Facebook has been in an ongoing battle with breastfeeding mothers (or, as they hilariously call themselves, lactivists). Mark Zuckerberg, perhaps because he is 14 years old, decided breastfeeding is obscene and anyone who posted pictures of said feeding would be banned from the site.(For more on the team at Facebook that decides this, see this article).
Why is this relevant? Because those same Facebook overlords have decided that Holocaust denial groups, of which there are several, are free to stay. Hitler: 1, Nipples: 0.
On its face, this would seem to be a simple issue of free speech. Ezra Callahan, a Facebook employee (and Jew) said as much – essentially he says that there are lots of other Facebook groups that are offensive to certain people, inaccurate, historically relevant, etc. that aren’t banned – and as a company with a Jewish founder, they should be especially careful not to censor speech about the Holocaust.
Although there is a lot of nuance around free speech, essentially you either try and censor offensive things to protect people from them, or let everything be said and let society deem bad ideas unworthy (and both extremes can have some exceptions). Facebook seems to want to have it’s cake and eat it too.
If you are going to let people speak freely, and simply limit what the law dictates (for example, banning pornography, hate speech or incitement of violence), then that’s a fine business model. If, however, you are going to go further and delete breastfeeding photos, ban programs that might offend or spam people, etc. then you are de facto working on “tailoring” your community in a certain way. Whether it be to make it “family friendly” or anything else, you are running down the slippery slope of censorship.
If you ban breastfeeding, how do you not ban images of same-sex couples? Would that not offend someone deeply against homosexuality? Wouldn’t that person consider those pornographic? If you then ban those, how do you allow a group that denies genocide?
Michael Arrington attempted to draw a line by saying two things: 1) The Holocaust is singularly historic and terrible, and 2) Holocaust denial, moreso than other debates, typically is a front for active anti-Semitism, and/or continued hate/violence against Jews.
He may have a point – just this weekend, neo-Nazis screaming ‘Heil Hitler’ attacked concentration camp survivors during a memorial service for 345,000 dead. Anti-Semitism is on the rise. Yet, I can’t help but disagree with Arrington.
Free speech is free speech. Although Facebook is a “virtual” space, it still exists in the context of reality. When we focus too much on words, any line drawn will be arbitrary by definition.
Benendict XVI's new album cover
This week, the Pope has embarked on a Holy Land trip. There are major headlines everywhere saying that the Pope is under fire for his comments at Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum. What is the problem? He didn’t apologize for the Holocaust. JPII did, and made it formal, but that apparently isn’t enough. Of course, all religions are equally sensitive, because Islamic leaders are upset for the same reason – Benedict was apparently supposed to apologize again for his 2006 remarks.
The Armenian Genocide is just as big an issue for Armenians as the Holocaust is for Jews – and continues to affect them to this day. It has been a factor for Obama and for Turkey’s integration with the EU. Yet, perhaps because the Armenian population is not as prominent in America, there is no similar debate.
At the end of the day, words are simply noise – it is people that ascribe meaning to them. To regulate their use or intent would be to regulate thought – which is not only absurd, but impossible. Facebook will never be everything to everyone, so it’s foolish to try and set out guidelines above and beyond the law.
The people who join or post in Holocaust denial groups will not change their beliefs due to the absence of groups. They could just as easily write fliers, make a separate website, or write a book. The people offended by these views have every right to either debate within the group or ignore them. If violence or harm is ever threatened, then Facebook should certainly act. Otherwise, Holocaust denial is simply one of countless offensive, inaccurate, and irresponsible ideas – and hopefully we as a people are smart enough to see it for that, and not need censorship as a crutch.
To take this argument to it’s logical extension, this means that Facebook should no longer censor breasts in order to honor the natural sanctity of the human body. I rest my case.
