I think this was an excellent response from Facebook. I don't agree with the message, but I also don't want to increase censorship just because I don't like what others are saying.
It's not "acceptable". It's horrible. It's despicable. It's disgusting - and the person who posted that picture, and created that picture, should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely no reasonable person believes, for even a second, that that posting shouldn't be taken down, and immediately, and the person who put it up should also immediately apologize.
The question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the original poster.
I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up."
But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument.
[Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read through https://twitter.com/sammorril, and consider whether you believe twitter should be censoring his posts, for example, https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 is one that I reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable, but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what circumstances that power to censor should be used.)
You're wrong: there can be no arguments about pro-censorship or pro-free speech regarding this picture. As mentioned right in Facebook's reply, they already censor content according to their guidelines. The argument is about whether this picture is "bad" enough to censor it.
The reason why it's a pro-censorship vs pro-free speech argument, is that almost everyone (for any reasonable definition of everyone) believes in some censorship in a civilized society.
The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship, you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should, or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should. Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive speech their right to make it.
As much as i don't think it's funny, i don't think it encourages raping per se. The picture is just one of those "trying to provoke people" pictures. I've recently been at a comedian show where everyone laughed at very, very offensive and racist sentences. But after all that was the comedians intension. Hard to explain... How is this different?
First of all: I don't feel encouraged to rape a woman at all after seeing the picture. Do you?!
Second: Do you honestly believe that somewhere a woman is going to be raped solely because of this picture?
Third: If you believe that this sentence leads to rapes, you also need to ban every comedy on earth that makes fun of blacks or jews because that would encourage racism. So no Seinfeld (jokes on jews!). No Simpsons (blacks AND jews and about everything). And current comedies like Family Guy, Southpatk or American Dad.. ouch.. that's some offensive stuff in there! Maybe not funny at all for you, but funny for many many people.
Please note, I'm not defending the speech, just the right to say it.
Well, there was an episode of Mad Men this season where Betty suggests her husband rape the teenager staying in the same house. Sure it was shocking, but I don't recall people asking AMC to censor the episode.
I've also seen worse much worse jokes posted on reddit. Perhaps because it's an image macro that people are getting upset.
Encouragement to rape is bad, because it harms society.
Censorship is worse, because it harms society more; if you look at the countries with the most censorship they are all rotten places to live and I expect most of them have higher levels of rape than countries with less censorship.
Are you talking about government censorship? Or about societal pressure to not post deliberately deeply offensive stuff to a place open to 13 year olds and above?
Is government censorship really any worse than censorship by a corporation/website?
If it's a small website, then one can simply go elsewhere. After all freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience. Set up your own website or whatever.
But what if it's a big website, one that nearly everyone uses, such as Facebook? Sure, someone can argue: if you don't like the website don't use it and then say because you don't have to use it Facebook isn't being coercive. But with government censorship, one could say: if you don't like it leave the country and go live somewhere else. In both cases there's a counterargument: it's not as easy as that, therefore it makes more sense to regard it as coercive.
To my mind governments and large corporations are similar in that both are powerful, and neither can be relied upon to have my interests at heart. Therefore I am wary when either limits freedom of speech.
Governments can put you in jail if you disobey their censorship laws.
Facebook is weird because they removed images of women breastfeeding; and they took some time (and initially refused) to takedown images of women having their heads cut off.
What "Offensive Humor at its Best" is saying is take a woman by force against her will. That's hate speech. By choosing to not take the image down, Facebook is complicit in violence against women.
Regardless of the takedown issue, I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted. After all, it's how media campaigns have managed to change some society behaviors and expectations.
This discussion can't be regardless of the takedown issue, that is the issue being discussed.
> I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted.
I don't think it is reasonable to say that at all, since this 'rape culture' in the US is basically a manufactured boogieman. This image is representative of an asshole going for shock value, nothing more. The intended effect is occurring, the image is making rounds and people are getting upset.
I have no opinion on whether that will motivate people to action. That doesn't change the message, or excuse Facebook's inaction. It's clear from this and similar stories what side of the exalt/subjugate line they tend to choose, regardless of what their terms of service state.
The only person ultimately responsible for violence against a woman or women is the person who made the (reprehensible) choice to commit that violence.
Nothing should be. "Hate speech" is an absurd concept that should have no place in any civilized society that considers freedom of expression to be even slightly important.
Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful. Now, harm may arise if somebody in turn acts after being exposed to such material. But the responsibility for that harmful act should lay solely with the individual or individuals who perpetrated it, not with people who merely expressed ideas that may have been observed by the perpetrator.
> Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful.
It is harmful in and of itself. I don't know if you've ever had people urging others to hurt you but it's immensely threatening, very scary. And for good reason - there's the knowledge that there's easy respect up for grabs in that hateful little group, something that encourages lonely bitter people to go do the things. The speech creates an incentive for the action.
It's a difference of degree, not of type, between putting out a hit on someone and hate speech. It's just the payment that's slightly different.
The mere expression of an idea does not cause anything to happen.
If an act does occur, it's because one or more people decided to made that act happen.
The words in a book, or the sounds in a recording, or a JPEG image on Facebook have no inherent power to control people. Nor do the person or persons who created such works.
If somebody performs a specific act after viewing such material, it is that person who is responsible for any harm that may occur.
> The mere expression of an idea does not cause anything to happen.
I asked someone to pass me the salt, and they passed me the salt. I can only assume you believe there was no causal connection between those two events.
The truth is that everything people deliberately do is caused by what they think, and what they think is very strongly affected by the symbolic communication they have with others. That is, after all, the whole point of language: to alter someone else's mind-state.
If it was an image or a tweet on blowing up an airport or something like that, it would've been removed instantly and the person charged with an act of terrorism, to spend rest of his good life in prison.
But inciting some one to rape seems to be completely acceptable under the rights of Free speech ?
In Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky makes a very similar point. He advocates for the right to publish a ridiculous book that denies Holocaust ever had place. Chomsky argues that the freedom of speech applies universally, even if a speaker is a harmful lunatic, he should still be given this freedom.
Responses like this baffle me. It's basically saying "I don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech. Therefore, anyone not bound by law to honor it should censor things I don't like". Is this basically what you're saying? Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like? Do you think the concept "freedom of speech" is worthwhile beyond freedom simply from government censorship?
I've always considered freedom of speech to be much more than a rule that government must follow. It seems that a lot of people would rather put that idea into as small a box as possible so they can justify coercing service providers to censor things they find distasteful. This is really disheartening.
The argument isn't "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should censor things enough people don't like".
It's "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes".
That including 'not publishing things enough people don't like'. It also includes 'not publishing things coloured blue, on an irrational whim'. You can point out the sillyness of not publishing blue things, or say it's bad business, but it isn't censorship. Censorship would be if publishers were banned from publishing blue things.
Netrus was replying to mixedbit's Noam Chomsky comment, pointing out that, if facebook removed the post, that wouldn't be analagous to someone not having the 'right to publish a ridiculous book', it would be analagous to a private publisher having the right to decide not to publish it. [Edited to clarify, per mixedbit]
>"Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes".
But facebook isn't "pubishing" anything, which implies some sort of editorial process and an endorsement of the content. Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. It must be that way.
My gripe with netrus' comment was that his wording implied that because facebook wasn't bound by law not to censor, that they necessarily should censor.
> Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing.
If you're going for the legal perspective, it's more complicated than that. Depending on jurisdiction, service provider immunity may not work after they're notified about the illegal content but decline to remove it. E.g. [1]. (Note that some causes of action may have more specific defences for operators of websites, e.g. [2]).
But really, that isn't relevant here. No-one's suggested that the image here's illegal. This is just about facebook being able to decline to publish whatever it likes.
> when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing
I don't agree. As you yourself pointed out two sentences before that one, facebook don't editorially filter stuff before putting it up. So if they're notified that a thing they don't want to host has been put up, any action they take is always going to be "after the fact"!
How can the right line to draw be between a provider that filters after publishing and one that filters before, such that the former is "censoring" but the latter is "not publishing"? Filtering after publishing (in response to user reports) is, for a website with a userbase the size of facebook's, just more efficient than doing it before. I don't see any moral difference between the two, just a practical one.
(And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison).
I don't think the distinction between publisher and service provider is just a legal technicality. This goes into the heart of what facebook is. Facebook no more "publishes" content than a hosting provider publishes my blog that I created. They are the service provider, I am the publisher. The moral responsibility for content is on me and me alone. With that said, for a hosting provider to remove content after I published it is censorship. The distinction between censoring and refusing to publish is critical here. Facebook as a service provider would be censoring information rather than (retroactively) refusing to publish, as such this action should require a higher level of justification. All this said is in defense of their not censoring this image, as it does not meet the heightened level of justification required for censoring (from their perspective).
>And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison
After rereading the comment and its parent more carefully, you may be right.
Just to clarify: it wasn't Chomsky that wrote the ridiculous book about the Holocaust. Chomsky was disagreeing with the book thesis, but he defended the right of the author to publish it.
As much as I hate Facebook, it wasn't Facebook encouraging rape. It was whoever posted that picture, if even him. "Hate speech" is a non-issue. Everyone is free to ignore ideas they don't agree with, or perhaps even debate them. But it's not right to punish people for presenting ideas (no matter how idiotic they might be, or seem).
I don't think that can even be considered humour, but I also disagree that the image is "hate speech". Women are not the exclusive victims of rape in any sense. Ridiculously stupid and unfunny? Yes. Putting down women for being women? I don't think so.
It's hard to argue that this page isn't targeted at women when it specifically says "rape her". I understand your belief that there should be greater awareness of the male victims of rape, but that doesn't seem to apply here.
According to RAINN, 9 out of 10 rape victims are women, and the majority of male victims are either prisoners or children, which is another whole class of crime in itself.
What is being proposed by the photo (joking or not) is rape against women, pure and simple. And we have a worldwide epidemic: 1 in 6 women will be victimized in their lifetime.
Maybe the majority of HN readers are too young or socially isolated to have a close relationship with a woman who has been a victim. But when you see what it does to real human beings, then it's hard to be so damn callous about this.
The oft-repeated RAINN data is suspect and based on questionable statistics and speculations. It is certainly not derived from actual criminal reporting data.
I agree encouraging rape is not acceptable. Neither is racism. Or disrespecting other people. But we have decided that it is better to have freedom of speech than no freedom of speech. Is Facebook's response in the right? I think so. We should be angry at the person who put up the photo.
I think context matters a lot, and this photo was posted to a page called "Offensive Humor" so people know the message is wrong and offensive, I doubt anyone would actually be on that page seriously agreeing with that message or being influenced to carry out its message. If this was posted to a page called "Women are scum" or similar etc then the photo would have a different meaning.
I'm just wondering how you come across such a picture on Facebook in the first place. I imagine you have to go looking for it, considering it's in the group "Offensive Humor at Its Best," which I doubt anyone would share with their friends.
The picture was posted on February 12th [1], but she didn't report it until about an hour ago [2], which only adds to the evidence that she went out of her way to find this.
So my question is: why would you do this if it's going to ruin your day?
There's bad stuff all over the internet, and it's not going away. It doesn't seem productive to launch a crusade to get it all taken down. Just block it if you don't want to see -- get some filtering software, install parental controls.
I offer this as a thought experiment for people on both sides of the debate:
Is it acceptable to shout "Fire!" in a panic-stricken manner in a crowded theater?
If not, then you accept that there are circumstances when "free speech" is not applicable. If so, please defend your position, when such an act may lead almost directly to serious injury and perhaps death.
This question removes the connection with rape and perhaps might help to focus attention on "speech with consequences".
Yes, it's offensive, yes, it's disgusting, but how exactly does it "have consequences"? Do you really think someone is going to go rape a woman just because of this tasteless rhyme? That's ridiculous.
Do you think speech like this has no consequences at all? That's what I'm trying to find out, whether people believe this sort of thing genuinely has zero effect.
Personally, I think speech and communication in general goes both ways. It reflects what the source thinks and feels, and in turn affects what the listener/reader thinks and feels. I think there is an effect.
Do you think there is none?
And then there is the other aspect. Do you believe that speech with consequences should be censored or controlled? Or do you believe that all speech, even shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, should be uncensored and uncontrolled? You appear not to have answered the question I actually asked.
All speech has an effect otherwise no one would bother talking. The question is not whether it has an effect, but whether it causes enough harm to justify stopping it. Older than the fire in the theater example (which if I remember rightly comes from a supreme court case in the US) is John Stuart Mill:
>An opinion that corndealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.
But he then of course gives one of the most brilliant defenses of free speech in all circumstances other than direct harm ever written. Do you think this is going to cause direct harm?
I know you're trying to remove the connection to rape to help solve the dispute, but bear with me.
Would shouting "Tape her and rape her" in a crowded theater be acceptable? It would certainly be disruptive, and you'd be asked to leave, but it wouldn't carry any serious consequences to the other theater-goers. I guess my point is that the comparison of rape and "fire" is not appropriate.
If so, please defend your position, when such an act may lead almost directly to serious injury and perhaps death.
Almost any speech more threatening than a mild children's book could legitimately be suppressed by these criteria.
Action film? Might encourage people to act violently.
Jackass and other prank/stunt shows? Might encourage people to take stupid physical risks.
Video games? Might normalize violent behavior and actions and cause people to act violently.
There's a reasonable argument for age restrictions in 'adult' material. Children or feeble-minded individuals might not 'get' that comedians joking about rape doesn't make it OK, or violent acts in video games aren't to be emulated by amateurs. But restricting speech that might have 'consequences' has the potential to restrict all speech, as long as a bureaucrat can come up with a wild story about how a long chain of cause-effect from that speech might eventually cause harm.
I guess a would make that a gender issue since it's mostly women who are target of rape jokes.
The real craziness is this insistance in removing any female nipples (for some reason, male nipples are not sensored) and not dead corpses or guns even in countries where nudity is far more accepted than violence.
I can't get behind this campaign, because a large part of it appears to be advocating censorship of humour.
The face value difference between genuine hate pages and humour is often subtle. But their intentions are completely different. A joke, no matter how crude is not attempting to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable.
Because it's intentions are not to encourage the spread of hatred, it appears the reason they should be removed is because people are offended by them. If you find them offensive, don't view them. And I think it's pretty easy not to view those images unless you go looking for them.
There is a clear overlap between the jokes, and what I would consider hateful. The majority appear to be bad jokes, and the supporters of the campaign often (understandably) find it difficult to differentiate between the two.
I can't support censorship of humour, no matter how offended I am by it. The campaign in my view has failed because it has not clearly defined it's boundaries, it's going to war with genuine hate pages and bad jokes at the same time and is causing a lot of confusion in the process.
I clicked through that examples page you linked, and I disagree with you about what these jokes are. Jokes need to be funny, there is very little humor in "This bitch didn't know when to shut up. Do you?"
I agree with you about not censoring jokes, but seriously.. these are not the kind of jokes that are worth the time spent looking at them. Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
No they don't, humour is not objective. Regardless of how distasteful a joke is, it's intentions are not to incite violent acts. So the only casualty is how offended you are by them. If they are offensive, simply don't view them which is very easy to do.
> Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
Honestly I might find it funny, it depends on who executed it, how it was executed and how it was presented. It would be hard to execute in such a way where I would find it funny, but it's definitely possible.
Either way I don't think your example is very good. Your presenting an example of targeting a named individual, and what's actually going on is most of the 'humour' images are targeting demographics.
A better example would be a picture of a bloodied man with the caption "He still hasn't mowed the lawn" or whatever. I would probably chuckle because the image was so bizarre but I don't think it should be censored.
Whenever I hear people try to argue that certain jokes "aren't funny" and therefore shouldn't be permitted, I get the urge to ask them what they think of postmodern art. I've learned from asking that most people don't hold consistent positions.
About 100 years ago when Duchamp put a urinal on display and titled it Fountain, you bet people were screaming "that's not art!" And that was just the beginning.
There's anti-art and anti-jokes. There's institutional critiques, inside jokes, and meta-humor. It's not all appropriate, and it's not all good.
The rule is: if you don't get it, then it's not for you.
Jokes like this can and do contribute to a culture where violence against women is a very real and regular thing. Regularly joking about how hilarious it is to beat and rape women normalizes it to a degree and encourages those who already think this is acceptable behavior.
If you believe those linked examples constitute humor, I'm shocked. Tell me, would you also find these funny?
* A photo of Matthew Shepard's body with a joke about gays?
* A photo of Jyoti Singh Pandey with a joke about uppity Indian women?
* 50 years ago in Southern US, a photo of a burnt body with a joke about blacks?
* 75 years ago in Europe, a photo of a rail car with a joke about Jews?
Rape is a serious problem today, and men need to own this and stop laughing it off. Just because women are as numerous as men does not mean they are not persecuted.
1 in 6 women will be victimized in her lifetime, and rape can destroy lives. We all need to grow up and stop acting like teenage frat boys.
I didn't say you were, and that certainly wasn't meant to be personal. What I said was that men (plural) need to stop laughing it off, and by men I was referring to the men who create these images and laugh at them.
I also believe men have a collective responsibility to educate each other and stand up to this, much as one could say that non-participating bystanders in the examples I gave earlier had a responsibility to try and stand up against those events.
A huge number of the examples are encouraging raping, beating to a bloody pulp, and/or murdering women. The issues with them goes well beyond being offended. However, I'm guessing arguments about rape culture are unlikely to sway you if you think these are jokes and not hateful.
As a side note, facebook already censors a bunch of things. For example, they've taken down images of women breastfeeding if nipples are shown. It's kind of fucked up that the sight of nipples in a non-sexual context is worthy of a takedown, but encouraging violence against women is totally ok.
Well that's where our differences lie. I probably find them equally as distasteful as you, but I don't think a lot of them are encouraging people to actually commit the act of rape and assault.
That's because (hopefully) if you find them distasteful you're not the sort of person who thinks violence against women is awesome. The thing is, there are people out there who do think it is awesome. They tend to have a very different response to these sorts of "jokes" and imagery.
There have been some studies that indicate these sorts of jokes may increase negative behaviors towards women, such as victim blaming. This is troubling because even if these jokes don't inspire someone to rape or assault someone, they may encourage them to act in a way that enables others to get away with doing so.
>A huge number of the examples are encouraging raping, beating to a bloody pulp, and/or murdering women.
Is this "encouraging" in the same way "Call Of Duty" (or any other FPS with lots of guns) is (supposedly) "encouraging" kids to take up weapons and kill people?
This whole "encouraging rape culture" is bullshit, you either had the education to respect people (not just women, all people with no distinction of gender) and know that rape is bad, or you don't. No amount of 4chan browsing will ever make you suddenly "snap" and decide that "rape is cool". If a picture with a "witty" caption on facebook is enough to make anyone change its mind, then we should worry about all harmful action, from aggression to murder, not just rape.
By the way, Q: what's worse than a baby in trashcan? A: A baby in two trashcans. Now does this joke encourages infanticide or is it just a piece of black humor that may or may not be to your liking (and will clearly hurt some people who lost a child, sorry if some are among HN readers)?
What's even more saddening about this debate is that YES, something NEEDS to be done and some people who may one day resort to rape or sexual aggression NEED to be educated. Instead people are still losing time here, fighting with people who are just doing these jokes "for the lulz" and would never resort to rape. Don't preach the converted, stop alienating them, and go help educate the teenagers who need it!
I don't think that whether it's humour or not is relevant. Just as it makes no difference if a derogatory caricature of a jew is a "cartoon" or if The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a "work of literature".
I strongly believe that people which complains about the content of Internet, whatever it might be, should go trough "internet 101":
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Power_5
Here[0] is where Facebook defines what they consider to be "hate speech":
> Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed. We do, however, allow clear attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste (ex: jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.).
Granted, it's a horribly distasteful image macro, but Facebook acted according to their written community standards, so I'm not sure why their response is "shocking". It's also important to bear in mind that the page is titled "Offensive Humor at its Best", so I'm not sure why it comes as a surprise that the images are, well, offensive.
So there is something offensive on page called offensive humor at its best ... surprise.
Now here is the thing with humor and offensiveness = with 7 billion people on this planet everything is offensive to someone. Also funny to someone else.
This is a stupid joke - ignore it. If it got shared by a friend defriend him. If it got promoted to you by facebook sponsored - file a complaing. But trawling on pages for finding something to be offended by - it is way too close to censorship in my opinion.
Great response from facebook. I prefer that nothing visual be censored. People should just ignore shit that is offensive to them. And we as a society should just look down on people who create offensive shit.
92 comments
[ 0.93 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadThe question, that is being posed, is whether Facebook should be taking down these horrible, despicable, and disgusting pictures without consent of the original poster.
I'm pretty pro-censorship and government control over what people are allowed to post, and see - so I would say, "Yes. Take it down." There are those who are more pro-free speech, who would say, "No, Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring these images. Leave it up."
But - I can certainly understand both sides of the argument.
[Edit - For those who believe that Facebook should remove that article, read through https://twitter.com/sammorril, and consider whether you believe twitter should be censoring his posts, for example, https://twitter.com/sammorril/status/307191599543234560 is one that I reasonably think should be erased by Twitter on the same grounds that the Facebook posting should be erased by Facebook. There's lots of offensive humor that I'm fine with being censored/removed. Your position on this topic doesn't necessarily reflect whether you believe the views being posted are acceptable, but more-so whether you believe central bodies should be arbitrarily dictating what others are allowed to post, and see, and how frequent, and under what circumstances that power to censor should be used.)
That's pretty scary.
The real question then, is not whether censorship should take place, but where the "line" should be drawn. Depending on your feelings regarding censorship, you may believe that crude and objective jokes that you find offensive should, or should not be censored. Depending on their content, I think they should. Those who are more free-speech leaning than I am may state that they are offended by that speech, but defend the person who is making the offensive speech their right to make it.
Just because people are laughing doesn't mean it isn't encouraging horrible behavior by making certain actions seem less disgusting.
Second: Do you honestly believe that somewhere a woman is going to be raped solely because of this picture?
Third: If you believe that this sentence leads to rapes, you also need to ban every comedy on earth that makes fun of blacks or jews because that would encourage racism. So no Seinfeld (jokes on jews!). No Simpsons (blacks AND jews and about everything). And current comedies like Family Guy, Southpatk or American Dad.. ouch.. that's some offensive stuff in there! Maybe not funny at all for you, but funny for many many people.
Well, there was an episode of Mad Men this season where Betty suggests her husband rape the teenager staying in the same house. Sure it was shocking, but I don't recall people asking AMC to censor the episode.
I've also seen worse much worse jokes posted on reddit. Perhaps because it's an image macro that people are getting upset.
No, I didn't find this particular example funny, but that doesn't mean that comedy that touches on certain taboo subjects can't be.
Censorship is worse, because it harms society more; if you look at the countries with the most censorship they are all rotten places to live and I expect most of them have higher levels of rape than countries with less censorship.
Is government censorship really any worse than censorship by a corporation/website?
If it's a small website, then one can simply go elsewhere. After all freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience. Set up your own website or whatever.
But what if it's a big website, one that nearly everyone uses, such as Facebook? Sure, someone can argue: if you don't like the website don't use it and then say because you don't have to use it Facebook isn't being coercive. But with government censorship, one could say: if you don't like it leave the country and go live somewhere else. In both cases there's a counterargument: it's not as easy as that, therefore it makes more sense to regard it as coercive.
To my mind governments and large corporations are similar in that both are powerful, and neither can be relied upon to have my interests at heart. Therefore I am wary when either limits freedom of speech.
Facebook is weird because they removed images of women breastfeeding; and they took some time (and initially refused) to takedown images of women having their heads cut off.
> I think it's reasonable to say that while this particular image may not lead anyone to rape, that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a culture where rape is viewed as less wrong and more accepted.
I don't think it is reasonable to say that at all, since this 'rape culture' in the US is basically a manufactured boogieman. This image is representative of an asshole going for shock value, nothing more. The intended effect is occurring, the image is making rounds and people are getting upset.
Merely expressing an idea, even if it involves negativity or dislike toward a certain group of people, is not in itself harmful. Now, harm may arise if somebody in turn acts after being exposed to such material. But the responsibility for that harmful act should lay solely with the individual or individuals who perpetrated it, not with people who merely expressed ideas that may have been observed by the perpetrator.
It is harmful in and of itself. I don't know if you've ever had people urging others to hurt you but it's immensely threatening, very scary. And for good reason - there's the knowledge that there's easy respect up for grabs in that hateful little group, something that encourages lonely bitter people to go do the things. The speech creates an incentive for the action.
It's a difference of degree, not of type, between putting out a hit on someone and hate speech. It's just the payment that's slightly different.
If an act does occur, it's because one or more people decided to made that act happen.
The words in a book, or the sounds in a recording, or a JPEG image on Facebook have no inherent power to control people. Nor do the person or persons who created such works.
If somebody performs a specific act after viewing such material, it is that person who is responsible for any harm that may occur.
I asked someone to pass me the salt, and they passed me the salt. I can only assume you believe there was no causal connection between those two events.
The truth is that everything people deliberately do is caused by what they think, and what they think is very strongly affected by the symbolic communication they have with others. That is, after all, the whole point of language: to alter someone else's mind-state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
I've always considered freedom of speech to be much more than a rule that government must follow. It seems that a lot of people would rather put that idea into as small a box as possible so they can justify coercing service providers to censor things they find distasteful. This is really disheartening.
It's "Because facebook isn't a government entity it should be able to decline to publish whatever it likes".
That including 'not publishing things enough people don't like'. It also includes 'not publishing things coloured blue, on an irrational whim'. You can point out the sillyness of not publishing blue things, or say it's bad business, but it isn't censorship. Censorship would be if publishers were banned from publishing blue things.
Netrus was replying to mixedbit's Noam Chomsky comment, pointing out that, if facebook removed the post, that wouldn't be analagous to someone not having the 'right to publish a ridiculous book', it would be analagous to a private publisher having the right to decide not to publish it. [Edited to clarify, per mixedbit]
But facebook isn't "pubishing" anything, which implies some sort of editorial process and an endorsement of the content. Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. It must be that way.
My gripe with netrus' comment was that his wording implied that because facebook wasn't bound by law not to censor, that they necessarily should censor.
If you're going for the legal perspective, it's more complicated than that. Depending on jurisdiction, service provider immunity may not work after they're notified about the illegal content but decline to remove it. E.g. [1]. (Note that some causes of action may have more specific defences for operators of websites, e.g. [2]).
But really, that isn't relevant here. No-one's suggested that the image here's illegal. This is just about facebook being able to decline to publish whatever it likes.
> when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing
I don't agree. As you yourself pointed out two sentences before that one, facebook don't editorially filter stuff before putting it up. So if they're notified that a thing they don't want to host has been put up, any action they take is always going to be "after the fact"!
How can the right line to draw be between a provider that filters after publishing and one that filters before, such that the former is "censoring" but the latter is "not publishing"? Filtering after publishing (in response to user reports) is, for a website with a userbase the size of facebook's, just more efficient than doing it before. I don't see any moral difference between the two, just a practical one.
(And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison).
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/m...
[2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5
>And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison
After rereading the comment and its parent more carefully, you may be right.
This is a ridiculously weak argument.
According to RAINN, 9 out of 10 rape victims are women, and the majority of male victims are either prisoners or children, which is another whole class of crime in itself.
What is being proposed by the photo (joking or not) is rape against women, pure and simple. And we have a worldwide epidemic: 1 in 6 women will be victimized in their lifetime.
Maybe the majority of HN readers are too young or socially isolated to have a close relationship with a woman who has been a victim. But when you see what it does to real human beings, then it's hard to be so damn callous about this.
I don't find Facebook's decision here confusing.
The picture was posted on February 12th [1], but she didn't report it until about an hour ago [2], which only adds to the evidence that she went out of her way to find this.
So my question is: why would you do this if it's going to ruin your day?
There's bad stuff all over the internet, and it's not going away. It doesn't seem productive to launch a crusade to get it all taken down. Just block it if you don't want to see -- get some filtering software, install parental controls.
I really hope no one tells or about 4chan or tor.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&...
[2] http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208652812592689&s...
Is it acceptable to shout "Fire!" in a panic-stricken manner in a crowded theater?
If not, then you accept that there are circumstances when "free speech" is not applicable. If so, please defend your position, when such an act may lead almost directly to serious injury and perhaps death.
This question removes the connection with rape and perhaps might help to focus attention on "speech with consequences".
Personally, I think speech and communication in general goes both ways. It reflects what the source thinks and feels, and in turn affects what the listener/reader thinks and feels. I think there is an effect.
Do you think there is none?
And then there is the other aspect. Do you believe that speech with consequences should be censored or controlled? Or do you believe that all speech, even shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, should be uncensored and uncontrolled? You appear not to have answered the question I actually asked.
>An opinion that corndealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.
But he then of course gives one of the most brilliant defenses of free speech in all circumstances other than direct harm ever written. Do you think this is going to cause direct harm?
Would shouting "Tape her and rape her" in a crowded theater be acceptable? It would certainly be disruptive, and you'd be asked to leave, but it wouldn't carry any serious consequences to the other theater-goers. I guess my point is that the comparison of rape and "fire" is not appropriate.
Almost any speech more threatening than a mild children's book could legitimately be suppressed by these criteria.
Action film? Might encourage people to act violently.
Jackass and other prank/stunt shows? Might encourage people to take stupid physical risks.
Video games? Might normalize violent behavior and actions and cause people to act violently.
There's a reasonable argument for age restrictions in 'adult' material. Children or feeble-minded individuals might not 'get' that comedians joking about rape doesn't make it OK, or violent acts in video games aren't to be emulated by amateurs. But restricting speech that might have 'consequences' has the potential to restrict all speech, as long as a bureaucrat can come up with a wild story about how a long chain of cause-effect from that speech might eventually cause harm.
The real craziness is this insistance in removing any female nipples (for some reason, male nipples are not sensored) and not dead corpses or guns even in countries where nudity is far more accepted than violence.
I can't get behind this campaign, because a large part of it appears to be advocating censorship of humour.
The face value difference between genuine hate pages and humour is often subtle. But their intentions are completely different. A joke, no matter how crude is not attempting to propagate the idea that rape is acceptable.
Because it's intentions are not to encourage the spread of hatred, it appears the reason they should be removed is because people are offended by them. If you find them offensive, don't view them. And I think it's pretty easy not to view those images unless you go looking for them.
Here's the campaigns 'examples' page: http://www.womenactionmedia.org/facebookaction/examples/
There is a clear overlap between the jokes, and what I would consider hateful. The majority appear to be bad jokes, and the supporters of the campaign often (understandably) find it difficult to differentiate between the two.
I can't support censorship of humour, no matter how offended I am by it. The campaign in my view has failed because it has not clearly defined it's boundaries, it's going to war with genuine hate pages and bad jokes at the same time and is causing a lot of confusion in the process.
I agree with you about not censoring jokes, but seriously.. these are not the kind of jokes that are worth the time spent looking at them. Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
No they don't, humour is not objective. Regardless of how distasteful a joke is, it's intentions are not to incite violent acts. So the only casualty is how offended you are by them. If they are offensive, simply don't view them which is very easy to do.
> Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
Honestly I might find it funny, it depends on who executed it, how it was executed and how it was presented. It would be hard to execute in such a way where I would find it funny, but it's definitely possible.
Either way I don't think your example is very good. Your presenting an example of targeting a named individual, and what's actually going on is most of the 'humour' images are targeting demographics.
A better example would be a picture of a bloodied man with the caption "He still hasn't mowed the lawn" or whatever. I would probably chuckle because the image was so bizarre but I don't think it should be censored.
About 100 years ago when Duchamp put a urinal on display and titled it Fountain, you bet people were screaming "that's not art!" And that was just the beginning.
There's anti-art and anti-jokes. There's institutional critiques, inside jokes, and meta-humor. It's not all appropriate, and it's not all good.
The rule is: if you don't get it, then it's not for you.
1 in 6 women will be victimized in her lifetime, and rape can destroy lives. We all need to grow up and stop acting like teenage frat boys.
Edit: Reformatted the bulleted list
I believe some of them are jokes. I don't find them humorous.
> Tell me, would you also find these funny?
Probably not.
> Rape is a serious problem today, and men need to own this and stop laughing it off.
Where was I "laughing off" rape? What do I need to own up to? Where have I ever said rape is not a serious problem?
Looking forward to your reply. You've totally misunderstood what I've been trying to say, and managed to portray me in a totally unjustifiable way.
I didn't say you were, and that certainly wasn't meant to be personal. What I said was that men (plural) need to stop laughing it off, and by men I was referring to the men who create these images and laugh at them.
I also believe men have a collective responsibility to educate each other and stand up to this, much as one could say that non-participating bystanders in the examples I gave earlier had a responsibility to try and stand up against those events.
http://www.womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2013/05/h...
And this is so obviously meant to be humourous and not at all misogynistic that it does kinda discredit the rest of the site.
http://www.womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2013/05/F...
As a side note, facebook already censors a bunch of things. For example, they've taken down images of women breastfeeding if nipples are shown. It's kind of fucked up that the sight of nipples in a non-sexual context is worthy of a takedown, but encouraging violence against women is totally ok.
You might say that this kind of thing validates a particular way of thinking for people who already lean that way.
It's not likely to inspire rape, but it has the potential to reinforce a negative perspective of women.
Is this "encouraging" in the same way "Call Of Duty" (or any other FPS with lots of guns) is (supposedly) "encouraging" kids to take up weapons and kill people?
This whole "encouraging rape culture" is bullshit, you either had the education to respect people (not just women, all people with no distinction of gender) and know that rape is bad, or you don't. No amount of 4chan browsing will ever make you suddenly "snap" and decide that "rape is cool". If a picture with a "witty" caption on facebook is enough to make anyone change its mind, then we should worry about all harmful action, from aggression to murder, not just rape.
By the way, Q: what's worse than a baby in trashcan? A: A baby in two trashcans. Now does this joke encourages infanticide or is it just a piece of black humor that may or may not be to your liking (and will clearly hurt some people who lost a child, sorry if some are among HN readers)?
What's even more saddening about this debate is that YES, something NEEDS to be done and some people who may one day resort to rape or sexual aggression NEED to be educated. Instead people are still losing time here, fighting with people who are just doing these jokes "for the lulz" and would never resort to rape. Don't preach the converted, stop alienating them, and go help educate the teenagers who need it!
> Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed. We do, however, allow clear attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste (ex: jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.).
Granted, it's a horribly distasteful image macro, but Facebook acted according to their written community standards, so I'm not sure why their response is "shocking". It's also important to bear in mind that the page is titled "Offensive Humor at its Best", so I'm not sure why it comes as a surprise that the images are, well, offensive.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490/
Now here is the thing with humor and offensiveness = with 7 billion people on this planet everything is offensive to someone. Also funny to someone else.
This is a stupid joke - ignore it. If it got shared by a friend defriend him. If it got promoted to you by facebook sponsored - file a complaing. But trawling on pages for finding something to be offended by - it is way too close to censorship in my opinion.
Movies, porn, video games. Do they encourage shooting people in the head? Not in real life.