All of these are examples, from Facebook, of speech and images encouraging and/or making light ofviolence against women. Both the images and the language are extremely graphic and disturbing. We believe it’s important to make them available in order to illustrate the extent and impact of Facebook’s inaction on gender-based hate speech, but please choose to view them or not at your own discretion.
Many of these images passed Facebook moderation — that is, they were reported as violating Facebook standards, and Facebook declined to take them down. Some of them came down later when media stories highlighted specific pages. Some of them are still live on Facebook.
A note on redactions: we’ve redacted parts of images to protect the identities of women whose images have been used against their will. None of these images are/were redacted on Facebook.
UPDATE: Facebook is claiming that because they took down all the images in our original sample set, there is no more problem. Until Facebook recognizes that the problem is their POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, not any individual pages, we will keep posting fresh examples that are still live each day. Again, many of these have already been reported and allowed by Facebook moderation. They may come down now when we SHAME Facebook with them, but that doesn’t solve the problem. ONLY NEW FACEBOOK POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO BAN GENDER-BASED HATE SPEECH will solve this problem.
Facebook Post On woman.Facebook comment
Facebook Post
In a blog post, Facebook said its “systems to identify and remove hate speech have failed to work as effectively as we would like, particularly around issues of gender-based hate.” The company said it would review how it dealt with such content, update training for its employees, increase accountability — including requiring that users use their real identities when creating content — and establish more direct lines of communication with women’s groups and other entities.
This is nothing but Minority Terrorism aided by greed for Votes. The Government should not have acted this way, that too very cleverly by bringing in Law and order ‘issues instead of bringing in ‘hurting religious sentiments’. When a Government quotes Law and Order issues in the arguments, and that the Collectors have taken precautionary measures to enforce section 144 , there is little that a Court can do. Very clever indeed. Karunanidhi ,as usual was undecided as to what stand he should take-initially he called for a dialogue between Kamal Hassan and the Muslim Outfits without commenting on Freedom of Expression. Now he has come out saying that he suspects that the film was banned because Kamal Hassan refused to sell the Film to Jaya TV , run by Jayalalithaa at a very lower price and that he had sold it to SUN TV;and that the ban was mooted as a revenge for this and for a recent speece of Kamal Hassan that attacked the Jay Government ! Jayalalitha probably thought banning the film would bring in Muslims to her side and given Karunanidhi’s penchant for Muslim support would keep quiet as he could not openly support them without alienating the people who care for Freedom of Speech. The wily Fox is taking another tack. This sort of politicking is the bane of Tamil Nadu. Every issue is either Karunanidhi-centric or Jaya-centric.As to Kamal Hassan agreeing to remove the portions these Muslim out fit wanted to be removed he seems to justify the Government!After it is all Money?
Why don’t you accept it, and not put an a cry show talking about ‘being an ‘Artiste’ and blah..blah.
Would you recall that you showed a scene in your Dasavatharam , the Idol of Vishnu being chained, dragged along the ground and thrown out into the sea by A Vaishvaite, though it hurt both the Saivite and Vaisnavites alike?
That was History?
But Muslim terrorists slitting the throats with a cry of ‘Allah O Akbar’ in Live Videos is a fiction and Muslims will object to it and you will remove them!
Viva La Your Artistry and what a Hypocrite!
Story:
Viswaroopam
My Muslim family has reached out to me. They came and told me which portions they want removed, they told me the scenes they wanted cut and the words of Quran they wanted removed. They told me which are the scenes that would offend and could be removed,” said the actor, who was flanked by Congress leader J M Haroon, lyricist Vairamuthu, and several film personalities.
“We are thankful that he has agreed to remove the Quran words from the film. He immediately came forward to delete the portions,” said Haroon.
The actor added that the issue has been settled amicably. “There are no differences between me and my Muslim brothers. I am hearing some alarming news both from my fans and Muslim friends so far. Now it is up to the law enforcement and the justice department to ensure nothing happens to my Muslim brethren and others,” he said, adding that the film is in praise of Muslims.
An emotional Kamal Haasan said that he is thinking of leaving Tamil Nadu for some other secular state in India as the problems over his movie Vishwaroopam‘s release continued.
“I will look at all the states from Kashmir to Kerala excluding Tamil Nadu. If I don’t find one which is secular, I will leave for another country. M F Hussain had to leave, now Haasan will have to,” said the actor, whose movie’s release was stopped by TN state government authorities last week after a few Muslim groups protested.
I recall the instance when MGR was in power Lord Rama‘s Photos were beaten with chappals and garlanded with it;instead of taking action against the DK Group, Thuglak Cho(Or is it Ananada Vikatan?) was chargesheeted for a write up condemning the incident.
Twitter , in its ofiicial Blog ,has atted that it will be blocking Blogs that are held offensive by a country.
Its contention is’ Freedom is non-specific’ and varies from one country to another!?
It explains as a sop, which it can not believe in, that it will make content available and its stand on www. chilling effects.org.
However ,in essence,this declaration of blocking content is not very different from the stand of Google and Facebook who state that they will block if the content is ordered to be removed by the ‘courts’ while Twitter says it will do so if required by ‘Law’.
The fine distinction is that Twitter can block contents quoting specific Law, while Google and Facebook will do so on specific orders from a court.
In India there are no specific Laws on this issue as in Germany where it is illegal to propagate ‘neo-Nazism‘
So Twitter can say that its Tweets are not published because there is no specific law, if they choose.
It is suspected that Twitter is eyeing the Chinese market where the Internet Censorship is strong where the Chinese block a site if they want to with no recourse to legal remedy.
At the same time,Twitter can say it is a model Corporation following law and at the same time post the informtion in Chiling effects for rest of the world and declare it is a defender of Freedo of Expression.
So you are an idealist crusading for freedom of Expression and at the same time make money by sacrificing the principle..
What a double speak?
““The open exchange of information can have a positive global impact … almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right. Many countries also agree that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits.”
As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.
Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.
We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld. As part of that transparency, we’ve expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to share this new page,http://chillingeffects.org/twitter, which makes it easier to find notices related to Twitter.
One of our core values as a company is to defend and respect each user’s voice. We try to keep content up wherever and whenever we can, and we will be transparent with users when we can’t. The Tweets must continue to flow.
Update – Jan 27, 2:20pm.
Since yesterday’s post, we’ve gotten a number of questions that we’d like to broadly address with this update.
In short, we believe the new, more granular approach to withheld content is a good thing for freedom of expression, transparency, accountability— and for our users. Besides allowing us to keep Tweets available in more places, it also allows users to see whether we are living up to our freedom of expression ideal.
Q: Do you filter out certain Tweets before they appear on Twitter?
A: No. Our users now send a billion Tweets every four days—filtering is neither desirable nor realistic. With this new feature, we are going to be reactive only: that is, we will withhold specific content only when required to do so in response to what we believe to be a valid and applicable legal request.
As we do today, we will evaluate each request before taking any action. Any content we do withhold in response to such a request is clearly identified to users in that country as being withheld. And we are now able to make that content available to users in the rest of the world.
Q: What will people see if content is withheld?
A: If people are located in a country where a Tweet or account has been withheld and they try to view it, they will see a alert box that says “Tweet withheld” or “@Usernamewithheld” in place of the affected Tweet or account.
Q: Why did you take this approach, and why now?
A: There’s no magic to the timing of this feature. We’ve been working to reduce the scope of withholding, while increasing transparency, for a while. We have users all over the world and wanted to find a way to deal with requests in the least restrictive way.
Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If so, this site is for you.
Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities. We are excited about the new opportunities the Internet offers individuals to express their views, parody politicians, celebrate their favorite movie stars, or criticize businesses. But we’ve noticed that not everyone feels the same way. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users. Chilling Effects encourages respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to “chill” legitimate activity.
In addition, we want your help. We are gathering a searchable database of Cease and Desist notices sent to Internet users like you. We invite you toinput Cease and Desist letters that you’ve received into our database, to document the chill. We will respond by linking the legalese in the letters to FAQs that explain the allegations in plain English.
Periodically, we issue “weather reports” assessing the climate for Internet activity based on the letters we receive and news reports. What areas (topics, legal categories, jurisdictions) are coolest to online conduct? What activities risk being frozen out altogether? What conduct gets the warmest reception?
Getting Started:
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse contains multiple topic areas. Choose a topic area to view its introduction, Frequently Asked Questions, and annotated Cease & Desist notices, along with reference material and recent news links.
If you are visiting because you have received a Cease & Desist notice, we invite you to input your notice in the database. Questions on the submission form will help to categorize your letter, and then guide you toward topic areas for further information. Once the notice is in our database, clinical law students will be able to annotate it with questions and answers.
Glad to note that Egyptians and Palestinians agree at least on one point.
I am intrigued by this-Why women bare themselves to show dissent whether it be equal rights or freedom of expression?
Is it because they feel it is the one thing that will catch attention?
Sad.
When an Egyptian activist posted a nude picture of herself online in protest at the lack of freedom of expression, it sparked outrage in her country.
Now, a group of women in Israel have also stripped off in a show of solidarity.
Inspired by 20-year-old Aliaa Elmahdy’s bold move, the 40 Israelis posed naked for a ‘copycat’ shot – holding a banner to cover their modesty.
The sign read ‘Homage to Aliaa El Mahdi. Sisters in Israel’ with the slogan ‘Love without Limits’, written in Arabic and Hebrew.
Led by 28-year-old Or Templar, who set up a group on a social networking website inviting women to join her, the girls put their political differences aside to express their support.
‘Regardless of whether they are Jewish, Arab, straight or lesbian – because here, as of now, it doesn’t matter.
‘Let us show the doubters that our international discourse doesn’t depend on governments.’
Templar’s plan came as a response to Elmahdy, who posted the image of herself wearing only stockings and red flat shoes on her blog last week.
The country is currently preparing for elections following the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak.
Elmahdy’s blog received millions of hits but thousands took to her site to make negative comments.
Since when Funeral Place has become a Public Place?
National Debate does not give the right to any body to hurt others.
Wonder if TPM is not contravened in the Judgment.(Please see link at the bottom of the Blog).
A nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech about public issues and upheld the right of a fringe church to protest near military funerals.
“As a nation we have chosen a different course-to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” Roberts said…..
“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” Alito wrote.
The case concerned Westboro’s picketing at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, 20, who was killed in Iraq. The church – which is made up almost entirely of the family members of its founder, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps – picketed the 2006 funeral in Westminster, Md., carrying signs such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates Fags” and “America is Doomed.”
The church contends military deaths are God’s revenge for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. Matthew’s father, Albert Snyder, sued.
Snyder argued at trial that the Phelpses had invaded his privacy, caused emotional distress, and violated his rights to free exercise of religion and peaceful assembly.
..A Baltimore jury awarded Snyder more than $10 million, which was cut in half by the judge and then overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond. A three-judge panel said that although the rhetoric used was offensive, it was protected as speech concerning issues in the national debate.
Free speech zones are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of freedom of speech as an exercise of what is commonly called “TPM” or “time, place, manner” regulation of speech. Free speech zones are set up by the Secret Service who scout locations near which the president is to pass or speak. Officials may target those displaying signs and escort them to the free speech zones before and during the event. Protesters who refuse to go to free speech zones could be arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom-used federal law was brought up that says that “willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” is a crime.[43][44]
You must be logged in to post a comment.