What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
$9 t-shirts today only view!
threadless.com - Today's the day to snag a deal on t-shirts! Threadless.com. $9. Every. Single. Tee.
367 Comments
- plecostomus, on 05/01/2009, -12/+446I think the WTF here is that it was started by schoolchildren, not that Facebook shut it down...
- darkzeroman, on 05/02/2009, -13/+351QUICK SUMMARY: Facebook enforces its policies and takes something down they don't think is appropriate, which they can rightfully do so.
- EggAndMuffin, on 05/02/2009, -27/+348***** THE KKK !!!
- diskoh, on 05/02/2009, -11/+241They don't have a right to use someone else's webpage for it. Censorship is by the government, not a private company saying how you can or can't use the service they provide.
- errik03, on 05/02/2009, -10/+225and Facebook has a right to do that. Carry on
- lornefs, on 05/01/2009, -16/+161Let's keep the Isle of Man white and free from foreigners, in other words let the inbreeding experiment continue.
Seems to be displaying some remarkable effects so far. - bpwrinn, on 05/02/2009, -10/+106I wanna be a murderer!
Wait, I go to jail if I do? Damn you, Political Correctness!! - sggrissom, on 05/02/2009, -3/+88I think the difference here is that it's not the government censoring the KKK, but a private group. I would not sell a damn thing to someone sympathetic to the KKK, and I wouldn't fix their computer either. Facebook has every right to deny them use of their product.
- CrankMyBlueSax, on 05/01/2009, -9/+84Put their page back up. Exposing douchebaggery and idiocy to the light of reason, not to mention intartubes mockery, is the best way to deal with these morons.
- kingamoon, on 05/02/2009, -2/+75Hey .. like their decision or not; Facebook is a private company and they have the right to ban whoever they like.
- flossdaily, on 05/02/2009, -5/+76Whoa, whoa... slow down... are you saying that you guys DON'T like the KKK?
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -6/+71The Internet.
Serious business. - inactive, on 05/02/2009, -2/+64You can do whatever you want as long as you agree with the terms of service.
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php - inactive, on 05/02/2009, -1/+61You have ZERO rights to free speech on a privately owned site. Plus you agree to abide by the terms and conditions which probably forbids hate speech when you sign up .
If you don't like it don't sign up. - weeFred, on 05/02/2009, -0/+59Eh this is freedom, it's facebook exercising it's freedom to delete accounts on their servers. What fantasy land do you live in where people don't have the right to delete what they want of their own computers?
- magneteye, on 05/02/2009, -5/+63...and ***** that place wear they buy all those hoods and robes! KKKMart.
- flossdaily, on 05/02/2009, -2/+59Aww, Kids post the darndest things!
- InactiveCargo, on 05/02/2009, -5/+60It's like that time I changed my name to "CU NT FU CK DI CK SH IT" and it turned out to be in violation of Facebook's ToS... can I have a frontpage article too? I could see it now:
BREAKING - FACEBOOK ENFORCES TERMS OF SERVICE - Chooxo, on 05/02/2009, -1/+51Just a bunch of trolls.
FTA: The student who wrote about 'damn blacks and indians' was, he said, a mixed-race student who was 'trying to be ironic rather than serious'.
He said: "There are one or two ambiguous remarks from our students but we think these were intended as sarcasm."
Students complaining about a lack of jobs? Lawls. - Headinawheel, on 05/02/2009, -21/+69Yeah man, we totally need to cleanse some non-whites...
Wait, what's that? Inciteful speach isn't a freedom? No way... - willster580, on 05/02/2009, -6/+51Actually that is exercising freedom of speech in this case. The reason GerryMandering is wrong is because facebook is a private corporation and has their right to remove whatever content from their website they wish.
- govsucks, on 05/01/2009, -10/+52Just get some American KKK members to move there and their heads will all explode from a stack overflow.
- asgardshill, on 05/02/2009, -1/+40How do you say "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!" in Manx?
- mohsenxp, on 05/02/2009, -5/+43Damn society and its rules! Freedom must mean freedom!
I don't care that society has made it safe for me to walk to and from work, I want my right to kill, loot and incite hatred already! - mrshickadance9, on 05/02/2009, -1/+38Facebook is not a country and is privately owned. they can do whatever they want with their website.
- mohsenxp, on 05/02/2009, -15/+52The lack of personality you display is astonishing at times.
Having a convo with you at a bar must be so fun. - bigjared, on 05/02/2009, -8/+45You either have free speech or you don't have free speech. Having free speech means one person's hate speech is another person's freedom of expression. That's just how it works. I loathe the KKK and everything they stand for, but I will still defend their right to say what they want. The principle is that important to me. On the other hand a private company such as Facebook is well within their rights to decide how their (free!) service is used.
- kihadat, on 05/02/2009, -0/+36In particular, "6. You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence."
- KeseChartier, on 05/02/2009, -1/+34You are free to be whomever you wish, just not on someone else's website.
Facebook is a privately owned website. They have the right to restrict any group they please. - mohsenxp, on 05/02/2009, -0/+32You come to my house, you abide by my rules.
On public streets, you abide by the law that governs those streets.
On a private website, you abide by the owner's rules. - InactiveCargo, on 05/02/2009, -20/+50When did hate speech become a right?
- zip000, on 05/02/2009, -2/+30Too many ridiculous responses here.
Some point that I want to make:
1) Yes, ***** the KKK - they suck.
2) I support ANYONE'S right to say whatever they want even if I hate it (unless their speech is intended to incite violence)
3) It isn't censorship when a private company does it. Facebook can do what they want with pages on their site.
4) This is British. They don't have the same laws concerning "Freedom of Speech" that we have in the US, so stop trying to apply US laws to them. - chrismagor, on 05/02/2009, -0/+28I am totally against censorship, but it ain't really censorship if FB kills a page for TOS breaches. If they want their own little hate page then they can setup their own web server or find some unscrupulous host that will allow it...
- theodenking, on 05/02/2009, -2/+29No, the Facebook group was satire. Seriously, am I the only one that reads to the end of articles these days? FTA:
He said they had signed up to criticise the group but claimed racism was not an issue at the school.
The student who wrote about 'damn blacks and indians' was, he said, a mixed-race student who was 'trying to be ironic rather than serious'.
He said: "There are one or two ambiguous remarks from our students but we think these were intended as sarcasm."
"I'm pleased that the vast majority disagree with the sentiments of this group and want nothing to do with it." - bpwrinn, on 05/02/2009, -9/+34I hate you and I have a right to say so.
Not that I support the KKK or anything. I'm in an interracial relationship (and it rocks!). - pacman122, on 05/02/2009, -1/+25Don't take the trolls seriously, it only encourages them.
- flossdaily, on 05/02/2009, -4/+27Diskoh is *almost* right. This clearly IS censorship. However, the censorship is being done by a private actor, in a private forum, so it is no way a violation of free speech rights. Quite the contrary- if the government tried to force facebook to keep the page up, it would be a violation of facebook's free speech rights!
- Runningflame570, on 05/02/2009, -0/+22Facebook offers a service, free of charge dependent upon certain conditions which you agree to upon joining. If it is like most other sites (and I believe it is) one of those is not engaging in what they regard as hate speech. While I do not in any way, shape, or form consider banning of any public speech with the exception of incitements to violence, this is different.
Facebook is fully within its rights to ban from its service nearly anything it likes which it regards as detrimental to it or its image. - mickstephenson, on 05/02/2009, -2/+22I prefer my sarcasm to be clever, and well... sarcastic
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -0/+20Serious bio question here, if I had a hundred people and over the years they managed to reproduce until there where forty thousand people while dodging inbreeding issues (by killing the deformed children or just being lucky), would I still lack the required genetic diversity to eliminate those risks, or would the fact they share a common root population still be an issue? I'm asking because I need to know how many people my bunker has to support, obviously.
- cyclopssmiley, on 05/02/2009, -1/+21You should probably stop talking.
- Dagolith, on 05/02/2009, -2/+21FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Holy ***** people.
- flossdaily, on 05/02/2009, -0/+19That's totally sexist. It might have been a 40-year-old FEMALE skinhead pedophile.
- Foamator, on 05/02/2009, -2/+21Proof that you should always use the /s tag, even if it's obvious that you're joking.
- ChileanGoD, on 05/02/2009, -4/+23^ And of course that's another basic biology knowledge that everyone should know. Gosh we're so fking ignorant. It's like when I ask people about basic particle collision spiral analysis... it's astonishing how little they know. Goddam morons!
- Dochirin, on 05/02/2009, -0/+18Well netdroid9, there's the Toba Theory, that theorizes that about 70000 years ago the entire human population was reduced to a number between 10K and 1K individuals as the result of a massive supervolcanic event in Sumatra. There are also populations of animals that were able to recover after their were drastically reduced to a number inferior to the 100 individuals (like the Chilean sub-species of the Andean Condor for example)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theo ... - CrimsonBlur, on 05/02/2009, -1/+19"To make my point, if a Chinese business owner heard someone saying "Damn those Chinese" and the another one who said "Damn those business owners", he'll not get angrier with the first one."
Um, no. I don't care where you are from, there is absolutely no way a Chinese person would see those two statements equally. I understand the basic point you are trying to make, but that's just not actually how the real world works. Just because the Chinese business owners have come to accept the fact that those types comments will be made doesn't mean they are not more offended by them. Also, just because they aren't up in arms about it or yelling about racism doesn't mean it's an appropriate thing to say. - kmcniece, on 05/02/2009, -5/+23Stupid foreigners ruining our American KKK
- cfuse, on 05/02/2009, -4/+22Kids can be as big a pack of ***** as adults.
- EggAndMuffin, on 05/02/2009, -1/+18"KKKMart"
I laughed out loud reading that comment. haha. -
Show 51 - 100 of 379 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is