genes from the gene pool?

Seriously, if you think your kids are going to be teenage parents from seeing some nudity, I can tell you that don't know jack shit. Just as much as you shouldn't believe your kid are to become a serial killer just from seeing a beheading video. But the emotional scarring most kids would get from seeing a beheading video is very real. I dare say most adults would be distrubed from watching something like that. Any emotional scarring they get from watching some non-hardcore nudity is most likely to come from their hypocritical parents, trying to deny the existence of nudity or sex in the misdirected interest to "shield" their kids. (Hint to any kids reading this: How do you think you came into this world? "The stork" is the wrong answer.)

Re:The way I see it is this...

[gbjbaanb]

but you do worry about your kids growing up to be psychotically crazed and wander round school with a shotgun shooting their classmates because of various perceived slights?

Just to use a real-world, it-could-happen-to-you scenario. But its ok though, beheading only happens to *other* people, and they're no-one you know, so its ok fucked up shit like this happens.

Re:The way I see it is this...

[MightyYar]

Perhaps your priorities are exactly what I am lampooning? I'd much rather my kid get knocked up than be beheaded.

Re:The way I see it is this...

[VortexCortex]

But the emotional scarring most kids would get from seeing a beheading video is very real.

Granted, experience is encoded in brains in a detectable manner, but I'm a scientist, so on the "scarring" and "most kids" statements you'll have to prove it. Considering that we all kill gut maim and behead lots of stuff just to eat it, and that kids have been helping with the food preparation since before written history... I'm going to need some extraordinary evidence to go with that extraordinary claim.

Just because you buy your food from the market doesn't mean everyone does or has always done so.

Re:The way I see it is this...

[modecx]

You lost at equating the slaughter of food animals to the torture of sentient, thinking people, who are pretty much just like yourself, with hopes and aspirations and families of their own. I think part of it is the empathic realization that you might have just as easily been in that person's place.

I've hunted, and had my hands in the blood and guts of my prey, which I later delighted in consuming. I've also witnessed people die terribly bloody and painful deaths. Animals may have a general sense of panic when you look them in the eyes as they die, but for me at least, it's not at all on the same level as when its a person looking back at you. Not even close.

I have an uncle who is going on 70 who will not eat pork, not because he's Jewish, but because his family on the farm made him watch the slaughter of 'his' pig when he was a child. He viewed that pig very much as people view their dogs and cats. Of course it's anecdotal evidence, but I'd say he was scarred by the experience.

Gore

[Aguchi69]

Didn't think one could find these videos on YouTube, but apparently they are there and if that's the case why not throw in a little porn then? Now I have to reevaluate my censorship stance.

Logically

[Tarlus]

Then they should allow fully uncensored hardcore pornography.

I mean, if it's so people can condemn it and not celebrate it.

Moral fail

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's time to cut ties with Facebook. Sometimes people have to do what's morally right, not what's allowed. In this case, Facebook has made the wrong choice. Good riddance.

Re:Moral fail

[Anonymous Coward]

I approve of letting Facebook fall by the wayside, but should they have gone full bore censorship or hands off? It is the community that makes FB what it is...

Attitude police

[OhANameWhatName]

its users should be free to watch and condemn, but not celebrate, such videos

So the opinion of the people watching the video is relevant to the content? Should I ask Facebook if making this comment is appropriate or not?

I saw beheading stuff back in napster days

[Anonymous Coward]

And I turned out fine. *faps to 2girls1cup*

Honeypot?

[GumphMaster]

So, you post a link to one of these less than savoury videos... how long before the NSA tap has sucked out your details, processed it, pulled out every other post or utterance you ever made, connected you to organized crime however tenuously, and notified the FBI? Anal probe in 5 4 3 ...

Not mixed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm against censorship but I would like to have some categorization of pictures. I definitely like to keep my horrific decapitation pictures till after lunch and before my 4 year old comes home. I also don't want them mixed with my funny cat pictures and my "see what I had for lunch" postings.

What Gets Promoted

[Anonymous Coward]

It is becoming painfully clear what direction the corporate world is pushing us in. More violence, more prohibition, more desensitization. Our society is breeding insanity.

People must be allowed to figure out things for themselves. When controls are put in place it biases the entire population by default and creates resentment and misunderstandings.

This new policy is a sickening decision with irony well covered by everyone's posts. We should let the community take care of itself, conversations will expose those who find amusement or pleasure and its better to have that shit known than to drive it underground. How does a kid cope with the morbid curiosity and fascination? By talking about it. If we don't let the conversations happen then those kids will likely talk about it with others of similar mindset, perpetuating wherever they're at instead of growing from new perspectives.

Freeeeeedom, its what we belieeeeeeeve,
in the information age its coming at a price that's a lot harder to understand than people giving lives in a war to fight "the bad guys".

PS: I like posting as AC because I like ideas coming across without connective bias. Only the NSA should be able to profile me!! /sarcasm (/throwing_up_in_my_mouth_a_little)

idiot "doctors"

[Anonymous Coward]

coddling people probably does more damage than allowing them to be exposed to the rather humdrum and mild facts of reality.

yes, should be allowed

[Anonymous Coward]

It is certainly not going to do the primitive, brutal, religio-mentalist totalitarian societies any favours, to publically document their crimes.
We shouldn't fear showing these primitives up, for exactly what they are. No civilised society / person is ever going to celebrate this type of behaviour.

why not have an R-rated indication

[SuperDre]

I always wondered why there isn't an 'R'-rated or '18+' indication you can set with your video/picture, so other people can just set an indication in their setting they don't want to see it (or it's on by default), and people younger than 18 (or whatever age depending on the country they live in) shouldn't even be allowed to view the content...

Murder

[xenobyte]

Beheadings are murder, plain and simple. If practiced by a state, it's a cruel and unusual punishment.

Images and videos of such an act should be banned, both from Facebook, YouTube and everywhere else for that matter. Also, the perpetrator(s) needs to be hunted down by Interpol or similar and punished for his/their crime.

Why is there even a discussion about this?

Re:Murder

[purplepolecat]

Why is there even a discussion about this?

See your sig.

Irony

[Kazoo the Clown]

Doesn't anyone find it odd that the worlds biggest social networking site is run by sociopaths?

Dear Facebook

[clickclickdrone]

You're completely and utterly wrong on this one.

Re:Dear Facebook

[rsborg]

You're completely and utterly wrong on this one.

Just remove the last two words and you're still correct.

Sex?

[Anonymous Coward]

When can we see sex on Facebook! Bloody hypocrites.

It's an odd situation, though

[Anonymous Coward]

When Saddam was killed and when Bin Laden was assasinated, there were many near-orgasms about them being killed. People literally screamed out to see the movies and pictures of the killing.

Because these people "started 9-11, killing innocent civilians for their religion!".

Yet that is 100% identical to the people who made the clips under discussion here. They show beheadings of people that *to them* are the Bin Ladens and Saddams of the world.

Very little kick back from the President of the USA on the clips of death when it was Saddam and OBL.

And look how Shrub made a joke in the government backed murdering known as "Death Row".

What difference is there? None, except that the USA are in the late 19thC when it comes to murder whilst these Islamists are in the 16th. What you both do, and your justification for it, is identical, just the methods are different, though not by much.

Re:It's an odd situation, though

[MightyYar]

The point is that I think we'd all agree that boobs are not as horrible as a beheading, and yet Facebook allows only the latter.

You can't really call out on that, though

[Anonymous Coward]

"I doubt they go worry about evidence."

I don't really see any evidence that this is done by the governments of the rest of the world, either.

Nor many fringe elements of, say, right-wingers, christian groups, KKK, black panthers, cops, intelligence agencies, armies or politicians.

Or, indeed, shock-jock "journalists".

There was no need for "evidence" to start Gulf War2. Those who wanted war there were no better than your claim against the drug cartels.

Earning money from unbelievably sick crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that not what this is? Do you really think that Facebook is some sort of libertarian charity that is just letting information be free? Or are they a business that makes money from page views via advertising? To show videos of brutal murders and collect money from it is basically admitting you're in the business of making money from snuff movies. And that, my friends, is what makes this disgusting site truly obscene.

Whine about censorshop if you like, but when they earn a fortune from millions of page views of your loved ones being massacred, please come back and say you fully support their right to do so.

Re:Earning money from unbelievably sick crimes

[sI4shd0rk]

Whine about censorshop if you like, but when they earn a fortune from millions of page views of your loved ones being massacred, please come back and say you fully support their right to do so.

It sounds like you despise freedom. Besides, your argument is not logical; what I would or would not believe if I was in a different situation than I am now (where my loved ones had been massacred and someone posted a video of it on Facebook) is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not my stance on censorship is the correct one. If that is what you intended to convey, then it is a non sequitur; if it's not what you intended to convey, then you probably didn't have any real point.

I believe censorship is evil. Whether or not I would change my mind if my circumstances changed is irrelevant. What say you?

Re:Earning money from unbelievably sick crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that your freedom and opinions on censorship mean that you believe companies have the right to make money from your right to view people being grusesomely murdered online is completely within your rights to free speech. And it's my right to say that I think you're wrong and that what Facebook are doing is obscene.

Freedom and rights are complex philosophical concepts, with bookshelves full of tomes discussing their limits and implementation. Telling someone they "despise freedom" is too simplistic a response when discussing complex issues such as this one.

We all have our limits when it comes to what we will tolerate : if it was kids being raped and murdered and Facebook was profiting from that would you still be here defending it?

And on the Fox news front...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And this just in, Facebook is the newest Al-Queda controlled internet media site. They needed somewhere other than Al-Jazeera online to post these sick videos of good Christians being executed by those heathen rag-head Muslim jihaadists."

Oi parents: start parenting!

[Anonymous Coward]

ladies and gentlemen
welcome to the disclaimer
that's right the disclaimer

this american apple pie institution
known as parental discretion
will cleanse any sense of innuendo or sarcasm
from the lyrics that might actually make you think
and will also insult your intelligence at the same time

so protect your family
this album contains explicit depictions
of things which are real
these real things are commonly known as life
so if it sounds sarcastic don't take it seriously
if it sounds dangerous
do not try this at home or at all
and if it offends you just don't listen to it

Ban Nouns!! err religion!! err I mean Guns!!

[Guru80]

Following the " *noun* enables people to kill people" argument it just makes sense that we should start banning nouns. Obviously it's the nouns fault.

Re:Ban Nouns!! err religion!! err I mean Guns!!

[YttriumOxide]

Following the " *noun* enables people to kill people" argument it just makes sense that we should start banning nouns. Obviously it's the nouns fault.

I'm not entirely sure you even read my post... or if you did, you read a hell of a lot in to it that I didn't write.

I never said "religion should be banned", nor did I say "religion enables people to kill people" (I did say "religion can motivate people to kill people" though... the difference being quite an important one)

Re:Ban Nouns!! err religion!! err I mean Guns!!

[Guru80]

Simple case of replying to the wrong message ;-) I agree with most all your post states.

I think people forget...

[realsilly]

In days long past, humans would go to public executions and would take their children. Beheading are a European tradition if you've ever read anything about history.

As a Society, we bitch and moan, "Oh no, spare the children....". I'm very tired of the buffer the children from real life syndrome. We've raised children who are so buffered that they don't ever see the real world and then when they start to test the waters, there are never any significant consequences.

I'm not saying have a beheading channel on the TV that runs 24/7. But holy hells bells people the world is an ugly place and our morals are all messed up these days. When schools with STUPID zero tolerance policies suspend / expel a student for helping drunk friend to NOT Drink and drive, then the sober one gets the punishment, what message are we sending? I've even heard of kids who skip school to do a little B and E, and the cops won't arrest them, because the act is so minor. Again, what message are we sending?

Today we have flash mob mentality running amok and in part it's because those individual who are on the brink of doing something that they know is wrong judge whether they can get away with it, and if caught, what are the consequences? You've created your slap on the wrist society, by hiding real consequences for real actions (regardless of reasons). When the children see the horrors of the world, most of them don't want that for themselves or the ones that they love, so they may quickly choose not to follow that path.

Next, ladies and gentlemen, it is YOUR responsibility to police YOUR offspring, not a company. And if YOUR child is under the age of 13 then its YOUR fault if they see something they shouldn't on Facebook.

Re:I think people forget...

[geekoid]

Have you been on the internet? at all?
Here's a clue: Rick Roll.

Firs toff, these type of things end up with a spike in suicide and murder.
Your assumption the 13 is a magic age where nothing will effect anyone is stupid.

"In days long past, humans would go to public executions and would take their children."
Oh, well if they did it in olden times it must be ok herp derp.

"When the children see the horrors of the world, most of them don't want that for themselves or the ones that they love, so they may quickly choose not to follow that path."
maybe YOU should read up on public execution. Children would report other people doing things just to see them get executed.
Finding people and killing them is the norm to people raised in the culture.

NO one raise there child in a bubble. I raise my children, I don't raise the other 1000 at my kids school.

Re:I think people forget...

[reve_etrange]

So we have a "slap on the wrist society" ... in which 1% of citizens are in prison and 4% of them are under correctional control. Uh, right.

You're kind of reaching here

[swb]

Urination has a public health and sanitation objection tied to it, as well as exposing the genetalia in public.

Breastfeeding is the feeding of a child and it does not expose any genetalia; you're more likely to see a nipple at the Oscar awards than you are when a woman breastfeeds in public.

Yet, the only options Facebook gives you...

[FellowConspirator]

... is to "Like", "Comment", or "Share" the videos. Say something nice about the beheadings, or don't say anything at all - FB.

Re:Yet, the only options Facebook gives you...

[PPH]

Perhaps Facebook needs a "mod down" option.

And Slashdot could use a "-1 OffWithYourHead" option as well.

Another irresponsible

[geekoid]

decision by Facebook.
Go team F.

Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned. If that doesn't occur to Zuckerberg and Page immediately, they are thinking way too hard."

It's common sense that everything promoting Islam should be banned.
It's common sense that everything promoting Christanity should be banned.
It's common sense that everything promoting gun-control should be banned.
It's common sense that everything promoting guns should be banned.

As you can see, there are different opinions on every subject, so who is to decide these things? What makes your opinion more valid than somebody elses?

Re:Apocalypse Confusingly:

[Hartree]

After years in the military, I understand the reasons for it. Oh, I even go along with it for the most part. Enforce the minor rules and you have less trouble enforcing the major ones.

But, the very fact of it making sense to us, in reality, makes it just that much more weird.

It's very hard to step outside of the human mindset that we bring to thinking. It's probably impossible to do it more than just a tiny bit. But, even just a little leads to a fair bit of "WTF?".

Looked at in terms of the results of evolving a set of emotional rules of thumb for existing successfully in small social groups, our minds make a lot of sense. Outside of that context, they can seem strange and arbitrary. That quote is just one example of that. (You can fill in many others from your own experience.)

And the tools to condemn provided by FB?

[Jmc23]

oh yes, LIKE and SHARE to give it more exposure.

facebook's unending vices

[Anonymous Coward]

Often people exercise the freedom of speech, but very seldom do people exercise the freedom to think.

What do you expect?

[carys689]

What do you expect from a hack like Mark Zuckerberg?

Other shoe drops

[djupedal]

FB just did a U-turn on this...