Because freedom can't protect itself
Do we really speak about only freedom of speech when we speak about people ability anonymously without real world consequences to engourage other people to commit crimes against people that can't protect themselves. Because if we view facebook as goverment then it also has responsibility to protect its citizen against threats that they can't or shouldn't need to protect themselves. As incitement is reprehensible in real world it should also be such in facebook world, but currently it is not and in worst cases it awards those who perpetrate to it. As facebook don't have legal authority over its citizens and its international which weakens power of real goverments to intervene on it. As facebook and its citezens don't have any other legal mean to protect other citizens than by removing such content from their virtual world. Which is in my opinion that is good reason to practice such moderation in forum like Facebook. Of course if we view Facebook and other social platforms in internet as goverments we should give them ability have legal power over their citizens, but I don't see such thing coming to be in any where of near future.
You support hate speech as long as it is directed at females and ignore the blatantly misogynistic manner in which Facebook censored women and content that WASN'T hate speech. So in this case ACLU, fuck you. You're the enemy of women's freedom and equality. Now sit in your ivory tower and tell us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as long as you are so divorced from reality and the real world impact of what you suggest. PERHAPS if Facebook didn't censor women and discussion of women's issues while leaving anti-woman hate speech (and images) untouched as long as it is branded 'humor' you might have had a leg to stand on. But you didn't and shame on you.
This is a blatant straw man argument. Facebook is not a governmental organization. Therefore, it should be free to protect its users and advertisers from anonymous internet hate speech (let's not kid ourselves that hate memes are provocative speech intended to invoke debate). While interesting to debate here in the comments of the article, I hope the ACLU does not take up this issue in its legislative or court advocacy campaigns as it will only detract from its mission to protect our civil liberties from government infringement.
A Facebook page called “Kicking your Girlfriend in the Fanny because she won’t make you a Sandwich?" Oh, the horrors Western woman must face on a day-to-day basis!
Give me a break.
I have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, they don't kick the users off, they close down the community pages. I've never heard of facebook kicking a user off for something like that.
Secondly, and most importantly, Facebook openly censors hate speech. It's in their policy. If people put up racist pages or something they take them down. This is their policy and has been their policy for a while.
The only exception to this policy is women. Pages dedicated to making rape jokes and being violent against women are commonplace. When the reports are consistently ignored and branded as "humor." It is a ridiculous double standard, and this blog post is not helping in any way.
Oh my goodness. Are these people living in the dark ages? I can't work out if they're really really thick, or just really really misogynist. Either way, they just lost whatever crediblity they ever had. I can't believe anyone would defend this shit.
Facebook is very happy to censor anything related to breast-feeding. Google facebook nurse-in and see.
Well, if this is your opinion, then why aren't you discussing how wrong it is for Facebook to remove photos of women breast feeding and keep "free speech" which is advocating direct bodily harm against women, a minority?
Funny how you only choose to speak up about "free speech" when the target is misogyny. Where was all this "fight for your freedom" bullshit when racism and all other hate speech was being banned?
And where were you were perfectly inoffensive and inspirational pictures were being banned because somebody found the idea of empowering women threatening?
You're not preaching about rights, you're preaching in support of complete hypocrisy.
ACLU I'm disappointed, no screw it, I'm flat out pissed off that you allowed this article and POV to be associated with you. Half the population's rights and safety are at stake and you're worried about the freedom of the perpetrators and a "right" that doesn't even apply to this situation.
It might be of good purpose to recognize the power of social media and how the misogynist gestures of a few can motivate rampant responses from thousands (supporting such tendencies) if this is a concern in our social systems today. In light of the divorce statistics, increase in homogender relationships and passage of VAWA it may be preliminarily evident that there are concerning tendencies toward misogyny in our social system today. What is the social responsibility of social media outlets to prevent rampant responses that could fuel hatred (worse than a gang syndrome in one's local community might do)? We do not condone violence as Sec Clinton stated after the derogatory movie on Islam was released online that may have ignited the concern at our consulate in Libya. Neither do we condone hate speech that could be inciting acts of violence against innocent women.
How is this even a question for the ACLU? Wow.
I don't think you are trying to be insensitive here and while I find your ability to defend hate speech repugnant, I see no reason to be angry with you. Instead, I ask you to read what you've written and replace women and violence with "children and sexual molestation" and try to justify it in the same way, as speech to be protected, just for the sake of free speech. I ask for this not because women are child like, but because I am pretty sure the average person can agree that if this were the topic, there'd be no question about how unacceptable it would be to defend Facebook in the name of free speech.
I'm a domestic violence survivor (and a survivor of childhood sexual abuse for that matter) and I can tell you that allowing such hate speech on a platform like Facebook is to normalize it; that is to say that they are OK with it, and in turn, those who have experienced rape and domestic violence are less human. Allowing it on a social networking site is condoning future acts, by saying it's funny or just a joke.
For the rest of my life I will suffer from horrifying flashbacks of those events. I can no longer walk in public without fear. I loose sleep on a regular basis to vivid nightmares. Work is on hold indefinitely due to the trauma I carry with me every day and everywhere I go. I suffer from Complex PTSD.
Perhaps it is that the broader media numbed you to violence against women? Perhaps you have never been treated as less than human? We can't change the whole of media, but I do think a company that has a TOS that is supposed to prevent the spread of hate speech has an obligation to do so without selectively ignoring the impact such violence has in our nation, especially given its platform to normalize such behavior.
Again, I will ask you to read your post and change the topic to children and sexual molestation. If you can do that and still sleep at night, I'm not sure I can trust your thinking and what you stand for at the ACLU.
I'm gonna have to stand with Anon #13 on this. This article is vague enough to border on the disingenuous. The speech being debated is not mere misogynistic opinion (i.e., the thought that women are inferior to men), but actual exhortations ("ironic" or not) to commit acts of violence against women, including battery, violent forced abortion, rape, and murder. Pictures of women with bruises, scars, or even fatal wounds are used as the backgrounds for captions justifying the violence depicted. To be graphic, for which I apologize in advance, one picture that was used in at least one article on this matter shows what is presumed to be the corpse of a woman bleeding from a (thankfully unseen) head wound, with the caption "I love her for her brains". Another consists of an image of a woman lying in a heap at the bottom of a flight of stairs with the caption "Shouldn't have gotten pregnant".
Some people will claim that it's all just jokes and in good fun; I said "'ironic' or not" when referring to this content specifically because of these people. Whether or not you are attempting to be "ironic" (which is used as a shield for actual derogatory statements more often than not, it seems), this is still the propagation of rhetoric that normalizes and in fact encourages acts of violence against women. It is no different than using images of lynchings or the Holocaust for anti-black or anti-Semitic purposes, and "it's just a joke" shouldn't be an invincible aegis against criticism or policing.
By declaring Facebook a "free speech zone", it will be destined to become little more than an ad-supported 4chan (where "faggot" is used as a catch-all pronoun) or reddit (where r/beatingwomen is a thriving community, as well as a subreddit whose name consists solely of the plural form of an epithet for blacks). That is, an increasingly hostile environment for women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ persons, etc. The idea that content policing should not be used in a public forum to quell speech that actually incites violence is laughable, and smacks of the right-libertarian philosophy of rejecting the Social Contract.
This article misses the point entirely. This debate is not about curbing the expression of misogyny or any other form of hate speech. It is about censoring dissent from feminist dogma.
I have a Facebook fan page with a few thousand fans. It is a men's rights page. There are no misogynistic posts at all (though this may surprise those that cannot distinguish between being anti-feminist and anti-woman).
They just removed a post of mine in the last several hours. Again, there is nothing about it that is misogynistic or hateful or pro violence. It simply challenges the existence of "rape culture" and questions the validity of feminist conducted research on sexual assaults.
More simply, it challenges ideological feminism.
It was removed for "violating community standards" which it did not, and I have been barred from posting for 12 hours.
With all respect, you at the ACLU should be on top of this in much better form. If you think the debate is about sexism, you are only partially right.
It is about the sexism employed to censor one side of an ideological debate. And you are buying into it big time.
This is an excellent article, and a welcome sight in a new age of censorship efforts in the west driven by the political left. Unfortunately, Facebook's newest policy change has already lead to at least one incident of the censorship of political speech. http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/facebook-wastes-no-time-in-banning-the-truth/ As part of the MHRM's advocacy efforts, men and women like Paul Elam and Karen Straughan attempt to publish accurate statistics on rape, domestic violence, and sexual assault, both for the purposes of highlighting a mostly invisible population of male victims, the women who are responsible for victimizing many of them, and disassembling a harmful feminist narrative in which all women are encouraged to be terrified of all men. (A tyrannous and unjustified fear that harms female self-actualization and quality of life while lining feminist pockets) One such posting on facebook was censored under their new policy as an example of hate speech. As you will see in the linked article, the posting itself was not misogynistic in nature, but was instead political speech, dissenting from a construct of feminist theory. This act of censorship will serve as the first of many, in which anti-feminist political speech is censored as hate speech. It is a continuation of a long-standing strategy by feminists to ensure the hegemony of their ideological constructs by forcing other entities to censor "misogyny," with what constitutes misogyny being something that only feminist agents are allowed to define. As Facebook is on of the most popular social networking sites on the internet, heavily integrated with other websites, and one of the most prominent sites among those with little immersion into "internet culture," the censorship of content on Facebook has special ramifications in regards to the ability for political groups and movements to conduct outreach, recruit, and engage in public discourse. (especially for those entities who cannot command national media attention) These ramifications constitute an intolerable limitation on the freedom of speech, and pose an incredible threat to the political activity of organizations opposed to the political agenda that is driving and informing censorship efforts. Facebook has a moral duty as a large and robust forum to protect the speech of its members from politically driven censorship aimed at crushing the expression of opposition to feminist constructs. Unfortunately, they have also clearly failed in this duty, and now we can only hope that the impacts of their failure are smaller than they threaten to be.
I am not that familiar with Facebook misogyny, have not seen it, and would object to it, and misandry too, if I saw it. Facebook is not a state actor so it can censor whatever it wishes, or not censor. I prefer the latter, in the interest of freedom of expression. The problem with censorship is that it is hard to do without discriminating, as in the case of banning misogyny but not misandry. And by the way, urging someone to do something violent against another person is a violation of the criminal law, the last I heard, just as it is a violation of criminal law to communicate a threat of violence.
As for ACLU in my judgment they are cunning hypocrites motivated by cupidity and feminist pressure and not a little dirty politics when they pick their battles. I have been bloodied here in NC by a false restraining order and a cyberstalking arrest. The latter was dismissed but not due to any help from ACLU, or EFF, when I begged for it. The RO I am still feverishly fighting because I know that it is the product of lying under oath and ruthless spite. Google _Grist vs. Smith_ for 18 pages of fiction posing as caselaw.
Maybe facebook users would be a little nicer to women if there weren't so very very many women on facebook calling for the elimination and/or further enslavement of the male half of the species, and in general being unthinking sexist retards.
Apparently saying you hate men and want to kill them all isn't hate speech? Speakers of hate speech invite hatred toward themselves, as long as it goes in one direction, it will go in the other.
The side that spews forth more has to curtail theirs by ten times as much as they want the lesser to slow, or they will see the situation approach parity with increasing speed.
Search "Hate Men" and try to guess which side of this is spewing the most hate on facebook.
For everyone crying misogyny
Please facebook search "i hate men" go on
Also The paper trail shows WAM! as a recipient of funding from Peace Development Fund, who in turn accepts federal funding.
So will Facebook also be censoring the anti male misandric material that can be found on there site, or will women be the only ones afforded this protection?
I would also like to know what exactly constitutes misogynistic hate speech. Is being critical of women in any way considered being misogynistic? How about being critical of Feminism? Is that considered being misogynistic?
Lets face it, there is no guarantee that this new censorship policy wont be used to silence political dissonance and constructive criticism. When a single party with a political agenda is given the power to define what constitutes "hate speech" abuse of that power will inevitably happen.
Which is why Facebook's new censorship policy disturbs me so much, its being pushed by several feminist groups with a clear political agenda, what guarantee do I have that they will stop at censoring actual rampant hate speech and women hating and not move on to censoring constructive criticism of say feminism?
To be honest I don't think feminist, Facebook nor anyone has the self restraint to be entrusted with that kind of power. Freedom comes from open debate, not a single group enforcing what can and cant be said.
Facebook's and Feminism's foray into the world of censorship will forever leave a black mark on them and reflects poorly on both organizations core values. I would expect this kind of behavior from a greedy corporation but not from a so called human rights group.
You are QUITE mistaken Missa. In fact one of the FIRST things Facebook took down (with an account suspension) was a post that had nothing more in it than a challenge to the feminist statements about 1/4 women being raped on college campuses. The post had NOTHING in it other than statistics indicating that the representation was inaccurate. Whether one agreed or disagreed with the post, it said NOTHING about being "pro-rape", said NOTHING about "violence", and said NOTHING that could be viewed as "inciting violence".
And while we are at it-if you are so unhappy with the supposed "incitement of violence" than do you also support Facebook banning the page "Killallmen" which is listed as a "Political movement", or the page entitled "Castrate all men"? Or what about something that is simply a COMMON feminist statement like "all men are potential rapists and abusers" (google it-you'll get literally millions of hits". Should those ALSO be censored? I notice that the policy is, on its face, sexist because it ONLY censors speech directed at WOMEN. Apparently, however, WOMEN are free to be as hateful on Facebook as they wish about men. Do you support that? Are you a sexist? If you answer yes to the first, then you must answer yes to the second as you support "different standards based on sex". Period.
The PROBLEM here is that much of what is being called "hate speech" in fact simply nothing more than "speech feminists disagree with". There are no clearly articulated standards for WHAT constitutes "hate speech" and NO clear standards for determining what constitutes "inciting violence against women". In fact the censorship has ALREADY gone beyond "inciting violence" and into "a political statement concerning statistics that feminists did not like".
Sorry-but I for one do not accept tyranny from ANYONE-on the right OR on the left. I REFUSE to be silenced just because someone, with NO proof, suddenly declares "I don't like it so it MUST be HATE SPEECH".
Define the characteristics of hate speech, Missa. Tell me exactly WHAT speech crosses that line, and under WHAT circumstances, and WHEN. Is "Castrate all men" or "Kill all men" hate speech? Because neither are banned under the "hate speech against women" policy. Is "I disagree with feminist statistics" hate speech? Is my post hate speech because I disagree with you? Because apparently disagreeing with feminist rhetoric is now banned under Facebook policy. So WHAT are the STANDARDS?
If you cannot DEFINE the standards then you have NO business censoring the speech. Period.
This is ironic, having a hate movement such as feminism define what is and censor "hate speech." It's such a sad time in history when a small unrepresentative minority of ideologues dictate the rules over millions of people.
I do not support Facebook's move to censor this speech based on the frivolous advocacy of a disgusting hate movement (feminism).
I'm against Facebook censorship full stop but why are they being pushed to ban misogyny rather than simply sexism?
Racism certainly effect black people more than white people yet groups like the SPLC tracks white AND black supremacist groups.
If it was for example the NAACP pushing Facebook to ban racist material this would protect against racism towards all people, not just blacks.
Even if we were to buy in to the premise that the majority of sexism is directed towards women (which I personally disagree with) it wouldn't follow that only sexism towards women should be taken seriously.
As long as they censor misandrist material as well.
I see hate speech directed towards, women, men, Democrats, Republicans, all religious sects (including atheists). So if you are going to censor misogynistic comments, you better be willing to censor misandrist material as well.
When you you speak up about Misandry it's hate speech? But when you speak about misogyny it's empowerment?
When you give FACTS that discredit feminist lies it's hate speech? Why is it okay to treat men as subhuman and continue to enable violence and squelching of them and their rights but men asking for Equal treatment and the end to lies and a totalrian feminist dogma where what ever a woman says is empowerment are hatemongers
Folks this isn't going to stop with facebook. It won't stop till any form of speech no matter how based in fact it is on any forum or website or blog will be censored if it does not bend knee and submit to feminist hate and misandrist belief that all men are evil rapist and women are oppressed.
The first amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech, as popular speech doesn't need protection.
Currently misogyny is VERY popular. It's perfectly acceptable (even funny) for a women to insult, belittle, abuse and even assault men. Men on television are portrayed as incompetent, stupid, lazy, criminals with no moral weight.
Misogynistic speech (or even the perception of such) is considered hate speech and is ridiculed or even (as the case here) forbidden.
The people at the beginning of this thread annoys me. The U.S. Constitution protects all speech. No matter how unpopular. Either you believe in the Constitution or you dont. SCOTUS said that even the Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest. I might not like what they say. But they have that right. So Please grow up.
Well, now that this has devolved into a whinefest about how poor, persecuted men are being victimized by big, bad feminists who have the gall to call rape, murder and torture of women “violence against women” instead of “entertainment for men,” I’m not sure that anyone with a modicum of common sense is even reading anymore. However, just in case, it may be worth making a few salient points about the ACLU and its policy on when to get up in arms about “free speech violations.” As previous commenters have pointed out the ACLU had no problem with Facebook’s “censorship” policy against hate speech until they saw it as a threat to sites posting videos of gang rapes and advocating torture, murder, rape and other forms of violence against women. When pictures of breasfeeding mothers and mastectomy survivors were being routinely taken down by facebook for being “offensive content,” the ACLU was nowhere to be found. But when facebook takes down a video of a woman being slowly decapitated – a real murder by all accounts – the ACLU cries “censorship!” and calls facebook a government. Censoring content that empowers women is not something that the ACLU has ever had a problem with. However, when content that is the bread and butter of the sex industry is questioned the ACLU goes on a rampage. And there is a simple and logical explanation for that.
Violence against women and other forms of misogyny are the bread and butter of the sex industry and the sex industry is the bread and butter of the ACLU. That is why the ACLU has taken such an over the top position on the matter of facebook taking down pro-rape and other misogynistic facebook pages. Has the ACLU ever characterized facebook as a government for any other purpose? I cannot find any examples of it doing so. But in doing so now, they are just doing what good lawyers do. They are spit-balling legal arguments that they hope can help their clients down the road. The fear, for the ACLU, is that if misogynist hate speech and incitements to violence against women are recognized as harm in the context of facebook, what’s next? Is there the danger that rape and torture of women in pornography will be recognized as harm? If so, this is a “slippery slope” that could threaten the profits of the ACLU’s major clients and thus the coffers of the ACLU. And we know how the ACLU feels about “slippery slopes” that threaten the interests they represent.
The ACLU has put countless hours of time and effort into characterizing violence against women as “robust debate,” “sexual freedom,” and just a point of view that some people may find offensive (obviously not those who work for the ACLU.). They have chided those who object to violence against women used as “adult entertainment” to just shut up and not look at what we find “offensive.” It has been critical to their strategy to insist that when women are degraded, defamed and dehumanized it is not really harmful, but merely something that some (over-sensitive) people might find offensive. They have had a great deal of success in the courts with these arguments. However, the world has changed a lot since the ACLU first started making the case for violence against women as a form of debate and entertainment. When courts and editorial boards were staffed exclusively or primarily by men, the argument that harm to women is merely offensive and therefore should be considered free speech was easier to sell. Now that women have achieved a greater role and a louder voice in the public sphere, we are no longer subjected to a public sphere in which only one point of view is allowed. The ACLU had it easier in the past when women had little or no access to speech. Now that the number of women journalists, politicians, academics, activists, bloggers etc. has increased we are starting to see what a true marketplace of ideas might look like. It is no longer the marketplace that the ACLU idealizes, where only one point of view about “free speech” is for sale and it’s the one that says its okay to regulate all kinds of speech (perjury, fraud, defamation, copyright infringement, etc.) but anyone who wants to regulate the “speech” that defames, degrades and endangers women is anything from a misguided hysterical feminist to a fascist McCarthyist.
The ACLU was founded as an organization committed to protecting free speech. Sadly, it’s been a very long time since the ACLU has been anything other than a mouthpiece for corporations who want to protect their profits by characterizing what they do as speech. The current debate about misogynist hate speech and the willingness of some actors to take women’s rights and safety seriously gives a glimmer of hope to anyone who is genuinely interested in freedom of speech as opposed to freedom to harm, freedom to profit, and freedom to silence half the human race.
It is very important that we all be aware of FB harassment and corruption. Especially if you are Christian or conservative.
Please share http://www.facebookcensorship.com
#facebook #censorship #social #socialmedia #facebookcensorship #fbooked
This is an interesting subject we where just having a discussion over this in my journalism class. Its hard for a company to choose what to censor and what to be allowed, who will be the "chosen" to make such calls for us. What makes him the expert on what to allow and ignore. We all love to quote the first the amendment but complain and throw fits when we see or hear something we don't agree with. Its all a matter of an individuals interpretation and opinion. It is a touchy and tough subject but I think we can all agree that we value or freedom of speech so lets not silence what we believe may be evil or derogatory but how we can change those people views in a positive manner.
It is tough for a company to control such censorship in the world wide web, I mean who would judge what is censored and what is ignored. What makes that person so prepared to make those decisions for us. We need to realize what is the real issue, we all love our freedom of speech but once we hear or see something we don't like or agree with we instantly must eliminate ones freedom? why not seek a way to possibly change their views in a positive matter.
It is tough for a company to control such censorship in the world wide web, I mean who would judge what is censored and what is ignored. What makes that person so prepared to make those decisions for us. We need to realize what is the real issue, we all love our freedom of speech but once we hear or see something we don't like or agree with we instantly must eliminate ones freedom? why not seek a way to possibly change their views in a positive matter. Jour M01 JF
More information about formatting options
Get breaking news on issues you care about
Congress: Restore the Voting Rights Act
Sign up for the ACLU Action newsletter.
Chip in to help protect all of our rights and liberties.
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004
This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about these two components of the ACLU.