Facebook Shuts Down "Pro-Genocide" Group
A fast-growing new group of Facebook users from Bosnia called on Facebook to shut down another group on the site that celebrates the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims by the Serbian army in Srebrenica. It appears that the group has been shut down while we wrote this story about it, the link to the group now redirects users to their profile pages with no explanation. Was that the right way to handle it? We're not sure.
Reuters wrote this morning about the Serbian group that reportedly describes itself as "For all those who think that Muslims are best on the spit and while swimming in sulphur acid". The anti-Muslim group's membership grew 20% to more than 1100 people since the Reuters report was published.
Should Facebook Have Shut This Group Down?
We don't have access to a reliable translation of the Facebook group in question, but we are honestly perplexed about how it ought to be dealt with. Calls to violence against a particular group are unacceptable, celebration of past acts of genocidal violence is absolutely repugnant but where do the lines get drawn around this?
Facebook is a private company and so presumably has the right to shut down whoever they like, but ought they? The alternative to "censorship" is generally said to be "vigorous debate" but as was arguably evidenced by the 20% growth in this group's membership since international attention fell on it - public debate can have unexpected consequences as well. French philosopher Voltaire is often invoked in conversations like this, he was the man who allegedly uttered the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
No one from Facebook responded to inquires by Reuters or this site by press time.
It's a Slippery Slope
It's a slippery slope and these are complex matters. It could be argued that genocide is a very clear matter - but there are people who would make the same kinds of arguments that are being made in this case against a group online celebrating Columbus Day in the United States. There are, in fact, more Groups on Facebook dedicated to condemning Columbus Day than to celebrating it. Should the pro-Columbus Day groups be banned, though?
Yesterday we read that a South African political party has announced that it will send delegates to its national convention to represent party members who have joined the party's group on Facebook!
Politics and Facebook are inevitably going to collide as the site grows bigger and more important. As a private company, a privately owned communication utility, there are some interesting issues that come up that are different from the way these questions are asked about the web at large.
We honestly don't know what to think about this question, but we're curious what our readers have to say. RSS readers can click here to view and participate in a poll on the question: should Facebook have shut down the group celebrating the Srebrenica massacre? We would ask whether readers believe that Facebook should shut down pro-genocide groups, but it's not clear who would be the best party to determine what constitutes genocide.
Update: A Facebook spokesperson contacted us with the following statement. "The group violated our Terms of Use and has been removed. Facebook supports the free flow of information, and groups provide a forum for discussing important issues. However, Facebook will remove any groups which are violent or threatening. "
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
That's the toughest vote I have cast in a long while. This really makes you think. If we are to have a truly free society, you have to allow free speech for those groups whom with you violently disagree.
I think we can all agree that with this issue, the majority will rule the day in an overwhelming fashion. But what if they did start getting traction? Is that what happened in Germany with Hitler??
Posted by: Troy Malone | December 11, 2008 11:14 AM
In Germany today it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, and anyone who has studied the history of this event can only marvel at the ignorance and stupidity of people that take this stance. This group, it seems, go far beyond denial into celebrating genocide and as such should be condemned unreservedly. Does this deny them the right of free speech, as has happened to German Holocaust deniers? It's a heck of a tough call...
Posted by: John Sutton | December 11, 2008 11:21 AM
Facebook needs to factor in the resulting PR, so the answer with a business twist is YES.
But, from a sociological perspective, I guess the answer would be:
Not immediately, this is valuable data!!!
These are social health thermometers... especially useful if you can cross reference it with rich demographics ( which is what Facebook is all about ).
I wonder how many things these guy already know about Humanity 2.0.
Posted by: Aldo Bucchi
|
December 11, 2008 11:26 AM
Facebook obvs. had the right to delete the group, so I won't get into that argument. In asking though, whether or not they SHOULD have deleted it, I'm going to cast my vote for yes and here's why.
While I'm not one for censorship, Facebook has on numerous occasions spoken out about various injustices. In his SXSW keynote for instance, Zuckerberg spoke in some detail about how FB was digging into new territories using the service to help people communicate against such things.
I think that given this stance, to allow such a group to exist would be contradictory to many of their previous actions. That said I think my support of the deletion, stems mainly from the fact that I'd rather the service be hypocrisy-free than completely unmitigated.
Posted by: Blake Robinson | December 11, 2008 11:29 AM
I'm glad they shut it down. Incitation to hate, and racial behavior is nowhere to be tolerated, even in a free-speech driven world.
Posted by: Tim | December 11, 2008 11:31 AM
Not sure I follow all the hand wringing on this one. There are clear lines in the sand of right and wrong in many instances, and this is obviously one of them.
That is to say, when did genocide, the celebration of genocide or the call for future genocide become OK? The obvious answer is "never," and this is not a subjective measure.
I appreciate the vigorous free speech debate, but are there no limits? You mention that as a private entity, F'book can shut down anyone they want. That sort of seals the argument right there. This is less an argument for or against free speech and more one of property rights.
Even the staunchest defender of the first amendment, (which, by the way, is US law and does not necessarily apply to an internet service that is available everywhere in the world), must hold his or her nose every time they see a neo-Nazi rally, cross burning or other form of hate speech. Yes, it's legal. But that does not make it any less cringe-worthy.
I sort of reject the slippery slope argument for the reason you give: F'book is a private entity and therefore can exclude blacks, Jews, haters, left-handed people, Yankee fans or whoever they choose.
Posted by: Matthew Chamberlin | December 11, 2008 11:35 AM
This is just the beginning for Facebook, I'd guess. Because if they are going to shut down this group, why not then the groups with messages/missions that are anti-abortion, white supremacist, gay bashing, anti-immigration, etc. If FB's policies regarding content aren't clear it's time to bring in the lawyers. Otherwise they could find themselves in the middle of some lawsuits and other 1st amendment related madness.
Posted by: Corinne | December 11, 2008 11:41 AM
@Tim
"I'm glad they shut it down. Incitation to hate, and racial behavior is nowhere to be tolerated, even in a free-speech driven world."
Absolutely, but herein lies the conundrum.
If you control the medium you silence the symptoms.
How can you diagnose the patient in the dark?
With no diagnose there is hardly any possible treatment.
OTOH, it could be the case where not treating the symptoms can also be a bad idea. In this case, it might spark a revolt or spread ill perspectives and distorted facts to virgin minds.
Complex situation! Nice pick for debate Marshall
IMHO, this incident lies within one of the areas that http://webscience.org/ should be looking into.
You should ping them ;)
Posted by: Aldo Bucchi
|
December 11, 2008 11:41 AM
I am not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, in general. If you're capable of making a nuanced judgment now, why wouldn't you be capable of addressing a thorny situation in the future? The "slippery slope" argument, I think, stems from an unfortunate cynicism about groups' abilities to make sound judgments.
I don't much care what Facebook does one way or the other, though I use it frequently. Facebook exercises its judgment about how we could and should communicate through their system all the time. Statuses of a limited number of characters...no nudity in pictures...heck, they even claim copyright over our photos. I guess their hope is that the aggregate of all these judgments remains popular over time.
As I see it, expressing an opinion on something like this would be akin to expressing a hope that Facebook survives and thrives. But I really don't care. I will continue to use many Internet tools to communicate with many people, whether or not Facebook is part of the mix. I'm not that interested in giving them advice on how to run a profitable business. (Not that I'm opposed to it -- I just don't feel very motivated to provide free advice.)
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | December 11, 2008 11:54 AM
Easy answer. Yes, they should have.
free speech? In the web era is anyone really making that argument? If this group wants to publish their views, get a website and publish them there. Whne you can 'own the press' you can't really be silenced and they're not silenced, they simply don't get to leverage a social platform that they're not paying for. An ISP shutting down their website would be a slightly more problematic free speech issue, but this isn't. There's no right to network.
Oh to Corrinne's point the right to free speech isn't at all guaranteed to them by the First Amendment... they're not US citizens. And, of course, FB isn't the government.
Posted by: rick | December 11, 2008 12:17 PM
@Corrine: the 1st Amendment has no bearing here; it only applies to the government limiting "free speech". Private entities can do whatever they way, the 1st Amendment simply doesn't apply to them.
As a private company, FB is completely free to dictate what can and cannot be said or posted through their site, just as I'm free to determine what can and cannot be posted on the forums that I run. What the 1st Amendment guarantees is that the government can't tell FB (or myself) what can and cannot be posted on their site(s).
Posted by: JasonW | December 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Corrine, this is very different than an anti-abortion group. Anti-abortion is a matter of opinion while this group encouraged violence and hatred on an ethnic and religious basis. The Facebook takes a strong stance towards these types of groups and has shut down many similar groups in the past such as those promoting racial and religious hatred, and violence. These types of topics should incite no difference of opinion.
Posted by: Emma H | December 11, 2008 1:09 PM
This really isn't a free speech issue. These jokers are still free to speak their minds, set up their websites, publish their papers, hold rallies, and whatever else they wish.
But as a privately owned company, Facebook is free to delete whatever content they feel is inappropriate. No explanation necessary. No one has a "right" to a Facebook profile. All of us are on Facebook at the discretion of the website's owners.
Besides, there's nothing from stopping this group from setting up their own social networking site. Hatebook.com, perhaps.
Posted by: Marcello | December 11, 2008 1:10 PM
World has learnt a lesson world once by allowing free speech to Nazi's in Germany we cannot tolerate racial or religious hatred in the name of free speech.
Posted by: oconner | December 11, 2008 1:29 PM
thanks.
Posted by: söve | December 11, 2008 4:10 PM
Facebook did it right! They have to close another groups too.
There can't be anti-humanist approach anywhere on Facebook or another social community.
Posted by: Alihan Çetin | December 11, 2008 4:21 PM
Hey,
its good and awesome topic,i gain knowledge from great artical,i appreciate the vigorous free speech debate, but are there no limits? You mention that as a private entity, F'book can shut down anyone they want. That sort of seals the argument right there. This is less an argument for or against free speech and more one of property rights.keep dating me about your articles,
*******************************************************
steven
wowgold
Posted by: steven | December 11, 2008 5:56 PM
I think it is very good!
Posted by: dofus kamas | December 11, 2008 7:35 PM
Europe obviously has not learned from its past. Holocaust has happened again, this time in Bosnia, and bunch of idiots are making fun of it.
Nazi movement has never been stronger in the world.
Posted by: Dean | December 11, 2008 7:35 PM
I always wonder what the authors of such articles really feel.
For instance, would the author have questioned the shutting down of the genocide-loving Facebook group if they promoted the genocide of, Oh, let's say Jews? Such as happened in Germany in the 1940's?
Or how about the genocide of Blacks, as Southern White Supremicists in the US would have loved to have been able to accomplish in the 1960's and since?
Or how about the genocide of Americans such as some radical nutcases who claim to be Muslim (but obviously aren't adherents to Islam, a religion of peace) had perpetrated on September 11th?
I'm just wondering: If any of those genocides were being promoted on facebook, what exactly would this article have said? Would you have second thoughts about if these Humanity-Murdering-Genocide-Loving creeps should be shut down?
If you were being honest, I don't think you could say you would have even had a second thought about it. Your article would probably have read, "What took them so long to shut it down!?"
Posted by: John Q Public | December 11, 2008 8:05 PM
Dear Author,
I am intrigued by the statement in your article, especially its last part, "We would ask whether readers believe that Facebook should shut down pro-genocide groups, but it's not clear who would be the best party to determine what constitutes genocide."
Truth is that a clear determination of what constitutes genocide, even if not codifiable, comes naturally to human beings. It is only in the need for denying some, and accepting others, in the service of "special interests" that such perverse positions arise, of having to identify best or worst parties to determine what constitutes genocide. Goes to show the extent of acceptance of neutral, amoral and non-normative discourse in most public spaces today.
Posted by: JK Suresh | December 12, 2008 1:06 AM
FB is full of this kind of groups. What scares me is that THIS group got Reuters focus. Why this group took focus? Is that 'cause group is managed by "Big Bad Serbs". If that is true, there's no future for free speech. Reuters should know better than "Serbs == Bad Guys" stereotype.
Posted by: john | December 12, 2008 2:43 AM
As social networks will increasingly be used for promoting ideas both good and bad, they should be more careful about what they are used for. I think the post from the Fb rep was relevant and corrent, but yes, it makes me wonder what took them so long to shut it down...
Posted by: Paulina | December 12, 2008 6:12 AM
Columbus did not commit genocide. He unknowingly brought a virus to a non-immunized population while in the course of exploring. The historical record--that is, the record that was not revised to suit the political correctness of the day--clearly shows that Columbus' intention was NOT to seek out new peoples and cultures with the sole purpose of murdering every last one of them.
Genocide in Bosnia was a completely different situation.
Posted by: Rob | December 12, 2008 6:50 AM
Srenica=Genocid
Stop nazzi serbs!
Posted by: goran latinic | December 12, 2008 7:25 AM
I think world shoud help Bosnia to deal with serbs fascism. Justice is not complete until we erase the genocide project (Republica Srpska) that is still alive today in that country. Radovan Karadzic has been arrested, Slobodan Milosevic is dead, but their project Republika Srpska still exists.
Posted by: Mary Jones | December 12, 2008 7:41 AM
@john Yes there is one big jewish-muslim-catholic conspiracy against the serbian orthodox people. In fact Srebrenica is a lie. Over 8000 people tied, shot and buried themselves just to make the ''big bad Serbs'' look even worse in the eyes of the western society...
Give me a break! If you deny genocide or even worse, if you celebrate genocide, then the least thing you deserve is to be called evil!
Posted by: Emir | December 12, 2008 7:41 AM
Dear all,
I am not really a spokesperson for the whole group "CLOSE group noz zica srebrenica," but since I was extremelly active in it in last few days, let me just share some observations.
As noted in the article above, the group "Noz Zica Srebrenica" does not merely deny or just celebrate genocide which occured in Srebrenica - and which was, by the way, legally recognized as such by international courts - it calls for another action of a same sort in the name of fight against "radical islam" and the "Serbian freedom to defend Europe from Islam." Hence, we do not speak of a "mere" denial or celebration, but indeed incitement to action. There is a reason to worry about this for following reason: some of the "founding fathers" of the group "Noz Zica Srebrenica" (according to their own profiles at Facebook) are Bosnian Serbs residing in Srebrenica, the sourounding area or larger area of Bosnia proper. This might be unknown to most of you, but in Srebrenica itself the survivors of genocide meet their yesterdays butchers on daily bases, as many of these criminals are still free since the legal action against them has not been started or completed. I am sure that you will understand that to the majority of Bosnians this type of message under circumstances comes as a cause for great distress and indeed alarm.
We do not even have to stress that under laws of most European countries (including EU law) denying, celebrating or inciting hatred on the basis of race, nationality or religion is a crime - even if we stay in the realm of the US First Amendment I think, given situation and the context, "the clear and present danger" test would be satisfied (please see its application in the US Supreme Court case Beauharnais v. Illinois, upholding prohibition of hate speech with a potential of inciting to violence).
However this may be, members of the group "CLOSE group noz zica srebrenica" have been torned with same questions just like the author of the article above - is shunning of the group violation of the freedom of speech? Indeed, many of us thought that what should really be done is not shut down the group but merely raise public awareness in Bosnia and the wider region too; alert the media and Facebook itself; and use the presence of the pro-genocide group as a form of "social indicator" of the conscious of many people in Serbia and among Bosnian Serbs. And, I think, results in the end were encouraging: the group "CLOSE group noz zica srebrenica" gained more than 16.000 members from all over the world in some 3 days. Considerable number of members are Bosnian Serbs or persons from Serbia proper, joining the group in order to distance themselves from henious acts of their compatriots. As a result of the public pressure, Facebook shut down the group - but I think this action is justified insofar that there was no form of "prior restraint" or censorship; the result was, I believe, a result of the functioning of the market place of ideas. Also there remains a looming question which, naturally, I am not able to resolve here: is there a line to draw when it comes to freedom of speech in these situations; and, second, does the First Amendment, by virtue of the company being registered in the US, extend troughout the whole world? First question is a matter of discussion; but to a second question I think answer is definitely not.
Posted by: Damir | December 12, 2008 7:41 AM
Not to forget: a very similar situation occured in law suit LICRA v. Yahoo France , where LICRA - Ligue contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme et Union des étudiants juifs de France sued Yahoo! Inc. et Societe Yahoo! France (LICRA v. Yahoo!) in the the High Court (Tribunal de grande instance) of Paris in 2000. The case concerned the sale of memorabilia from the Nazi period by internet auction and the application of national laws to the internet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!.
Posted by: Damir | December 12, 2008 7:53 AM
I think, you are mixing apples and oranges here. Freedom of speech is one thing and it must be protected at all cost. HATE speech and advocating genocide is another. This groups "the knife, the wire, srebrenica" is clearly advocating genocide and calls for slaughter of inocent civilians. THAT is no comparisson to groups re. Columbus Day. What they were doing on facebook is NOT voicing opinion but voicing calls to killings and glorifying masacres. Have you ever heard anyone compare a pro-nazi group to Columbus. You need to seriously reconsider your position here.
Posted by: leila | December 12, 2008 8:11 AM
If you have problems determining whether a pro-Genocide group should be shut down, perhaps you'd have problems deciding whether a pro-child molestation site should be shut down, too! I think this article speaks more about your lost morals and values than anything else.
Posted by: Elsie | December 12, 2008 8:13 AM
And yet another one has been created. What does that shows you? Pure provoking of any normal human being.
This is what the new group description is:
"Oooo braco srbi jos jednu su zatvorili,zar im je ovoliko krivo zbog ove grupe,majku im muslimansku!!!"
Meaning:
"Oooo brohter serbs, one more group has been closed, are they so hurt by this group, I F*** their muslim mothers!!!"
Ajmo Srbi kad zatvore otvorite novu grupu,SRBIJA!!!!
Meaning:
"Let's go Serbs, when they close this one, open another one, SRBIJA!!!"
I don't even want to begin copying their comments, cause they are horrifying, outrageous, hateful, and at the end when you sum up all those you get a sad men who believe in wrong ideals and desperate thinking that their "heroes are the right one to celebrate".
And they have like 200 members, last group members (most of them) haven't yet joined this new group, probably cause they realised they are glorifying something very serious with what is not to be joked around.
One of the creators from the previous groups said:
"What is wrong about this? I opened it cause of fun and joke so we can laugh."
Tell me you all, HOW IS THAT FUNNY? Ratko Mladic one of the worlds most wanted on a sketch with skulls around him, that was the picture on that group.
I'm frustrated cause any moral and normal human being would never do this, but children who haven't seen this war and were taught wrong idealistic ideas and misguided from the truth, that can't be "corrected" at least not yet, when they grow up, they will see what they glorified.
I have a question for you all, americans especially.
If there was a group created glorifying the attack on 9/11, what do you think how fast would that group be deleted?
So I say it again, some things are not to be messed around with. War genocide is extremely serious matter, a sad and heavy memory upon all of us.
Posted by: Miralem | December 12, 2008 8:19 AM
Well, as said already - just try to deny the holocaust in Germany or Austria, and you'll be behind bars in no time at all.
There is no reason why it should be any different in the case of the Srebrenica Genocide. Have you seen the pictures of mass graves? And then of the burials and graveyards of the exhumed bodies? It chills the blood right in your veins, so thing again about how hard a decision is to vote yes in this question.
Posted by: t | December 12, 2008 9:26 AM
in srebrenica there was no genozide at all .. it was massacre against civilians ...
muslims were first who made massacre against serb civilians in 1993 , than serbs did massacre as revenge in 1995 ...
and what about groups on facebook " serbs should be hand on trees" , "kill the serbs " , "we hate serbs " ... etcc , there are lot of such groups on facebook and noone cares ...
so i reall
on the closed group on facebook was writting mostly young ppl 17 18 20 old ...
Posted by: me me | December 12, 2008 11:31 AM
i really find this ridicoulous all this histery made by bosnian muslims ...
on this closed group were writting mostly ppl of age 17 18 19 20 ...
and bosnian muslims in their propaganda are caLLING them "supporters of genozide" .. its a bit ridicolous to call teenagers like that ...
Posted by: me me | December 12, 2008 11:34 AM
You seem to have missed the boat on the hundreds of antisemitic and pro-Jihadist groups on Facebook. One organization has been successful in having over 100 of them eliminated. Facebook has kept hundreds of Islamic terrorist and other antisemitic Facebook groups up. Check out this response to your piece:
http://www.thejidf.org/2008/12/ny-times-facebook-shuts-down-anti.html
Posted by: Peter Cohen | December 12, 2008 4:40 PM
Funny, when the JIDF took over Facebook groups or petitioned Facebook to remove antisemitic and pro-Jihadist material which promoted genocide, everyone complained that it was "censorship" - double standard much?
Posted by: JOHN | December 12, 2008 4:42 PM
Peter Cohen of JDF (Jewish Defence League)... That group of Jewish extremists (and not all Jews are extremists) is listed as a terrorist organization. JDF is a terrorist organization. You should be ashamed of yourself for blaming others for terrorism, when JDF has been on a list of terrorist organizations for a long time.
Posted by: JDF is terrorist organization | December 12, 2008 8:17 PM
Who's going to help get Facebook to close down the group 'Srbe na Vrbe' - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=22343249457 (literally translates to 'Hang Serbs from Trees') along with pictures 'Ubi Srbina', "Kill Serbs" and with the celebration and songs of the notorious WW2 death camp Jasenovac
Pandoras box has been opened. Or are we going to selectively pick and choose which genocide is ok and which isn't?
Posted by: Robert Soprano | December 12, 2008 8:25 PM
thanks
Posted by: Restaurant | December 13, 2008 4:51 PM
to the idiot above, there is no such thing as the "JDF" that guy can't read - it's JIDF - what he probably meant is "JDL" but even they aren't terrorists - just jewish freedom fighters.
Posted by: JIDF IS NOT A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION (NEITHER IS "JDF"_ | December 13, 2008 9:23 PM
This is an easy one for me. Censorship is sometimes necessary. As a society we recognize that, which is why we rate our movies and our video games. Certain things cannot be shown on TV. Facebook did the rightt thing, and it's sad that the world still has people that support genocide. If they want a voice, then they can make their own facebook...
Posted by: Loew01 | December 14, 2008 3:21 PM
For all those wondering, group "CLOSE noz zica srebrenica" urging Facebook to close down Serbian pro-genocide group, has expanded its mission, has 25000+ members and urges Facebook to shut down all extremist and fascists groups based on their web, first and foremost those promoting hatred against Serbs, as well as Holocaust-denial groups and Islamic terorism movements.
Join at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38563807262&ref=nf
Posted by: Damir | December 17, 2008 6:19 AM
Freedom of speech has a different meaning in the US and France. I'm an American living in France and I like the French version a lot better. They don't waste their energy censoring profanity. Speech is truly free here.
The only speech that is not free is hate speech of any kind. It's punishable by law. So in France there would be no ambiguity about shutting down this group or any groups that hate gays, or other races or religions. And I'm with the French on this.
Posted by: Pamela Poole | December 19, 2008 11:52 PM