Page 900«..1020..899900901902..910920..»

Publishers are not obliged to give bigots like Jordan Peterson a platform – The Guardian

Posted By on December 4, 2020

Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychology professor and lobster-loving life coach who came to public attention after refusing to use the preferred pronouns of transgender people, has a new book coming out, and some staff at Penguin Random House Canada, were reportedly not pleased with the companys decision to publish it. When the publisher announced that it would be bringing out Petersons Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (a sequel to his 2018 bestseller 12 Rules for Life), management received dozens of complaints from staff. At a company town hall meeting, some employees were reportedly in tears as they described how Peterson had radicalized people in their lives.

Predictably, the staff who complained were criticized as over-sensitive and excessively woke. The Telegraph suggested that intolerant social justice warriors were trying to censor Peterson. Commentator Maajid Nawaz said that it showed an insidious danger facing our culture now that book publishers want to ban books. Reasons Robby Soave said that militantly woke staffers at these places are determined to suppress viewpoints they disagree with. I am sure Peterson himself was thrilled, believing it had proven his point about snowflake leftists, in addition to bringing exactly the desired advance publicity for his book.

Its not reasonable to claim that employees who object to publishing Peterson are censorious. A publisher is not a Kinkos. Penguin Random House rejects far more books than it accepts, and it does not treat all points of view equally. It does not publish works of Holocaust denial or phrenology. It has standards, and its reasonable for employees to argue that Peterson does not meet those standards. After all, he has suggested that gay marriage might be a plot by cultural Marxists, that women wearing makeup in the workplace is sexually provocative, that trans women arent women because theyre not capable of having babies, that women cannot handle truth, and that transgender activists are comparable to mass-murdering Maoists. He peddles debunked scientific theories and dangerously dodgy diets. I have gone through his work myself and shown that he is a crackpot, whose writing is devoid of basic reasoning and full of wild unsubstantiated claims. When Pankaj Mishra wrote a critical review of Petersons work in the New York Review of Books, Peterson called Mishra a prick and said hed slap [Mishra] happily. The things he says are often false, prejudiced and dangerous. What possible obligation does a publisher have to publish the ravings of bigots?

Believing that a prestigious publisher should not give such a person a contract is not the same as believing that they should be punished for speaking, or that they should not have access to the internet, a printer, or the marketplace. Its important to make this distinction clear, because many conservative claims about being censored actually just amount to demands that their opinions be elevated far beyond their worth that evidence-free, bigoted speech be given any prestigious platform it demands, with criticism seen as proof that the critics are intolerant. (Andrew Sullivan, for instance, resigned from New York magazine in a huff after his colleagues expressed discomfort about his flirtations with white supremacism and race science. They didnt demand the magazine stop publishing him, but just being criticized was enough for him to bolt, claiming a hostile environment.)

There is no problem, then, with staff arguing that Petersons work is not worth the companys imprimatur. The real problem is that this doesnt happen enough, that publishers are amoral and bring out books on the basis of whether they will sell rather than whether they have social value. The staff revolt against Peterson is a very rare instance of a publishing company being criticized on moral grounds for its choices. After all, war criminal Henry Kissinger has published with Penguin Random House and Macmillan. People responsible for the atrocity of the Iraq war like George W Bush and John Bolton have brought books out with major publishers, even though the human toll of their decision-making is far greater than that of Jordan Peterson.

We should hope for more revolts like the one against Peterson, and the one that occurred when Simon & Schuster dropped racist provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Of course, there are strategic calculations, because a huge part of the conservative brand is the feigning of persecution. If book contracts are canceled, rightwingers will claim that they are being silenced for expressing disagreement, when the truth is that private parties are simply declining to financially reward noxious views. The best solution is for publishers to not offer contracts to war criminals and transphobes in the first place, but this is unlikely to occur, because profit-seeking companies find it hard to turn down bestsellers. (We will soon see whether any of the Big 5 publishers can resist the windfall that would come from publishing Donald Trumps presidential memoir.)

I find the arguments about censorship particularly bizarre because Im a publisher myself. I run a small magazine, and every week we get dozens of submissions, most of which we reject. We have conversations all the time about which opinions are worth putting our brand on, and nobody has yet claimed to have been censored because their article wasnt accepted by our publication. If Jordan Peterson or Henry Kissinger submitted an essay, it would be rejected. And yes, it would be because we disagreed with the opinion we dont publish arguments we find morally debased and poorly reasoned, by people whose views we do not wish to promote as sensible and worth listening to. Ill fight for the free speech rights of both men, but nobody has a human right to a lucrative book contract without regard for whether their opinions are sound or valuable.

More here:

Publishers are not obliged to give bigots like Jordan Peterson a platform - The Guardian

Facebook said It would ban holocaust deniers. Instead, its algorithm provided a network for them – The Next Web

Posted By on December 1, 2020

Last month, Facebook announced a crackdown: The platform would no longer permit content that denies or distorts the Holocaust as part of its larger policy prohibiting hate speech.

While noting that successful enforcement could take time, Monika Bickert, Facebooks vice president of content policy, explained the ban in a blog post. Our decision is supported by the well-documented rise in anti-Semitism globally and the alarming level of ignorance about the Holocaust, especially among young people, she wrote.

But as of mid-November, The Markup has found, numerous Facebook pages for well-known Holocaust denial groups remain active and for users who find the pages, Facebooks algorithms continue to recommend related content, effectively creating a network for pushing anti-Semitic content.

Facebook has long struggled to tamp down on quick-traveling misinformation and shape-shifting conspiracy groups, but many of the discriminatory pages The Markup found either belonged to groups with a long history of prominence within the Holocaust denial movement or directly referenced well-known anti-Semitic or white nationalist memes, making them seem like obvious targets for Facebooks crackdown.

Its unclear whether Facebook considers the posts and groups The Markup found unacceptable. The company did not announce how it would define Holocaust denialism, and the company did not respond to multiple requests for comment; all the pages and posts referenced in this article were still active as of Nov. 23 at 5p.m. ET.

[Read:Why this security engineer loves working in infosec]

None of the organizations tied to the Facebook pages mentioned in this story responded to The Markups request for comment.

The Markup relied on the judgments of outside organizations that monitor hate groups to identify Holocaust denial groups. And while some pages were explicitlike the Holohoax talesothers were more subtle and shied away from explicitly mentioning the Holocaust.

For example, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) has a Facebook page with more than 1,300 followers, despite being identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek truth and accuracy in history, but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism.

The group also has a Twitter account, despite that companys similar ban on Holocaust denial.

Twitter spokesperson Ian Plunkett told The Markup that the account is not currently in violation of our policies.

Recent posts on the groups Facebook page include a link to an episode of the Institute for Historical Reviews podcast attacking the post-WWII Nuremberg trials for being unfair to the German officials who were found guilty of committing war crimes. The host of that podcast, Mark Weber, is described by the SPLC as having probably done more than any other American to popularize denial of the World War II Holocaust of European Jews.

Another post links to an article listing Jewish donors who gave the largest amount during the 2020 U.S. election cycle. And another consisted of a link to a Guardian article about how most young people in the U.K. were unaware of many specifics of the Holocaust, adding a string of astonished-face emoji. Comments on the post attacked Jewish people for supposedly trying to assert victimhood as a result of the Nazi regimes genocidal ambitions.

Holocaust denial, whether on Facebook or elsewhere, is most effective when the deniers mix enough factual material into their arguments to confuse readers (including content moderators) or obfuscate their core beliefs, said Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Others have become adept at communicating with codewords to avoid detection by content moderators. This underscores the importance of high-quality training for both human moderators and detection algorithms.

In a box on the side of the IHR page, Facebook has suggestions for other related pages that users might find interesting. Facebook routinely recommends groupsbut in this case, the algorithmically derived suggestions potentially serve as a direct vector for radicalization.

Facebook, for instance, points visitors to IHRs page to another Facebook group, called CODOH Revisionist Forum, short for Committee for Open Debate on the Holocast. In a 2010 report, the Anti-Defamation League said that groups mission was to disseminate Holocaust denial to students on college campuses.

Visitors to the CODOH page would find a link to a blog entry titled Holohoax Tales on the organizations website. And Facebook users may also encounter additional recommendations for pages to visit on the platform, including Castle Hill Publishers, which the SPLC lists as another active Holocaust denial group and which has deep ties to CODOH. From there, Facebook recommended a fan page for Ernst Zndel, a neo-Nazi who died in 2017 who was notable both for his Holocaust denial and his authorship of a book titled The Hitler We Loved and Why. From the Zndel page, Facebook recommended a group named after the white nationalist white genocide conspiracy theory, which charges that a shadowy cabal of Jews is actively working to destroy the White race by encouraging race-mixing.

And the chain of recommended pages continues, leading users further and further into a web of discriminatory content. While many of these pages in this algorithmically created network focus on anti-Semitism, some of the recommended pages promote hate against other groups, like African Americans.

Page recommendations on Facebook do vary from user to user, but these related-page recommendations appeared both when The Markup visited them directly while logged into a reporters personal account and when the page was captured through a direct, not-logged-in visit by the third-party web archiving tool Archive.Today.

Unfortunately, Holocaust denial has been a serious problem that ADL has been flagging for Facebook for more than a decade, Greenblatt said, while also noting that Facebook has removed some anti-Semitic pages after announcing the ban. The good news is that they are finally taking action, but clearly much more needs to be done to effectively identify and remove this form of blatant antisemitism on their platform.

Facebook initially resisted banning Holocaust-denying content

In a 2018 interview, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told Recode that, while he didnt agree with those saying the Holocaust never happened, he didnt feel it was his companys job to remove that content from his platform.

I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I dont believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong, Zuckerberg said.

Facebooks stated reason for the policy change stemmed from concerns about how public ignorance about the Holocaust related to the prevalence of anti-Semitism.

Institutions focused on Holocaust research and remembrance, such as Yad Vashem, have noted that Holocaust education is also a key component in combatting anti-Semitism, Bickert wrote at the time.

The post also noted that, beginning later this year, Facebook will start directing users to factual information about the Holocaust when they search for terms related to the event or terms associated with Holocaust denial. Those information boxes have yet to appear on any of the Holocaust denial pages The Markup identified in this story.

This article was originally published on The Markupby Aaron Sankin and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Read next: Spotify's Stories should feature music suggestions, not artists' video messages

Original post:

Facebook said It would ban holocaust deniers. Instead, its algorithm provided a network for them - The Next Web

Facebook banned Holocaust denial but it’s still easy to find – The Jewish News of Northern California

Posted By on December 1, 2020

As of Wednesday afternoon, one of the first results in a Facebook search for Holohoax a termpopularwith Holocaust deniers was a post decrying Zionist White Jewish Supremacist Child murdering Apartheid State, Talmudic Satanic Holohoax promoters.

Right below it was a video, posted by a group with more than 6,000 followers, captioned Research: Holohoax and Jew world order.

These results showed up six weeks after Facebookannouncedthat it was banning Holocaust denial and distortion across its platforms, including Instagram.

When it made the announcement, the company pledged that it would direct users to resources that provide credible information about the Holocaust. Those resources have yet to appear on the site.

In contrast, similar resources do appear on searches for the QAnon conspiracy theory, which Facebook announced it would ban approximately one week before announcing the ban on Holocaust denial. And QAnon groups appear to have been removed after that announcement.

Its not just Holohoax. A page for the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denying organizationmasquerading as an academic center, is active and has more than 1,000 likes as of Wednesday afternoon. A recent post on the page links to an article titled, Israels power is unlimited. A post from earlier this month laments the great loss of life and terrible suffering endured by the German people during the Second World War.

A box on the side of that page labeled Related Pages directs users to several pages that either deny the Holocaust or spew blatantly antisemitic rhetoric. The Institute for Historical Review group and its related pages were first reported by the tech publication The Markup.

One, with 531 likes, is called Goy Lives Matter and features a stream of blatantly antisemitic posts and links. One example is a link to a website purporting to give information about the The Jewish Ethnic Cleansing Of Europeans. Goy, a Hebrew term that means non-Jew, has been appropriated by white supremacists.

Another far more popular page, with more than 11,000 likes, is called Open Borders for Israel, a trolling phrase that has become a slogan among white supremacists. The slogan implies that Jews are hypocritical because white supremacists believe Jews are trying to flood America with non-white immigrants, but Israel does not have a liberal immigration policy.

A version of the pages logo includes Pepe the Frog, a cartoon appropriated by white supremacists. One of its posts is a meme featuring a visibly Jewish man saying America is a nation of immigrants and then, when someone asks him why Israel doesnt absorb refugees, responding, Youre being antisemitic. Another post featuring a picture of Harvey Weinstein saying, Israel wont need to open its borders to the world to let Weinstein in. It only lets Jews in.

The pages and posts and others like them show that more than a month after it pledged to remove content that denies or distorts the Holocaust, Facebook has yet to do so. The persistence of Holocaust denial on Facebook underscores the challenge social media giants face as they try to fulfill recent pledges to root out hate and misinformation from their platforms.

Spokespeople for Facebook, as well as a Jewish organization thats working with it on these issues, say the social media giant is working hard to implement the policy. But they caution that it will take more time to refine artificial intelligence tools and create training materials for human moderators that can assist in recognizing Holocaust denial.

A spokesperson for Facebook said the company catches the vast majority of hate speech on the platform. The spokesperson told JTA that the company has 15,000 people reviewing content to monitor for hate speech and other violations. According to the companys data, Facebook detects 95 percent of hate speech posts before users report them. And another recent reportby the company says that from July to September, hate speech accounted for only 10 or 11 out of every 10,000 times someone viewed content on Facebook. (Given the billions of users Facebook has, that still results in a potentially enormous number of people viewing hate speech.)

Detecting hate speech is not only a difficult challenge, its an evolving one, the spokesperson wrote. A new piece of hate speech might not resemble previous examples because it references a new trend or some new news story. Weve built new tools so they can scale to future challenges as well as present ones. With more flexible and adaptive [artificial intelligence], were confident we can continue to make real progress.

The spokesperson said the company has no further information on when or how it will direct users to credible external materials about the Holocaust. Facebook likewise said it would not detail its training materials or criteria for determining what constitutes Holocaust denial, out of concern that that would allow bigots to game the system. Facebooks Community Standards likewisedo not specifywhat counts as Holocaust denial or distortion.

Facebook has been more active on enforcing at least one other recently announced policy. On Oct. 6, six days before it banned Holocaust denial, Facebook banned groups and pages promoting QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory with antisemitic overtones. Just 15 days later, the company announcedthat it had put links in place to credible information that users now see when they search for QAnon. No such links exist, as of yet, regarding Holocaust denial.

That Facebook is banning Holocaust denial at all is itself a major shift. Two years ago, Mark Zuckerbergtold the tech publication Recode that he saw Holocaust denial as a lack of knowledge as opposed to an intentional expression of antisemitism. I dont believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong, he said.

Zuckerbergs statement sparked an outcry among Holocaust scholars. Earlier this year, a coalition of civil rights groups led by the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP organized aboycott of Facebook adsthat grew to include more than 1,000 companies.

Now, in the face of that activism as well as studies showing thatantisemitism is risingwhileknowledge of the Holocaust is decreasing, Facebook has done an about-face. The company now views Holocaust denial as willful antisemitism. And before announcing the ban on Holocaust denial, Facebook said it had banned more than 250 white supremacist groups.

Denying the Holocaust is not just getting your facts wrong, Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, said in avideo interviewlast month with the World Jewish Congress. We know that Holocaust denial is used as a way to actually attack and stoke hatred against Jewish people.

Yfat Barak-Cheney, an official at the World Jewish Congress who has worked closely with Facebook on the Holocaust denial policy, said she believes the company is sincere about banning Holocaust denial. She expects the policy to be fleshed out, at the soonest, in a few months, and says her organization is in near-daily consultation with Facebook about it.

I think its a bit early to make these reports and look into this, said Barak-Cheney, the World Jewish Congress director of international affairs. The announcement is there. Its not something they are trying to avoid doing. They are very serious about it. Theyre definitely dedicating resources to it.

As the election season heated up earlier this year and public pressure mounted on tech companies to confront hate and misinformation, several large social media sites announced bans on conspiracy theories or different forms of bigotry.

Earlier in the year, along with banning QAnon, Facebook also said it wascracking down on other antisemitic conspiracy theories. TikTok bannedwhite supremacist content in October. YouTubebannedQAnon in October as well. In response to the stepped-up action against hate groups, many far-right activists moved their center of activity to Telegram, an encrypted messaging and social media app, and more recently to Parler, which bills itself as a social network without restrictions on speech.

In October, Twitter alsosaidit would be banning Holocaust denial though two weeks later, Twitter CEO Jack Dorseytold a Senate hearing, regarding Holocaust denial, that we dont have a policy against that type of misleading information.

And Facebooks policies dont always result in blocking haters from the site. According to a recentreportby two groups that monitor extremism, Facebook and Instagram directly host neo-Nazi networks with over 80,000 followers, some of whom use the site to see merchandise. After the report was covered in theGuardian, Facebook said it removed the neo-Nazis.

For too long Facebook has chosen to respond to hate on their platform only when there is enough public outcry over it, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatttweetedabout the report. Case in point: Facebook knowingly hosted this neo-Nazi network for years.

But Barak-Cheney said that the problem was one she expected Facebook to tackle. While she doubts that Facebook will be able to detect all Holocaust denial, she expects the platform to find and prohibit most of it.

Its hard to detect, and it changes all the time, she said. All of it is going to be hard, but its not going to be a static policy.

Original post:

Facebook banned Holocaust denial but it's still easy to find - The Jewish News of Northern California

Facebook’s ban has done little to rid the platform of Holocaust denial – Haaretz.com

Posted By on December 1, 2020

As of Wednesday afternoon, one of the first results in a Facebook search for Holohoax a termpopularwith Holocaust deniers was a post decrying Zionist White Jewish Supremacist Child murdering Apartheid State, Talmudic Satanic Holohoax promoters.

Right below it was a video, posted by a group with more than 6,000 followers, captioned Research: Holohoax and Jew world order.

These results showed up six weeks after Facebookannouncedthat it was banning Holocaust denial and distortion across its platforms, including Instagram.

When it made the announcement, the company pledged that it would direct users to resources that provide credible information about the Holocaust. Those resources have yet to appear on the site.

In contrast, similar resources do appear on searches for the QAnon conspiracy theory, which Facebook announced it would ban approximately one week before announcing the ban on Holocaust denial. And QAnon groups appear to have been removed after that announcement.

Its not just Holohoax. A page for the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denying organizationmasquerading as an academic center, is active and has more than 1,000 likes as of Wednesday afternoon. A recent post on the page links to an article titled, Israels power is unlimited. A post from earlier this month laments the great loss of life and terrible suffering endured by the German people during the Second World War.

A box on the side of that page labeled Related Pages directs users to several pages that either deny the Holocaust or spew blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric. The Institute for Historical Review group and its related pages were first reported by the tech publicationThe Markup.

One, with 531 likes, is called Goy Lives Matter and features a stream of blatantly anti-Semitic posts and links. One example is a link to a website purporting to give information about the The Jewish Ethnic Cleansing Of Europeans. Goy, a Hebrew term that means non-Jew, has been appropriated by white supremacists.

Another far more popular page, with more than 11,000 likes, is called Open Borders for Israel, a trolling phrase that has become a slogan among white supremacists. The slogan implies that Jews are hypocritical because white supremacists believe Jews are trying to flood America with non-white immigrants, but Israel does not have a liberal immigration policy.

A version of the pages logo includes Pepe the Frog, a cartoon appropriated by white supremacists. One of its posts is a meme featuring a visibly Jewish man saying America is a nation of immigrants and then, when someone asks him why Israel doesnt absorb refugees, responding, Youre being antisemitic. Another post featuring a picture of Harvey Weinstein saying, Israel wont need to open its borders to the world to let Weinstein in. It only lets Jews in.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

The pages and posts and others like them show that more than a month after it pledged to remove content that denies or distorts the Holocaust, Facebook has yet to do so. The persistence of Holocaust denial on Facebook underscores the challenge social media giants face as they try to fulfil recent pledges to root out hate and misinformation from their platforms.

Spokespeople for Facebook, as well as a Jewish organization thats working with it on these issues, say the social media giant is working hard to implement the policy. But they caution that it will take more time to refine artificial intelligence tools and create training materials for human moderators that can assist in recognizing Holocaust denial.

A spokesperson for Facebook said the company catches the vast majority of hate speech on the platform. The spokesperson told JTA that the company has 15,000 people reviewing content to monitor for hate speech and other violations. According to the companys data, Facebook detects 95% of hate speech posts before users report them. And another recentreportby the company says that from July to September, hate speech accounted for only 10 or 11 out of every 10,000 times someone viewed content on Facebook. (Given the billions of users Facebook has, that still results in a potentially enormous number of people viewing hate speech.)

Detecting hate speech is not only a difficult challenge, its an evolving one, the spokesperson wrote. A new piece of hate speech might not resemble previous examples because it references a new trend or some new news story. Weve built new tools so they can scale to future challenges as well as present ones. With more flexible and adaptive [artificial intelligence], were confident we can continue to make real progress.

The spokesperson said the company has no further information on when or how it will direct users to credible external materials about the Holocaust. Facebook likewise said it would not detail its training materials or criteria for determining what constitutes Holocaust denial, out of concern that that would allow bigots to game the system. Facebooks Community Standards likewisedo not specifywhat counts as Holocaust denial or distortion.

Facebook has been more active on enforcing at least one other recently announced policy. On October 6, six days before it banned Holocaust denial, Facebookbannedgroups and pages promoting QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory with anti-Semitic overtones. Just 15 days later, the companyannouncedthat it had put links in place to credible information that users now see when they search for QAnon. No such links exist, as of yet, regarding Holocaust denial.

That Facebook is banning Holocaust denial at all is itself a major shift. Two years ago, Mark Zuckerbergtold the tech publication Recodethat he saw Holocaust denial as a lack of knowledge as opposed to an intentional expression of anti-Semitism. I dont believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong, he said.

Zuckerbergs statement sparked an outcry among Holocaust scholars. Earlier this year, a coalition of civil rights groups led by the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP organized aboycott of Facebook adsthat grew to include more than 1,000 companies.

Now, in the face of that activism as well as studies showing thatanti-Semitism is risingwhileknowledge of the Holocaust is decreasing, Facebook has done an about-face. The company now views Holocaust denial as willful anti-Semitism. And before announcing the ban on Holocaust denial, Facebook said it had banned more than 250 white supremacist groups.

Denying the Holocaust is not just getting your facts wrong, Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, said in avideo interviewlast month with the World Jewish Congress. We know that Holocaust denial is used as a way to actually attack and stoke hatred against Jewish people.

Yfat Barak-Cheney, an official at the World Jewish Congress who has worked closely with Facebook on the Holocaust denial policy, said she believes the company is sincere about banning Holocaust denial. She expects the policy to be fleshed out, at the soonest, in a few months, and says her organization is in near-daily consultation with Facebook about it.

I think its a bit early to make these reports and look into this, said Barak-Cheney, the World Jewish Congress director of international affairs. The announcement is there. Its not something they are trying to avoid doing. They are very serious about it. Theyre definitely dedicating resources to it.

As the election season heated up earlier this year and public pressure mounted on tech companies to confront hate and misinformation, several large social media sites announced bans on conspiracy theories or different forms of bigotry.

Earlier in the year, along with banning QAnon, Facebook also said it wascracking downon other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. TikTokbannedwhite supremacist content in October. YouTubebannedQAnon in October as well. In response to the stepped-up action against hate groups, many far-right activists moved their center of activity to Telegram, an encrypted messaging and social media app, and more recently to Parler, which bills itself as a social network without restrictions on speech.

In October, Twitter alsosaidit would be banning Holocaust denial though two weeks later, Twitter CEO Jack Dorseytold a Senate hearing, regarding Holocaust denial, that we dont have a policy against that type of misleading information.

And Facebooks policies dont always result in blocking haters from the site. According to a recentreportby two groups that monitor extremism, Facebook and Instagram directly host neo-Nazi networks with over 80,000 followers, some of whom use the site to see merchandise. After the report was covered in theGuardian, Facebook said it removed the neo-Nazis.

For too long Facebook has chosen to respond to hate on their platform only when there is enough public outcry over it, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatttweetedabout the report. Case in point: Facebook knowingly hosted this neo-Nazi network for years.

But Barak-Cheney said that the problem was one she expected Facebook to tackle. While she doubts that Facebook will be able to detect all Holocaust denial, she expects the platform to find and prohibit most of it.

Its hard to detect, and it changes all the time, she said. All of it is going to be hard, but its not going to be a static policy.

Read the original:

Facebook's ban has done little to rid the platform of Holocaust denial - Haaretz.com

Fury as Amazon Alexa spreading antisemitic conspiracies that Jews run the world and Holocaust denial – The Sun

Posted By on December 1, 2020

AMAZON has been accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories by several British MPs.

The politicians claim Amazon Alexa smart speakers are blurting out hate speech and have called for immediate action.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Against Antisemitism wrote a letter to Amazons UK chief demanding something be done about the antisemitic comments they uncovered.

The letter states: "Answers to enquiries provided by these services are presented as authoritative and factual, and so carry credibility, with many considering them truthful.

"We were appalled, therefore, to find that the Alexa voice service offers messages from antisemitic websites and conspiracy theories, using selective quotes and misleading sources in answer to a number of questions about Jewish people, the Holocaust and antisemitism."

MPs who have signed the letter include Andrew Percy, Catherine McKinnell and Dr Lisa Cameron.

1

It has been tweeted in full on the APPG Twitter account.

The letter gives several examples of Alexa quoting from unreliable sources and Holocaust denying websites.

When asked "Do Jews control the media?", Alexa reportedly responded: "Heres something I found from the article Jew Watch on Wikipedia: Jew Watch claims that Jews control the worlds financial systems and media."

The MPs asked Amazon to address the issue regarding antisemitism now and in the long term.

The letter explains that the Home Secretary has been informed.

It adds: "We will be contacting the police, so that they might take a view on any breaches of communications or racial incitement legislation."

An Amazon spokesperson told us: "Anti-Semitism and discrimination of any kind is unacceptable. Alexa pulls from a variety of sources to respond to questionswe are investigating this and have blocked the responses reported."

What is Alexa?

If you've never heard of Alexa, here's what you need to know...

BAD CHATBeware this WhatsApp scam it steals your messages and even hacks your family too

OUT OF JUICEDelete THESE 22 dodgy apps to save your phone's battery life

ZUCK OFFWoman claims she has PROOF Facebook is spying on conversations

MAIL FAILHotmail down: Why does Outlook keep asking for my password?

Revealed

SPEED BOOSTIs 5G in your area? Mast maps reveal if you can upgrade to ultra-fast internet

GRAM SLAMHow to see if someone is logged into your Instagram and reading all your DMs

In other news, Android users have been urged to steer clear of a dodgy app with 100million downloads on the Google Play Store.

Teenager Charli D'Amelio has become the first person in the world with 100million TikTok followers.

And, famous Twitch streamer Pokimanewants her fans to stop giving herso much money.

Do you have concerns about Amazon Alexa? Let us know in the comments...

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at tech@the-sun.co.uk

More here:

Fury as Amazon Alexa spreading antisemitic conspiracies that Jews run the world and Holocaust denial - The Sun

Facebook announced It would prohibit holocaust deniers. Rather, its algorithm donated a network for them – Stanford Arts Review

Posted By on December 1, 2020

Last month, Facebook made an announcement: The platform will no longer allow content that rejects or distorts the Holocaust as part of its larger policy prohibiting hate speech.

Noting that successful enforcement can take time, Monica Bickert, Facebooks vice president of content policy, explained the ban in a blog post. Our decision is supported by a well-documented increase in anti-Semitism globally and an alarming level of ignorance about the Holocaust, especially among young people, she wrote.

But as of mid-November, The Markup has found, many Facebook pages remain active for well-known Holocaust denial groups and for users who search the pages, Facebooks algorithms continue to recommend related content, effectively Lets create a network to push the opponent. material.

Facebook has long struggled to crack down on quick-travel misinformation and sizing-up conspiratorial groups, but many discriminatory pages were found by Markup to either be directly related to groups with a long history of prominence within the Holocaustial movement. Well-known anti-socialist or white nationalist meme, he seems like a clear target for Facebooks crackdown.

It is unclear whether Facebook considers the posts and groups Markup found unacceptable. The company did not announce how it would define the Holocaust denial, and the company did not respond to multiple requests for comment; All the pages and posts referenced in this article were still active. 23 November at 5 pm. ET.

Here is the original post:

Facebook announced It would prohibit holocaust deniers. Rather, its algorithm donated a network for them - Stanford Arts Review

Gen Z’s Perception of the Holocaust | Eli Yissar Josefson | The Blogs – The Times of Israel

Posted By on December 1, 2020

By now, I am sure that everyone reading this article knows about TikTok, the social media platform that has taken the world by storm. The platform is all about sharing videos and trying to get featured on the For You recommendations page for other users, in order to receive more views. This results in the video makers fifteen seconds of fame. Creators have taken this in various directions: some have chosen the comedy route, others have tried to show off their talents (dancing in particular), and others have been accused of using their looks to gain followers. Regardless of the way it started, many people have become so concerned with obtaining their fifteen seconds of fame that some stopped thinking some of their decisions through.

Over the past few months, there have been several trends, which catch on and are recreated by thousands of TikTok users. Many of these trends are innocent and entertaining, but one that does not fit either of those adjectives is the Holocaust trend. This trend involved people dressing up as Holocaust victims (wearing yellow stars, striped shirts, and creating bruises with their makeup), some even used the backdrop of a Nazi concentration camp, and others pretended that they were in heaven and told their Holocaust story. Some TikTokers pretended to die in their showers, and some acted as if they were walking towards a gas chamber. Needless to say, many people on this platform were appalled by the trend and called out some of the people who made these videos. Although this trend is no longer in play it is important to talk about how we, as a Jewish community, can respond to such uploads.

After the backlash, many people came out to say that they created these videos in order to reach out to the younger generation and educate them about the horrors of the Holocaust. They chose to use a platform with which they were comfortable, and knew that younger people were as well. These TikTokers figured that this would be a good way to bring awareness, especially at a time when Holocaust denial is at a rise. We all know the saying, its the thought that counts. It follows that we should be able to forgive these users while still showing them the error in their judgement. There are, after all, much better ways to educate young people about the Holocaust, even on TikTok.

Sadly, this was not the case for many others who uploaded Holocaust trend videos. Many had the goal of making fun of the atrocities that occurred in the Holocaust and created a form of denial, sending the message that, It couldnt have been that bad; why are you Jews always complaining about it? Some uploaders went so far as to compare IDF soldiers to Nazi criminals. This made it difficult to forget or justify.

Is it enough to just ignore such videos? This is a question that I had asked myself when I first came across them. I didnt know what the best solution was, but I couldnt just keep scrolling. Although I am definitely not a social media expert, this is what I have learned so far:

Remember: your voice matters. Use it. People care what you have to say.

Eli Yissar Josefson is a high school student in Toronto, Canada where she is the school's newspaper editor. She has had a passion for Israel ever since she can remember and has been involved with Hasbara Fellowships Canada for three years where she has published several political articles involving Israel and the United States.

More:

Gen Z's Perception of the Holocaust | Eli Yissar Josefson | The Blogs - The Times of Israel

Palestinian rights and the IHRA definition of antisemitism – The Guardian

Posted By on December 1, 2020

We, the undersigned Palestinian and Arab academics, journalists and intellectuals are hereby stating our views regarding the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and the way this definition has been applied, interpreted and deployed in several countries of Europe and North America.

In recent years, the fight against antisemitism has been increasingly instrumentalised by the Israeli government and its supporters in an effort to delegitimise the Palestinian cause and silence defenders of Palestinian rights. Diverting the necessary struggle against antisemitism to serve such an agenda threatens to debase this struggle and hence to discredit and weaken it.

Antisemitism must be debunked and combated. Regardless of pretence, no expression of hatred for Jews as Jews should be tolerated anywhere in the world. Antisemitism manifests itself in sweeping generalisations and stereotypes about Jews, regarding power and money in particular, along with conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial. We regard as legitimate and necessary the fight against such attitudes. We also believe that the lessons of the Holocaust as well as those of other genocides of modern times must be part of the education of new generations against all forms of racial prejudice and hatred.

The fight against antisemitism must, however, be approached in a principled manner, lest it defeat its purpose. Through examples that it provides, the IHRA definition conflates Judaism with Zionism in assuming that all Jews are Zionists, and that the state of Israel in its current reality embodies the self-determination of all Jews. We profoundly disagree with this. The fight against antisemitism should not be turned into a stratagem to delegitimise the fight against the oppression of the Palestinians, the denial of their rights and the continued occupation of their land. We regard the following principles as crucial in that regard:

1. The fight against antisemitism must be deployed within the frame of international law and human rights. It should be part and parcel of the fight against all forms of racism and xenophobia, including Islamophobia, and anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism. The aim of this struggle is to guarantee freedom and emancipation for all oppressed groups. It is deeply distorted when geared towards the defence of an oppressive and predatory state.

2. There is a huge difference between a condition where Jews are singled out, oppressed and suppressed as a minority by antisemitic regimes or groups, and a condition where the self-determination of a Jewish population in Palestine/Israel has been implemented in the form of an ethnic exclusivist and territorially expansionist state. As it currently exists, the state of Israel is based on uprooting the vast majority of the natives what Palestinians and Arabs refer to as the Nakba and on subjugating those natives who still live on the territory of historical Palestine as either second-class citizens or people under occupation, denying them their right to self-determination.

3. The IHRA definition of antisemitism and the related legal measures adopted in several countries have been deployed mostly against leftwing and human rights groups supporting Palestinian rights and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, sidelining the very real threat to Jews coming from rightwing white nationalist movements in Europe and the US. The portrayal of the BDS campaign as antisemitic is a gross distortion of what is fundamentally a legitimate non-violent means of struggle for Palestinian rights.

4. The IHRA definitions statement that an example of antisemitism is Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour is quite odd. It does not bother to recognise that under international law, the current state of Israel has been an occupying power for over half a century, as recognised by the governments of countries where the IHRA definition is being upheld. It does not bother to consider whether this right includes the right to create a Jewish majority by way of ethnic cleansing and whether it should be balanced against the rights of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, the IHRA definition potentially discards as antisemitic all non-Zionist visions of the future of the Israeli state, such as the advocacy of a binational state or a secular democratic one that represents all its citizens equally. Genuine support for the principle of a peoples right to self-determination cannot exclude the Palestinian nation, nor any other.

5. We believe that no right to self-determination should include the right to uproot another people and prevent them from returning to their land, or any other means of securing a demographic majority within the state. The demand by Palestinians for their right of return to the land from which they themselves, their parents and grandparents were expelled cannot be construed as antisemitic. The fact that such a demand creates anxieties among Israelis does not prove that it is unjust, nor that it is antisemitic. It is a right recognised by international law as represented in United Nations general assembly resolution 194 of 1948.

6. To level the charge of antisemitism against anyone who regards the existing state of Israel as racist, notwithstanding the actual institutional and constitutional discrimination upon which it is based, amounts to granting Israel absolute impunity. Israel can thus deport its Palestinian citizens, or revoke their citizenship or deny them the right to vote, and still be immune from the accusation of racism. The IHRA definition and the way it has been deployed prohibit any discussion of the Israeli state as based on ethno-religious discrimination. It thus contravenes elementary justice and basic norms of human rights and international law.

7. We believe that justice requires the full support of Palestinians right to self-determination, including the demand to end the internationally acknowledged occupation of their territories and the statelessness and deprivation of Palestinian refugees. The suppression of Palestinian rights in the IHRA definition betrays an attitude upholding Jewish privilege in Palestine instead of Jewish rights, and Jewish supremacy over Palestinians instead of Jewish safety. We believe that human values and rights are indivisible and that the fight against antisemitism should go hand in hand with the struggle on behalf of all oppressed peoples and groups for dignity, equality and emancipation.

Samir AbdallahFilmmaker, Paris, FranceNadia Abu El-HajAnn Olin Whitney Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University, USALila Abu-LughodJoseph L Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science, Columbia University, USABashir Abu-MannehReader in Postcolonial Literature, University of Kent, UKGilbert AchcarProfessor of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, UKNadia Leila AissaouiSociologist and Writer on feminist issues, Paris, FranceMamdouh AkerBoard of Trustees, Birzeit University, PalestineMohamed AlyahyaiWriter and novelist, OmanSuad AmiryWriter and Architect, Ramallah, PalestineSinan AntoonAssociate Professor, New York University, Iraq-USTalal AsadEmeritus Professor of Anthropology, Graduate Center, CUNY, USAHanan AshrawiFormer Professor of Comparative Literature, Birzeit University, PalestineAziz Al-AzmehUniversity Professor Emeritus, Central European University, Vienna, AustriaAbdullah BaaboodAcademic and Researcher in Gulf studies, OmanNadia Al-BagdadiProfessor of History, Central European University, ViennaSam BahourWriter, Al-Bireh/Ramallah, PalestineZainab BahraniEdith Porada Professor of Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University, USARana BarakatAssistant Professor of History, Birzeit University, PalestineBashir BashirAssociate Professor of Political Theory, Open University of Israel, Raanana, State of IsraelTaysir BatnijiArtist-Painter, Gaza, Palestine and Paris, FranceTahar Ben JellounWriter, Paris, FranceMohammed BennisPoet, Mohammedia, MoroccoMohammed BerradaWriter and Literary Critic, Rabat, MoroccoOmar BerradaWriter and Curator, New York, USAAmahl BisharaAssociate Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, Tufts University, USAAnouar BrahemMusician and Composer, TunisiaSalem BrahimiFilmaker, Algeria-FranceAboubakr ChraibiProfessor, Arabic Studies Department, INALCO, Paris, FranceSelma DabbaghWriter, London, UKIzzat DarwazehProfessor of Communications Engineering, University College London, UKMarwan DarweishAssociate Professor, Coventry University, UKBeshara DoumaniMahmoud Darwish Professor of Palestinian Studies and of History, Brown University, USAHaidar EidAssociate Professor of English Literature, Al-Aqsa University, Gaza, PalestineZiad ElmarsafyProfessor of Comparative Literature, Kings College London, UKNoura ErakatAssistant Professor, Africana Studies and Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, USASamera EsmeirAssociate Professor of Rhetoric, University of California, Berkeley, USAKhaled FahmyFBA, Professor of Modern Arabic Studies, University of Cambridge, UKAli FakhrouAcademic and writer, BahrainRanda FarahAssociate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Western University, CanadaLeila FarsakhAssociate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston, USAKhaled FuraniAssociate Professor of Sociology & Anthropology, Tel-Aviv University, State of IsraelBurhan GhaliounEmeritus Professor of Sociology, Sorbonne 3, Paris, FranceAsad GhanemProfessor of Political science, Haifa University, State of IsraelHonaida GhanimGeneral Director of the Palestinian forum for Israeli Studies Madar, Ramallah, PalestineGeorge GiacamanProfessor of Philosophy and Cultural Studies, Birzeit University, PalestineRita GiacamanProfessor, Institute of Community and Public Health, Birzeit University, PalestineAmel GramiProfessor of Gender Studies, Tunisian University, TunisSubhi HadidiLiterary Critic, Syria-FranceGhassan HageProfessor of Anthropology and Social theory, University of Melbourne, AustraliaSamira HajEmeritus Professor of History, CSI/Graduate Center, CUNY, USAYassin Al-Haj SalehWriter, SyriaDyala HamzahAssociate Professor of Arab History, Universite de Montreal, CanadaRema HammamiAssociate Professor of Anthropology, Birzeit University, PalestineSari HanafiProfessor of Sociology, American University of Beirut, LebanonAdam HaniehReader in Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, UKKadhim Jihad HassanWriter and translator, Professor at INALCO-Sorbonne, Paris, FranceNadia HijabAuthor and human rights advocate, London, UKJamil HilalWriter, Ramallah, PalestineSerene HleihlehCultural Activist, Jordan-PalestineBensalim HimmichAcademic, novelist and writer, MoroccoKhaled HroubProfessor in Residence of Middle Eastern Studies, Northwestern University, QatarMahmoud HusseinWriter, Paris, FranceLakhdar IbrahimiParis School of International Affairs, Institut dEtudes Politiques, FranceAnnemarie JacirFilmmaker, PalestineIslah JadAssociate Professor of Political Science, Birzeit University, PalestineLamia JoreigeVisual Artist and Filmaker, Beirut, LebanonAmal Al-JubouriWriter, IraqMudar KassisAssociate Professor of Philosophy, Birzeit University, PalestineNabeel KassisFormer Professor of Physics and Former President, Birzeit University, PalestineMuhammad Ali KhalidiPresidential Professor of Philosophy, CUNY Graduate Center, USARashid KhalidiEdward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University, USAMichel KhleifiFilmmaker, Palestine-BelgiumElias KhouryWriter, Beirut, LebanonNadim KhouryAssociate Professor of International Studies, Lillehammer University College, NorwayRachid KoreichiArtist-Painter, Paris, FranceAdila Laidi-HaniehDirector General, The Palestinian Museum, PalestineRabah LouciniProfessor of History, Oran University, AlgeriaRabab El-MahdiAssociate Professor of Political Science, The American University in Cairo, EgyptZiad MajedAssociate Professor of Middle East Studies and IR, American University of Paris, FranceJumana MannaArtist, Berlin, GermanyFarouk Mardam BeyPublisher, Paris, FranceMai MasriPalestinian filmmaker, LebanonMazen MasriSenior Lecturer in Law, City University of London, UKDina MatarReader in Political Communication and Arab Media, SOAS, University of London, UKHisham MatarWriter, Professor at Barnard College, Columbia University, USAKhaled MattawaPoet, William Wilhartz Professor of English Literature, University of Michigan, USAKarma NabulsiProfessor of Politics and IR, University of Oxford, UKHassan NafaaEmeritus Professor of Political science, Cairo University, EgyptNadine NaberProfessor, Deptartment of Gender and Womens Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago, USAIssam NassarProfessor, Illinois State University, USASari NusseibehEmeritus Professor of Philosophy, Al-Quds University, PalestineNajwa Al-QattanEmeritus Professor of History, Loyola Marymount University, USAOmar Al-QattanFilmmaker, Chair of The Palestinian Museum & the A.M.Qattan Foundation, UKNadim N RouhanaProfessor of International Affairs, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, USAAhmad SaadiProfessor, Haifa, State of IsraelRasha SaltiIndependent Curator, Writer, Researcher of Art and Film, Germany-LebanonElias SanbarWriter, Paris, FranceFares SassineProfessor of Philosophy and Literary Critic, Beirut, LebanonSherene SeikalyAssociate Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara, USASamah SelimAssociate Professor, A, ME & SA Languages & Literatures, Rutgers University, USALeila ShahidWriter, Beirut, LebanonNadera Shalhoub-KevorkianLawrence D Biele Chair in Law, Hebrew University, State of IsraelAnton ShammasProfessor of Comparative Literature, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USAYara SharifSenior Lecturer, Architecture and Cities, University of Westminster, UKHanan Al-ShaykhWriter, London, UKRaja ShehadehLawyer and Writer, Ramallah, PalestineGilbert SinoueWriter, Paris, FranceAhdaf SoueifWriter, Egypt/UKMayssoun SukariehSenior Lecturer in Development Studies, Kings College London, UKElia SuleimanFilmmaker, Palestine-FranceNimer SultanyReader in Public Law, SOAS, University of London, UKJad TabetArchitect and Writer, Beirut, LebanonJihan El-TahriFilmmaker, EgyptSalim TamariEmeritus Professor of Sociology, Birzeit University, PalestineWassyla TamzaliWriter, Contemporary Art Producer, AlgeriaFawwaz TraboulsiWriter, Beirut LebanonDominique VidalHistorian and Journalist, Palestine-FranceHaytham El-WardanyWriter, Egypt-GermanySaid ZeedaniEmeritus Associate Professor of Philosophy, Al-Quds University, PalestineRafeef ZiadahLecturer in Comparative Politics of the Middle East, SOAS, University of London, UKRaef ZreikMinerva Humanities Centre, Tel-Aviv University, State of IsraelElia ZureikProfessor Emeritus, Queens University, Canada

Link:

Palestinian rights and the IHRA definition of antisemitism - The Guardian

‘Facebook needs to improve’: Social media giant to face scrutiny as backlash intensifies – Sydney Morning Herald

Posted By on December 1, 2020

Twitter was on Monday trying to assess whether the image had violated its terms of service after Prime Minister Scott Morrison called a press conference to demand the post be taken down, labelling it "repugnant" and "truly offensive". Twitter has censored multiple replies to the image for violating its Twitter rules but not the original post itself.

In the US, Twitter and Facebook have both censored false posts about US President Donald Trump, sparking a backlash in conservative circles. While the platforms argue they are making the right decisions, removal or censoring of content often causes disputes about freedom of speech.

"Facebook is a platform that needs to improve," Ms Chen said. "Before I joined the board I heard lots of complaints about the platform decisions. Some of my friends complained that their accounts were suspended. When we are discussing a particular case, we will bring different cultural values and religious beliefs and liberal and conservative views and we just discuss and debate together."

One particular case the oversight board will examine contained a screen-shot of two tweets by former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad who said that Muslims had a right to be angry and kill millions of French people for past massacres. The screen-shots had no caption but were removed for violation of Facebook's hate speech policies. The user said it was posted to raise awareness of the "horrible words" that were said.

Another case involved a post by a Brazil user about raising awareness of signs of breast cancer. Eight photographers were used in the post, five of which included visible and uncovered female nipples. They were removed for violation of adult nudity and sexual activity.

Facebook has faced criticism for content moderation issues for years. The platform temporarily removed a famous Vietnam-era war photo of a naked girl fleeing a napalm attack, but failed to remove Holocaust denial posts and initially refused to take down posts from President Donald Trump which suggested mail-in ballots would lead to voter fraud at the US election.

Loading

A two-year audit of Facebooks civil rights record earlier this year found that the companys elevation of free expression above other values hurt its progress on matters such discrimination, elections interference and looking after users.

While the board only focus on a some issues - hate speech, harassment and safety - it will be crucial in deciding what appears on Facebook and Instagram in future.

All decisions by the board are binding which means that Facebook will have to implement them within 90 days. Each case will be looked at by five panel members and will include at least one member for the regional implicated in the post.

Ms Chen, who said was interested to join the board because of concerns raised about post removals by her friends, assured that Facebook would not interfere in the deliberation process. "We don't feel any interference from Facebook and we are operating independently. That's how I've felt since the first day." Other board members include former Denmark prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former European Court of Human Rights judge Andrs Saj, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Tawakkol Karman, former editor-in-chief of the Guardian Alan Rusbridger and Queensland University of Technology law professor Nicolas Suzor.

Read the original:

'Facebook needs to improve': Social media giant to face scrutiny as backlash intensifies - Sydney Morning Herald

Forum: Europe needs proper distinction between freedom and rights – The Straits Times

Posted By on December 1, 2020

In support of Professor Tommy Koh's appeal to Europe for tolerance of and respect for the faiths of others, may I suggest that we stop conflating "right" with "freedom" (Freedom of speech: An appeal to Europe, Nov 28)?

Ironically, however, this conflation is also evident in Prof Koh's statement: "The central question is whether freedom of speech includes the right to slander Islam or any other religion."

The words "freedom" and "right" have different meanings. There is no need for such a question because it is akin to asking whether the weight of fruit includes the colour of oranges. But I understand Prof Koh's noble intent in questioning the link between the two.

Unfortunately, it is this continued conflation that confuses and then emboldens many in Europe to assert that freedom of speech entails the right to offend. Many fallaciously conclude that freedom of speech, which implies freedom to offend, equals the right to offend - because freedom and rights are seen as one and the same.

Freedom of speech, action and thought is an undeniable human condition arising from our innate free will. But while human freedom is undeniably innate, the idea that human rights are equally so is debatable.

Thus, since time immemorial, there have been societies determining and then granting or denying their members the rights to exercise whatever innate human freedoms they have.

The criminalisation of Holocaust denial is an excellent example of "the right to exercise the freedom to deny a historical event" being determined and then, in this case, denied by European society. Simply put, if you are free to deny, it does not mean you have the right to do so. That right depends on what your society defines.

Right now, Europe could do with a proper distinction between human freedom and human rights. It could then judiciously determine whether granting its societies the right to offend is the right thing to do, notwithstanding the innate human free will.

Osman Sidek

Continued here:

Forum: Europe needs proper distinction between freedom and rights - The Straits Times


Page 900«..1020..899900901902..910920..»

matomo tracker