Slashdot Mirror
How Facebook Flouts Holocaust Denial Laws Except Where It Fears Being Sued (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Facebook's policies on Holocaust denial will come under fresh scrutiny following the leak of documents that show moderators are being told not to remove this content in most of the countries where it is illegal. The files explain that moderators should take down Holocaust denial material in only four of the 14 countries where it is outlawed. One document says the company "does not welcome local law that stands as an obstacle to an open and connected world" and will only consider blocking or hiding Holocaust denial messages and photographs if "we face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk." A picture of a concentration camp with the caption "Never again Believe the Lies" was permissible if posted anywhere other than the four countries in which Facebook fears legal action, one document explains. Facebook contested the figures but declined to elaborate. Documents show Facebook has told moderators to remove dehumanizing speech or any "calls for violence" against refugees. Content "that says migrants should face a firing squad or compares them to animals, criminals or filth" also violate its guidelines. But it adds: "As a quasi-protected category, they will not have the full protections of our hate speech policy because we want to allow people to have broad discussions on migrants and immigration which is a hot topic in upcoming elections." The definitions are set out in training manuals provided by Facebook to the teams of moderators who review material that has been flagged by users of the social media service. The documents explain the rules and guidelines the company applies to hate speech and "locally illegal content," with particular reference to Holocaust denial. One 16-page training manual explains Facebook will only hide or remove Holocaust denial content in four countries -- France, Germany, Israel and Austria. The document says this is not on grounds of taste, but because the company fears it might get sued.
Laws forbidding the expression of opinions and ideas are barbaric.
They'd better burn copies of Mein Kampf while they're at it, hypocrites.
Enough with the "right to free speech" stuff. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.
Corporations are "people*" in as much as the law defines them as such. This is the problem Liberals have with laws, they don't like. Don't like the law, change it. We do live in a democratic republic, and have the means to change the law.
Citiizens United was a valid ruling because the law is clear on this subject. Just because you don't like the corporate "personhood" definition, written in the law, doesn't mean it is not valid.
*The law actually doesn't call them "person" they call it "legal entity", with certain rights granted as a "legal entity". Those rights mirror citizens or people in general. Knowing WHY Citizen's United exists as a court decision is helpful in changing the laws that define corporate rights.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The entire history America and Canada.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *