Homophobic comments allowed on Facebook

Essentially, some people are just *****.

you're right in that it should be challenged, but censorship (which this topic is about: the attempt to censor Facebook messages) is not the way to do it.
Nor is being anti-censor tied to being "accepting" of online homophobia.
The key point is challenging homophobia is the way to challenge homophobia; let people have their hate speech and their unlikable messages so we know their views, then, oppose those views.

You can't educate or enlighten by "banning" things or filing "please remove" requests. This is where so many minority/equality fighters get it wrong.

You won't cure homophobia by making it illegal to speak bad of gay people just like you won't get rid of gay people by making homosexuality illegal.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I've been thinking about this a lot. To me it's an attitude of accepting homophobia and suggesting that homophobic discourse shouldnt be challenged. I suppose if you took that to its extreme we would have the stonewall rioters and David Norris just accepting their lot in life and still effectively have many strong human rights abuses within legal frameworks.

I also see it in a slightly different way. Essentially a lot of people congregate in spaces on the internet. Surely allowing hate speech to take over the internet you are essentially saying that the internet does not welcome certain groups. Look at AH at the moment. That in a way is kind of like a public space. Many women and men are saying there that they feel a sense of overwhelming mysogyny overtaking the place. Many of the posters there are saying they rarely post anymore because they are saying a culture of mysogyny is so pervasive and unwelcoming. Surely just accepting such a culture is forcing women out of a public space.

I'd rather be offended then to only be allowed say things which are in line with the morals of the prevailing majority.

Afterall, censoring all homophobic comments isn't actually very far removed from the Russian gay propaganda laws. That are both two sides of the same coin.

floggg wrote: »

I'd rather be offended then to only be allowed say things which are in line with the morals of the prevailing majority.

Afterall, censoring all homophobic comments isn't actually very far removed from the Russian gay propaganda laws. That are both two sides of the same coin.

I'd rather the internet be open enough to be safe space for all rather than the likes of AH being completely unwelcome to women which many women now claim it is. There are many ways of combating hate speech; education, laws, campaigning, reporting mechanisms, counter speech. Sometimes obviously when hate speech goes too far ie inciting hatred it should be censored as at that point the right to freedom of expression is clashing with others human rights and they also have the right to protection.

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

The problem with this is that although the person can't express their hate speech the hatred still exists, and arguably exacerbated as they cry martyrdom. People have the right to protection, that's why we have harassment laws and why trolling can result in infractions. I can't help but feel that censoring their vitriol is merely sweeping it under the carpet. After all, if they can't express their odious opinions how can we get the chance to correct them?

Im talking of examples where is clear ongoing harassment or clear incitement that will endanger. Like the recent example in Waterford where numerous facebook and twitter pages suggested "burning roma cünts out of their homes"

Aard wrote: »

The thing about the internet is that it's the ultimate free space. Somebody mentioned misogyny in After Hours. I don't know if it exists or not or to what extent but that's not the point. If people feel that AH is misogynistic then they and their conversation will move elsewhere. Arguably this has happened and is why the Ladies Lounge is so popular. Now we have two forums for everyone to share their views, palatable or no . The alternative is a strict policing of AH where some people would still feel uncomfortable engaging. So the AH+TLL solution is win-win imo.

Wtr Facebook, if people start to dislike it due to its lack of moderating (for want of a better word) they'll just go elsewhere. And they have started to. It's not just the arrival of parents, aunts, and grandparents that has pushed young people away from Facebook, it's that it's a platform that doesn't cater to them the way they like. I think that by sensoring Facebook, you actually stifle innovation. Allowing the masses to decide for themselves what they're willing to put up with will allow for the growth of a rich variety of ways of communicating with each other. Forcing Facebook to sensor (how exactly anyway - by law?) just keeps Facebook plodding along to the detriment of other innovations.

The internet really isnt a free space. Its subjected to national laws, international laws, policies and standards.

It seems to me that some of you arguing for a type of darwinistic survival of the fittest governance system of the internet.

A complete free for all that complete disregards human rights and that allows minorities and women to be constantly attacked and vilified to the point of exclusion and forcing them off the internet.

Aard wrote: »

I think you're reading a bit too much into my post there.

I took the same points from your post that Joey took from it.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The internet really isnt a free space. Its subjected to national laws, international laws, policies and standards.

It seems to me that some of you arguing for a type of darwinistic survival of the fittest governance system of the internet.

A complete free for all that complete disregards human rights and that allows minorities and women to be constantly attacked and vilified to the point of exclusion and forcing them off the internet.

I don't think that's the case at all.

there is a major distinction between the expression of bigoted views and incitred to hate and or threats or harassment against specified persons.

While the latter is rightly prohibited, the former should never be.

While it may make me personally uncomfortable to have to read it, I know that they same principles which enable them to spew bile in public is the same principle which enabled minorities to express themselves freely when the shoe was on the other foot and bigotry was in vogue.

It would be little different from the Russian gay propaganda laws - in both cases the prevailing determinesdeter is acceptable for the minority to say.

The law should only step in where that speech crosses the line into threatening or encouraging violence or harm against a minority or specified persons.

Unless and until then they should be allowed to spew their bile. However thankfully freedom of speech laws already give us a very powerful weapon to fight back - our own freedom of speech and the right to put forward our counter argument. And usually if we speak with enough volume and coherence, we will be able to drown them out.

As for anonymous trolls and bigots online, the only way to deal with them is to relegate them to the sidelines. If you don't like the way certain sites handle moderation, speak up or speak with your feet. They will soon change if the realise it's affecting their image and they will choose to change how they moderate.

If you are concerned about young people using anonymous sites like that ask.fm thing, talk to your kids and ensure they don't use it.

Censorship should never be forced upon any sites or users unless they cross the line referred to above.

Fair enough

bodice ripper wrote: »

I'd rather people were allowed to say what they want.

But without the cowardly cloak of anonymity.

bodice ripper wrote: »

most people on facebook are not trying to be annonymous.

guess you're right on that.

bodice ripper wrote: »

I'd rather people were allowed to say what they want.

Whilst that is an ideal situation, it just puts everyone at the top of a slippery slope. When does saying what you want become unacceptable? If it doesn't, how do you protect certain groups from hate speech, threats etc. If the attitude is "tough, deal with it" then what happens when it is you who gets hurt or offended by something someone else says? Can you practice what you preach?

Yes, but this isn't only about you.

bodice ripper wrote: »

No ****. It's about whether or not offending a gay person should be it's own special category of wrong.

I don't think anybody is saying it's just comments which are offensive to gay people that should or should be able to be censored.

It's a general principal that applies equally to lots of different types of f hate speech.

There must be and is a line at what you can and cannot say. Freedom of speech has never been, nor should it be, am absolute freedom.

The debate is where the line should be drawn. I personally believe we should allow free speech as far as possible but it would be very naive and foolish to think people should be able to say what they want.


Just look at the way hate speech was used in Rwanda to drive a genocide. And even today how it's being used in Uganda etc to incite violence against lgbt people.

bodice ripper wrote: »

So, we can say "queer" online, because it's us, and other people can't?

Much like in real life, whether the use of certain words is offensive or not depends very much in context.

Don't let that get in the way of your faux outrage though.

Chris___ wrote: »

I'm all for freedom of speech as long as what they are saying is correct and not made up bull**** to spread hatred. The reason I reported the comment was not because he called the guy a queer. It was because he associated HIV/AIDS with homosexuality. Same way as a lot of posters on the same page (Mirror) were associating paedophillia with homosexuality. A lot of my friends are gay and they aren't paedophiles.

You were on the Mirror's Facebook page?

Well then that there is your bigger problem.

unless there is a direct threat to someone in particular, i can't see that individuals should have their speech curtailed. you are allowed to be a homophobic asshole.

floggg wrote: »

On a private site, then its up to the operators.

You can't name call here for example. There's no curtailing of speech, just the operators deciding on a business model (a polite discussion board).

I understand that. that's up to the operators. this thread is lamenting the fact that the operators of Facebook decided it was fine. i happen to agree with them.

and I generally favour people being allowed to say what they please.