Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all "offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular group being offended but not others?
Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...
Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...
- Hate speech or symbol
- Spam or scam
- Graphic violence
- Drug use
- Nudity or pornography
That is not trampling the First Amendment. There are plenty of other hate forums where people who are afraid of a slippery slope can freely enjoy and share rape jokes.
Correct - that only refers to prohibition of government censorship.
I suspect that Facebook wants to keep things "nice" (for some value of "nice") so that the advertisers won't get spooked away and they can continue on their trajectory of world domination.
The trouble is that not every user, advertiser, or activist group agrees on what is "nice", or at least "permissible".
And it's more than just offense in this case. Sexual assault is a very serious and terrible thing to have happen. Joking about it legitimizes and normalizes it, contributing to incidents. I imagine it's the same thing as with hate speech: it could prompt acts of violence toward people of the targeted group.
At what point do you let people share ideas freely without holding them responsible for what "might happen"? When can a joke "just be a joke"?
People posting on Facebook is a privilege granted at the sole discretion of Facebook, it's not a right. While I support free speech, it's completely at FB's discretion as to whether or not content is acceptable.
Also, this could help you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Are videos where people actually get hurt[1], not just their feelings, also banned from Facebook? Or are those less serious?
I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that?
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s (unpleasant to watch)
Are you seriours, how would you even attempt to prove something like that?
Funny that everyone agrees that overtly racist/anti-semitic (and recently) homophobic images on social sites are wrong, but banning rape jokes is somehow taking things too far.
How do we measure whether access to pornography increases the number of sexual assaults? We rely on the natural experiments: measure the consumption of pornography in the area and correlate it with crime rates. For more reliable results, we look at changes in time, or control for other factors.
> images on social sites are wrong
I don't use Facebook and they can ban whatever they want. The more stuff they ban, the quicker will their grip on the web fade.
What I find weird is the disconnect from physical reality. Speech that makes people uncomfortable is banned but videos showing people being assaulted, hit with a plank are not? Or are they?
Many consider this case to be a prime example of excessive application of hate speech laws against speech that was clearly not "hateful".