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.

Comments

Good

[JoshuaZ]

These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.

Re:Good

[MightyYar]

On the other hand, Facebook is not a government, nor does it have a "common carrier" type status. If they don't want hate speech on their network it is their prerogative.

Re:Good

[silentcoder]

I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration,
The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.
If the people of those countries feel those laws are bad, they can - through the democratic process - try to change the law. If Facebook believes those laws are bad - it can try to encourage people to use the democratic process to change the law.
But it sure as hell should not get to flaunt a law, that is on the books, while it is on the books.

There is no situation where we should allow corporations to get away with a policy of "we'll ignore the law unless we can't get away with it".

Yes, in a democracy there is a place for civil disobedience and sometimes that's crucial form of protest against bad laws. But that privilege belongs ONLY to real citizens, not funny made up ones like corporations - and ESPECIALLY not when those funny made up beings aren't EVEN citizens of the country but foreigners just doing business there.
I think banning alcohol is an evil law - but I sure as hell will refrain from drinking in Saudi Arabia. I, as a foreigner, cannot claim to be engaging in civil disobedience when I break the law in a country where I am a visitor - even if I'm there on business. And that's for me, an actual human being. A corporation MUST have lesser rights because it's NOT a person.

Re:Good

[squiggleslash]

There's not a country in the world that doesn't practice some kinds of censorship, if only related to state secrets, promoting crime, terror, even lying or promoting information known to be false, etc. Slippery slopes are, well, slippery, but that doesn't mean you never clean the slopes.

Nazism (and fascism in general) is a particularly extreme ideology that's inherently violent, both on a microlevel originating (and still existing) as gang level politics whose leaders openly advocate violence against opponents, and macro level where it's caused wars. Advocating for it is doing more than simply advocating a different point of view, it has direct real life consequences for those victimized by fascist groups.

I think there's a strong case for Nazi advocacy to be heavily restricted, and in many cases banned outright, and I think the opposing case is particularly weak in this instance.

Re:Good

[xanthines-R-yummy]

I would also add that aggressive censoring potentially leads to conspiracy theories, thereby strengthening the original hate message.

Hate speech is not a technical problem. It's a social problem.

Just my $00.02, anyway...

Re:Good

[JoshuaZ]

So, that's a really valid point: I've in fact expressed similar concerns before about people applauding Uber breaking the rules. And the point about corporations has some validity as well (although the distinction isn't as clear cut as one would like- at the end of the day corporations are composed of individual people acting as a whole). But I suspect that there would be a point where even you would think a corporation breaking a law might be a good thing. For example, what if it is 1955 in a specific US state and there's a law forcing segregation and restaurant refuses to have separate sections for blacks and whites? Or what if a corporation right now with the cooperation of archeologists and museum professionals helps smuggle out artifacts from ISIS controlled areas? Etc. At a certain point, the concerns and rights involved will override the local legal framework. The question then becomes when and how do we tell?

Re: Good

[A. B3ttik]

So you believe that ISPs and tech manufacturerers should bend the knee and install backdoors when requested by the NSA/CIA/FBI/KGB? There is an article about the UK looking to legislate required backdoors for authorities to use, spurred on by the Manchester attack. I believe Corporations can and should partake in "civil disobedience" in these cases and stand up for their customers.

Re:Good

[bluefoxlucid]

Gandhi picked up salt off the beach. This was illegal. He did it because it was illegal.

Re: Good

[saloomy]

I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration,

Yes it is. Remember Rosa Parks? Remember the American war for Independance? Those were against the laws of the time. Sometimes bad laws make it through because not all govornments are ruled through democratic or republic means, and can become corrupt, and act against the best interests of the govorned.

The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.

Really? Not backwards religious ideologies who decapitate and murder now probably close to a million people in the northern mid-east and Africa? Not Russia backing despots who chemically attack their own citizenry who disagree with their governance? Not the dictator who launches ICBMs in preparation for mounting a warhead on it? Seriously? You think Facebook taking pictures on and off its own site is " single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world"?

If the people of those countries feel those laws are bad, they can - through the democratic process - try to change the law. If Facebook believes those laws are bad - it can try to encourage people to use the democratic process to change the law.

Ah but not all countries are democratic, and not all protest can be done lawfully, especially when those forms of protest themselves are banned. See my comments above.

But it sure as hell should not get to flaunt a law, that is on the books, while it is on the books.

Sure it should. It's a powerful corporation with an army of lawyers and tons of outreach. If anyone should be standing up for the little guy against their oppressive govornments who try to write mind-control (which is what barring holocaust denying is) into law, it should be powerful organizations like Facebook though its audience and reach.

There is no situation where we should allow corporations to get away with a policy of "we'll ignore the law unless we can't get away with it".

Every one of the weed growing businesses, even for medical use is illegal under federal law, even though their state govornments deems them legal. They help millions of sufferers of chronic illness lead a life slightly less painful. You see it's not as simple and cut and dry as it seems. Govornments, like organizations are run by people, and there are some situations where they do good, and some where they don't. Ultimately we have to use our critical thinking skills, rather than make carte-blanche statements like that. They don't always apply and sometimes we don't want them to.

Yes, in a democracy there is a place for civil disobedience and sometimes that's crucial form of protest against bad laws. But that privilege belongs ONLY to real citizens, not funny made up ones like corporations - and ESPECIALLY not when those funny made up beings aren't EVEN citizens of the country but foreigners just doing business there.

Facebook has corporations established in most if not all countries they do business in, which helps them have local customers and such. Either way, corporations are just groups of people too, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. So is govornment. Get off your high horse. There are evil people, corporations, and govornments. All are "REAL".

I think banning alcohol is an evil law - but I sure as hell will refrain from drinking in Saudi Arabia. I, as a foreigner, cannot claim to be engaging in civil disobedience when I break the law in a country where I am a visitor - even if I'm there on business.

So just to be clear, you are against the companies (both foreign and domestically headquartered) that violated segregation laws in the US and apartheid laws in South Africa? Got it.

And tha

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

As a general rule: does the behaviour make or cost the company money. If a company is not willing to lose money for a cause its not acting on any principal beyond personal gain.
The best you can then hope for is that whatever nobel goal you are pursuing continous to align with their revenue goals. Hardly a reliable alliance.

Re:Good

[Nidi62]

These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.

I agree with you, but not because of the slippery slope argument. To most rational people Holocaust denial is reprehensible and the evidence of the Holocaust in undeniable. But for the small subset of people that are likely to believe in denialism, censoring it might actually make them want to search out denialism even more. In their mind, the fact that the government is trying to stamp it out and suppress it adds legitimacy to the "theory", because why would they try to hide it if it weren't true or if they weren't threatened by it? Of course, this applies mostly to the followers of denialism, not those purporting it for political gain and who most likely know it's a crock of shit. Crazy ideas like this have to be out in the open where they can be challenged and refuted. Sure, you most likely aren't going to sway very many people that believe in those crazy ideas, but if you push those ideas into the shadows then it allows the believers to stay in their own bubble, feed off each other, and make the problem even worse.

Re:Good

[silentcoder]

Ghandi was a person, not a corporation. The right to protest is a human right. A right humans have (whether or not the law acknowledges this right). Corporations re not humans and do not have human rights.

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

Every single country in the world where holocaust denial is a crime is a liberal democracy - so pretty much your entire post is nothing but strawmen.

And every one of those nice legitimate forms of civil disobedience you listed as if I hadn't spent a paragraph addressing the issue were people acting, corporations are NOT people.

And in this case the corporation is not even a citizen of the country - it's a foreign company. It has absolutely no stake in the future wellbeing of that country, it would hapilly cause a civil war if it would make the company more profitable since nobody at the company would experience any of the downsides.
It is therefore, doubly precluded from a legitimate right to protest as it has absolutely no skin in the game.

Re:Good

[Archangel Michael]

They also have no responsibility to fight anyone else's battles.

Sure they do. In the same way that government can force a bakery to sell cakes to people the bakery doesn't want to. They are both 1st Amendment causes.

Re:Good

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Good

[Serge_Tomiko]

Sorry, I will never acknowledge the sovereignty of any entity that tells me what I can and cannot think, believe, or read. Certainly, what you posit is the classic proof as to why democracy is a terminally flawed system. The mob always wishes to censor the truth and persecute those who challenge their complacency and unnatural ideas. So it has been since the Death of Socrates.

Re:Good

[AmiMoJo]

It's ironic that most of the people screaming "muh freedum of speech!" are also the ones demanding that Muslims be heavily censored, and not even allowed into their countries because they are so dangerous.

Re:Good

[Hizonner]

But governments and laws (and "nations") are artificial constructs, too, just like corporations are.

Let's raise the stakes a bit on drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia, OK?

Say I went to Saudi Arabia, and I somehow managed to run into a young woman who was, say, trying to escape from her family and get out of the country to avoid an arranged marriage, or avoid being beaten to death because she was a lesbian, or whatever. Well, then I damned well hope I'd have the courage and wherewithal to help her.

That would be a direct violation of Saudi law; I think they'd treat it as equivalent to kidnapping. Nonetheless, it would be the right thing to do.

... because Saudi Arabia and Saudi law are phantoms, just like corporations, whereas that hypothetical young woman would be a real person. Her claim to control her own life would be independent of law, and independent of the opinions of people who happen to live near her.

The idea that an arbitrarily chosen group of millions of people who can't know each other get to tell each other what to do, while the views of millions of other people don't count, and the views of the tell-ee don't count either, is very hard to defend from an ethical point of view, especially when what they're demanding is egregious. I don't forfeit the right to notice abuse, or escape the duty to notice it, just because I come from the wrong side of a line somebody drew on a map.

It's a mistake to treat corporations as artificial without recognizing that political units are equally so. Maybe we have to compromise sometimes and let these abstractions exist, but that is a pragmatic choice, and we can't just close our eyes to everything else from then on.

There's another issue, too: at the point we arrive in this story, corporations have already been set up as arbiters of what actual human beings can say. Not only that, but corporations have been institutionalized as probably the major way for large groups of human beings to coordinate their actions.

That may be bad. It's probably bad. You could probably sell me on making some huge changes to it, but it's the institutional structure we have. And corporations are already creations of government.

If you demand that corporations, or the real people employed by corporations, act exclusively according to the rules the government dictates, you deprive actual humans of one of the most important ways they have of acting together. Basically you bring the options that much closer to being only to "if you don't like this, go vote".

Not only is government just as artificial as corporations, but just as easy to corrupt. Democracy isn't a guarantee of justice, it's just a least-worst approach.

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

Hardcore bdsm porn on public tv at lunch time. You can't even say "shit" on TV

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

The entire history America and Canada.

Re: Good

[saloomy]

Corporations absolutely have skin in the game, and "nationalize" by incorporating in various countries. Corporations have profited by war, so yes, but much more has been destroyed than created. I picked your argument apart, including that corporations should have rights "because they aren't people", as if it's the steel and concrete making the choices and not people.

No sir. Your argument is that corporations shouldn't have rights because they dont have any values is utterly horseshit. Hobby Lobby is a giant corporation with a strong connection to evangelical causes and beliefs. I don't agree with them, but it's a clear example of corporations standing by principles other than profit.

Re: Good

[saloomy]

Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights. Just like countries have humans and should have rights. Just because the humans group together and colllectively cooperate doesn't deviod them of anything.

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

So now you're arguing that free speech can be legitimately limited in some senses - after arguing that even a single, narrow limitation meant people "had no free speech".

You're not much for consistency, are you ?

Re: Good

[saloomy]

Horseshit again. Let me elaborate: google left china because it wouldn't sensor its search results to Chinese censorship laws anymore, effectively allowing the stratospheric rise of Baidu. Your assumption that corporations are ONlY profit driven is wrong. In fact, it is a law that corporations MUST BE profit driven, otherwise shareholders have right to sue the management. Shareholders who take control of a company by purchasing a majority share have a Shareholder Fiduciary Duty to the minority shareholders as well. So there you go: the very laws you advocate push corporations to be solely profit driven, even though most of them are driven by other goals, like SpaceX, Google, and many, many others.

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

>Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights.
Bullshit. The humans in them already HAVE the rights. At best your arguing for letting some people double-dip and get twice the rights everybody else does.

>Just because the humans group together and colllectively cooperate doesn't deviod them of anything.
Nobody IS devoiding them of anything, we're just not allowing them to double-dip and demand double-rights. Every share holder in a corporation already has all the human rights, there is no reason for the collection they formed to have human rights as well - it doesn't advance freedom, and in fact it greatly undermines it by effectively chaning "one person one vote" into "one dollar one vote". It's oligarchic and plutocratic in the extreme.

Re: Good

[rogoshen1]

Yes, tons of western and northern Europeans move to a new area ... and within a few generations are virtually indistinguishable from the population at large.

Perfect example, thank you.

Re:Good

[silentcoder]

A corporation is not a human, corporations are not people. There are people who own a corporation - they ALREADY HAVE rights.

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

Really ? You all speak Navajo there ?

Re: Good

[Pinky's Brain]

My country ended the period of guest labourers with ~22k Moroccans and ~65k Turks. In 40 years that became around 400k each through family reunification, foreign brides and high fertility. From " not be a noticeable amount of people" to nearly 10% of the population in 40 years ...

Re: Good

[Pinky's Brain]

Shouldn't that be /ss as in double sarcasm?

Otherwise you unironically said Turks and Moroccans are vibrant communities which enrich an European society ... which is just fucking retarded. By any objective metric they make the country worse for being here, their community is a net tax consumer, they have far higher levels of crime than the native population etc. To deny this requires far more mental gymnastics than denying AGW. Which in the end is only ever a theory extrapolated from evidence, while the crime and the negative economic contribution of these communities are simply evidenced.

The truth isn't PC, Islamic immigrants on average would be better to not have in an European nation. The US is a little different, because of it's more mercenary welfare system, more restrictive immigration (less influx of older dependents) and since it has a smaller percentage of Muslims (ie. they don't have as much democratic/economic influence) it has attracted a better or at least less obviously negative group of Muslims for the moment.

Just a bit overrepresented in terrorism, as usual. Those kids at the concert certainly got more vibrancy in their clothing.

Re:Good

[squiggleslash]

Ironic? Not really.

You see, the people who are doing this are people who want to scapegoat a particular vulnerable minority, in this case ordinary, peaceful, Muslims, demonizing them, encouraging hate against them, blessing directly or indirectly violence against them, advocating laws against them that discriminate against them.

For these people, every lone nut who lets of a bomb is not an tragedy, but an event to be celebrated for it makes the scapegoating of Muslims that much easier, it makes it easier to blame Muslims those who criticize the campaign against peaceful law abiding Muslims, it makes it easier to get those laws passed that will cause legal discrimination.

That's a group you'd expect to worry about "censorship" if the topic under discussion is censoring a violent political movement whose underlying ideology, and crime, was about scapegoating, discriminating against, and ultimately slaughtering a vulnerable minority.

No, it's not ironic. There are some people here who post in the name of free speech, you and I can respect them even if from time to time we'll disagree, but don't think for a moment that those who promote free speech for Nazis, and censorship for Muslims are the same group. They're not.

Re: Good

[swillden]

>Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights. Bullshit. The humans in them already HAVE the rights. At best your arguing for letting some people double-dip and get twice the rights everybody else does.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Let's make it more concrete by picking one important right: Speech.

Are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights themselves, but when corporations speak it's actually the speech of the people who collectively make up the corporation, and those people have the right of free speech? If so, how is this not a distinction without a difference? In this view any time a corporation wishes to speak it may do so, with full protection of the constitutional right of free speech, because it is actually exercising the rights of the employees (or at least the leaders).

Or, are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights at all, that the people in the corporation may speak as individuals, but do not have free speech rights when they speak through the company? If so, does this mean that employees of corporations may be silenced by the government when they're speaking in an official capacity? How official does it have to be? And wouldn't this mean that a newspaper article written by an employee of the newspaper corporation would not enjoy free speech rights, and could be silenced by the government?

These aren't idle questions, or sophistry. They're pretty deep issues and are exactly the sort of thing that prompted courts to decide that corporations do have rights, because it's too hard to disentangle the rights of the corporation from the rights of the people in the corporation. It seems impossible to grant the employees and shareholders their rights in full measure without effectively giving the corporation exactly the same rights.

Re: Good

[silentcoder]

Actually no, that's not what I'm saying.
The people who own a corporation have free speech - the corporation shouldn't. It should be a crime if a corporation ever makes any false claims. False advertising should mean CEO in jail for fraud. We're way too lax on fraud by corporations as it is because of the ridiculous notion that THEY have rights.

If a company claims something about their product that cannot be verified by scientific testing, or represents scientific results in a misleading way - that should be a crime. Frankly we should have put every fucking homoepathy company's CEO in jail decades ago - since we can PROVE that their products do not do what they claim the products do - that's flagrant fraud, yet it remains a multibillion dollar industry because we're too scared to 'censor' an entity that doesn't have free speech rights and is saying something that would actually be illegal if an individual said it (even if we tend to be terrible at prosecuting them).

Another example: DNA studies have found that 2 out of every 3 suplements do not contain any trace whatsoever of the plant it's supposed to be derived from. Imagine if 2 out of ever 3 bottles of milk did not contain a single molecule of milk ! Would you consider it 'free speech' to claim whatever the fuck is in those bottles is milk ? Would you be happy if you buy one and find out afterwards ? Would you think we should punish the people who sold you that bottle under false pretenses ? Do you think it's GOOD that we have regulations that say you can't call it "milk" unless it comes out of a cow's tits ? I do. It may be censorship but it's entirely justified and society WITH that censorship is BETTER than society without that one. So why the fuck do we let companies get away with selling you who the fuck knows what and claiming it's horny goat weed ?

I believe in equality before the law. That means- if a company does something that harms somebody, I believe the CEO should face the EXACT SAME punishment that I would have face. Company polutes a river and somebody dies ? CEO should be facing first degree murder charges - just like I would face if I poisoned your glass of water. Lots of people died ? That's a lot of charges - send him down for life (or the chair) like the fucking mass murderer he is.

And no, I don't think there is any reason for corporations to have free speech - they should be legally restricted from saying anything at all without convincing scientific reason to believe it's true. Society would be no less free (more free in fact I think) - and a lot better off. If the CEO wants to give a speech denying climate change - he has the right to be an idiot, if his company puts out a statement to that effect - he should go to jail.
Human rights, for individual humans only.

Hypocracy

[Tinfoil]

I am a photographer and I am on my second account and 7th temporary post block on Fb for content that allegedly doesn't follow facebook guidelines (the model is wearing flesh(ish?) coloured clothing I guess? I mean.. I guess... boobs can be freaking dangerous, yo.

But oh HELL no, Fb is fiiiiiine with Holocaust denial, and they will even allow it in most countries where it is illegal unless Fb senses a real risk to their advertising dollar.

Utter cocks.

That's funny...

[__aaclcg7560]

Isn't that how businesses operate — get away with as much as possible and pull back when a lawsuit becomes inevitable?

Re:That's funny...

[FudRucker]

it gets worse than that. lots of multi-billion dollar corporations will knowingly break the law if the profit margin is high enough, even though they know they will be sued or fined by the government, its in the math, if they can make 10 billion in profits and only be sued or fined for a couple of million, they consider it the cost of doing business,. they are amoral when it comes to laws

Re:Just Disputing # Killed is Holocaust Denial

[Chrisq]

Even if one acknowledges the Holocaust, questioning the number killed is viewed can be viewed as denial. Number killed? 200K, 1 million, 2 million, 6 million, 12 million, ... What's the correct answer supported by solid evidence? Is one even allowed to question the number killed aspect in various countries that limit Holocaust denial speech?

That's interesting. I'd like to know in what context the laws are used that way. I would hope that a scholarly study, which said that maybe a million had been double counted, or that many more were killed without being logged would not be affected by the law, whereas someone shouting that there were only a handful killed with no evidence would be.

Defending the right to speak for people you hate

[jfdavis668]

Defending the right to free speech means defending that right even for people you despise and disagree with in every way. Because it is the only way to guarantee your right to speak to oppose them. Also remember, that your right to free speech can't be used to take away theirs. You can't go to some else's speech and scream at them to drown them out and call it your right to free speech.

Steps from Fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. When the corporations control speech, were are merely a few steps from fascism. Any two of Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple have the ability to control the political narrative anywhere in the western world.

Re:Steps from Fascism

[MightyYar]

I sort-of agree. Corporations are quasi-governmental... their structure is only possible because of a government-granted charter. And as a practical matter, they hold a lot of sway in government.

With that said, while Facebook has a lot of sway, so does the NY Times, Fox News, and the BBC. They certainly do not hold a monopoly on information.

Re: Steps from Fascism

[Archangel Michael]

Corporations are government sponsored entities. They are granted, by government, their status and as such are tied to government. I would suggest that they are actually a public/private partnership because of that. In the same way, that an unpaid high school football coach is "government" and can't give a prayer before a game because of "establishment clause" is. In fact, I would suggest to you, that the ties are even closer in the case of Corporations.

Further, if government can force a privately held bakery to participate in a quasi religious ceremony, then by all means, the government can force corporations to adhere to OTHER First Amendment Rights. After all, we have established that personal ethos are overruled when they serve the public.

Welcome to the flip side of the coin.

Re: Steps from Fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Holocaust were unimportant, we wouldn’t have around 20 countries on this planet outlawing its critical investigation. In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law. This is proof for the fact that the powers that be consider this topic to be the most important issue to keep under their strict control. Those censoring, suppressing powers are the real criminals—not the historical dissidents they send to prison.

Re: Steps from Fascism

[JoshuaZ]

Thank you for completely missing why these laws exist. They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely. As to your claim that "In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law"-that's not a fact at all. Genocide denial laws aren't that uncommon. Rwanda has one for example. Some countries have also criminalized denial of the Armenian genocide.

Re: Steps from Fascism

[MightyYar]

What are these quasi-anythings, and who is granting this status?

Corporate charters come from the government. Corporations get all sorts of special rules and benefits - perhaps the most dramatic being limited liability, where people can cause you harm and be limited in liability to just their investment in the corporation. If government were to vanish, so would corporations - they are entirely a construct of law. Compare this to older business arrangements like partnerships, which are based upon contracts between individuals, and in which the individuals bear full responsibility for the actions of the partnership.

In principle, the government can do whatever it wants with corporations as a condition of granting them a charter. This has set up very murky regions of law with regards to free speech - witness Citizen's United, which takes the "corporation as people" concept beyond the commercial realm. And while I don't like that concept, I can't really fault the court too much because what the hell do you do with the NY Times, which is both a government-created entity and the Constitutionally-protected free press?

Re: Steps from Fascism

[phantomfive]

Corporations are government sponsored entities.

That's a little extreme. A corporation is largely a kind of tax shelter. If the tax shelter went away, the company itself would still be there, and people would still work together in a similar way, but finances would be tougher.

So it's not that the government sponsored the entity, but rather the entity existed and interfaces with the government through the corporation legal fiction. But companies would exist even without government.

Re: Steps from Fascism

[drinkypoo]

They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely.

Oh yeah? So why is it that when the allies forced Germany to adopt laws restricting holocaust denial, we didn't institute the same kind of laws in our respective homes?

Re: Steps from Fascism

[sabri]

Try discussing "Tiananmen Square" online in China. Or, well, nearly anything in North Korea that doesn't portray their history in a glowing light.

You forgot about the Armenian Genocide. I'm sure Baba Erdogan has some laws on his books that prevents that from being discussed.

(And yes Turks, downmod all you want, it won't change the truth).

Re: Steps from Fascism

[JoshuaZ]

Sigh. Please note that I didn't say that this was a compelling argument for censorship. In fact, if you look above you'll see that the first post on this entire thread is my comment saying that such laws are *bad.* That doesn't change the fact that the AC's claim about the motivation of the laws is false as is their claim that such laws only exist for Holocaust denial. Facts matter, and if we're going to prevent censorship we need to understand the actual motive of the people advocating censorship.

Re: Steps from Fascism

[BitterOak]

Thank you for completely missing why these laws exist. They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely.

What will make similar atrocities in the future more likely are people ceding to the government the right to control the teaching and study of history.

Re:Defending the right to speak for people you hat

[110010001000]

Enough with the "right to free speech" stuff. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.

Re:Defending the right to speak for people you hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet the constitution forces bakers to bake cakes they don't agree with.

Which one is it? Companies must follow the constitution, or they must not?

Re:Defending the right to speak for people you hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does. It stops the government for retaliating against Facebook.

You seem to think you're in the other argument that we usually have, "corporation arbitrarily decides to censor someone." You'd be wrong in that argument, too (The amendment enacts the principle. The amendment doesn't circumscribe or limit the principle. You're attacking a straw man.). But it's not the one we're having today.

Re:Defending the right to speak for people you hat

[drinkypoo]

Enough with the "right to free speech" stuff. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.

The right to free speech is considered a human right and blathering about the First Amendment as if the United States were the only nation to at least pay lip service to this human right is obtuse at best. Human rights must be aggressively defended because they are not natural rights; there is no such thing. If we want to have rights, we must defend them both for ourselves and for those with whom we do not agree or else we are giving up our right to them in the only way in which matters: decreasing protection of those rights.

I do not say that human rights are a poor concept, but they are a human concept. We invented them with our imaginations, and we must now protect them if we wish them to exist.

TL;DR: Either you believe in free speech or you don't, there's no "doesn't apply to Facebook" rule.