August 18, 2007
-
Facebook and Racism
A campaign is rallying people on Facebook.
Thousands are said to have joined together to have racist images and postings removed from Facebook. In fact, more than 2,000 have signed a petition in support of having racist material removed. Here is the link: Link
Should social networks remove racist postings and images from their sites?
Comments (106)
yes
Yes.
Even though that does bring more awareness… It shouldn’t be removed without anything said to the people posting / commenting on the images.
I’m going against the grain here and saying no.
Everyone can post what they want, it’s freedom of speech. If you don’t like it, look away.
as defined by WHO? Idiots will be idiots…taking dwn their pictures won’t stop them from being idiots…
I don’t think it’s fair, but it’s not going to be stopped. We will never achieve full security, so all the precautions we keep taking are just taking our liberty and freedom away.
The beauty of social network sites its freedom of expression. Individuality, no matter how wierd, funny, intellectual, or stupid, is what gives facebook, myspace, and xanga their spice. Censorship not only violates the spirit of social networking sites, but also the intellectual precepts of democracy.
I admire the efforts and their call for a ban. I respect the petition itself as free speech against racial hate and its symbolism; but banning it itself is rather stupid.
So: No.
That’s a tough call. I despise racists, but is this a First Amendment issue? Maybe they should at least classify that kind of crap the equivalent of “Xanga E” so children won’t be exposed to it.
I think a site should have the right to remove whatever content they deem inappropriate. If the bloggers don’t like their racist/bigoted post being removed, they can set up their own site. Facebook shouldn’t be forced to allow racist pictures to sully their reputation.
Freedom of expression…first amendment. However, note that the government and other people watch out on these sites.
Then there’s the question of what is classified as racism. It would simply be too hard to regulate. If I even mention the word race, then people might call that immediately racism. Or if I describe a guy as being “a heavyset mexican” is that racist? Some might see that as associating “heavyset” with Mexican, and therefore racist. Or whatever.
-David
And to the people who are afraid of the “Freedom of Speech” violation…pretty sure that’s an American ideal. These sites are on the World Wide Web. Surely we Americans aren’t so arrogant as to impose our “rights” on everyone, hmmmm?
Free speech goes both ways. If you don’t like it, don’t visit those pages.
Plus, we all know online petitions don’t work.
no its always been like that. face book has always been the nazi forum of myspace before it took off by advertisements on mtv and cartoon network. it changed a little with a new amount of new accounts…however its not as active as it was because of xanga, gaia, and myspace. so now that its not as active again; its going back to what it was? right? i guess??
No, the way things should work is people post that stuff and then they get endlessly ridiculed by others, possibly resulting in them realizing they are screwed up. You do not cut off that process in its infancy, by doing so you are only ensuring that they will continue to be racist.
In addition, it is not possible to remove everything offensive without removing everything.
yeah, probably
I don’t know… Maybe if the “racist page” had threats and whatnot, then yes. But if they’re just expressing their opinions, then leave them be.
Yea, cuz they breed hatred.. You know what hatred can lead to..
latte grande
And to the people who are afraid of the “Freedom of Speech” violation…pretty sure that’s an American ideal. These sites are on the World Wide Web. Surely we Americans aren’t so arrogant as to impose our “rights” on everyone, hmmmm?
“Freedom of speech” isn’t an arbitrary rule of thumb that Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson decided to impose on America. Its philosphical and intellectual underpinings applies here regardless of the internet’s interntional flavor (even though facebook servers are on American soils).
Censorship isn’t the best way to defeat racism. Out of sight, out of mind– right? Better than playing Ostrich is dealing with the problem. Free speech to counter free speech. In the marketplace of ideas , only with all “wares” properly displayed, can reasonable people make the best decisions. A few years ago there was a movement to ban Swatzika symbols from public in Germany (I think). Legislature decided that the best way to deal with the horrors of the Holocaust wasn’t to put it all in a small cardboard box and store it away– but to talk about it, and understand the root causes of racism and evil deeds.
Censorship always runs the risk of some trigger-happy fuck being in charge: Just getting a power-trip out of playing Gestapo.
well, it’d be a better way to spend their time than kicking off high schoolers. that being said, no. it’s a social networking site, and, just like real life, you’re going to run into views and images that you don’t like.
as much as I want to say yes, I’m saying no.
I was browsing through groups on facebook yesterday and I was quite surprised of those groups. But I’d rather not waste my time telling them to take it off. They won’t listen, so I won’t bother.
I rather go along my own buisness. After all, say what you want to me. Just don’t touch me
i agree,i say no…
I’m going against the grain here and saying no.
Everyone can post what they want, it’s freedom of speech. If you don’t like it, look away.
<LI class=itemtimestamp>8/17/2007 11:36 PM
<LI class=itemsubmitter>captain_jaq (message)
If it bothers you that much, don’t look at it. As much as I hate that sort of stuff on there, the truth of the matter is, it’s protected by freedom of speech.
I don’t agree with racism in the least, however I do feel that people should be able to post almost whatever they please.
This is a question of where the line should be drawn. People tend to agree that something harmful is not appropriate, such as kiddy porn, and the like… so how harmful does something have to be in order for it to be reasonable to remove it?
I am one of those few that will say no. I got people that are racist to me because I am deaf. It is alot harder for a deaf person to find work just because some hearing people dont have the time to deal with it. Pulling the race card won’t make me feel better. I choice to ignore hurtful things and keep pushing forward even there are days that are going backward. You cant control what other people do or say, but you can control how you react to it and it will take you down fast if you dont. You are a more powerful person to just ignore those unthoughtful people.
WEll, it is freedom fo speech
but if they can make stipulation of non-nudity, then non-hate should be an option as well… or at least racist images
Daniel (doubledb)
i do think it is wrong by the way
i am just saying… freedom of speech goes both ways
Nope.
Who cares.
Honestly. lol.
how is this even a legit question? DUH.
yes, although it would be impossible to regulate. it would either have to be decided fairly on a case-by-case basis, or people would remove too much. so while i do agree with banning images of a racist nature (which i believe is stated in facebook’s terms of agreement anyway, or it probably is) we have to be sure of how much control we’re giving the facebook admins.
Nah, that’s too much work. They’d have to hire like 10 extra monitors, at least. That’s easily $300,000 a year down the drain, just because some people are babies who need their internet filtered.
I want to say yes, but people have the right to say what they want, pretty much..
Even if people are breeding hate, they still have the right to do that.
For me, it’s not even really about freedom of speech, it’s about wasting money. Is that bad?
No. Free speech. Who’s oxe might be next to be slain?
Pretty soon facebook will be without a face
Twist2daRav3n
This is a question of where the line should be drawn. People tend to agree that something harmful is not appropriate, such as kiddy porn, and the like… so how harmful does something have to be in order for it to be reasonable to remove it?
Kiddie porn is an easy issue since it involves child exploitation, and by this basis alone ought to be disallowed.
I think a distinction can similarily be made for overly sexual or macabre images. Pictures of a man and woman getting at it or an African civilian’s arm being chopped up by rebel fighters trigger visceral responses we can’t control. Images of white hooded figures or moustached Austrians with swatzika symbols are not so primally linked and have the higher association of ideas and issues. With ideas and issues– with racism– we have a choice of how it effects us, and we have a substance to discuss and accept or deny.
Oh wait this is in England. Whatever then
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT!?!?!?!
Racist acts can always be edited and changed. it can be twisted and made to make those that are racist look stupid. Take Saddam; what better then to have Saddamism to make his life look stupid and pointless.
See look here is a sample.
http://x92.xanga.com/1e6f932375530142170187/b85341085.jpg
Okay, here we go about the 1st Amendment thing…yes, I think it would be terrible to live in a country where we had to be afraid to speak out against our government for fear of retribution. I’m glad we have the freedoms that we have, and I don’t take them for granted. But, I have to admit, I get so sick of people waving the Bill of Rights like a flag to excuse/justify their behavior…these are the type of people who never go out to cast a vote, but love to gripe and complain about their elected officials. Do you understand how wrong that is? Now, more to the point, if any one of us were to start, say, a blogring (let’s just say it was a blogring for single mothers), shouldn’t the creator of that blogring have the right to reject the membership of a teenage male who was just trolling for chicks? And should that same male have the right to whine that his Freedom of Speech was violated and raise a lawsuit declaring discrimination? Why not? Everyone else is doing it! Now do you see the insanity? That’s all I meant.
yes, hate crimes not needed.
here is another example of turning the hate crimes….
make what they are saying something funny to make them look stupid; like this:
http://x32.xanga.com/dc5c030149d32142379695/t105128645.jpg
no. as much as i hate racism, i like the freedom of speech more.
NO. It is freedom of speech. I understand that Xanga is private and therefor has the right to censor people, but I strongly believe that it would be wrong. Understand that I despise racism, but we should allow everyone to speak their mind. We can block the racists from commenting on our sites and that’s good enough. Besides, who is to determine what is racist. Some people think that not giving minorities free jobs without them qualifying for it is racist, and others think that giving handouts based on race is racist. we can’t both be right
Latte Grande said it very well. I agree.
I don’t think driving these people into isolation is a good thing. in the open they have ther ideas challenged. These are not ideas that stand up well to a challenge. In isolation they just feed on each other.
“Okay, here we go about the 1st Amendment thing…yes, I think it would be terrible to live in a country where we had to be afraid to speak out against our government for fear of retribution. I’m glad we have the freedoms that we have, and I don’t take them for granted. But, I have to admit, I get so sick of people waving the Bill of Rights like a flag to excuse/justify their behavior…these are the type of people who never go out to cast a vote, but love to gripe and complain about their elected officials. Do you understand how wrong that is? Now, more to the point, if any one of us were to start, say, a blogring (let’s just say it was a blogring for single mothers), shouldn’t the creator of that blogring have the right to reject the membership of a teenage male who was just trolling for chicks? And should that same male have the right to whine that his Freedom of Speech was violated and raise a lawsuit declaring discrimination? Why not? Everyone else is doing it! Now do you see the insanity? That’s all I meant.”
Yeah, but that would be a blogring, whereas this is a major company known for social networking. Business problem – If you start instituting censorship on a site like that, no one would use it for fear of being banned because they accidentally said something about bitches and hoes. Ideally, a personal profile is a page where you are allowed to express yourself for the purposes of knowing people and getting to know more people – connecting.
That’s what places like Facebook are all about. Why are people rallying together and telling Facebook to operate differently when their entire company is based around personal expression?
If this were to go through, I imagine racism would only be the beginning. After all, what makes racism worse than other indecencies? Following racism, they might shut down any blog talking about religion, for it’s “insulting religious bias to readers of a different religion.”
So firstly, it’d be a horrible move for the business. Censorship on a website where you are supposed to express yourself would just not be a good move.
Secondly, and almost more importantly, insulting racist remarks are often the first way of me being able to discriminate who I want to hang around with. I really just don’t get along with irrational neo-nazis, for instance. If they are not allowed to give me that discrimination then I’ll have to go through all the time and inconvenience of getting to know the person, though usually the outside surface personality is enough to give it away.
I originally used the First Amendment as my backing for my argument but have decided against it since. They are legally able to shut down any site they want so the First Amendment would not matter or even come into play. This is about economics, and following that, personal preference.
-David
the thing is, these sites may be “open to the public” but they arent truely public. they are hosted on private servers and run by private companies. those companies have the right to set and enforce whatever rules they choose on their sites.
latte_grande
“Now, more to the point, if any one of us were to start, say, a blogring (let’s just say it was a blogring for single mothers), shouldn’t the creator of that blogring have the right to reject the membership of a teenage male who was just trolling for chicks? And should that same male have the right to whine that his Freedom of Speech was violated and raise a lawsuit declaring discrimination? Why not? Everyone else is doing it! Now do you see the insanity? That’s all I meant.”
I agree with direshark‘s analysis.
In the case of Dan’s facebook question, “racism” is just an artifical slice of a spectrum of opinions and views– cultivated within facebook’s niche purpose. Facebok exists as a platform fo rindividuality and expression (and all while social networking). In the case of your illustrative example, a trolling teenage male’s role in the mother’s blogring would be diametrically opposed to the ring’s very purpose. Not so with facebook.
I buy your argumentation that actions ought to be limited, at least to some degrees (or in its most egregious cases) to conform to the purpose or atmosphere of a blog/online service. Persistent race-based harrassment would be a parallel example to your single-mother’s blog scenario. Racist speech itself, however, falls short of proactively destructive behavior. The mere expression of a position or ideas behind a position aren’t bone-breaking stick and stones. Bad taste with racist langauge and advocation is typically matched with contrary sympathies and ideology– so it’s not as if an immoral idea is propagating unchecked.
Depends. If the page is advocating illegal action (targeting individuals for physical harm, etc.), then I think it should be shut down. Otherwise, I think it is for Facebook to decide what it will and will not tolerate on its own server space.
Of course, people have the opportunity to influence Facebook’s decision. They can sign petitions in favor of a particular position. They can try to make an economic impact: to boycott Facebook, its parent company (should it ever put itself up for sale), and its online advertisers.
Banning racist material may, in fact, be counter-productive; it may garner sympathy and attention for those whose ideas have been censored. Nothing stirs interest like a controversy.
Better, perhaps, to use Facebook to confront the issue of racism — to show its weaknesses and evils and to offer alternatives.
I think it’s neat how everyone thinks they’re being out of the ordinary, even though everyone – just about – has said no.
I agree with them.
Freedom of speech.
No one’s forcing them to look at it, or to read it. They can stop whenever they’d like.
♥
seriously, do you not have anything better to do with your time????????????????
“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.” Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
However, I shall go against what you may expect of me and say that racist speech does have a place in a culture of free expression. To allow free expression we must also allow for speech we may despise. Personally I think Facebook can control the speech they would like to control on their own forum. For example, they put restrictions on nudity on their site, so they are able to restrict racist images if they so choose. But if those people really want to propagate their hateful speech, there is nothing stopping them from finding another forum that allows it or creating a forum of their own.
Also trunthepaige puts it well; these are not ideas that stand up at all to any kind of reason or challenge. Allow them to be expressed and these ideas can be challenged instead of being allowed to fester.
” Everyone can post what they want, it’s freedom of speech. If you don’t like it, look away.
posted on 8/17/2007 11:36 PM by captain_jaq (message) “I vehemently oppose that. Freedom of speech in my mind is also being accountable for what you say. Telling people America is a free country and you can say what you want, but that people just have to turn away from what you say or post is arrogant and irresponsible. Posting something with the sole intentions of demeaning a certain race and making them feel sub-human isn’t very American is it? Certain people need to grow up when it comes to the internet; whether it’s concerning disparaging racial comments or whatever else put out there to offend someone, you can’t just expect people to “not look” at what you write.
HELL NAW, NIGGA!
No. How do I know who to avoid if they can’t broadcast that they need to be avoided?
I was going to say no because of arguments others have already posted above; however, in reading the article I noticed that the terms of use agreement for facebook specifically states that groups will be removed for racism, hate, and I can’t remember what else. Free speech doesn’t really enter into it. If you want to use their network, you have to abide by their rules or be shut down. My question is, “Does anyone ever read the terms of use agreements?”
I’m not racist…but this sounds too much like censorship of freedom of speech… We need to come up with a better solution than just censoring everything.
“NO. It is freedom of speech. I understand that Xanga is private and therefor has the right to censor people, but I strongly believe that it would be wrong. Understand that I despise racism, but we should allow everyone to speak their mind. We can block the racists from commenting on our sites and that’s good enough. Besides, who is to determine what is racist. Some people think that not giving minorities free jobs without them qualifying for it is racist, and others think that giving handouts based on race is racist. we can’t both be right” ~Corwin256
“Business problem – If you start instituting censorship on a site like that, no one would use it for fear of being banned because they accidentally said something about bitches and hoes. Ideally, a personal profile is a page where you are allowed to express yourself for the purposes of knowing people and getting to know more people – connecting.
That’s what places like Facebook are all about. Why are people rallying together and telling Facebook to operate differently when their entire company is based around personal expression?
If this were to go through, I imagine racism would only be the beginning. After all, what makes racism worse than other indecencies? Following racism, they might shut down any blog talking about religion, for it’s ‘insulting religious bias to readers of a different religion.’” ~Direshark
“I agree with direshark’s analysis.
In the case of Dan’s facebook question, ‘racism’ is just an artifical slice of a spectrum of opinions and views– cultivated within facebook’s niche purpose. Facebok exists as a platform fo rindividuality and expression (and all while social networking). In the case of your illustrative example, a trolling teenage male’s role in the mother’s blogring would be diametrically opposed to the ring’s very purpose. Not so with facebook.” ~huginn
Ooooo…I do love a good, friendly debate! While I still stand by my decision that this is NOT A FIRST AMMENDMENT ISSUE (because when you sign-up for these social networking sites, you agree to their terms of service, which gives them the right to shut down any site for any reason), I have seen the light regarding the censorship issue. The picture itself is not racist…after all, didn’t Dan just use it on his site? I wouldn’t consider Dan a racist at all! Maybe a bit miffed by all the “reverse racism” that exists, but bigoted? Nah! I guess I’d be a little concerned that a social networking host would decide to shut down his site or remove a post like this simply because of the KKK image.
So where do you draw the line? What’s an offensive image to some may not be so for others, and these are supposed to be our inner thoughts and feelings…if you don’t agree, don’t visit the site. Right? Earlier it was mentioned (by huginn, I believe) that kiddie porn and violent images stir an uncontrollable reaction in people, so banning those types of images is a no-brainer. I agree. But I’m glad I’m not the person who has to decide (for Facebook, Xanga, MySpace, etc.) what constitutes inappropriate content to be banned/blocked. They should definitely have that right, as per the rules all users agreed to when they signed up, but it can be a gray area, to be sure.
btw, Direshark…your comment about the racist remarks being one of the ways you culled out undesirables before wasting your time getting to know them was hilarious, and so true. Never thought of it that way before.
I say freedom of speech and that’s a lot coming from me!! I am MEXICAN . So I say bring it.Its okay to read what others think and believe! I want to know!
Its like watching my own back,you know?..Those that want them to remove it are scared i think of facing life and whats really out there! What we all really feel and think is important to get out! LET THEM STAY!!
Deanna
It’s a delicate question. Ultimately, if hatred and fear – racism is just a symptom of those two – isn’t removed people’s hearts, what can be achieved by banning it from public view, and if it is removed, then what need to censore such iages away?
But on a day to day, practical basis…. what to do then? In the end I’d shoot for leaving it alone. The problem with censoreship, first banning this, then banning that, is that the platonic watcher doing the censoring is likely to be some form of asshole, which is why he took the job in the first place.
Freedom of speech.
A blogger should have the freedom to blog what he/she wants, no matter how stupid the content. The reader has a choice whether or not to read the page. As far as the idea of a blog creating more racists, I dont think so. I looked at the picture of the KKK on this site and I didn’t get the urge to pull the sheets of my bed and wear them. The person with the racial tendancies didn’t get that way because of a single blog or a picture.
i say no. that’s why we have FREEDOM. i understand that it’s offensive, but if it offends you so much you’re better off just not looking at it and ignoring it. be more mature than the idiots and ignore it. by giving them the attention of asking them to have the images removed is just giving them what they want from you.
i agree with the guy above me. i’ve seen movies, pictures, read articles. NONE of which made me want to go put on my bed sheets and join the KKK. it doesn’t breed hatred. the people who have hatred get it from somewhere else.
UGH, yes!!! 100%!!!
Call that censorship, conservatives, but look at the “laws” that formed this country freedom of speech is only relevent if the words, pictures etc. aren’t offensive.
And if a bunch of white trash dressed up in their robes for a KKK rally isn’t offensive then .. wow.
NO; good grief. If you don’t like what you are seeing, click away from it!
Hah, last comment was a knee jerk reaction. Terms of agreement state:
Facebook’s terms and conditions state that user groups can be removed for sharing anything that can be seen as ‘harmful, threatening, hateful or racially or ethnically objectionable’.
So it isn’t about freedom of speech; it is about violating a contract agreement. Completely different issue.
even though i hate racism…im going to go with no.
it is their freedom of speech…people can do with it as they please
NO..but this is a touchy issue, I think that there should be freedom of speech in these matters, it is a basic principle of our country, and people would complain a lot more if that was taken away instead of these images…
..and besides, on facebook, if it is in a group/profile you don’t like..its not like you are being FORCED to look at these images..it is all your choice..you don’t have to look at those photos if you disagree. Those people are going to be stupid and racist anyways, and its not going to matter that much anyways, imo.
Right after they remove the graffiti from the railroad tressel.
I’d like to say yes, but taking down pictures wont stop anything. And of course, Freedom Of Speech.
Noooo, employers should create PDFs of facebook pages with dates and anyone with racist imagery?
Did you read the employee handbook fuckwit?
YOU’RE FUCKED!
haha.
QQ. Freedom of speech doesn’t just apply when it’s convenient for you. If you don’t like it, don’t go there.
Also, I agree with Huginn.
I’d say no, because who’s to decide what is racist?
However, thanks to the user agreements signed when one joins these networks, it would be a valid recourse for those running the sites.
Censorship causes blindness. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it, don’t talk about, don’t endorse it, but don’t impose yourself upon others, no matter how offensive their opinions may be.
“UGH, yes!!! 100%!!!
Call that censorship, conservatives, but look at the “laws” that formed this country freedom of speech is only relevent if the words, pictures etc. aren’t offensive.
And if a bunch of white trash dressed up in their robes for a KKK rally isn’t offensive then .. wow.’
so in other words, let’s censor EVERYTHING. in the world today, anyone can find anything offensive. so let’s just give up that first right.
psh..
yeah.
Well, it’s their right to, if they want. They are letting people use their servers and part of a condition of that could be don’t do racist shit.
If racist images on their site gives their site a bad name and forces advertisers do drop them, then by all means they should go ahead and do it.
Col317
Facebook’s terms and conditions state that user groups can be removed for sharing anything that can be seen as ‘harmful, threatening, hateful or racially or ethnically objectionable’. So it isn’t about freedom of speech; it is about violating a contract agreement. Completely different issue.
Dan’s topic issue can be considered on several levels: 1.) From the rights and whims of service providers, 2.) From a buisness perspective and doing what’s most financially benifical, and 3.) From the perspective of general social values. I find 3.) most compelling, but you’re certainly right with 1.)– but it kinda becomes a discussion stopper.
It’s in Facebook’s rules…
no. i’m not pro-racism or anything, but doesn’t that defeat freedom of speech?
If they remove all the racist things, whats next? Because their freedoms are taken away, some of the members would leave. When they leave, they will tell their friends, and their friends might leave too.What would “Face book do then?
I think everyone has a right to their own opinions, thats how others learn what is”right” and wrong. I don’t consider myself a racist, but on occasion I have posted images like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/ralahinn1/tha97d6015.gif
and this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/ralahinn1/thniggastolemyYoshi.gif
for”fun”.
My niece is “blacker” than alot of “african americans” I know, and I have a crush on these guys;):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/ralahinn1/momax-2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/ralahinn1/battusai.jpg
I think I’m everyone else,lol.
No. People on social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace allow people to display pro-terrorist, pro-black, pro-mexi, and pro-any-skin-color-not-white. Why should whites continue to be disciminated against?
If people have a problem with any symbols or images depicting pro-white people, they can simply click the “Back” button on their browser. Why is pro-white immediately called “pro-hate”? The ADL and ACLU has called a lot of ancient Runic and Celtic symbols as hate symbols because the Nazis used them during their brief stint in power. It’s ridiculous to continue to call them hate symbols when they are a huge symbol of ancient White civilation. Really, what happened? Why is everyone nowadays anti-white? As a European-American, I’m disgusted by my countrymen. Not every pro-white person is violent. There’s a huge portion of us who are simply proud to have European lineage.
Last time I checked, the major social networking sites are located in America and displaying any pro-white imagery is still protected under the 1st amendment, whether the neo-cons and liberals like it or not. I do realize the companies are offering free bandwidth, but as many times as I’ve been deleted from Myspace (and my friends), I’m back up within minutes. Silencing those who are pro-white will only make them stronger and angrier.
Besides, sites such as NewSaxon.org, run by a pro-white fellow out of Florida, have created the perfect meeting place for European-Americans who don’t believe they need to erase their family lineage to fit into society’s browning.
Furthermore, I’m pissed you use a KKK image instead of something like this that is so often displayed:
Both were taken from huge profiles on Myspace. Here’s an excerpt:
Organized in 1996, Detroit’s Black Pride Celebration “Hotter Than July” is an exciting five-day event complete with dynamic workshops, receptions, cultural arts activities, and small and large nightclub events, culminating with the worlds largest Pride Picnic Festival.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a233/picture_inspiration/Xanga%20and%20Livejournal/black_out_beach.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a233/picture_inspiration/Xanga%20and%20Livejournal/black_pride.jpg
You could easily have used those.
what about freedom of…..ah forget about it.
As much as I hate to say this… no they shouldn’t remove racist postings and images from social networks. I say this because if we start censoring self expression on social networks, even if it is racism, what’s next? Will the censorship of certain religions or spiritual practices being expressed on social networks be next? Will the censorship of certain political views being expressed on social networks be next? Unless it specifically goes against the rules set down by the owners of the social network then they should just let it be.
However, I do have to say that ever since Xanga has put this safebrowse thing in place Xanga has become a trashier place. Yes, I’m an adult and I have my safebrowse settings for looking at other’s Xangas at explicit content… but I never thought that blatant pornographic images, amature and professional pornographic videos would be made available to all Xangians who have their safebrowse set on Explicit! I mean just because I’m an adult doesn’t automatically mean I want to see such content… but at the same time not every adult on Xanga who rates their own Xanga as Explicit isn’t going to be another porno pumper either. Sometimes, adults rate their content as Explicit to keep the children out of more mature discussion and that doesn’t automatically mean freakin poro material!
I’ve talked to john about this and it seems that Xanga passes the buck so to speak… as long as their is a safebrowse rateing system Xanga can’t be blamed for the content of users blogs… it’s their way of giving in and getting more customers even if they are of the more trashy kind. I’m starting to think that MySpace is better than Xanga.
having a black father and a white mother in the sixty’s, i can tell your about racism..but would it do any good? you are always going to have people that are afraid of change. people always say its not a bad as it was…to who? Ive had people hate my guts because of my hair or my skin tone. Should we ban these images…i don’t know,where will it end? will they start banning anything that offends,how about religion,politics? the people that don’t want to tolerate the people that arnt tolerant….hasn’t the government and other organizations taken away enough of out freedoms either through fear or hate? I think it takes a individual to change another individual,making a blanket statement and treating every situation the same will never work…every situation is different in some way. there will always be images that offend, just turn on the tv.
chow
those gringo honkies should be ashamed.
Sure! Why not? But then there’s the excuse of freedom of speech… Next time when they write the damm constitution, try to say freedom of speech always and when there’s nothing against any race, sex, nationality, accent, sexual orientation and whatever, because this is going absurd.
Cornflake Girl
No. People on social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace allow people to display pro-terrorist, pro-black, pro-mexi, and pro-any-skin-color-not-white. Why should whites continue to be disciminated against?
You’re mixing your apples and oranges. Neither Facebook’s anti-racist policy nor its enforcement of that policy is anti-ethnic/cultural pride. Your claim of white anti-discrimination, is at best jumping the gun, and at worst, a strawman argument.
If people have a problem with any symbols or images depicting pro-white people, they can simply click the “Back” button on their browser. Why is pro-white immediately called “pro-hate”? The ADL and ACLU has called a lot of ancient Runic and Celtic symbols as hate symbols because the Nazis used them during their brief stint in power.
I share a similar position as you on Dan’s topic, but I disagree with some of your ideas here. I’m not sure what examples of “pro-white” displays you have in mind, but due to their historical legacy, many innoculously meant symbols and imagery connotes associated pain and suffering. Certainly, something like the Swatzika holds pre-Nazi meaning (Buddhist good luck charm, etc. etc.). But someone willfully flaunting such a symbol, even with good intentions, would have to also be aware of the very negative history associated with the imagery as well as the very likely avenues for misinterpretation.
I saw plenty of black hate sites as well! I guess that doesn’t matter because they had to pick cotton 10 generations ago–or something equally stupid!
it must also be an economic decision. Facebook is an ecocnomic entitity. Marketplace freedom. They ultimately must decide. They could decide to go the way of corporate principles…..or freedom, in a way…..but whatever, if not popular they will be defeated by someone else.
That’s tough. In my perfect world…yes. But what about some of the comments people make on your site that are demeaning to woman and different spiritual groups? Although they make me angry, they have a right to their opinion and should be able to voice it. They are just wrong.
No site can achieve perfect security, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try. In fact, they probably have a legal obligation to at least make an effort to rid their site of hateful material or risk being sued.
Some will say it’s just freedom of expression, but so ar many other things that are not allowed in society. Blowing up schools may be an expression of how someone feels, but that doesn’t make it right. Speech that incites others to hateful acts is another.
No site can achieve perfect security, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try. In fact, they probably have a legal obligation to at least make an effort to rid their site of hateful material or risk being sued.
Some will say it’s just freedom of expression, but so ar many other things that are not allowed in society. Blowing up schools may be an expression of how someone feels, but that doesn’t make it right. Speech that incites others to hateful acts is another.
I agree with captain_jaq.
“Everyone can post what they want, it’s freedom of speech. If you don’t like it, look away.”
It seems like a good idea, but it could easily get out of hand. If it’s blantantly racist, then maybe. But there really are a lot of gray areas when it comes to what’s racist, and I could see a lot of fighting happening over the gray areas.
If facebook wants to keep their reputation and people’s business than they won’t allow racism on their site. Freedom of speech supports facebook’s rights to ban content just like it supports an individual’s right to be an ignorant, narrow-minded, bigoted jerk.
Of course racist images and posts should be removed. After all, freedom of speech (or expression, if you prefer) only applies to me, not everybody else.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” – Noam Chomsky
Yeah, but ts not like it matters, people can be so oversensitive sometimes.
I don’t really care.
This subject irritates me… white people get called things or have remarks said to them, but the minute someone says anything about someone black, all Hell breaks loose..just like it seems like everyone respects every religion EXCEPT Christianity, in which it’s ok to diss it, but dissing any other religion is closed-minded and ignorant… so I say this in the same way I’d say it about the subject of religion…’freedom of speech’… let everyone say whatever they want to, and deal with it…they’re going to anyway. And no one can really do anything about it except complain.
well. it is protected by freedom of speech but it’s not socially acceptable in any class. Me personally, take it down. It’s disgusting, vile, and cruel.
I don’t think so, no.