Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech

NewsCloud writes "Does Facebook believe that no publicity is bad publicity? Why else would they leave a group called, "F**k Islam" open since July 21, 2007 despite more than 53,482 members joining an opposing group called petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook group? Furthermore, advertisers such as Sprint, Verizon, T Mobile, Target, and Qwest wouldn't be too happy to learn that they are paying for ads on the 'F**k Islam' group pages. Shouldn't a startup like Facebook, reportedly worth more than a billion dollars and with over a hundred employees, be expected to enforce its own Terms of Use in less than six weeks?"

Nice...

Does anyone else think that starting a petition threatening to leave the site on which the petition is hosted...? Oh, nevermind.

Re:Nice...

It's gone now, Allowing your users to say what they want is overrated anyway.

Re:Nice...

The group is misunderstood.

It's a Muslim porn exchange.

Re:Nice...

40 Virgins Gone Wild IV: Taste of Paradise

Re:Nice...

Will you please get the number of virgins straight? This belt is getting heavy.

Re:Nice...

Hot ankle-exposing action!

Thank God

Man, I hate it when people use free speech to say something I disagree with!

Re:Thank God

There's such a thing as Terms of Service. Otherwise youtube would be full of porn by now.

and that would be terrible how?

Re:Nooooo

No, there are reasonable restrictions to the freedom of speech.

The only sane restriction is whether or not the statement is true. For example, I shouldn't be able to tell people that you molest children, unless you do. For all other matters, such as for an opinion, there should be no restriction. For example, I believe all AC's smell funny - like grandma's basement.

We've decided that in a civilized society, some things are unacceptable to say, and certain restrictions about where said speech is said may apply.

Define "we" please? The major issue I have with speech restrictions is who decides what is acceptable speech. The group "we" doesn't exist other than as an imaginary peer group modeled after our own likes and dislikes.

Until no one cares what anyone says, these restrictions are necessary.

That won't ever happen. You don't have the right to not be offended, only to not read what offends you. No restrictions needed - just look away! It is possible to live how you want without forcing others to conform to your values at the same time.

Re:Nice...

Apart from the name which has a swear word - the group description as can be seen from the article is rather measured. It specifically states that the groups is not for those who hate Muslims - and that Muslims are generally good people. It is against Islam as a religion which I might add has some rather seriously violent aspects, racism and marginalisation of women - as do all religions. Despite this being clearly visible the article still claims that the group is racist. Now I don't know the conduct of the people in the group but if the description is what they they are about then I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Re:Nice...

Better to rely on the goodwill and common sense and love for his fellow man inherent in each and every one of us.

Better that people figure out not to kill and rape and steal based on common sense than because a man in a funny hat says the invisible man forbids it. I have nothing against invisible men nor people who believe in them; I simply do not trust the men in funny hats.

Re:Nice...

Based on common sense? Are you COMPLETELY retarded? WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me. Which piece of 'common sense' tells me that I shouldn't steal? As far as rape goes, why should I care whether someone else wants to do something or not? If I want to, and I have the power to do it, why should I not? (Note: I know why I should not. It isn't because of any 'common sense', though) Whether you like it or not, if there is an absolute moral code, it doesn't come from nature or common sense. If there isn't, then theft and rape are not wrong. You CANNOT have it both ways.

Re:Nice...

> WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me.

So your argument is that religion harms people by causing to act against their own self interest? Interesting, but much as I dislike most forms of religion, I don't think they're that bad. (At least not all the time.)

The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.

Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.

Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.

Re:Nice...

We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.

No, we don't need him anymore. Today we replace him with surveillance cams. They're essentially serving the same purpose, but they don't promise you anything for your afterlife.

Re:Nice...

There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code, absent religious reasons.

Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.

Re:Nice...

"All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people."

You know this how? Ever hear of Hammurabi? Moral codes existed long before the gods. They just weren't recorded until writing was invented. So, you basically have it backwards, Religions based their moral codes on common sense moral codes already extant and tries to usurp the high ground.

"There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code..."

Only if you're a pedant. Golden Rule, we should all follow it. All else is icing on the cake. Others have provided the evolutionary logic behind the GR, I won't repeat. So, we have logically determined why there are basic moral codes. It's the Byzantine flourishes that are somewhat unexplainable.

Referring up-post: Of course there is no a priori good and evil...

I agree with you this is blatantly false. Murder, brutality of any nature... I can think of any number of evil things. Those who can't need to sit in front of a mirror for a very long time and ask the reflection just how they justify the acts.

Re:Nice...

"If the fear of reward or punishment in the afterlife is the only thing that makes people good, we are a sad lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein

Re:Nice...

Despite a lack of belief in your sky fairy, I have never killed, stole or committed adultery. Amazing! Apparently I can be a normal functioning person without the threat of pain and suffering hanging over me.

Better to rely on the goodwill and common sense and love for his fellow man inherent in each and every one of us.

Well now that you mention it, if the only reason you havn't done those things is an irrational fear of pain and suffering in an imaginary afterlife you're a sociopath, so perhaps we do need to keep the mentally unstable members of the population subdued with religion.

Re:Nice...

For all we know, you were stealing a hooker's purse that you just killed after cheating on your wife with her while you were typing.

Typing!? Damn his evil soul to hell!

Re:Nice...

All religions do not marginalize women.

The only one I can think of that doesn't offhand is the Sikh faith, which actually explicitly says that women are equal to men, just different. For instance, Sikh women typically don't take their husband's name when they marry, because that has connotations of "ownership".

Jewish law does as well

Jewish law doesn't marginalize women. It holds women up as the spiritual core of the people, and elevates their primary responsibilities in the home to a level of holiness. While from a Western job-oriented mindset, people may see it as marginalized, the three core activities of an observant Jewish home, Shabbat, Kashrut, and Family Purity are commandments that fall primarily on the women. The woman takes priority over her husband regarding Shabbat candles, is primarily responsible for maintaining a Kosher home, and maintaining Family Purity. The "male" responsibilities are to provide income for his family, engage in Torah learning and teach Torah to his children, and participate in public prayer. Those "male" responsibilities are just as important (and seen my non-Jews and non-practicing Jews), but less holy and critical to the family.

Most of the anti-female views in Judeo-Christian beliefs aren't supported by the Bible, they are Roman/Greek customs and things that the early Church picked up when it merged with the Roman Empire. Did the Romans hate women? Well, considering that Roman/Greek societies placed the highest form of love as the love between a man and a young boy...

It was the Romans who decided that sex between a man and a woman was a necessary evil for procreation. This got into the Christian Bible by way of bizarre interpretation. It also slipped into Judaism a bit during the Talmudic era, when Judea was an occupied Roman Province.

If you look at the Biblical basis for marriage, it does nothing to prohibit sexual desires on either party. The only thing that is does is require that if a man lie with a woman, he make her his wife. This means that a man can only lie with as many women as he can support, so it somewhat limits male sexual expression. And pre-birth control combined with the timing effects of Family Purity laws, sex had a decent likelihood of resulting in child bearing. So forcing a man to support the woman he lies with can hardly be seen as sexist in an objective sense.

Most of the ancient tribal customs that remain in some form in traditional Judaism (wrapped in a complex Rabbinic layer) and the Church (wrapped in a Roman layer) only seem sexist looking at them backwards. We redefined the concept of gender relations in the last 100 years, and then call the old way sexist. However, if you look at the Biblical laws as applied to twelve wandering tribes in Egypt going through Arabia and into Canaan, they are extremely progressive. If you look at the restrictions added during the Talmudic era, they are extremely progressive. And if you compare their adaptation by the Church to Roman society, a society that used to encourage the men to ignore their women except to produce heirs, encouraged them to have mistresses to produce more off-spring which they could CHOOSE to legitimize or not (but the mistress got no support, while additional wives in Judaism (banned for over 1000 years now in Western Judaism) AND concubines each had levels of support, and the concubine could choose to end the relationship with no strings), the religious basis of gender relations was PRO-woman.

You can't look from a 21st century view of gender relations and look at Church law and call it backwards. Church law started as a response to the Roman hedonistic culture, that wrapped it's orgies (gay and straight) in a religious veneer. The Church later dealt with gender relations in feudal Europe, where the nobles were marrying and producing legit heirs (with some on the side), and the peasants where gender relations were somewhere between permitted rape and modern dating, and brought marriage out of common law and into general practice.

Religious marriage laws may not have been "equal" in a 21st Century sense, but they were all designed to protect women who were being used by men that were stronger than them, and had no protection under pre-Christian European customs. Those that see female promiscuity (in an era of The Pill) as liberation for women may see the obsession

Re:Jewish law does as well

I appreciate your commends as well, I think that they are correct. Jesus the historical figure was absolutely a rebel rousing Jewish leader. Some of his teachings are allegorical, some challenge the Rabbinic/Preistly leaders of the day, etc., but not outright challenge Written Torah law. What his followers did with his words is another story, but the famous quotes of Jesus become MUCH more interesting if one understands Jewish law, particularly as it existed during the Second Temple era.

However, I wanted to take issue with some of your characterizations:

I'd like to also throw in that the Bible, especially the period where Jesus is teaching (beginning of the new testament) was a time when women were not allowed to speak in places of worship, not allowed to testify in court (their witness didn't count), and were generally viewed as a means for a man to 1) take his pleasure and 2) pass on his bloodline and raise sons.

It is important to understand that in Jewish law, things are divided into permitted and non-permitted, and obligatory and non-obligatory. Jewish law is quite binary, there are few shades of grey... as an exception to this, the Hassidic/Hareidi cultures of the past two hundred years introduce a WHOLE BUNCH of grey, because they prohibit things via Minhag (binding custom) or Mensorah (custom) to their followers, but because a Beit Din (House of Law) has no jurisdiction outside of their area, you have things prohibited to followers of one Rabbi that are permitted to another. This introduces a LOT of grey areas of things that aren't permitted but are to be avoided. However, the areas you are addressing come from basic Jewish law.

1. Women were not allowed to speak in places of worship

While American Protestants and Liberal Jews have turned their places of worship into general social halls, basically as social clubs that have religious services on Sunday/Saturday respecfully, that was not historically the case. In Catholic Europe, the Churches held daily services and were fundamentally focused on religious matters, including matters that many today would consider secular in nature, but both Jewish and Christian Law is ALL encompassing on matters (roughly two Thirds of the Jewish Talmud and Shulchan Aruch cover matters of business -- not things considered "religious" in the post enlightenment world). If you look in Israel, where Jews are the majority, the Beit Knessets/Schules (Hebrew/Yiddish for synagogue) are places of worship and learning, not community centers. One would go to a synagogue for Morning or Afternoon/Evening services, or to the study hall during the day for Torah learning, not to discuss community affairs.

As a result, the "speaking in place of worship" is referring to either A) leading services, or B) teaching words of Torah. Now, under Jewish Law these are both privileges and honors to the person that does them, but also obligations upon the people doing them. Because women are generally exempt from time-based obligations for a variety of reasons, they are NOT required to do these commandments. Because Jewish law does not separate obligation from privilege, women are not permitted these functions. In other words, if you permit women to lead services and teach Torah, then the obligation falls on them. It isn't really fair to expect women to fulfill ALL the female oriented obligations (which are just as time consuming and all consuming as the male ones) PLUS the male ones, so the prohibition holds.

Think about it, how quickly did it go from "women are allowed to hold jobs" to "women are expected to hold jobs" in modern America? Few married women with children would consider working outside the home a privilege, but now an obligation. The "extended adolescence" of singles in their 20s and several years married before having children has affected how women view themselves, but it has also put obligations on them that previous generations didn't have. Few homes divide housework or child rearing evenly,

Re:Jewish law does as well

Jewish law doesn't marginalize women.

Nonsense. Ever hear of "menstrual shacks"? The idea is that when a woman is menstruating she is "ritually unclean" and has to be sepreated from the rest of the family and religious services as she might make them "impure". Jewish law expressly regards women as being less valuable, a female slave is worth less, punishments for killing women are lower, etc.

The "male" responsibilities are to provide income for his family, engage in Torah learning and teach Torah to his children, and participate in public prayer. Those "male" responsibilities are just as important

They are obviously much more important. Since men are only allowed to have religious education, and "traditional" Jewish live is based on theocracy, in traditional Judism women are absolutely prohibited from engaging in political life. They have no vote, they have no say, except whatever influence they can have on their husbands. An unmarried woman in traditional Judism is essentially powerless.

It was the Romans who decided that sex between a man and a woman was a necessary evil for procreation. ... Church law started as a response to the Roman hedonistic culture, that wrapped it's orgies (gay and straight) in a religious veneer.

You're contradicting yourself. It was the Jews, for example, that started the practice of women covering their hair out of modesty. Jews expressly forbid homosexuality. Look into the practices of the Essenes and other 1st century Jewish movements. Asceticism and anti-sex views were widespread long before the time of Jesus, though they certainly weren't EXCLUSIVELY Jewish.

The reality is that Roman religion was diverse and some particular cults were anti-sex and ascetic, some were hedonistic, but MOST promoted what we would call today "traditional family values".

Most of the ancient tribal customs that remain in some form in traditional Judaism (wrapped in a complex Rabbinic layer) and the Church (wrapped in a Roman layer) only seem sexist looking at them backwards.

They don't seem sexist, they ARE sexist. The big question I have for you is: If you acknowledge that most of the moral teachings of the Torah are basically nonsense, why isn't it ALL nonsense? Genesis pretty obviously didn't happen, the Exodus almost certainly didn't happen. Since it's all fictional, why follow any of it?

Religious marriage laws may not have been "equal" in a 21st Century sense, but they were all designed to protect women who were being used by men that were stronger than them, and had no protection under pre-Christian European customs.

Modern Jews/Christians mostly base their opinions of pagan culture on anti-pagan rhetoric by early church fathers and religious leaders. The reality is quite different. Romans introduced divorce, one of the most important women's rights innovations in history. For the first time, women could own property, declare heirs, and have significant political representation in Rome. One of the first things the Christian emperor Constantine did was eliminate divorce and women's rights.

The only "modern" religion built in response to the current day environment is Scientology... and while Scientology appears to harness and direct modern desires (worship of celebrity, pursuit of money without limitation, sexual freedom), I don't think that many people would want society to become more like Scientology, would they?

Scientology does not claim to be a modern religion, but an ancient religion "revealed" to a modern man. Scientology is primarily concerned with "personal growth" and self-help (eliminating addictions and mental health problems). Scientology does not worship celebrity, they see celebrities as a marketing tool. The pursuit of money is not a major VALUE of Scientology, though they are greedy for money in the way that all churches are. Scientology opposes sexual freedom and homosexuality.

Given the choice

Re:Nice...

The important difference is that off-in-a-group-on-a-website hecklers are easier to avoid than in-your-physical-face hecklers. As long as they're not pestering you directly by spamming your wall/blog/whatever, it is a lot easier to avoid the online kind of numbnuts.

And if you have some social need to provide said numbnuts with some clue, joining the group and working from the inside is usually more effective than ZOMG-must-ban!

Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen

I bet 99% of those people couldn't quit Facebook even if you paid them.

hmm...

Clicking on the link to the group f**k Islam takes me to the Facebook homepage, but clicking on the other link works. The f**k islam group is also linked from the petition, but it too takes me to the Facebook home page. Looks to me that the group was removed...

Re:hmm...

Dude, this is Slashdot, it doesn't have a ridiculous policy on "Forbidden Words", nor the ridiculous belief that replacing some letters with symbols somehow robs words of their meaning.

Say it with me: the group is called "Fuck Islam".

Re:hmm...

Yeah, it's remarkable on slashdot how you can talk about [DELETED BY CMDR TACO]. I'm very much a free speech advocated but it seems to me that somethings go way beyond the line, and I don't think if I were CmdrTaco I'd let people post about my private life on forum my wife may read, or even the animal rights people who just can't accept that [DELETED BY CMDR TACO]. He paid for the bunnies, what he does to them in private should be his business alone.

Re:What about digg?

Fuck Digg.

Re:What about digg?

Digg doesn't exist any more after their userbase said they would quit over the DVD encryption key fiasco. Kinda like Facebook. Oh wait...

Re:What about digg?

If Slashdot doesn't bring back the hot grits and Natalie Portman, then I propose we quit.

heh

I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...

Re:heh

I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...

I'm holding out for the 'Fuck Virginity' group....

... ducks and runs...

RE:

petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook

I do what I want with Facebook. Who cares if you quit? There are millions more signing on every day and thousands of new people joining. Who would miss a few hundred people (after most don't actually follow-through)?

If this is a threat you have to do better than that! It's no skin off my back if you quit for being a whiner.

Sincerely Yours,
Mark Zuckerberg

Re:Update

I think they misunderstand. Fuck Old People is a dating service group.

Re:Update

I think they misunderstand. Fuck Old People is a dating service group.

With Bob Dole as their spokesperson and a great catchy line like, "I chose the little blue pill and plugged myself right into her Matrix."

censorship icon

Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it?

props to the slashdot strawman.

Tolerance Icon

Remember that it's acceptable to make fun of Geeks, Christians, Buddists, Jews, Scientologists, Atheists, and LoS (Libertarians on Slashdot). But never make fun of Islam, the religion of peace, because they might cut off your head and car bomb your friends.

Re:Close...

1) We buy oil at fair market value, even after the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West.

2) Really by the time there are no living humans with memory of an event, it's time to stop demanding retribution/reparations/repayment/etc.

Re:AC's bore me..

"The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion."

IOW it's mainly Muslims killing each other, so the GPs point about us "still killing them in mass" is bullshit. The main reason we're still there four years later is to try to stop Muslim deaths. (Of course, whether our continued presence is actually helping is very debatable.)

I also have to wonder what exactly the numerous Islamic terrorist atrocities commited before any western involvement in Iraq or Afganistan were "fighting back" against.

Meh

I guess I'm just not sensitive to plight of religion.

I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that?

Should child molesters be able to rally against a "Fuck child molesters" group?

I hate KKK members. I can't stand them. Listening to their boring, monotonous, unfounded, uneducated diatribe and rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. Am I wrong?

Can I not hate?

Damn Baby Boomers, they got the whole world in this 'touchy-feely' vibe. Sorry guys, free speech, ironically, means protecting ideas you don't like, including a person's right to feel however the FUCK they want to feel about any particular subject. It'd be cool if there were an objective standard where 'less hate' made you a better person (a la Star Wars, and the Force), but there's not, and there's really no reason NOT to hate, other than the fact that it, probably is a waste of your time, and your energy and can be an unhealthy source of stress.

I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.

I'm sure I'll be modded down because the world today tells you that 'hate = suxzorz' but quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with people who hate. We all hate sometimes. Try not to let it effect your actions, and how people perceive you, and try to let it go because it's a personal hangup but don't encourage corporations to begin fiating legislation that tells me what emotions it's okay for me to have and express.

If there's a fiscal argument (a la ads) to be made, I suppose that'd be where I'd find the argument persuasive, but honestly it's a cloak for a moral judgment, and I'm sick and tired of being told how I should feel about things. Facebook, you let me keep in touch with my friends, I'm a big boy. I'll decide how I feel about things.

As for being hated, I'm sure it sucks, but again, if it's not having any actual consequences, don't sweat it. If you're getting turned down for a job because you're Islamic, that seems pretty crappy to me, but if some numbnuts has decided that him and his hater friends wanna circle jerk each other's ideas on FB, screw em. Don't join the group. Don't talk with them. ::shrugs::

I just don't see what the big deal is, but, being /. I expect plenty of comments telling me exactly what it is and why I'm such a turd for believing that my feelings and my Facebook groups are mostly MY business.

Re:right on

FUCK FAT People. They are just UGLY.

You are a very brave person to post that sentiment on /.

Re:Meh

Can I not hate?

You can't hate if it's on someone else's website and you have agreed to their TOS saying you can't/won't on their site. Remember, it's only censorship if the government does it!

That said, you can say whatever you want on your own website hosted on your own servers. In that case, I also have the right to be disgusted by it and not visit your website..

Maybe we're just old fashioned in believing that free speech extends to people we don't like.

Re:Meh

Your Facebook group would be your business... if your name was Mark Zuckerberg. This isn't about opinions, it's about whether or not such groups are appropriate on that sort of site. If the group remains up, then the leadership feels that they are - if it comes down, then they must feel it's not. There's no censorship going on here, nobody calling anybody "turds" as you put it, just a question of appropriateness. Zuckerberg et al are trying to pitch the site to a certain audience with certain goals in mind - if this sort of group works against those goals then it will come down. The headline (for once!) hit the issue on the head - this is about Facebook intermixing political hot topics (think of the fallout from the Muhammad cartoons) and their cash cows: advertisers.

This isn't about whether or not Facebook is letting you bitch adequately. After all, there's always Myspace for you people ;)

Oh no!

Some of those fuck Islam people might even live in our town! Quick, create a petition to drive them out of their homes as well! I'm a buddhist, and I'd be quite annoyed if a 'fuck buddhism' group were removed. I'd probably even join if they'd have me, I don't think any honest person can look at his religion and not see huge room for criticism. But trying to force someone into your own belief system is a dangerous path to walk. I think this group is flirting with turning into the exact thing they intend to get rid of.

Why do I think...

Am I wrong when I think that if there were a site on Facebook call F*ck Chistianity, with a similar petition of outraged Facebook users saying they would quit unless the site was taken down, that the story would get the entirely opposite spin when it ran on Slashdot, with the writer coming down on the side of free speech over protecting outraged religionists from being offended? And I am no Christian zealot, either. However, sites like Slashdot and Digg skew to the liberal/moonbatty side, and unfortunately there is an all-to-apparent double-standard / hypocritical attitude that Islam deserves special treatment compared to Christianity and Judaism. Free speech should come first in all cases -- I don't care which group is offended.

Re:Why do I think...

Fuck them both. The definition of religion is organized lunacy.

Re:other groups worth joining

The only group worth joining:
Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

That basically takes care of everything.

Not Racist (By definition)

The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Even if it said Fuck Muslims, it still wouldn't be racist. The religion of Islam accepts members of any race, and the term Muslim encompasses all followers of Islam. Calling it racist points you out as an ignorant follower of stereotypes also; the majority of Muslims in the world aren't even middle Eastern, they're in SE Asia and Indonesia.

I don't see a problem with this group, or any others. Censorship is more offensive to me than anything I've ever seen someone wanting to censor. Full disclosure, I'm an Antitheist and anything working against the institutions of religions is fine with me (as long as it's peaceful of course).

The submitter is just trolling for traffic

The submitter is obviously just trying to drum up traffic to his page with a troll post. The submitter linked to his own news site. Great for SEO.

Angry!

I am extremely angry they took down the F*ck Islam thread. It's a win for censorship, and from all accounts it was a critique of Islam more then a needless hate thread. Islam need some very aggressive critiquing. It has many modern flaws systemic within it and has it's head buried far far far into the sand. Mod me down but it greatly angers me that no one can critique Islam. That people die for doing nothing more then pointing out it's flaws. At some point we need to push back. Poor beleaguered Muslims in US, probably. But Almost any country that is Muslim majority is a oppressive to it's religious and ethnic minorities. From indonesia to UAE. Muslims aren't bad people but they are set up systemically to be used by what ever power broker can incite religious fervor. And most of the Muslim power broker are bad people.

Fork Islam?

What's the big deal? That happened centuries ago, hence Sunni and Shia Islam.

Who gives a $#!+?

Seriously. Aren't we big enough, as a species, to realize that there are people out there that hate us (no matter whom the "us" are), and that, fundamentally, it's their right to do so? If you don't like me because I'm a male, an American, without a degree, overweight, a Christian, from Texas, or whatever, I just flat don't care. I have more important stuff to worry about, and criticism to notice from people whose opinions actually matter to me. A life so empty of strife an conflict that it can be shaken just by someone forming a group called "Fuck <some group that I happen to identify with>" is a life to be envied, I suppose.

Nobody is going to please everyone he meets in life, and if you don't make any enemies along the way, you're probably not doing anything meaningful. If someone is going to waste time and energy hating me, I don't feel threatened. I don't feel endangered. If there existed a group called "Fuck all fat egocentric Texan assholes," I'd get a good chuckle out of it. Because, really, we can be pretty overbearing at times; we all can, though you'd probably never see fat egocentric Texan assholes shooting up the place and lighting fires because someone circulated cartoons of Sam Houston or Stephen Austin.

I mean, really, what's the harm? Short of the US military, there isn't a single group of people organized and equipped to exterminate or even cause widespread inconvenience to all fat egocentric Texan assholes--or all adherents of Islam, for that matter. And, really, if I were Islamic, I'd be a lot more worried about the US military than a club on a social networking website.

We need to all grow up (grow a pair, as the saying goes). Every person on this planet is a pathetic loser in one way or another. Thankfully we're all pathetic losers in different ways. Grow from the worthwhile criticism, and laugh at the rest. Whining for censorship is picking a fight in the parking lot because you lost on the mat. Call me an asshole, and be happy you can; I'll gladly return the favor.

The day we can't is the day we really have something to worry about.

Since we are on the subject...

You know, fuck whom? Fuck web designers that think that a) screwing with your cursor is acceptable, and b) a cross-hair is a good cursor for links.

(also fuck people with pointless blogs, but that's kind of a standing sentiment)

Selective Protesting

The people in this anti-group claim that it exists only because the hate group "Fuck Islam" violates Facebook's own terms of service. They say that it has nothing to do with free speech or their opinions on the subject.

If that is true, then were are all of the other anti-groups protesting these hate groups, which I found on FaceBook in about three minutes of searching:

    ALL CHILD MOLESTERS SHOULD HAVE THERE DICKS GET CUT OFF
    Fuck The Fucking KKK
    FUCK THE KKK FUCK THOSE RACIST BITCHES!!!!
    All unite against the group(fuck uslimsand palestine)
    FUCK ISRAEL!!! EVERONE HATES IT SO WHY IS IT STILL AROUND?!
    Fuck Nazis
    Fuck The Enemies of Israel

It seems to me that if they were really concerned, they would protest ALL of these hate groups, and not just the one they selected. After all, if they are truly okay with free speech but not hate groups, then shouldn't they take equal protest against the anti-KKK group, the anti-Nazi group, and the anti-Israel group?

Censorship is not a good idea

If someone I disagree with isn't allowed to express their views in an open forum they will find some other way of promoting their viewpoint.

If one person is willing to express a view then many other people probably also believe the same thing. If they are allowed to express their views openly then those views can be openly rebutted. That's the reason I never mod down people I disagree with on slashtot. Its better to post my on response or mod up a good response.

Some clarification please?

Since when is Islam a race? Islam is a religion whose practitioners are called Muslims. Muslims can be of any race. Just like followers of Christianity are called Christians, and there are Christians of every skin color. So, cursing a religion does NOT make a person RACIST, nor does it qualify as HATE SPEECH.

Undeserved Respect For Religion

Douglass Adams, quoted by Dawkins:

Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not. If someone votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. ... But on the other hand, if somebody says "' mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say 'I respect that.' ... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

The whole idea of removing the group because some people are offended is insane; some people will be offended by almost anything Hell, I'm offended that the barbaric sharia law is still practiced in some areas. But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!

Words, even offensive words, harm nobody. Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong. Censoring criticism (no matter how bigoted) of religion is even worse, though, because it spreads this idea that religious thought is somehow special.

The only special quality about religious thought is the effectiveness with which it spreads itself by removing reason from the mind of the believer.

Slashdot arguing for censorship

Isn't slashdot contra-censorship ? Of any kind ? I mean how can you argue FOR the universal availability of stuff like mein kampf and the quran, and be against this sort of thing ?

Lots of books that slashdot "fights" for are a lot more controversial, and less childish, than this ...