Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech 806

Posted by kdawson
from the just-take-it-down dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech

Comments Filter:
  • Nice... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gardyloo (512791) on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:44PM (#20474195)
    Does anyone else think that starting a petition threatening to leave the site on which the petition is hosted...? Oh, nevermind.
    • Re:Nice... (Score:5, Funny)

      by silverkniveshotmail. (713965) <everettpf3.gmail@com> on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:54PM (#20474321) Journal
      It's gone now, Allowing your users to say what they want is overrated anyway.
    • Re:Nice... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cassius Corodes (1084513) on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:58PM (#20474365)
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        All religions do not marginalize women.
        • Re:Nice... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Gordonjcp (186804) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:24AM (#20475861) Homepage
          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".
          • by alexhmit01 (104757) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @08:04AM (#20477353)
            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
            • by rtechie (244489) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:20PM (#20483781)

              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 of Scientology, which most people recognize is a money-making scam, and Judism, which most people DON'T recognize as a money-making scam, I'd pick the former.
    • 6 weeks on... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee (775178)
      ...and none of the petitioners have actually left.

      What is their deadline anyway? "Stop that group or we'll quit Facebook somewhere in 2084"?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by LordSnooty (853791)
        Give em a break, it must be difficult to sever yourself from such delights as the "Bite Me" app and "You have been chopped by a Ninja!!" et-fucking-cetera
  • by agengr (1098271) on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:45PM (#20474207)
    I bet 99% of those people couldn't quit Facebook even if you paid them.
    • by Fozzyuw (950608)

      Maybe the worst bluff I've ever seen...I bet 99% of those people couldn't quit Facebook even if you paid them.

      2nd worst, only to WoW (or other popular MMO's in their heyday) forum trolls. =) Did anyone ask them if you could have their stuff?

      Cheers,
      Fozzy

  • hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

    by doxology (636469) <cozzyd@m[ ]edu ['it.' in gap]> on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:45PM (#20474219) Homepage
    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...
    • by bcdm (1031268)
      Since when, exactly, did reporting a broken link become "flamebait"? I grow confused.

      It appears that the group has been taken down. Looks like censorship has won out. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, really.
    • Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by glwtta (532858) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:14AM (#20475431) Homepage
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No, the ORIGINAL group name was "F**k Islam". If you go to the new group "Fuck Islam" there are posts asking why the old group was deleted. This makes it pretty obvious that "Fuck Islam" was NOT the original group, but the replacement group. People here aren't using ** to be "leet" or to avoid swearing, they were correctly quoting the article/group.
  • What about digg? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DAldredge (2353)
    What about the large amount of anti religious speech on Digg.com?
  • heh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iron Condor (964856) on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:49PM (#20474267)
    I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Carpe PM (754778)
      Not likely, not here. And any 'Fuck Islam' talk will be quickly moderated down.

      'Fuck Christianity' will be just as quickly rewarded.

      We can't allow too much tolerance!

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ydra2 (821713)
        You said:

        "Not likely, not here. And any 'Fuck Islam' talk will be quickly moderated down.

        'Fuck Christianity' will be just as quickly rewarded.

        We can't allow too much tolerance!"

        I now ask, what do you call tolerance and why are you so much against it?

        I think you mean to say that we are quick to censor any anti-Christianity but slow to censor any anti-Ismlamic posts, or maybe the other way around. But your statement actually says both "will be just as quickly rewarded" I think in the context of being moderat
    • Re:heh (Score:5, Funny)

      by grcumb (781340) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:25AM (#20474657) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:5, Funny)

    by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:49PM (#20474273)

    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
  • Update: After I posted this to Slashdot's Firehose, the Fuck Islam group was deleted today. However, the Fuck Israel and Jewish group, the I hate Iraqis group and the Fuck Old People remain open, among others. In other words, I think the point of this post is still quite valid.
    Are old people considered a protected class of people under Federal Law?
  • censorship icon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davek (18465) on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:54PM (#20474327) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nymz (905908) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:06AM (#20474437) Journal
      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.
    • by metlin (258108)
      Precisely.

      To quote a sentiment attributed to Voltaire and expressed by Hall, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Besides, what's this? An ad on Slashdot for anti-Facebook campaign? Or some sort of troll that expects Slashdotters to actually side with censorship?

      Almost worthy of an Adequacy.org troll, were it not for the fact that the poster seems to believe his/her words.
    • by jmv (93421)
      Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it?

      No. Free speech doesn't mean you're free to say whatever you like with no consequence. There are many things that do not (and should not) fall under free speech:
      * "Hey, I've got a bomb in my luggage" (said in an airport)
      * Defamation (for a reasonable definition of the term)
      * Hate speech ("We should kill all ")
      * ...

      Of course, it's not trivial to have a good balance between what is and isn't allowed (e.g. I think "I
      • by jafiwam (310805)
        * "Hey, I've got a bomb in my luggage" (said in an airport)
        * Defamation (for a reasonable definition of the term)
        * Hate speech ("We should kill all ")

        Uhm, that last one there is still protected speech in the United States. You can say it all you want and nobody from the government can stop you (legally, or without violating your civil rights)

        Actually, defamation is not illegal, but you can be sued in a civil court for it.

        Only when you do the proverbial "fire in crowded theater" one that puts people at phys
  • Facebook doesn't care because these people are likely either too addicted to quit or, if some do, there will be plenty of new users to replace them. After all, all the cool people are on there these days ... right?

    And if these sites removed everything that SOMEONE was offended about, there wouldn't be anything left, hence no users, hence no ads, hence no money.
  • I agree with most of the commenters that Facebook doesn't care --- or they would take all the easily queryable "f**k" and "hate" groups down...but the advertisers TMobile, Verizon, Sprint, French's, etc. They won't like finding out that their brand is appearing on pages of groups with these obscenities. Remember, don't f**k with French's...
  • Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Internet Ronin (919897) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (ninor.tenretni)> on Tuesday September 04, 2007 @11:58PM (#20474363)
    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.
    • right on (Score:2, Insightful)

      by frakir (760204)
      This is a fucked up world of american political correctness, man. Let me be brave and bold to say....

      FUCK FAT People. They are just UGLY.
    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bockelboy (824282) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:12AM (#20474501)

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by intx13 (808988) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:16AM (#20474551) Homepage
      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! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe Tie. (567096) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:04AM (#20474419)
    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.
  • I haven't read the Facebook TOS, but I would be very surprised if they put into place any sort of provision that held Facebook to any particular standards regarding taking down offensive content. The idea behind such agreements is to give Facebook protection in the event they decide to yank a Facebook account for whatever reason.

    This scenario weirdly parallels the Noah v. AOL [tripod.com] case, in which a Muslim sued AOL for failing to police a chat room that was full of anti-Muslim sentiments, in violation of AOL's u

  • Is /. late to the party? The group link from the story doesn't seem to work and I can't find it through normal searches.
  • For me to care about you quitting facebook, you'd first have to provide me with something that would make me want you to stay.

    I don't see a single reason to want facebook in the first place, let alone these wankers.

  • Why do I think... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Retired Replicant (668463) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:06AM (#20474445)
    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.
  • by sqrt(2) (786011) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:15AM (#20474537) Journal
    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).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by joe_n_bloe (244407)
      The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion.

      Well, maybe renaming it to Fuck Sand Niggers would put a finer point on it.

      Oh, that wasn't what they really meant?

      I'd think you were just trolling but my "earnest misguided n00b idiot" filter is giving your comment a higher rating than my "clever jaded social commentator" filter.
  • by jorghis (1000092) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:21AM (#20474613)
    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! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by king-manic (409855) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:40AM (#20474795)
    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? (Score:5, Funny)

    by AJWM (19027) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @12:46AM (#20474841) Homepage
    What's the big deal? That happened centuries ago, hence Sunni and Shia Islam.
  • Who gives a $#!+? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jonathan C. Patschke (8016) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @01:29AM (#20475167) Homepage

    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.

  • by glwtta (532858) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @01:53AM (#20475315) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DavidD_CA (750156) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:14AM (#20475435) Homepage
    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?
  • by fredmosby (545378) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:21AM (#20475461)
    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.
  • by JRHelgeson (576325) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @02:28AM (#20475521) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:16AM (#20475833)
    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.
  • by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:22AM (#20476491) Homepage
    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 ...

Computers will not be perfected until they can compute how much more than the estimate the job will cost.

Working...