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

[Natalie Hill]

*In response, Rapeneverfunny was set up in order to publicise Facebook’s
refusal and also encourage people to sign a petition set up by Orlagh in the
UK, and another set by John in the US against numerous other, equally
offensive pages. *

*Please make your voice heard.*
* *http://rapeneverfunny.wordpress.com/

______________________________________

The creator of this site, Jane Osmond, was on CBC radio one's "Q" last
week.  That interview can be heard here (click on the October 6, 2011
episode):

http://www.cbc.ca/q/episodes/

Nat

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Joanna Chiu <chiu.joanna5 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wamvan mailing list
> Wamvan at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wamvan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/wamvan/attachments/20111010/15242ca4/attachment.html>