Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spotlight on Facebook Groups Affects Microsoft

ScuttleMonkey posted about 7 years ago | from the hate-to-be-in-the-marketing-managers-shoes dept.

The Internet 150

NewsCloud writes "After Slashdot reported Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech, the company removed its F**k Islam group for a day (it's back up now). According to the New York Times, 'Facebook declined to comment on Friday on the subject of hate speech or on what steps had been taken.' It turns out that Microsoft is the digital advertising provider for Facebook serving up ads for companies such as NetFlix, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and Coca Cola. But for now, the Microsoft-served ads for all Facebook group home pages (even those complying with Facebook's Terms of Use) appear to have been taken off the site. For its part, NetFlix told me to address any concerns about its own ad placement along obscene speech with Facebook. T-Mobile said they would look into it."

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ok but (4, Insightful)

sdedeo (683762) | about 7 years ago | (#20543245)

This problem -- with user-generated content not being properly vetted by marketing departments before being juxaposed with ads -- is common to the "Web 2.0". Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day. Not to be some kind of bizarre technoutopian, but actually people think and act in ways that may be unpleasant to their fellows. The world doesn't actually look like one of those 1980s "Buy the World a Coke" ads.

Re:ok but (0, Troll)

Tackhead (54550) | about 7 years ago | (#20543487)

> This problem -- with user-generated content not being properly vetted by marketing departments before being juxaposed with ads -- is common to the "Web 2.0". Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day.

I propose the following solution: Fuck Web 2.0, fuck marketing departments, and fuck advertisers.

> Not to be some kind of bizarre technoutopian, but actually people think and act in ways that may be unpleasant to their fellows. The world doesn't actually look like one of those 1980s "Buy the World a Coke" ads.

Fuck the world. I just wanted a Pepsi. (And they wouldn't give it to me...)

The natural response to F**k Islam, etc (0)

heretic108 (454817) | about 7 years ago | (#20544031)

F**k Atheism [facebook.com]

Re:ok but (1)

Toonol (1057698) | about 7 years ago | (#20544071)

Watch the language, man. You'll drive away all of Slashdot's advertisers.

Re:ok but (0, Offtopic)

blowdart (31458) | about 7 years ago | (#20544147)

There are ads? Damn my adblock for taking away revenue from slashdot's non-news stories.

That;'s not even obscene (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20544137)


Onscene is "Fuckin Your Sister Now"! or along the lines of "Bush in 2008"!or worst of all "Clinton in 2008"! I am all in favor of Fuck Islam as a new worldwide creed. Did you know that by 2030 more than half of Europa will be populataed by muslims and islam extermists? It is true. Germany. Belgium. UK. Many, MANY, influx of muslims.

Re:That;'s not even obscene (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20544991)

> Did you know that by 2030 more than half of Europa will be populataed by muslims and islam extermists?

That is, assuming that current trends continue at the same rate. Which is a pretty stupid assumption to make.

Re:That;'s not even obscene (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20545957)

That is, assuming that current trends continue at the same rate. Which is a pretty stupid assumption to make.
Please take a trip to belgium before saying such nonsense. Everything the other coward says is backed up with proof and islamization is true as much as fear of nazist takeover was before the war... http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/09/europe_and_terror.php [pajamasmedia.com]

What we don't need now in the age of information is censors and "useful idiots" [wikipedia.org] like you who despite evidence assume that this is not taking place.

Cheers,
Another Coward

Re:ok but (1)

lymond01 (314120) | about 7 years ago | (#20545481)

"I just wanted a Pepsi. (And they wouldn't give it to me...)"

I know that song. About a kid in his room and his parents think he's on drugs....good stuff.

Properly vetting (2, Interesting)

benhocking (724439) | about 7 years ago | (#20543755)

I don't want to mention the site's name, but a company I used to work for had a web-site geared towards children that for many years went without advertising. After it had built up quite a large audience, my boss decided to allow an advertising agency to place a single banner advertisement on the top of the pages. The agency had assured him that the ads would be tasteful (i.e., not flashing, etc.) and child-appropriate. After a week or so of this revenue, the agency slipped up somehow and allowed an inappropriate advertisement through its filter (and a parent complained about it). After verifying that this mistake was made, he got rid of the agency and went ad-free again (i.e., the site continued to lose money). I just checked, and there is still no banner ads on most pages. The only banner ad I saw was on a single page and was for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. There is a button, however, that allows parents to make donations. I have no idea if this covers the cost of the site.

The point is that, evidently, it's still risky to contract out banner ads to 3rd party companies.

and don't forget the legal department (1)

User 956 (568564) | about 7 years ago | (#20543895)

Nobody has a "solution" to it, and the true solution is that advertisers need to buck up and learn that they can't micromanage every single waking moments of our day.

Well said. The huge problem with huge companies is that a large portion of their decisions in this regard are made by their legal department(s). And the cowardly results are a direct result with the fact that the legal department's "success metric" is the number of cases in which they become engaged.

Re:ok but (1)

Gnostic Ronin (980129) | about 7 years ago | (#20545441)

What's taking them so long to learn it though -- it's been true for all of human history. Free people have a habit of offending people by saying what they actually think rather than what they're "supposed" to say. It's been true since Guttenberg -- If you give people the ability to speak without censorship, they'll speak. So the "solution" is to get rid of the freedom part. Make sure every post and every site is preapproved by the suits, and you'll have a safe site for advertisers. Nothing offensive will appear underneath the ad. Of course, the problem with that environment is that if you can't say anything offensive, you probably haven't said anything worth saying. The least popular person in the room is the guy who says exactly what he's thinking, but that guy has a much better chance of being right than the guy saying everything is fine. I think the FU** Islam people are wrong, but I don't want them banned.

Well that's too bad. (5, Insightful)

LACMA (1139183) | about 7 years ago | (#20543261)

You'd think Microsoft would have known that a social networking site comprised mainly of college students would feature at least a few obscenities and outspoken and unpopular opinions. Personally I have no problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, but if Microsoft does, does anyone really think that a Microsoft-served ad provides an endorsement of the groups opinions? If it does, why hasn't anybody been all over Google?

Re:Well that's too bad. (5, Interesting)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | about 7 years ago | (#20543343)

Read TFA. See who posted the summary. The guy essentially fabricated a story out of nowhere. Tailor-made slashvertising... Nice.

Now that I look (3, Insightful)

LACMA (1139183) | about 7 years ago | (#20543525)

I have to agree with you. This "NewsCloud" guy has written a couple sensationalist articles decrying a couple expletives. I doubt he is "just" enforcing Facebook's own TOS agreement - and frankly, if Facebook starts enforcing it in an overly puritanical way, they risk losing members in their target demographic, one that likes to be vulgar and obscene.

Re:Well that's too bad. (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 years ago | (#20543659)

What I find interesting is how one group (left-leaning Slashdrones) can make such a stink about free-speech they don't like from another group (reight-leaning xenophobes) with a straight (acting) face.

Re:Well that's too bad. (4, Funny)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 7 years ago | (#20543779)

Tailor-made slashvertising... Nice.

It's a DUPE too! We had this story before.

Re:Well that's too bad. (0, Troll)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 7 years ago | (#20544141)

Its interesting to me that there are adverts on Facebook. I've never seen any, didn't even know they existed there.

Its amazing how adblock changes the web experience. I used an undergrad lab computer last week, and was taken aback by the amount of adverts on sites I use all the time.

Basic problem... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20543729)

Is that the "fuck Islam" group pretty much has it right.

Is Islam peaceful?

"Thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough." - Al-Akhbar, government sponsored newspaper of Egypt, April 18, 2001

http://www.zawaj.com/editorials/harry_potter.html [zawaj.com]
"Once they have learned to love what Allah loves and hate what Allah hates..."

http://www.obmonline.net/index.php?cmd=3&path=Articles/Aqeedah/Effects%20of%20Imaan.htm&hd_elm=2&depth=1 [obmonline.net]

"So the first sign and proof that you love and hate for the sake of Allah is that you obey Him and follow the Messenger Muhammad (SAW).

The second sign is to declare hatred and animosity to those who do not believe in Him, and those who desire to rule by other than what Allah has revealed."

Sura 8, 9, and 48 of the Koran, summed briefly: "Kill the infidels."
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.

Sahih Muslim 19/4294: "Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.... "

Summation:
Step 1: Demand they convert.
Step 2: Demand they become slaves.
Step 3: Orf wiv their 'eads.

Islam: RELIGION OF HATE.

P.S. Yeah, I'm posting as an AC. I don't want they coming to try to kill me like they did with Salman Rushdie, or Theo van Gogh, or Adrian Marriott [lifestyleextra.com] , or the poor korean guy [assistnews.net] , or the poor indonesian schoolgirls [cnn.com] , or the Jews the Muslims who signed up to join the SS [sullivan-county.com] killed, or so on...

Re:Well that's too bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20544291)

If it does, why hasn't anybody been all over Google?

You realise you're on slashdot; right?

Re:Well that's too bad. (1)

ozbird (127571) | about 7 years ago | (#20545105)

You'd think Microsoft would have known that a social networking site comprised mainly of college students would feature at least a few obscenities and outspoken and unpopular opinions.

I would imagine a "F*ck Microsoft" group would be exceedingly popular, or has that been censored already?

Is it just me or.. (1)

ttapper04 (955370) | about 7 years ago | (#20543265)

Havn't we seen this before?

Re:Is it just me or.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20543371)

Yes. About a week or so ago.

fuck hate speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20543273)

wait, what?

False equivalence. (1)

Estanislao Martínez (203477) | about 7 years ago | (#20543613)

"Fuck hate speech" is not hate speech. Hate speech is an action, freely chosen by its perpetrators, that targets a set of people on the basis of characteristics that they either do not choose (skin color), or which, in the face of their perpetrators, are so central to their identity that they cannot easily or sincerely choose otherwise (religion). To make things worse, in the latter case, the definition of the victim group in terms of religion, something where technically they could choose otherwise, is just a scapegoat; racists (religious chauvinists, xenophobes, whatever you want to call them) aren't very well known for being very precise and discerning about who they target; in the racist mind, "muslim," "towelhead" and "sand nigger" might as well mean the same thing. Just ask Christian Arabs who get shit for speaking Arabic.

Um (2, Insightful)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | about 7 years ago | (#20543277)

So Microsoft provides the advertising for a site whose users created a group called Fuck Islam. And they're at fault? Typical Slashdot spin...

This isn't just shooting the messenger. This is shooting the guy that made the uniform that the messenger wears.

Re:Um (1)

rtyhurst (460717) | about 7 years ago | (#20543353)

Um, what?

Surprised there's no banner ad saying "F**k Open Source"?

I'm sure it's just because Microsoft hadn't got around to it yet.

Discourse raped by political correctness? (2, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | about 7 years ago | (#20544007)

So someone says "fuck islam" and all hell breaks loose...

Islamic sensibilities are being affected by private non-Muslims exercizing their right to Free Speech? Well, laa dee fucking daa, don't you wish for once they'd get just as offended by suicide bombings, indentured servitude/slavery, personal vendettas, and public beheadings everpresent in their societies.

Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20544085)

Muslims worship Mo-HAM-HEAD - literally. They worship a mass murderer, multiple rapist, bigamist sexual obsessive pervert, and a paedophile, who 'married' a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL, when he was FIFTY FOUR, and already had FIFTEEN 'wives'.

Funny how muslims don't talk about this when introducing your CHILDREN to their CULT. What a bunch of insane fascists they are... And everybody knows it.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness? (5, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | about 7 years ago | (#20544293)

I for one don't really mind if they believe whatever they like. After all, I believe in burning shrubs, talking snakes, and God that became a carpenter, walked on water, and died for my sins...

My problem with religion starts when its members begin to impose undue burden on non-members (I am looking at you, scientologists, sectarian fundies, and radical Muslims).

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness? (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | about 7 years ago | (#20545521)

My problem with religion starts when its members begin to impose undue burden on non-members (I am looking at you, scientologists, sectarian fundies, and radical Muslims).
Just to point out that it's forbidden for Muslims to go door-to-door pushing their religions - at least with some Sunni that I'm familiar with.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness? (1)

brkello (642429) | about 7 years ago | (#20545575)

Smart move not listing "Christians". But really...it seems like most groups of people try to impose their beliefs on others. Even I am guilty, I try to make everyone I know watch Firefly with me.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness? (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | about 7 years ago | (#20545367)

Muslims worship Mo-HAM-HEAD - literally.
Typical American ignorance, posted by an AC nonetheless.Muslims worship Allah. Mohammed was a prophet of God, just as they view Jesus as a prophet of God.

Agree or disagree, it's against Islam to push your religion on others. As opposed to Christianity that acts like massive MLM scheme.

What a bunch of insane fascists they are...
There's as many muslim fanatics as there are Chrstian fanatics. Or do we forget Waco?

How come when a fanatical group like the Taliban comes out, Christians don't look to Waco and draw parallels?

Me, I'm atheist, but I certainly laugh when I see ignorant BS like the GP posted.

Re:Discourse raped by political correctness? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 7 years ago | (#20544323)

Why do we as a free society keep rolling over for this particular religious group? Is it because they get angry and blow people up?

Sounds like a good reason to me!

Silly (4, Insightful)

drhamad (868567) | about 7 years ago | (#20543283)

This whole "spotlight" on the group is silly. First off, the name notwithstanding, the group really isn't that full of "hate." But even if it was, who cares?! It's a group of people that think a certain way, and it's on a site that allows people to create groups to talk about whatever they want. Why should the group be censored? I don't want to have to worry about what somebody is going to let me say, on a social site.

F**k taboo (1)

athloi (1075845) | about 7 years ago | (#20543307)

Let the kids say whatever they want, even if you or I don't agree with it. This applies to the so-called obscenity as much as the derision for Islam. Humanity will someday grow up and realize we'll never all agree, and then we can stop being offended by our disagreement, including wanting each other dead.

good (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 7 years ago | (#20543323)

I'm glad they put that group back up. It's not that I'm a bigot or anything. I just believe the old mantra that the freedom to criticize or hate is the greatest freedom.

Re:good (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 years ago | (#20543641)

Interesting. The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it? I mean the people in that group could always put up their own site? Think about things like newspapers. Just because you write a letter to the editor they don't have to print it. Just because you want to put an ad in they don't have to take it, even if you are a reporter the editor has the right to not publish what you write.

Re:good (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 7 years ago | (#20543905)

I'm also a firm believer that the First Amendment is meant to restrict the government and not businesses. Facebook and other sites like it have every right to remove inflammatory content in order to keep their clientèle. I was just applauding them for being an outlet for free speech.

I don't agree with the group in question necessarily, but they have a right to say what they want in whatever outlet they want. It's just the outlets also have a right to be the gatekeepers.

This raises another question. Shouldn't these websites have something in their ToSs that defines what are considered to be actionable offenses when it comes to groups like the one in the article?

Re:good (1)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20544019)

Interesting. The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it? I mean the people in that group could always put up their own site? Think about things like newspapers. Just because you write a letter to the editor they don't have to print it. Just because you want to put an ad in they don't have to take it, even if you are a reporter the editor has the right to not publish what you write.

I guess the point was that 'F*ck Islam' was removed due to vocal dissension from another facebook group and the concerns of the advertisers (partly due to this other group). While other groups such as 'F*ck Jews', 'F*ck Christianity' and other semi-legitimate criticism groups were left alone. It was a company pandering to a vocal minority. As well the 'F*ck Islam' group was reported to be more along the lines of vocal criticism of problems within Islam vs an explicit hate group. It angered many over the hypocrisy and on the fact that various groups within this religion has a habit of using any means including murder to silence opposition.

Re:good (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 years ago | (#20544925)

I didn't know that the other groups exist. My guess is that to be fair they too should have been removed as well.

Re:good (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 7 years ago | (#20545401)

The thing here is these groups don't own Facebook. So doesn't Facebook have the right to criticize and or protest this hate speech be removing it?

This strawman keeps cropping up. No one is claiming that sites like Facebook don't have a right to put up what it likes.

However, we are free to decide which situation we would prefer: an online "user" site where material is removed if it offends anyone, or the advertisers - or an online site where this does not happen. I, and presumably the OP, prefer the latter. Which do you prefer?

Inappropriate overreaction... (4, Insightful)

C10H14N2 (640033) | about 7 years ago | (#20543373)


Canceled NetFlix over this?

You'd think a /. submitter would understand the vagaries of such advertising relationships and the rotation systems employed. It's not like NetFlix specifically paid to be seen by members of "Neo-Nazi movie-lovers for the destruction of Israel."

Sending them snarky letters as if that was the case is pretty childish...

Re:Inappropriate overreaction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20543589)

Some people are just looking for something to be butthurt about. I'm sure he'll run over to Apple, where the instruments used for inducing butthurt are "more colorful and pretty".

I signed up for Netflix yesterday and think it's neato!

P.S.: Fuck Islam!
P.P.S.:j/f/a

sjbsfj!

Re:Inappropriate overreaction... (1)

Xzarakizraiia (751181) | about 7 years ago | (#20545127)

My thoughts entirely.

Meh (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | about 7 years ago | (#20543383)

I find it hard to believe that MS would pull the ads so quickly, if at all. Perhaps Facebook rotates its advertising providers and today is Microsofts day off?

So what exactly constitutes "obscene speech"? (3, Interesting)

RickRussellTX (755670) | about 7 years ago | (#20543397)


Simple question, really. You can choose to agree with speech, and you can choose not to agree with speech. I'll even stretch the concept and say that speech which wanders into explicit sexuality might be considered "obscene" under a traditional judicial concept of pornographic obscenity.

But what makes the Facebook site obscene? The use of the F-word alone?

I know it when I see it... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 years ago | (#20543761)

That, and tomatoes are vegetables.

(my apologies to the international /. community and those under 30 for the SCOTUS references)

To me, it's speech which promotes or incites others to commit violent acts. And there are too many gray areas to provide good legislation for (well, against) it.

Re:So what exactly constitutes "obscene speech"? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20545921)

Questioning the evil that is Islam, that's what makes it allegedly 'obscene' - they're trying to make normal people - i.e. non-muslims, think that the site is 'obscene' rather than 'true'.

Islam is an evil religion founded by a mass murdering, multiple raping paedophile. It's all clearly documented by muslims, not their detractors, and these nutjobs have written these facts down for over a thousand years, and that's because they think it's NORMAL to kill people who disagree with you, and NORMAL to rape women, and NORMAL to be a paedophile. Otherwise they would have hidden these truths about their 'prophet' and nobody would know about them. The fact that they HAVEN'T hidden these truths, and they regard Mo-ham-head as the 'perfect man', tells you everything you need to know about these insane cult members.

Netflix is not the problem (5, Insightful)

IronWilliamCash (1078065) | about 7 years ago | (#20543403)

I think the only real problem in this situation is the loser who closed his Netflix account because he doesn't understand how the web works...

Free speech (4, Insightful)

be-fan (61476) | about 7 years ago | (#20543435)

This is sort of thing is absolutely the point of having free speech. Of course, since FaceBook is a private entity, they do not have no legal obligation to be a forum for free speech, but it would be great if they were.

That said, I'm kind of curious to see how far this tolerance goes. I think a FaceBook group attacking overly conservative Islamic culture is a perfectly valid and topical political point. Can I have a FaceBook group called "F**k Negros", to attack the inner-city black youth culture that fills the city I live in with violence? Can I have a "F**k GWB" group to attack the dumbass president who is screwing things up in the Middle East? Can I have a "F**k the Jews" group attacking the whiny Jews who scream "anti-semitism!" in order to stifle legitimate debate? If so, I have a lot more respect for FaceBook than I used to...

Re:Free speech (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 7 years ago | (#20543611)

I agree. One of the worst thing about all these advertising driven social networking sites is the potential for advertisers to use threats to suppress free speech.

These groups are seemingly well meaning but basically horribly evil. This one wants to suppress F**k Islam. One on LiveJournal (which LJ partially caved in to) wanted LJ to clear out any accounts that listed pedophilia as an interest. It is most distressing to me, and quite telling how one of the first things they try to go for is the advertisers.

I guess, like the bonsai kitty protesters of years past, they don't really understand free speech or the full ramifications of their actions. I do not want to live with a whitewashed Internet, and I don't think most members of the various groups in question do either. But they become blinded by hatred and intolerance towards one particular idea that they feel doesn't deserve to be heard and they take the steps to make it so eventually no controversial idea will be heard.

And even worse, though it seems that the commenters here recognize this attempt at censorship for what it is, it doesn't seem like the people who write the article blurbs do.

Re:Free speech (1)

dstiggy (1145347) | about 7 years ago | (#20543717)

That said, I'm kind of curious to shee how far this tolerance goes.

I can tell you from what I know there was a group actually called F**k (insert name) of a specific person who a lot of people at my college didn't like. This group was banned from facebook. So it seems to me that being hateful towards a specific group is tolerated, but towards a specific person is not. That being said I wonder if this would extend from a normal Joe to someone more famous such as a major political figure. An example of this would be if you created a group called F**k Bush because a group of you didn't like President Bush.

Re:Free speech (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#20543869)

An example of this would be if you created a group called F**k Bush because a group of you didn't like President Bush.
I dunno about you, but I started a group called F**k Bush, it wouldn't have anything to do with the current President of the United States (or even the band 'Bush'.) ;)

Re:Free speech (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20543727)

I think the reason Microsoft would object to a 'fuck islam' group is because their belief is more akin to 'fuck everybody'.

A little more honesty in their ad campaigns might not go amiss...

Windows Vista: Another forced upgrade, get your wallet out and drop your pants

Re:Free speech (1, Offtopic)

that IT girl (864406) | about 7 years ago | (#20543877)

Mod parent up...

Re:Free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20543817)

How about "F**k Hot Chicks" for those of us who like f**king hot chicks?

Inconsistent naming. (1)

Estanislao Martínez (203477) | about 7 years ago | (#20543997)

Can I have a FaceBook group called "F**k Negros", to attack the inner-city black youth culture that fills the city I live in with violence? Can I have a "F**k GWB" group to attack the dumbass president who is screwing things up in the Middle East? Can I have a "F**k the Jews" group attacking the whiny Jews who scream "anti-semitism!" in order to stifle legitimate debate?

But, by your logic, shouldn't the second of these groups you propose be called "Fuck White People"?

Re:Inconsistent naming. (1)

be-fan (61476) | about 7 years ago | (#20544289)

Not really. I think a "fuck white people" group would be perfectly appropriate for other reasons, but the folks who want to muck things up further in the Middle East do not self-identify with white people in the way the other groups self-identify with blacks, muslims, and jews, respectively. Perhaps "Fuck Neo-Conservatives" would be more apropos.

Re:Inconsistent naming. (1)

Estanislao Martínez (203477) | about 7 years ago | (#20544607)

[...] the folks who want to muck things up further in the Middle East do not self-identify with white people in the way the other groups self-identify with blacks, muslims, and jews, respectively.

And this is a classic symptom of white privilege [wikipedia.org] . The fact that "white people" are held to be the hegemonical race in the USA affords said "whites" the privilege of thinking of themselves in non-racial terms; members of minority groups don't have the advantage of thinking of themselves in "neutral," non-racial terms. What you point out and what I just said are also intimately related to projecting the actions and beliefs of a select subset of a minority group to the whole (using inner-city youth as the image of black people in general, assuming all Asian-Americans are good at math), or judging minority group members by how they meet or diverge from the stereotype ("You're really articulate!").

Re:Inconsistent naming. (2, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 7 years ago | (#20545483)

Though I am a white person myself, if I were to see a group disparaging white people I would assume it would target self-absorbed suburbanites with their cookie-cutter consumer culture and fleet of SUVs.

Just as there are light colored people who participate in black inner-city youth culture, I'm sure there are dark colored people who participate in the bland suburbanite culture I describe. But I still associate it with white people.

I think what you describe as 'white privilege' might be better described as an inferiority complex on the part of people who use that term. Note that having an inferiority complex in no way implies any actual inferiority.

You've missed the point. (1)

Estanislao Martínez (203477) | about 7 years ago | (#20545857)

I think what you describe as 'white privilege' might be better described as an inferiority complex on the part of people who use that term. Note that having an inferiority complex in no way implies any actual inferiority.

No, you failed to understand the notion of white privilege. White privilege is about things that "white" people, in general, have the luxury of taking for granted, because of how they are perceived when they interact with others.

There is definitely something to what you said, but it falls under the consequences of racism on its victims, not under white privilege.

Re:Inconsistent naming. (1)

The One and Only (691315) | about 7 years ago | (#20545795)

members of minority groups don't have the advantage of thinking of themselves in "neutral," non-racial terms

Don't hold me responsible for how other people think of themselves. I would like nothing more than for minorities to think of themselves first as individuals and not as members of an ethnic group, and many of them do (immediate counterexample), but those who don't need to take responsibility for themselves. Sure, most people do identify themselves with a stereotypical group of people with undifferentiated interests and preferences, but they're supposed to outgrow it after high school.

Re:Inconsistent naming. (1)

Estanislao Martínez (203477) | about 7 years ago | (#20545999)

Don't hold me responsible for how other people think of themselves.

Don't accuse me of something I haven't done.

All I'm asking people to be responsible for is the consequences of their actions. This requires understanding what the actions are, and what the consequences are. Most so-called "white" people in the USA fail it very badly, on both counts; they perpetuate racism through their actions without understanding that they do so, all the while thinking that they're moral examples of acceptance and tolerance. That's no more vicious than it is morally virtuous, I'll grant; what does border on the vicious, however, is the energy that is spent on preserving the self-assessment whenever somebody dares to contradict them.

I would like nothing more than for minorities to think of themselves first as individuals and not as members of an ethnic group, and many of them do (immediate counterexample), but those who don't need to take responsibility for themselves.

Who said that they think of themselves first as members of a group? You're making stuff up.

The way ethnic minorities are treated, day after day after day, is full of constant reminders that they are seen as members of a racially defined group. No matter how they may choose to think of themselves, they can't control how others see them, so they have to deal with the consequences of how other people see them, in their everyday interaction. They share a forced commonality with people of the same "race" as them, whether they like it or not.

Sure, most people do identify themselves with a stereotypical group of people with undifferentiated interests and preferences, but they're supposed to outgrow it after high school.

Congratulations, you've just compared people of color to adolescents.

Re:Inconsistent naming. (1)

be-fan (61476) | about 7 years ago | (#20546037)

The issue you miss is that the groupings I gave are based on _self_ identification. I'm not projecting anything, I'm taking groups on their word for which people they claim to represent. Obviously the groups themselves are projecting, for their benefit, to make their numbers seem larger than they are, but that is really a separate issue.

The neo-cons with designs on the middle east, on the other hand, do not not self-identify with white people. Heck, a lot of them aren't white people (there are a good number of jews and middle-eastern expats in there). They identify with "Americans", or "Conservatives", or "Patriots", or other more specific groups. So no, I don't think your point is applicable to this _particular_ case.

As for projecting the beliefs of subsets to the group as a whole, it's regrettable, but in my experience it's not all that misleading. The thing is that membership in a group affects behavior. I know several Asian-Americans who are bad at math, but most of the ones I know are very good at it. More to the point, in almost any major science/engineering school in the country, you'll see Asian-Americans vastly over-represented relative to their numbers in the overall population.

As for black people, try living in downtown/midtown Atlanta for a few years and tell me about the "stereotypes" of black people. A definite majority of the young black men running around here wearing the uniform of the inner-city rap culture. That doesn't make them criminals, of course, but it's a tacit support for a deleterious social element, and is at best in bad taste. I'd liken it to a young muslim running around in an Ayatollah t-shirt...

Re:Free speech (1)

The One and Only (691315) | about 7 years ago | (#20545831)

"Islam" is a religion. "Negroes", "GWB", and "the Jews" are people. There's a difference between attacking a belief system and attacking people. "Fuck Judaism" would be more appropriate.

Smells like FUD (5, Insightful)

Miltazar (1100457) | about 7 years ago | (#20543441)

Facebook, like many of these sites, uses an advertisement service. In this case, as mentioned in the summary, it uses Microsoft. So let me get this straight, someone is mad because a vaguely random placed ad is on some hate speech group thats part of user-content created website? From that Idealog link, it really sounds like he thinks some marketing guy up at Netflix said to himself, "Hey, look at this F**K Islam group, lets buy an ad space there." More likely they just bought ads with Microsoft to be place anywhere that uses Microsoft's ad service. Its not facebook's fault, and definitely not Netflix/T-Mobile's fault. This isn't television where you can specify during what show you want your ad on. Its a dynamic ad, it places it randomly among whatever sites use the system. Netflix bought a service from Provider A, doesn't mean they support Random Hatespeech Facebook Group B. This really must be a slow news day.

Ummm... as for the advertising part... (2, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | about 7 years ago | (#20543491)

Who cares? It means I am less likely to see an ad when I log in to FaceBook. Hooray!

To blame any of MS's ad placement on MS is ridiculous. That they (possibly) took their ads offline because they did not want them associated with a hate site is a good thing - regardless of anyone's view on "Freedom of Speech".

Free speech. (4, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20543555)

I'm not too sure but did free speech just trump economic interest and aggressive religious interests?

Should we celebrate? I'm so confused.

I think the real reason this guy is angry (2, Funny)

Derek Loev (1050412) | about 7 years ago | (#20543565)

is because somebody removed him from their top 8. :)

Re:I think the real reason this guy is angry (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | about 7 years ago | (#20544127)

i really wish there was a mod parent misinformed option :P

The Ron Paul FaceBook Group has +21k members (0, Offtopic)

SonicSpike (242293) | about 7 years ago | (#20543579)

The Ron Paul FaceBook Group has +21k members:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737 [facebook.com]

The convergence of political activism on FaceBook is starting to become prominent.

MOD PARENT DOWN AS SPAM (1)

sgarringer (751574) | about 7 years ago | (#20544131)

Wow, I was on the edge of my seat trying to figure out how you'd get Ron Paul involved in this story.

Mod parent down, SPAM.

I'm so tired of hearing about Ron (no chance) Paul.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN AS SPAM (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 7 years ago | (#20545119)

Wow, I was on the edge of my seat trying to figure out how you'd get Ron Paul involved in this story.

Every election cycle a small minority of slashdotters settle on a candidate, and spam us constantly. At least Ron Paul is a reasonably sane candidate*, in 2004 we got spammed on behalf of that lunatic Badnarik. In 2000 I think it was Nader.

* Not that I'd ever vote for Ron Paul (it's not a "he'll never win" thing, it's an "I don't believe in most of his positions" thing).

Double-edged sword (1, Flamebait)

notclevernickname (1152517) | about 7 years ago | (#20543685)

Facebook is in a unique position here. If they start vetting groups based on "hate speech" or some other term, they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity, and therefore, ad revenue. However, if they continue to allow these groups, the whiney liberal bitch types will whine to the advertisers, resulting in pulled ads, and lost revenue. My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads. If they bitch, all you have to say is that you were not censoring them, that it was a community decision. And to the whiney liberal bitches, if they start complaining, all you have to do is tell them to get off their pot smoking asses and mod them down. They should probably limit this to groups, though. It would suck if one day you check your facebook profile and see that it had been moderated to -5: Geek whos probably still a virgin.........

Re:Double-edged sword (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 years ago | (#20544097)

My solution - incorporate a moderation system like the one on slashdot to filter out the dickwads.

      Heh. Like the moderation system here on slashdot really works to filter out the "dickwads" as you say. No, it also works to "filter out" anything the moderator doesn't want to hear. Instead, people should engage the gray matter between their ears and THINK about what they read, and if they don't agree, make a sighing sound and MOVE ON. Censorship just gives power to those who appoint themselves as "censor".

Re:Double-edged sword-BOTH ARE LEFT SIDES (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 7 years ago | (#20544413)

they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity,

Doesn't that describe the current college campus rather well?

Re:Double-edged sword (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 7 years ago | (#20545437)

Facebook is in a unique position here. If they start vetting groups based on "hate speech" or some other term, they will be accused of pandering to a bunch of whiney liberal bitches, resulting in a loss of popularity, and therefore, ad revenue. However, if they continue to allow these groups, the whiney liberal bitch types will whine to the advertisers, resulting in pulled ads, and lost revenue. ...

Liberal? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I wouldn't call people calling for censorship "liberal".

SIgh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20543693)

All this blame and finger pointing and "political correctness" has made America the nation of pussies that it is today.

America, where a cop can arrest a worker for putting too much salt in a burger. Yup. Pussy.
America, where someone leaving a paper bag full of dogshit on someone's doorstep (a favorite Halloween "trick") is arrested for "terrorism". Yup. Pussies.
America, where Mooninites cause panic in... never mind.
America, where all people who are full of hate blame other people for being full of hate. Yup. Need I say more?

WE DON'T WANT YOUR BRAND OF FREEDOM

Strange... (1)

gillbates (106458) | about 7 years ago | (#20543695)

This is odd. I thought free speech in America only applied to those opinions with which a significant portion of the general public agrees.

For the site to be back up suggests that at least someone in America values free speech to the extent that they would tolerate an opinion with which they disagree.

Truly strange indeed!

Re:Strange... (1)

Keeper (56691) | about 7 years ago | (#20544845)

"Free speech" only applies to the government; ie: the government is not able to restrict what you say, how you say it, or whom you say it to. That being said, the government is able to hold you responsible for the consequences of whatever speech you do make. The government can't make a law against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but they can hold you accountable for the injuries that result from such an action.

"Free speech" also does not mean citizens must listen to or promote whatever crap another citizen spews. It also does not mean that people have to sit there and "take it" as you insult them, which is something you should probably keep in mind before driving around Alabama in a car spraypainted with "Nascar sucks" along the side [autoblog.com] ...

Re:Strange... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 7 years ago | (#20545455)

Note that the concept of "free speech" can apply to anything. The First Amendment of the United States however applies only to the US Government.

"Free Speech" (4, Informative)

LMacG (118321) | about 7 years ago | (#20543947)

Everybody wants to go on and on about free speech. For the record, the first amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


See, it's about what Congress can not do. It has pretty much no effect on how a privately owned website operates. Facebook could ban all groups or user profiles with the word "gun" or "fuck" or "Linux" in them and it still wouldn't be a "free speech issue."

Re:"Free Speech" (1)

Samgilljoy (1147203) | about 7 years ago | (#20544211)

No one is saying that Free Speech as a guaranteed right is being infringed. Free Speech is also a valued idea and practice in our society. No private entity must allow freedom of expression, but they can certainly come under criticism for not doing so, particularly when they market themselves as venues for self-expression. Like many people with a narrow view of the world, you don't seem to get that the Constitution is a small document that has some things to say on some large issues antecedent to and vaster than the document itself. It only circumscribes the meaning of ideas like free speech or privacy or whatnot, when in a court. These ideas and the discourse upon them have a much wider existence.

Re:"Free Speech" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20544647)

See, it's about what Congress can not do. It has pretty much no effect on how a privately owned website operates. Facebook could ban all groups or user profiles with the word "gun" or "fuck" or "Linux" in them and it still wouldn't be a "free speech issue."

Absolutely right, but you left out the second half of the explanation: Facebook's prerogative to remove that group and/or any other content it decides it doesn't want, stems from the same First Amendment as freedom of speech, ti wit: freedom of association.

You are free to say what you want, and I am free to not only say what I think about what you said, I am free to disassociate from you if I'm pissed off enough -- and that includes asking you to leave *my* property.

Without property rights, ultimately, none of the other rights have so much as a leg to stand on.

(Yes, that idea does have extremely far-reaching logical consequences, including the identification of why the supposed "opposites" of socialism and fascism invariably have the same end result.)

Re:"Free Speech" (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 7 years ago | (#20545045)

Free speech and other fundamental rights aren't just about the laws congress can write, they are a statement of the fundamental values that the majority of U.S. Citizens hold. An amendment overturning the first amendment could be passed if it hand popular support. One would hope that a website that claims to be a place for free social interaction would respect the fundamental right of free speech, even though they are not bound to do so by law. If the general public demands that speech like this not be allowed, and forces the website to take down the inflammatory speech, then the general public does not respect the right to speak freely, and laws infringing on that right can and will be written by congress.

Re:"Free Speech" (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 7 years ago | (#20545477)

Everybody wants to go on and on about free speech. For the record, the first amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

And for the record, "free speech" doesn't just mean the first amendment.

I haven't see anyone going "on and on" about the first amendment.

Why does Slashdot keep posting this crap? (4, Insightful)

hanssprudel (323035) | about 7 years ago | (#20544003)

"Fuck Islam" is not hate speech, any more than "Fuck Christianity", "Fuck Scientology" or "Fuck Atheism" is. If you don't like a set of ideological beliefs and superstitions (ie, a religion) then you have the right to voice that opinion, and the people who try to silence that are the ones who ought to be punished. If you can't handle that not everybody likes what you like, then I recommend you don't read it. In any case, stop perstering us about it.

That said, "Fuck Islam" is obscene speech, but maybe the site in question has a policy of tolerating obscene speech. It is their choice after all.

Bad assumption. (1)

Estanislao Martínez (203477) | about 7 years ago | (#20544275)

"Fuck Islam" is not hate speech, any more than "Fuck Christianity", "Fuck Scientology" or "Fuck Atheism" is.

You're assuming that vulgar racism distiguishes its targets from the rest of society at large in a careful, sophisticated, fine-grained and discerning manner. Or, in other terms, that the people who the title "Fuck Islam" appeals to, in general, give much of a fuck whether it says "Fuck Islam," "Fuck Arabs," "Fuck Towelheads," or "Fuck Sand Niggers."

Islam is a religion that's perceived through a racial lens in the USA.

Re:Bad assumption. (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 7 years ago | (#20545527)

Islam is a religion that's perceived through a racial lens in the USA.

You make a good point - though it depends on what the group in question actually promotes. On the one hand, people talk about Islam in a racist sense (e.g., accusing them of immigrants coming to live here, or based on what they look like). However, other times it is specifically about religion. The text for the Facebook group says:

The Quran contains many lies and threats. Islam is false, no god exists, and someone should say that loud and clear. Heaven and hell are fables, prayer is a waste of time, and angels and jinn are obviously mythology.
This is not a group against Muslims. They have it bad enough. If you doubt that go to Palestine. If you hate Muslims or are here to harrass them or promote your religion, go away. Muslims can be and usually are peaceful and respectful.
The best thing for the whole world is a rejection of all religions and a renewed discovery of the love for humanity and naturalism.
Fuck Christianity and Judaism as well. These religions are just as false and have a variety of disadvantages. There are other groups devoted to each of these false ideologies. Here is one devoted to religion in general: http://unm.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2225572075 [facebook.com]
and here is one for Christianity: http://unm.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5857745671 [facebook.com]


Which to me seems clearly about Islam as a religion, not a race (especially noting that they hold the same views towards other religions - in my experience, those who say they dislike Muslims when actually they are being racist are people who have nothing against Christianity).

Now, whether some people use this group to push racist views, I don't know, but on the whole this seems to be an anti-religion group. Just because some anti-Islam views are actually racist, doesn't mean that criticisms specific to the religion Islam are racist (another example would be the cartoon controversy - this was not a racist issue, despite often being reported as such).

Whole Atricle is a Troll! (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 7 years ago | (#20544351)

I think this whole article is a troll. Someone didn't like criticism of Islam, and it taking every avenue to censor and suppress it -- and trying to get the rest of us to go along. Islam is richly deserving of criticism and scholarly discussion, but try that in an actual Islamic country and you may easily find yourself in jail, if not having already had your head cut off. If you support Free Speech on the Internet, then you must be against this censorship, even if you find the site itself distasteful.

Re:Whole Atricle is a Troll! (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 7 years ago | (#20545587)

Agreed - and I'm amused that the poster thought Slashdot would be a good place to get support, given the strong anti-censorship leaning of this place! (And it's not like people tend to be supporters of religion on the whole, either...)

It's Not Hate Speech (3, Interesting)

logicnazi (169418) | about 7 years ago | (#20544385)

"Fuck Islam" is no more hate speech than "Fuck Creationists" or "Fuck Republicans". They both are ways to express strong rejection of a certain belief system. Merely because people label their beliefs religious doesn't magically make them immune from criticism.

More precisely the concept of hate speech is incoherent. It is impossible to at once give a definition of hate speech that makes it clear why it is significantly worse than things like "Fuck Republicans" but yet also makes it obvious that the things termed hate speech, e.g., "Fuck Islam", qualify.

I agree that speech that involves the phrase "Fuck Islam" is more likely to be motivated by thoughtless prejudice than other sorts of speech but mere correlation doesn't get you very far. There is going to be a correlation between "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" and ignorant prejudice as well but this doesn't make the statement of evangelical beliefs hate speech.

A religious belief is a belief like any other and it's explicit rejection of evidence or proof doesn't means if anything it deserves less protection from criticism than our other beliefs not more. Of course we need to combat hate directed against the people who are muslim, christian or whatever. The fact that they believe something stupid doesn't warrant hating them, most of us believe some stupid shit. However, the way to do this isn't to treat phrases criticizing the belief differently than phrases criticizing conservatism. That just encourages people.

Re:It's Not Hate Speech (1)

Estanislao Martínez (203477) | about 7 years ago | (#20544945)

"Fuck Islam" is no more hate speech than "Fuck Creationists" or "Fuck Republicans". They both are ways to express strong rejection of a certain belief system.

Neither Republicans nor creationists in the USA are perceived in a racialized manner in the mainstream culture. Islam is. There are millions upon millions of people in the USA who could care less what the difference is betwen the statements "Fuck Islam" vs. "Fuck Arabs." Compare this with "Fuck Republicans" vs. "Fuck White People."

Merely because people label their beliefs religious doesn't magically make them immune from criticism.

It doesn't. When somebody calls a group "Fuck Islam," however, I have to be skeptical of how serious their criticism is.

More precisely the concept of hate speech is incoherent. It is impossible to at once give a definition of hate speech that makes it clear why it is significantly worse than things like "Fuck Republicans" but yet also makes it obvious that the things termed hate speech, e.g., "Fuck Islam", qualify.

In mainstream American culture, party affiliation is seen as a voluntary choice, and the choice is not conceived in a racialized way. Being Arab, however, is not a voluntary choice, and Arab ethnicity is seen as going hand-in-hand with Islam. A careful, scrupulous distinction between Arabs and Islam is not the rule in the USA; it's the exception. A careful, scrupulous distinction between whiteness and party membership, on the other hand, is taken for granted.

I agree that speech that involves the phrase "Fuck Islam" is more likely to be motivated by thoughtless prejudice than other sorts of speech but mere correlation doesn't get you very far.

The correlation gets you very far, because the contemporary understanding of racism among people who study it (or whatever you want to call it in this particular case; don't bring out the lame "Islam is not a race" non-point) isn't about the motivation of individual actions; it's about how these sorts of measurable correlations result in many very small everyday indignities which, in the aggregate, conspire to make their victims' quality of life measurably worse.

There is going to be a correlation between "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" and ignorant prejudice as well but this doesn't make the statement of evangelical beliefs hate speech.

Christianity is not conceived in racialized terms in mainstream USA culture. If you're a Christian, people take it for granted that your religion has nothing to do with your race.

Hate speech is nothing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20544399)

I don't see what is so bad about "Fuck Islam". I mean, if I said "Fuck religion", would that be worse because it includes all religion? Should I outline and elaborate on the countless people who have been killed in the name of God to give you an idea why I hold this sentiment?

I mean, people act like forming an online community of people who dislike the beliefs of Islam is a crime against humanity. They are just as justified in harboring a dislike of people who believe in Islam as you are in disliking them for their dislike of people who believe in Islam.

At least I don't see any "Fuck Islam" online communities killing innocents and claiming credit for it. They have at least found a nonviolent way of expressing their opinions which is more than I can say for the other extreme.

Also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfG-FEQedyI&mode=related&search= [youtube.com] and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upbq9bwBxkA&eurl= [youtube.com]

(Incoming -1)

Definition of hate speech (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#20544771)

If you dont watch it, most any religious group will be considered to spew hate speech.( which they all do at one point or another )

Personally i say if words hurt you, there are more fundamental issues going on. Dont like what is being said? Then dont read it. Its that simple.

Re:Definition of hate speech (0, Flamebait)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 7 years ago | (#20545589)

Okay then, since words have no effect on you, I hope your entire family gets raped because you're (insert ethnic quality here). I'm kidding, but somebody else isn't.

Fuck Islam (1)

Kurt Wall (677000) | about 7 years ago | (#20544975)

I couldn't care less what happens at Facebook or if Microsoft gets unfairly tarred as a supporter of so-called hate speech. The fact is that what some people call hate speech others call free speech. So, in the spirit of free speech, FUCK ISLAM.

Win for one group... (1)

AlanCramer (1132757) | about 7 years ago | (#20545167)

At least the F**k Advertising group now doesn't show any ads on their group page

thinkers:idiots (1)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20545507)

The thinker to idiots ratio on that group is better then 50:50 so I think it aught exist and be supported by people who respect the ability to voice an opinion without censure.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>