Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Microsoft Your Rights Online

Spotlight on Facebook Groups Affects Microsoft 150

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the hate-to-be-in-the-marketing-managers-shoes dept.
NewsCloud writes "After Slashdot reported Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech, the company removed its F**k Islam group for a day (it's back up now). According to the New York Times, 'Facebook declined to comment on Friday on the subject of hate speech or on what steps had been taken.' It turns out that Microsoft is the digital advertising provider for Facebook serving up ads for companies such as NetFlix, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and Coca Cola. But for now, the Microsoft-served ads for all Facebook group home pages (even those complying with Facebook's Terms of Use) appear to have been taken off the site. For its part, NetFlix told me to address any concerns about its own ad placement along obscene speech with Facebook. T-Mobile said they would look into it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spotlight on Facebook Groups Affects Microsoft More

Spotlight on Facebook Groups Affects Microsoft

Comments Filter:

  • ok but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdedeo ( 683762 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:24PM (#20543245) Homepage Journal
    This problem -- with user-generated content not being properly vetted by marketing departments before being juxaposed with ads -- is common to the "Web 2.0". Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day. Not to be some kind of bizarre technoutopian, but actually people think and act in ways that may be unpleasant to their fellows. The world doesn't actually look like one of those 1980s "Buy the World a Coke" ads.

    • Properly vetting (Score:3, Interesting)

      by benhocking ( 724439 )

      I don't want to mention the site's name, but a company I used to work for had a web-site geared towards children that for many years went without advertising. After it had built up quite a large audience, my boss decided to allow an advertising agency to place a single banner advertisement on the top of the pages. The agency had assured him that the ads would be tasteful (i.e., not flashing, etc.) and child-appropriate. After a week or so of this revenue, the agency slipped up somehow and allowed an inappro

      • A number of years ago, I worked for a .com that used a service that rhymes with "bubbledick" Same kind of thing. Our policy was no java, no animated gifs, and no adult content. They routinely violated our rules. I would never use an outside service again.
    • Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day.

      Well said. The huge problem with huge companies is that a large portion of their decisions in this regard are made by their legal department(s). And the cowardly results are a direct result with the fact that the legal department's "success metric" is the number of cases in which they become engaged.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        What a delightful example of political correctness being at odds with freedom of speech. Of course, in America we have the constitutional right to express ourselves freely. Isn't it interesting that we don't have the "right" to not be offended?

        I have the fever of a convert in supporting free speech, peoples rights to exercise it and COMPANIES who choose to support it. I think its high time that we as consumers and users punish firms that choose censorship over freedom of speech. If Facebooks chooses to
    • What's taking them so long to learn it though -- it's been true for all of human history. Free people have a habit of offending people by saying what they actually think rather than what they're "supposed" to say. It's been true since Guttenberg -- If you give people the ability to speak without censorship, they'll speak. So the "solution" is to get rid of the freedom part. Make sure every post and every site is preapproved by the suits, and you'll have a safe site for advertisers. Nothing offensive wi

  • Well that's too bad. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LACMA ( 1139183 ) <LACMAdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:25PM (#20543261)
    You'd think Microsoft would have known that a social networking site comprised mainly of college students would feature at least a few obscenities and outspoken and unpopular opinions. Personally I have no problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, but if Microsoft does, does anyone really think that a Microsoft-served ad provides an endorsement of the groups opinions? If it does, why hasn't anybody been all over Google?

    • Re:Well that's too bad. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:29PM (#20543343)
      Read TFA. See who posted the summary. The guy essentially fabricated a story out of nowhere. Tailor-made slashvertising... Nice.

      • Now that I look (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LACMA ( 1139183 )
        I have to agree with you. This "NewsCloud" guy has written a couple sensationalist articles decrying a couple expletives. I doubt he is "just" enforcing Facebook's own TOS agreement - and frankly, if Facebook starts enforcing it in an overly puritanical way, they risk losing members in their target demographic, one that likes to be vulgar and obscene.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Frosty Piss ( 770223 )
        What I find interesting is how one group (left-leaning Slashdrones) can make such a stink about free-speech they don't like from another group (reight-leaning xenophobes) with a straight (acting) face.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
          What I find interesting is how one group (left-leaning Slashdrones) can make such a stink about free-speech they don't like

          What I find interesting is how you can state that "left-leaning Slashdrones" are the only ones who would be offended. Actually, the submitter is obviously trying to get big companies like Microsoft to react, and they are the opposite of "left-leaning Slashdrones" in every way. And if anyone is really offended it's likely to be conservative middle-Americans.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hkmwbz ( 531650 )
          What I find interesting is that someone can shoot himself so thoroughly in the foot by not even understanding what free speech is all about. Criticizing someone's speech doesn't make it less free. Get a clue, Bush lover.

      • Re:Well that's too bad. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:58PM (#20543779) Homepage Journal
        Tailor-made slashvertising... Nice.

        It's a DUPE too! We had this story before.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by rucs_hack ( 784150 )
        Its interesting to me that there are adverts on Facebook. I've never seen any, didn't even know they existed there.

        Its amazing how adblock changes the web experience. I used an undergrad lab computer last week, and was taken aback by the amount of adverts on sites I use all the time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ozbird ( 127571 )
      You'd think Microsoft would have known that a social networking site comprised mainly of college students would feature at least a few obscenities and outspoken and unpopular opinions.

      I would imagine a "F*ck Microsoft" group would be exceedingly popular, or has that been censored already?
  • Havn't we seen this before?

  • Um (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Joe Jay Bee ( 1151309 ) *
    So Microsoft provides the advertising for a site whose users created a group called Fuck Islam. And they're at fault? Typical Slashdot spin...

    This isn't just shooting the messenger. This is shooting the guy that made the uniform that the messenger wears.
    • Um, what?

      Surprised there's no banner ad saying "F**k Open Source"?

      I'm sure it's just because Microsoft hadn't got around to it yet.
    • So someone says "fuck islam" and all hell breaks loose...

      Islamic sensibilities are being affected by private non-Muslims exercizing their right to Free Speech? Well, laa dee fucking daa, don't you wish for once they'd get just as offended by suicide bombings, indentured servitude/slavery, personal vendettas, and public beheadings everpresent in their societies.

      Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?
      • Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

        Sounds like a good reason to me!

      • Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

        Yes. It will go on until the muslims make the mistake of angering the japanese, at which points it's ninjas vs. muslim terrorists, both flipping out and killing people and themselves and not even thinking twice about it.

      • Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?
        Nooooo, it's much worse than that. Anybody can get mad and blow someone up. Not everybody can do it and still be the victim of your oppression when you express your disapproval of that sort of thing.

  • Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drhamad ( 868567 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:26PM (#20543283)
    This whole "spotlight" on the group is silly. First off, the name notwithstanding, the group really isn't that full of "hate." But even if it was, who cares?! It's a group of people that think a certain way, and it's on a site that allows people to create groups to talk about whatever they want. Why should the group be censored? I don't want to have to worry about what somebody is going to let me say, on a social site.

    • Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <william.chuang@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Monday September 10, 2007 @07:31PM (#20546401) Homepage
      What's really scary is the reaction from the Muslim posters on Facebook.

      The group in question simply objected to extremist Islam because they were killing civilians with car bombs and beheading innocents. The group directly confronted what it thought was a politically-correct reluctance to challenge extremist Muslims who wanted to kill Westerners and infidels. In response, lots of pro-Islam groups started to suggest killing Jews and Westerners. Existing Muslim groups (roughly paraphrasing, groups titled "Israel is not a real country, delist it") began to spout extremist threats. Even moderates on those boards refused to disavow terrorism, beheadings, car bombs, crashing airplanes into skyscrapers, killing Jews, and similar violence. The moderates said they were against violence, but you have to understand the kind of threats the Muslims are facing.

      Anyone who dug into this would see the Muslim supporters on Facebook tend to be far more extreme and just flat-out crazy than anyone on "Fuck Islam." But it is too politically-sensitive to say this, thereby proving the point of the Fuck Islam groups.

      Moderate away, my friends.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
        The group in question simply objected to extremist Islam

        No one is objecting to that. It's simply calling themselves "FuckIslam". If that isn't courting confrontation and asking for a similar response, I don't know what is. If you want to solve a problem, you don't start your argument by saying "fuck you". If you want a brawl, go ahead, but don't whine that no one listens to your points.

        • I think that's kind of the point. They're deliberately provoking Muslims to show what their reaction is. The reasonable response is "No, fuck you" not "I will kill everyone you've ever met".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
            The reasonable response is "No, fuck you" not "I will kill everyone you've ever met".

            So, has anyone been killed? So it looks like an appropriate response then.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hkmwbz ( 531650 )
              Perhaps no one will be killed, but threats are bad enough. As are demands that the group be taken down. The reaction from the Muslims was oh-so predictable...
  • Let the kids say whatever they want, even if you or I don't agree with it. This applies to the so-called obscenity as much as the derision for Islam. Humanity will someday grow up and realize we'll never all agree, and then we can stop being offended by our disagreement, including wanting each other dead.
  • I'm glad they put that group back up. It's not that I'm a bigot or anything. I just believe the old mantra that the freedom to criticize or hate is the greatest freedom.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Interesting. The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it? I mean the people in that group could always put up their own site? Think about things like newspapers. Just because you write a letter to the editor they don't have to print it. Just because you want to put an ad in they don't have to take it, even if you are a reporter the editor has the right to not publish what you write.

      • I'm also a firm believer that the First Amendment is meant to restrict the government and not businesses. Facebook and other sites like it have every right to remove inflammatory content in order to keep their clientèle. I was just applauding them for being an outlet for free speech.

        I don't agree with the group in question necessarily, but they have a right to say what they want in whatever outlet they want. It's just the outlets also have a right to be the gatekeepers.

        This raises another question. S
      • Interesting. The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it? I mean the people in that group could always put up their own site? Think about things like newspapers. Just because you write a letter to the editor they don't have to print it. Just because you want to put an ad in they don't have to take it, even if you are a reporter the editor has the right to not publish what you write.

        I guess the point was tha

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          I didn't know that the other groups exist. My guess is that to be fair they too should have been removed as well.

  • Inappropriate overreaction... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:31PM (#20543373)

    Canceled NetFlix over this?

    You'd think a /. submitter would understand the vagaries of such advertising relationships and the rotation systems employed. It's not like NetFlix specifically paid to be seen by members of "Neo-Nazi movie-lovers for the destruction of Israel."

    Sending them snarky letters as if that was the case is pretty childish...

  • I find it hard to believe that MS would pull the ads so quickly, if at all. Perhaps Facebook rotates its advertising providers and today is Microsofts day off?

  • So what exactly constitutes "obscene speech"? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RickRussellTX ( 755670 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:32PM (#20543397)

    Simple question, really. You can choose to agree with speech, and you can choose not to agree with speech. I'll even stretch the concept and say that speech which wanders into explicit sexuality might be considered "obscene" under a traditional judicial concept of pornographic obscenity.

    But what makes the Facebook site obscene? The use of the F-word alone?
    • That, and tomatoes are vegetables.

      (my apologies to the international /. community and those under 30 for the SCOTUS references)

      To me, it's speech which promotes or incites others to commit violent acts. And there are too many gray areas to provide good legislation for (well, against) it.
      • Incites violence? Sorry, don't see that part, no where on the groups page does it say, go and bash the Muslims with a rock.

        The Koran on the other hand...

  • Netflix is not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IronWilliamCash ( 1078065 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:32PM (#20543403)
    I think the only real problem in this situation is the loser who closed his Netflix account because he doesn't understand how the web works...

  • Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:34PM (#20543435)
    This is sort of thing is absolutely the point of having free speech. Of course, since FaceBook is a private entity, they do not have no legal obligation to be a forum for free speech, but it would be great if they were.

    That said, I'm kind of curious to see how far this tolerance goes. I think a FaceBook group attacking overly conservative Islamic culture is a perfectly valid and topical political point. Can I have a FaceBook group called "F**k Negros", to attack the inner-city black youth culture that fills the city I live in with violence? Can I have a "F**k GWB" group to attack the dumbass president who is screwing things up in the Middle East? Can I have a "F**k the Jews" group attacking the whiny Jews who scream "anti-semitism!" in order to stifle legitimate debate? If so, I have a lot more respect for FaceBook than I used to...

    • I agree. One of the worst thing about all these advertising driven social networking sites is the potential for advertisers to use threats to suppress free speech.

      These groups are seemingly well meaning but basically horribly evil. This one wants to suppress F**k Islam. One on LiveJournal (which LJ partially caved in to) wanted LJ to clear out any accounts that listed pedophilia as an interest. It is most distressing to me, and quite telling how one of the first things they try to go for is the advertis

    • That said, I'm kind of curious to shee how far this tolerance goes.

      I can tell you from what I know there was a group actually called F**k (insert name) of a specific person who a lot of people at my college didn't like. This group was banned from facebook. So it seems to me that being hateful towards a specific group is tolerated, but towards a specific person is not. That being said I wonder if this would extend from a normal Joe to someone more famous such as a major political figure. An example of this would be if you created a group called F**k Bush because a g

      • An example of this would be if you created a group called F**k Bush because a group of you didn't like President Bush.
        I dunno about you, but I started a group called F**k Bush, it wouldn't have anything to do with the current President of the United States (or even the band 'Bush'.) ;)

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think the reason Microsoft would object to a 'fuck islam' group is because their belief is more akin to 'fuck everybody'.

      A little more honesty in their ad campaigns might not go amiss...

      Windows Vista: Another forced upgrade, get your wallet out and drop your pants

    • Can I have a FaceBook group called "F**k Negros", to attack the inner-city black youth culture that fills the city I live in with violence? Can I have a "F**k GWB" group to attack the dumbass president who is screwing things up in the Middle East? Can I have a "F**k the Jews" group attacking the whiny Jews who scream "anti-semitism!" in order to stifle legitimate debate?

      But, by your logic, shouldn't the second of these groups you propose be called "Fuck White People"?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by be-fan ( 61476 )
        Not really. I think a "fuck white people" group would be perfectly appropriate for other reasons, but the folks who want to muck things up further in the Middle East do not self-identify with white people in the way the other groups self-identify with blacks, muslims, and jews, respectively. Perhaps "Fuck Neo-Conservatives" would be more apropos.

        • [...] the folks who want to muck things up further in the Middle East do not self-identify with white people in the way the other groups self-identify with blacks, muslims, and jews, respectively.

          And this is a classic symptom of white privilege [wikipedia.org]. The fact that "white people" are held to be the hegemonical race in the USA affords said "whites" the privilege of thinking of themselves in non-racial terms; members of minority groups don't have the advantage of thinking of themselves in "neutral," non-racial t

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Omnifarious ( 11933 ) *

            Though I am a white person myself, if I were to see a group disparaging white people I would assume it would target self-absorbed suburbanites with their cookie-cutter consumer culture and fleet of SUVs.

            Just as there are light colored people who participate in black inner-city youth culture, I'm sure there are dark colored people who participate in the bland suburbanite culture I describe. But I still associate it with white people.

            I think what you describe as 'white privilege' might be better described

          • members of minority groups don't have the advantage of thinking of themselves in "neutral," non-racial terms

            Don't hold me responsible for how other people think of themselves. I would like nothing more than for minorities to think of themselves first as individuals and not as members of an ethnic group, and many of them do (immediate counterexample), but those who don't need to take responsibility for themselves. Sure, most people do identify themselves with a stereotypical group of people with undifferentiated interests and preferences, but they're supposed to outgrow it after high school.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by be-fan ( 61476 )
            The issue you miss is that the groupings I gave are based on _self_ identification. I'm not projecting anything, I'm taking groups on their word for which people they claim to represent. Obviously the groups themselves are projecting, for their benefit, to make their numbers seem larger than they are, but that is really a separate issue.

            The neo-cons with designs on the middle east, on the other hand, do not not self-identify with white people. Heck, a lot of them aren't white people (there are a good number
    • "Islam" is a religion. "Negroes", "GWB", and "the Jews" are people. There's a difference between attacking a belief system and attacking people. "Fuck Judaism" would be more appropriate.

  • Smells like FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Miltazar ( 1100457 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:34PM (#20543441) Homepage
    Facebook, like many of these sites, uses an advertisement service. In this case, as mentioned in the summary, it uses Microsoft. So let me get this straight, someone is mad because a vaguely random placed ad is on some hate speech group thats part of user-content created website? From that Idealog link, it really sounds like he thinks some marketing guy up at Netflix said to himself, "Hey, look at this F**K Islam group, lets buy an ad space there." More likely they just bought ads with Microsoft to be place anywhere that uses Microsoft's ad service. Its not facebook's fault, and definitely not Netflix/T-Mobile's fault. This isn't television where you can specify during what show you want your ad on. Its a dynamic ad, it places it randomly among whatever sites use the system. Netflix bought a service from Provider A, doesn't mean they support Random Hatespeech Facebook Group B. This really must be a slow news day.

  • Ummm... as for the advertising part... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RobertM1968 ( 951074 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:38PM (#20543491) Homepage Journal

    Who cares? It means I am less likely to see an ad when I log in to FaceBook. Hooray!

    To blame any of MS's ad placement on MS is ridiculous. That they (possibly) took their ads offline because they did not want them associated with a hate site is a good thing - regardless of anyone's view on "Freedom of Speech".

  • Free speech. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @03:42PM (#20543555)
    I'm not too sure but did free speech just trump economic interest and aggressive religious interests?

    Should we celebrate? I'm so confused.
  • is because somebody removed him from their top 8. :)
  • Facebook is in a unique position here. If they start vetting groups based on "hate speech" or some other term, they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity, and therefore, ad revenue. However, if they continue to allow these groups, the whiney liberal bitch types will whine to the advertisers, resulting in pulled ads, and lost revenue. My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads. If they bi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads.

      Heh. Like the moderation system here on slashdot really works to filter out the "dickwads" as you say. No, it also works to "filter out" anything the moderator doesn't want to hear. Instead, people should engage the gray matter between their ears and THINK about what they read, and if they don't agree, make a sighing sound and MOVE ON. Censorship just gives power to those who appoint them

    • they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity,

      Doesn't that describe the current college campus rather well?

  • This is odd. I thought free speech in America only applied to those opinions with which a significant portion of the general public agrees.

    For the site to be back up suggests that at least someone in America values free speech to the extent that they would tolerate an opinion with which they disagree.

    Truly strange indeed!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Keeper ( 56691 )
      "Free speech" only applies to the government; ie: the government is not able to restrict what you say, how you say it, or whom you say it to. That being said, the government is able to hold you responsible for the consequences of whatever speech you do make. The government can't make a law against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they can hold you accountable for the injuries that result from such an action.

      "Free speech" also does not mean citizens must listen to or promote whatever crap anothe

  • "Free Speech" (Score:5, Informative)

    by LMacG ( 118321 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @04:08PM (#20543947) Journal
    Everybody wants to go on and on about free speech. For the record, the first amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


    See, it's about what Congress can not do. It has pretty much no effect on how a privately owned website operates. Facebook could ban all groups or user profiles with the word "gun" or "fuck" or "Linux" in them and it still wouldn't be a "free speech issue."
    • No one is saying that Free Speech as a guaranteed right is being infringed. Free Speech is also a valued idea and practice in our society. No private entity must allow freedom of expression, but they can certainly come under criticism for not doing so, particularly when they market themselves as venues for self-expression. Like many people with a narrow view of the world, you don't seem to get that the Constitution is a small document that has some things to say on some large issues antecedent to and vas
    • Free speech and other fundamental rights aren't just about the laws congress can write, they are a statement of the fundamental values that the majority of U.S. Citizens hold. An amendment overturning the first amendment could be passed if it hand popular support. One would hope that a website that claims to be a place for free social interaction would respect the fundamental right of free speech, even though they are not bound to do so by law. If the general public demands that speech like this not be a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mgblst ( 80109 )
      Yes, there may be no legal recourse. But it will affect how people will see the site, and whether people will stick to it. If facebook comes down too hard, they may get a lot of bad press, and start to lose a lot of people.

  • Why does Slashdot keep posting this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hanssprudel ( 323035 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @04:11PM (#20544003)
    "Fuck Islam" is not hate speech, any more than "Fuck Christianity", "Fuck Scientology" or "Fuck Atheism" is. If you don't like a set of ideological beliefs and superstitions (ie, a religion) then you have the right to voice that opinion, and the people who try to silence that are the ones who ought to be punished. If you can't handle that not everybody likes what you like, then I recommend you don't read it. In any case, stop perstering us about it.

    That said, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech, but maybe the site in question has a policy of tolerating obscene speech. It is their choice after all.

    • "Fuck Islam" is not hate speech, any more than "Fuck Christianity", "Fuck Scientology" or "Fuck Atheism" is.

      You're assuming that vulgar racism distiguishes its targets from the rest of society at large in a careful, sophisticated, fine-grained and discerning manner. Or, in other terms, that the people who the title "Fuck Islam" appeals to, in general, give much of a fuck whether it says "Fuck Islam," "Fuck Arabs," "Fuck Towelheads," or "Fuck Sand Niggers."

      Islam is a religion that's perceived through a

      • And you're assuming that the people who support a sentiment like "Fuck Islam" are, indeed, "vulgar racists" who would support the other sentiments as well. You're essentially saying it's impossible to oppose a belief system without hating the people who believe in it (or, by your account, the racial groups who are largely perceived as believing in it). In essence, you're dismissing entire classes of ideas you disagree with by not only conflating them with different but easier-to-refute beliefs (straw man fa
    • That said, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech, but maybe the site in question has a policy of tolerating obscene speech. It is their choice after all.

      In YOUR moral view and the moral view of many lawmakers, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech probably due to the use of the word "Fuck". It's not obscene to everyone however. Some of non-stereotypical /.'ers associate the word "Fuck" with a very pleasurable act, and use it as freely as the word "Sandwich." Of course, the stereotypical /.'er doesn't know anything about

  • Whole Atricle is a Troll! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday September 10, 2007 @04:34PM (#20544351)
    I think this whole article is a troll. Someone didn't like criticism of Islam, and it taking every avenue to censor and suppress it -- and trying to get the rest of us to go along. Islam is richly deserving of criticism and scholarly discussion, but try that in an actual Islamic country and you may easily find yourself in jail, if not having already had your head cut off. If you support Free Speech on the Internet, then you must be against this censorship, even if you find the site itself distasteful.

  • It's Not Hate Speech (Score:4, Interesting)

    by logicnazi ( 169418 ) <gerdesNO@SPAMinvariant.org> on Monday September 10, 2007 @04:36PM (#20544385) Homepage
    "Fuck Islam" is no more hate speech than "Fuck Creationists" or "Fuck Republicans". They both are ways to express strong rejection of a certain belief system. Merely because people label their beliefs religious doesn't magically make them immune from criticism.

    More precisely the concept of hate speech is incoherent. It is impossible to at once give a definition of hate speech that makes it clear why it is significantly worse than things like "Fuck Republicans" but yet also makes it obvious that the things termed hate speech, e.g., "Fuck Islam", qualify.

    I agree that speech that involves the phrase "Fuck Islam" is more likely to be motivated by thoughtless prejudice than other sorts of speech but mere correlation doesn't get you very far. There is going to be a correlation between "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" and ignorant prejudice as well but this doesn't make the statement of evangelical beliefs hate speech.

    A religious belief is a belief like any other and it's explicit rejection of evidence or proof doesn't means if anything it deserves less protection from criticism than our other beliefs not more. Of course we need to combat hate directed against the people who are muslim, christian or whatever. The fact that they believe something stupid doesn't warrant hating them, most of us believe some stupid shit. However, the way to do this isn't to treat phrases criticizing the belief differently than phrases criticizing conservatism. That just encourages people.

    • "Fuck Islam" is no more hate speech than "Fuck Creationists" or "Fuck Republicans". They both are ways to express strong rejection of a certain belief system.

      Neither Republicans nor creationists in the USA are perceived in a racialized manner in the mainstream culture. Islam is. There are millions upon millions of people in the USA who could care less what the difference is betwen the statements "Fuck Islam" vs. "Fuck Arabs." Compare this with "Fuck Republicans" vs. "Fuck White People."

      Merely because p

  • Hate speech is nothing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't see what is so bad about "Fuck Islam". I mean, if I said "Fuck religion", would that be worse because it includes all religion? Should I outline and elaborate on the countless people who have been killed in the name of God to give you an idea why I hold this sentiment?

    I mean, people act like forming an online community of people who dislike the beliefs of Islam is a crime against humanity. They are just as justified in harboring a dislike of people who believe in Islam as you are in disliking them f
  • If you dont watch it, most any religious group will be considered to spew hate speech.( which they all do at one point or another )

    Personally i say if words hurt you, there are more fundamental issues going on. Dont like what is being said? Then dont read it. Its that simple.
  • I couldn't care less what happens at Facebook or if Microsoft gets unfairly tarred as a supporter of so-called hate speech. The fact is that what some people call hate speech others call free speech. So, in the spirit of free speech, FUCK ISLAM.
  • At least the F**k Advertising group now doesn't show any ads on their group page
  • The thinker to idiots ratio on that group is better then 50:50 so I think it aught exist and be supported by people who respect the ability to voice an opinion without censure.
  • Why is this guy throwing his weight around? Is he trying to spread his Islamic beliefs? That's the only possible explanation for his hyperactive opposition to my group. He has more influence than he merits. His site automatically censors the word fuck when you post it there, and he hasn't responded to any of my comments, even though I'm the one that made the group and I'm here with a white flag. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, Jeff, but my opposition to Islam doesn't really stop you from doing anything

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close