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.
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?
>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.
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.
This kind of dynamic must account for all of the times that I've seen people on HN write that they are "genuinely curious" about something: otherwise people might think that their questions are rhetorical and intended to be unanswerable or make fun of the other party.
Although rhetorical questions do exist, including questions used as arguments or to belittle, is it bad that this interpretation of questions has become so common that people have felt the need to disclaim it somewhat routinely?
On the one hand, one should aim to communicate successfully. If people routinely misinterpret questions, then one might want to stop using questions and stick to statements.
On the other hand, such misinterpretation - even though it's probably often an honest mistake - is also a signal that the other person might have incompatible goals for the conversation. I try to follow the Principle of Charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity), the conversational equivalent of "Be liberal in what you accept". But if the other person doesn't do the same, the conversation can become unproductive, and I just disengage.
In addition to charitably reading the words of others, I do want my words to also be charitably read. Not (just) because it's hard not to leave room for misinterpretation, but also because it just feels better. After all, I joined the forum for fun.
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.