[Wamvan] Facebook`s Tolerance of Hate Speech Against Women

[Joanna Chiu]

from The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/04/facebook-hate-speech-women-rape




FACEBOOK IS FINE WITH HATE SPEECH, AS LONG AS IT'S DIRECTED AT WOMEN



The social network's 'jokes in the pub' analogy, defending its decision not
to take down pro-rape pages, is offensive



by Cath Elliott, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 October 2011



It doesn't matter how hard I study Facebook's terms and conditions, I still
can't find the bit where it says: "Like Humpty Dumpty, Facebook is at
complete liberty to interpret the words used in this document in any way it
sees fit." And yet that's obviously what Facebook executives have been
doing: making words mean what they want them to mean, or else they'd have
removed the pages that promote rape and other forms of violence against
women months ago. The specific clause in Facebook's statement of rights and
responsibilities that's supposed to protect groups against violence and hate
speech instructs the user: "You will not post content that: is hateful,
threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or
graphic or gratuitous violence." However, Facebook has now defended the
numerous pages that clearly violate these terms by claiming: "Groups that
express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs – even if that
opinion is outrageous or offensive to some – do not by themselves violate
our policies." Which is strange, because if a page entitled "Roses are red,
violets are blue, I've got a knife, get in the van" isn't hateful,
threatening or gratuitously violent, I don't for the life of me know what
is.



It was back in August that feminists first began to notice the proliferation
of pro-rape pages on the popular social networking site. Two months later
over 176,000 people have signed a US-based petition calling on Facebook to
take them down, and nearly 4,000 people have signed a UK-based petition
calling for the same. The Facebook pages, such as the one cited above and
others that include "You know she's playing hard to get when your [sic]
chasing her down an alleyway" still remain. Facebook's initial response to
the public outcry was to suggest that promoting violence against women was
equivalent to telling a rude joke down the pub: "It is very important to
point out that what one person finds offensive another can find
entertaining" went the bizarre rape apologia. "Just as telling a rude joke
won't get you thrown out of your local pub, it won't get you thrown off
Facebook." And in some ways they're right: telling a rude joke probably
wouldn't get you thrown out of your local pub. I'd suggest, however, that
propping up your local bar while inciting others to rape your mate's
girlfriend "to see if she can put up a fight" would not only get you thrown
out, it would in all likelihood get you arrested as well. Still, at least
you could log on once you got home and post your offensive comments on
Facebook instead, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't do anything about
it.



What Facebook and others who defend this pernicious hate speech don't seem
to get is that rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted
or in any way particularly different from than the average man in the
street: rapists rape because they can. Rapists rape because they know the
odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they'll
get away with it. And part of the reason rapists get away with it, time
after time after time, is because we live in a society that all but condones
rape. Because we live in a society where it's not taken seriously, and where
posting heinous comments online that promote sexual violence are not treated
as hate speech or as content that threatens women's safety, but are instead
treated as a joke and given a completely free pass. By refusing to take
these pages down, and by resorting to such a ridiculous and quite frankly
offensive "rude joke" analogy to justify their decision, Facebook executives
have made absolutely clear where they stand on the issue of gender hate
crime. It's fine to post hateful or threatening content on their site, just
as it's fine to post content that incites violence. Well, as long as it's
primarily aimed at women, that is.



-- 
Joanna Chiu

Freelance Writer and Editor
Masters of Journalism candidate
Columbia University
www.joannachiu.com <http://www.joannachiu.com%20>
twitter.com/joannachiu
Ph: 917 767 6145
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/wamvan/attachments/20111010/f7786a9d/attachment.html>