Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship Facebook Social Networks Your Rights Online Politics

PM Calls Facebook Irresponsible For Allowing Beheading Clips 201

Posted by timothy
from the please-don't-do-that dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt: "David Cameron has attacked Facebook as irresponsible for lifting a ban on videos of beheadings being posted on its site. The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents. Facebook has said users should be free to view such videos and then condemn the content. Cameron wrote on Twitter: 'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.' Facebook introduced a temporary ban on such videos in May but has since decided to remove the block on the grounds that the site is used to share information about world events, such as acts of terrorism and human rights abuses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PM Calls Facebook Irresponsible For Allowing Beheading Clips

Comments Filter:
  • by Alex Kasa (2867743) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @06:19AM (#45198997)
    Unfortunately this will likely help him in his quest for web censorship...
    • by gl4ss (559668)

      yeah nevermind that if you don't have people posting beheading clips as friends or friends who comment on them then you will not see them.

      I have not seen not one, and I got something around 200 fb "friends" on the feeds. they know that there's other venues for gore than fb. I don't send titty pics to my mom nor do I send her goatse.

      you could get them in your email too, if someone was sending them..

    • by Krojack (575051)

      What I don't understand is, they allow them to rally in the streets of Britain and shout over megaphones "death to britains, death to americans" but aren't allowed to post this on FB? /confused

    • by MacDork (560499)
      This will likely help Facebook seem relevant again too. No such thing as bad press.
  • Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@NOspAm.world3.net> on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @06:20AM (#45198999) Homepage

    This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will opt out of them. Turns out Facebook is actually useful for something.

    • Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fatphil (181876) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @07:40AM (#45199415) Homepage
      I was expecting your post to veer in this direction:

      This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will just give up on using facebook, and it will be forgotten about and disappear. Turns out the government is actually useful for something.
    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Your country does not block Facebook, Facebook unblocks your country. Time for expensive NGO work and a bit of color revolution. The locals get the web 2.0 message http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution [wikipedia.org].
      Meet your new opposition politicians.
  • by Martz (861209) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @06:21AM (#45199005)

    'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.'

    So much fail...

    Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
    I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
    If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

    Looks like he's trying to win Family Votes, and slashdot is helping to peddle this crap.

    Shame on you timothy. Shame on you.

    • by Barsteward (969998) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @06:35AM (#45199083)
      I think banning porn videos, bare breasts etc but not beheading videos shows a complete hypocrisy especially with this statement from the dick heads.

      "Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events. People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook said in a statement.
      • by TheCarp (96830)

        As much as I mostly agree, I think its more a bit of being spineless than dick heads. Facebook is, at the end of the day, not going to be banned in the UK, and the company is a US company anyway.

        Standing up to Cameron doesn't take much spine, its basically just good PR for Facebook.

        Porn and erotic images (a friend was recently ranting about people reporting a picture a friend of her posted where her friend was wearing body paint) on the other hand, while they likely could get away with it, and could fight t

      • by operagost (62405)
        To be fair, pornography is different from actual videos of terrorists beheading someone. Porn is fiction, murder is not. That, of course, doesn't excuse Facebook from banning any videos or pics of people nude in everyday, nonsexual situations.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        I think banning porn videos, bare breasts etc but not beheading videos shows a complete hypocrisy especially with this statement from the dick heads.

        "Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events. People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook said in a statement.

        Actually, I feel less like there is proof that they are hypocrites after reading that statement. If people were posting porn videos, bare breasts etc. on facebook in order to say they were very bad things, then perhaps they might permit that.

        Well, okay, not really. But you can't take things corporations say seriously, because they have no soul.

    • by daem0n1x (748565) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @06:55AM (#45199167)

      Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.

      And before all the jingos start telling me "if you don't like American puritanism, then don't use Facebook", I declare: I don't use it.

      • Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.

        I guess you thought this story was about the American Prime Mister?

      • by gatfirls (1315141)

        I think that is probably more of a business decision. If they allow it the site would have been crushed immediately with porn and low value users.

        • by daem0n1x (748565)

          I think that is probably more of a business decision. If they allow it the site would have been crushed immediately with porn and low value users.

          Voyeurs and psychopaths are more "high-value"?

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @07:14AM (#45199269) Homepage

      Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.

      You're right. But Facebook chooses if that's what they're willing to allow on their site.

      Somehow I doubt this is some noble thing about freedom of expression like they're saying -- I strongly suspect it's more about the advertising revenue generated.

      Zuckerberg and Facebook can claim some principled stand, but from what I've seen, it's likely just plain old greed.

      I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things -- they want to do two things, make as much money as possible, and collect as much of your personal information as they can (so they can make as much money as possible). But lets' not pretend that Zuckerfuck is, or ever has been, a principled actor in all of this.

      • "I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things"

        Doesnt look to me like they even tried to pretend otherwise. Rather than taking a stand to censor or allow these videos, they seem to be saying they will censor them - but only if they dont like the reactions that are being posted. I believe that's the least principled stand they could possibly have taken here.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by prefec2 (875483)

      Cameron is presently converting the UK into a totalitarian state. He already has a central spy infrastructure, cameras at every corner, and a content control infrastructure (for pron of course, other stuff is allowed). He fights free press together with his friends in the conservative press (including Murdoch). Most likely, he will perform a referendum on UK-exit from the EU, which if it succeeds will help the EU and harm the UK in many ways. For Cameron it has the advantage that it is easier to dump the Eu

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Pino Grigio (2232472)
        Oh do shut up. Cameron had nothing to do with the creation and activities of GCQH, before 2010. He also wasn't responsible for CCTV cameras being put up all over the country. Cameron is against regulation of the press. A referendum on leaving the EU is what the people fucking want [democracym...rrey.co.uk], regardless of what the end result would be. You have no idea whether that would be good or bad for the EU or the UK. His opposition to European Human Rights law is based on the fact that Islamic hate preachers can come to t
        • Islamic hate preachers can come to the UK and spread their shite, sponge benefits and resist deportation because they have a fucking cat, for 10 years at a cost of millions of pounds.

          And you know what? The fucker has finally gone. The system worked eventually.

          A clue: if you switch off rights for people you don't like, then they are not rights. Rights apply to everyone. That's the definition. Scoundrels included.

          Secondly, he's pandering to the press on this one. There is not a single objectionable phrase (i

          • If the first thing you do when you come to this country is break the law (in this case immigration law), your rights should be circumscribed accordingly. This is extremely easy to understand, is necessary as a practical measure to prevent people taking the piss and is something judges at the European Court should take into account. The problem isn't the declaration, it's the EC's interpretation of it in many cases.
      • by wvmarle (1070040)

        1984 was set in (what used to be) the UK. Apparently Orwell was quite the clairvoyant. He just missed the actual year by a few decades.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
      If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

      Facebook is not a common carrier because they already censor content. For example, they censor stills of breastfeeding in which you can barely see a breast. They are the only and ultimate arbiter of what content is permissible on their site, and therefore they should be legally responsible for all of it.

    • by jandersen (462034)

      Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.

      Hmm, yes, and drug dealers don't ruin lives, people do it to themselves. And so on. If you own a facility - a house or a website - where you invite people in and allow them to commit crimes, then you are an accomplice, especially if you benefit finacially from the activities. The only question here is whether posting videos of beheadings is a crime; IMO it should be. It isn't about whether it is good taste or not - these videos are for a large part posted by terrorists as propaganda. Is aiding and abetting

  • Irresponsible, yes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FriendlyLurker (50431)
    Irresponsible, yes, but it sure does help sell the whole war on terror. Look, this could be you if your country does not bend over and contribute to the world war on terror [truth-out.org] (Icelands experience).
  • Of course.. because David Cameron wants to ban and censor everything.
  • by Chrisq (894406) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @06:35AM (#45199087)

    The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents.

    I would strongly advise worried parents not to watch decapitation clips.

  • by flyneye (84093) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @06:39AM (#45199103) Homepage

    Facebook calls PM sissy fop for censoring what the children already see in games, on t.v. and in the backyard with a Barbie and Ken execution playset.

    " Who is this irritation and why does he not realize that "I" govern more people than his silly little country and the Catholic Church combined?" said Zuckerburg, wiping the powder from beneath his nostrils and grabbing another turkey leg. " Off with his head!"

  • so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @07:06AM (#45199217) Journal

      so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....

      I don't remember the American Revolution having much of a moral element.... In fact, while we've done a great deal to get over it, the US was substantially stocked by a mixture of moralizing assholes too moralistic to get along in Britain (ye olde puritans) and would-be feudal lords who couldn't compete with the incumbents at home and therefore went abroad (ye olde slave plantation regions).

      Some political discontent, some economic interests; but King George wasn't exactly getting all up in our right to own filthy erotic lithographs...

  • Damn... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @07:02AM (#45199201) Journal
    Is there any part of the internet (aside from its utility for dystopian surveillance) that hasn't caused David Cameron to open his horrible, gormless, marshmallow-face and drone on about 'the children' and 'irresponsibility'? It's as though his government has entirely run out of substantive policy or something...
  • Headless breasts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bradley13 (1118935) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @07:12AM (#45199253) Homepage

    As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.

    • by pla (258480)
      As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.

      How about "honor rape" as practiced by the same barbarians going around beheading infidels? I mean, as long as any visible breasts get blurred out, of course - Wouldn't want to accidentally titillate any impr
    • Right ending life is so cool but creating it, hell no.
  • by MacTO (1161105) on Tuesday October 22, 2013 @07:16AM (#45199281)

    One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.

    I'll leave it up to you whether you support the posting of videos of crimes, but I don't see a good reason for it. Even in the cases of political speech and exposing human rights violations, you rarely need to resort to messages that are so graphic.

    • by georgeb (472989)

      One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.

      Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime??? Not only should any decent human being consider such videos way outside any TOS for any website, but posting them should be a crime too. How come the same standard apply here as in the case of pedophilia? If owning a pornographic image/video involving minors is a major crime, how can there possibly be any argument that distributing beheading videos should be legal, tolerated, encouraged, anything really...

      • Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???

        Where it's the sentence of the court being carried out.

        [Pedant mode off]

        Although even in this case I'd much rather not see it. Saw one a number of years ago, still haunts me occasionally.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Try it.
      1. Line your home with a few cameras and mics.
      2. Take up some cause on Web 2.0 with a visible local press/police stance.
      3. Wait till your ip is reported and you get a 'visit' at home.
      4. Speak loudly for the mic ;)
  • I'm thinking of like: a web application, where you can upload a picture of some random politician of your choice.

    And then the site will create an animation where there is a fake beheading, and, through the power of computer graphics; a plain color background is displayed, with the head replaced with a stub.

    These fake beheadings could then be virally shared on FB

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      With modern CG it shouldn't be too much asked to take the video of an actual beheading, and have the head of the person being beheaded replaced by someone you'd like to see beheaded. All the blood, gore, convulsions, and other effects are there already.

      Bonus points for replacing the heads of the beheaders with another politician.

      I think the hardest part of the above will be that to do this properly, you'd have to see those images for a very long time...

  • Start posting CGI videos of beheading Mark Zuckerberg, I have a feeling he will change his mind

  • Why are parents worried? You have to be 13 to have a Facebook account. Surely parents aren't letting their children who aren't old enough to meet the ToS of Facebook to have a Facebook account?
  • We should behead Zuckerberg and see if they carry that.
  • These videos are horrific but that doesn't mean we need to "omg think of the children. censor, protect, etc". The real world is horrific sometimes and that's the reality of it. If you don't want your kids affected by the harsh reality of the internet, then get off your ass, turn off the tv and parent. Going for censorship because your too lazy to watch your kid will leave a very sad future for them and in the meantime, d-bags like Cameroon will take whatever liberty they can to construe these edicts into

  • How are we to remain in denial if we allow the lowly common public to see the atrocities, the inhumanity?

  • a politician only interested in power. Additionally, facebook doesn't have to do shit.

  • Well thank god for that, how could terrorists spread their message of hate and terror without Facebook's cooperation, thank you Facebook, from terrorists everywhere.

    And that goes for the politicians and the news media too, thank you for scaring the shit out of people, rather than pointing out the low odds of being killed by terrorists, the terrorists would be nothing without you. You help to put the 'terror' in to terrorism.

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...