[eranation]

Censorship, especially a state interference in censorship smells really bad. Even if done for "good reasons" this can go bad really quickly.

Having that said, and I'm all for free speech, but a post calling to use a better knife to inflict more damage on an ethnic group (I'm not making this up: http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-h...) should probably be legitimately removed. (and it was removed by Facebook / Google / Twitter)

Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis.

Some examples of posts that were probably the trigger of this:

http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Do...

Facebook should follow one rule - any post that is illegal should be removed. How do they decide what is illegal? they let their legal department interpret it I assume, or wait to be sued and then decide (http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...)

Still, Facebook should handle it as it handles things anywhere else. Maybe Israel have some good examples of content that should have been removed, but in most cases it has been removed, so basically Facebook is outsourcing moderation to the Israeli Government because they don't have enough moderators that can read Arabic or just not enough manpower? No matter if it's justified or not, a government should not meddle with the moderation operations of a global public platform.

[barkbro]

> Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed

What about a post that calls for women to vote? Or for black people to sit in the front of the bus?

That sounds like a recipe for abuse. It would be more reasonable to only ban enticing violence, for example.

[tedunangst]

So, uh, how many posts calling for women to vote has Facebook deleted?

[throwanem]

> enticing violence

So, professional wrestling?

[lr4444lr]

I think you're missing the point, because none of those examples have any national context. Both of them are bad within the U.S., but to say that the first is bad within the context of Saudi Arabia until last year? Well, that's just a moral opinion about another country's laws. It's not a new phenomenon.

[eranation]

I agree with your point. In any case the posts that were removed were enticing violence and Israel claims that there were people that got killed as a direct result.

[tremon]

Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed

What about illegal actions like downloading copyrighted material? Depicting Muhammad? Criticising president Erdogan?

[ythl]

Those should be removed too. People have no right to criticize people like Erdogan and Kim Jong Un. They are working their butts off to try to make their nation great, and their worthless populations aren't helping things by voicing criticisms.

[Elrac]

You're missing a sarcasm indicator, right?

[bingeboy]

LEL

[libeclipse]

Lol mate he was joking. None of those things are illegal, and should not be censored.

[libeclipse]

Down voted? This is what causes self-censorship. Ironic how it's on a post about censorship.

[ythl]

You got downvoted because of the obliviousness of your comment, not because there is a conspiracy to oppress your voice.

Criticizing Erdogan is illegal in Iran. Depicting Mohammed can get you imprisoned or killed in the middle east.

[pgodzin]

*Illegal in Turkey I presume, not Iran

[eranation]

Ok I see your point. Perhaps the line should be at calling for violence against an ethnicity or innocent individual. If for example someone on the street calling to stab people of certain etnicity and show a diagram of where to stab to make the most damage, will be arrested in most countries. I don't see why Facebook should be any different...

[hammock]

>Facebook should follow one rule - any post that is illegal should be removed. How do they decide what is illegal?

They don't. The government does. Which is why even that simple rule is submission to an external, uncontrollable force. The right approach is to sort out your own internal values (free speech, or rule of law, or whatever) and act accordingly to that internal principle.

For example, if you believe certain speech should not be censored, and officials in the country you operate in disagree, you can cease operations or fight back. This approach has been taken by many in China.

Or, if you acknowledge the legitimacy of the local government, and your values say that means ALL its edicts and claimed jurisdiction, then you might collaborate fully.

Or there might be something in the middle. The point is that your internal values guide, not anything else. Retain personal sovereignty and/or corporate responsibility.

[s_q_b]

>Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis.

"[G]uarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Brandenburg v. Ohio

[danarmak]

Good thing Israel isn't a U.S. State, then.

[s_q_b]

Then we should really get around to stop treating it like one.

But on a more serious note, the opinions of Supreme Courts have very strong moral force, express well-fashioned legal reasoning, and are frequently cross-cited between nations.

[danarmak]

Alright, let's apply the legal standard you cited.

> except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The Israeli government claims they were "likely to incite" such action. Should they have to prove it in a court, for each separate comment posted, before they can ask Facebook to remove that comment? Clearly that would never scale; it's suitable for books, not for Internet forum comments. What do you think would be reasonable here?

[s_q_b]

>Should they have to prove it in a court, for each separate comment posted, before they can ask Facebook to remove that comment?

Yes, absolutely, without any doubt or qualification of any kind. "Scalability" is not even an applicable concept.

If Facebook wishes to collaborate with a government, as in this case, that fact establishes a sufficient nexus with the state that invokes the same standard of scrutiny.

In other words, if Facebook acts as the agent of the government, it is subject to the same restrictions as the government. In which case, each and every removal constitutes a specific deprivation of an individual's free speech, and thus must be treated as the extremely grave action that it is.

Your position is suitable for cattle, not humans.

Edit in reply:

True civility is defending the values of the civil.

You are advocating a dangerous and amoral position, and I will not shy away from opposing that position directly.

One may hide behind soothing phrasing and call it "civility," but when advocating censorship, they should always be met with a swift and unwavering response.

[danarmak]

My "attitude" was to politely ask you what you considered to be appropriate, without stating any position myself. Perhaps you misconstrued my words. But I'm not interested in continuing a discussion that's become this heated.

[danarmak]

Legal under whose laws? Should censored content be invisible only in the country that requested the censoring? That might be a heavy technological burden to bear.

[bad_user]

The only thing I find understandable is censoring hate speech, but even then you'd be walking a fine line, because hate speech is hard to define.

Should blaming Islam, the religion, for disseminating hate be considered hate speech? Islam does exactly that, the Coran having passages that are hateful and truth be told, we can all see what happens when such a religion ends up being followed by extremists with the ability to buy guns. Sure you can blame those nutjobs, but then again, they wouldn't have such an easy time recruiting if we wouldn't be so tolerant of Islam being taught in schools.

Now don't get me wrong, because our own Old Testament also has passages containing hate speech and our religion is also guilty of crusades and murders, but thankfully we outgrew them. Religion, at least in the hands of the uneducated masses, is poison and should have no manifestation in public life outside the places of worship. And on Israel I have nothing against them, except that I think the oppressed became the oppressors, being guilty of unjustified crimes against Palestinians, financed by the tax-payers in the west no less.

Now, should I be allowed to say any of this? Isn't this hate speech? And if it should be censored, then why?

Just because it is illegal? Illegal for whom? In many countries you're allowed to say the above, whereas in other countries it is illegal. Should Facebook just ban everything that's illegal somewhere in this world?

They are clearly doing just that. You know, in Europe pictures of nude children aren't so taboo. In fact I bet most parents down here have pictures of their children nude and you can see nude children aged six and below on most beaches.

[1024core]

> but thankfully we outgrew them.

Did you, really? Have you looked at the gay-bashing that Christians indulge in? Or how about actively encouraging the destruction of Palestinian property and removal (even murder) of Palestinians, simply because they believe that "Jesus" won't reappear unless all of Palestine is ruled by Jews??

[r_smart]

>Have you looked at the gay-bashing that Christians indulge in?

But look at matters of scale. In Islamic theocracies, it is frequently illegal and the punishments severe. Even in attitudes, the numbers are really, really bad. Compare these two polls, one of predominantly Islamic countries and one of America (arguably the most Christian nation in the world). Obviously the US still has some work to do, but it's way ahead on this issue.[0] [1]

[0]: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...

[1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-...

*edit: Typo, and added a qualifier

[dragonwriter]

> In Islamic theocracies, it is frequently illegal and the punishments severe.

The only reason its not illegal in much of the US (and, actually, the laws prohibiting it are on the books in a number of states but unenforceable due to federal action) is that would be Christian theocrats have been defeated by other political actors. Which is a certainly a good sign for the US, but hardly consistent with the idea that Islam is uniquely problematic and that Christianity has "outgrown" the same kind of repressive tendencies.

> America (arguably the most Christian nation in the world)

Maybe the most Christian first-world state with an area greater than 110 acres, but certainly not the most Christian nation in the world.

[r_smart]

I never stated Islam is uniquely problematic, just that the person I was replying to was making a poor comparison. I think at this current moment in the world, one could certainly make a case that it's uniquely problematic. Would you claim otherwise?

>would be Christian theocrats have been defeated by other political actors.

What happens to the people in Islamic theocracies that try to challenge the religious status quo?

And which more Christian nation did you have in mind? Maybe we can dig up something on attitudes there if you think it's a more accurate comparison.