Facebook Can Block Content Without Explanation, Says US Court (thestack.com) 147
An anonymous reader writes: A U.S. court has ruled that Facebook can block any content posted to its site without explanation, after a Sikh group legally challenged the company for taking its page offline. U.S. Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the U.S. based rights group's encouragement of religious discrimination is illegal under the Communications Decency Act, which protects 'interactive computer services' providers by preventing courts from treating them as the publishers of the speech created by their users.
Yes please! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We could only wish; we could only wish.
On this I side with facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit what a group of loonies think?
Re: (Score:1)
Who gives a shit what a group of loonies think?
Loonies? No.
Angry masses of men with guns and bombs and controlled land and designs on a true state and government?
Hell yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like the NRA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who blows himself up because his imaginary friend told him it's a good idea is a loony.
That's not negotiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who does self-abasement in order to atone for some real or imagined wrongdoing because his imaginary god told him it's a good idea is a loony.
That's not negotiable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Communication forums normally have to decide which of two categories they fall into.
Option 1: Disinterested provider of opportunity. These forums have some coded rules of behavior or content, but otherwise do not filter anything. They accept no responsibility for the content that people post and let the users solve things until it crosses one of the (few and explicitly stated) lines.
Option 2: Active editors. These forums are cultivated, maintained, and very ban-heavy. As a side-effect, the forum can be
Re: (Score:3)
Option 2: Active editors. These forums are cultivated, maintained, and very ban-heavy. As a side-effect, the forum can be held responsible for third-party content.
Not true in the US (other than, potentially, with copyright issues and the like).
Remember, the CDA was intended to encourage providers to engage in censorship. Since the previous state of affairs was as you suggest, the way that they were encouraged to censor was to remove liability for material posted by third parties. But since many sites don't care, and the CDA protects them fully no matter what they do or don't do, it didn't really work out. Also other parts of the CDA turned out to be unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I have to admit I never used Facebook, but users have to pay now to use it? I thought it's free and they make a living by selling your personal data?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that a newspaper, or anyone else, has to publish ads with 'only limited and nuanced discrimination allowed'? The only possible restriction might be that they can't discriminate against a person based on some proscribed criteria, but they can 'discriminate' at will against any content they choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are you saying that google doesn't? how about you go google some isis recruitment pages..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook was the only web site site to survive the Web Wars. Now all web sites are Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
You can leave and not use it.
Problem solved!
Never using Facebook for any purpose and blocking all of their tracking buttons has always worked well for me. I can't say I've ever missed them.
I hope eventually people will figure out that Facebook is but one way to communicate, in a vast global network with a great many ways to communicate, owned by a marketing company that does not (and arguably cannot) have their best interests at heart.
Says you! (Score:2)
Speech includes the right not to say something, and that's literally pretty much the end of it. If their TOS had some kind of guarantee that, as long as you don't violate some set of subjects, they might have a case.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason. In fact, no reason is preferred, because people will sue you if you do it for a reason. Yes, even to refuse service to Police Officers, nursing mothers, doe-eyed orphans dying of cancer, as idiotic as that may be. Everybody else can also then
Re:Says you! (Score:5, Informative)
> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.
Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends, many cases have gone the sexual harassment route and won. But it has to be overtly harassing, and not a one time off handed remark. If someone is being completely vile and screaming anti-LGBT stuff at you, cases have been won.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure grandpost is right that being terminated for sexual identity or orientation isn't illegal across the countr. While your statement on harassment is probably true, it's a separate matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.
Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.
Okay, so you only have the right to refuse service to anybody who is a white male. That doesn't seem like it should be legal.
Re: (Score:1)
> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.
Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.
But not if you're a Muslim refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be interested, to see two groups that enjoy being the victims, guilt tripping everyone around them, clash.
If I get to choose, could it be Muslims vs. Feminists? They have so many touching points that watching this should be awesome!
Re: (Score:1)
If I get to choose, could it be Muslims vs. Feminists? They have so many touching points that watching this should be awesome!
One that I find quite amusing is the case of Kimberly Nixon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Kimberly Nixon, a transgendered woman, was not allowed to work at a rape crisis centre because she was not born female.
The legal precedent has generally been that a transgendered woman was legally female, but apparently not...
Re: (Score:1)
If I get to choose, it would be Muslims vs. Fembots... Oh behave!
Re: (Score:2)
a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.
This is not true in America, or the EU. I doubt if it is true anywhere else either.
Re: (Score:3)
As other's have noted, you are not correct. I wonder if they could get by this way though:
All wedding cakes cost $10k, heterosexual couples can use a coupon that offers a $9500 discount off the retail price of a cake. It is technically not discrimination as you will sell a cake to anyone, it is the discount that doesn't apply to everyone. Then if the homosexual couple wants to pay the price, just sell them the cake and donate the extra profit to your local church or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't get by. This exact practice has been ruled discriminatory in several cases. Several restaurants throughout the US over the past decade have found out that offering "10% off meal on Sunday's, when you bring in today's church bulletin" is a fast way to get a lawsuit happening and all of them have been forced to stop it. Offer 10% off to everybody or to nobody, but you can't offer pubic services to one group (Christians) and not the same to another group (anyone else who doesn't attend Sunday church) unless you're a private club. Again, it's a matter that if you offer something to the public, you can't pull this sort of discriminatory shenanigans.
How exactly do they define a "private club" for this purpose? Is any arbitrary membership criteria acceptable?
Re: (Score:1)
How exactly do they define a "private club" for this purpose? Is any arbitrary membership criteria acceptable?
I'm sure you have to sign something.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually ap private club is one that requires its patrons to actively apply for membership, and in some states requires a membership fee (whcih could be a nominal $5). Then there's rules on maintaining a list of members.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the membership fee and the signup sheet were required to maintain the fiction of it being private. I don't know if they had memberships that w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.
Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting fr
Re: (Score:1)
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.
Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.
I agree with this. I am just stating the current law as I understand it. The expansive "interstate commerce" abomination, fortunately cannot touch the First Amendment. A law is a law is a law regardless.
In the cake case, I submit putting two grooms on it would rise to expression in any other context.
Re: (Score:3)
FTA: "In a statement, Pannun wrote that the Silcon Valley firm should have at least offered an explanation to SFJ as to who ordered the blocking – “Facebook owes an explanation to its users after or before blocking and removing the content which is guaranteed under freedom of speech.”"
Someone clearly doesn't understand how freedom of speech actually works. Big hint fellas, it only means the government can't regulate it, not that others cannot do so.
... which is why I believe that Pannun was arguing this on moral grounds. Saying something "should have" been offered isn't the same as saying "there is a law compelling you to offer" it. That it was guaranteed against government censorship under the 1st Amendment means Facebook had no obligation to remove it, thus this was an arbitrary decision, thus there must have been a reason, ergo that reason could have been offered.
Though I know it's trendy to assume other people are complete morons who don't un
Re: (Score:2)
It means even less in India where this occurred. I am not sure if they have a "freedom of speech", and I am guessing that it works a little differently over there as compared to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do my best. It is funny to go through and minimize his posts every morning to see if I got any replies.
Bad summary... (Score:3, Interesting)
I couldn't figure out what was going on from this ridiculous summary. Here's what the article says about what's going on:
I also note that Koh is the one who ruled for Apple against Samsung on those ridiculous design patents.
Re: (Score:1)
"I couldn't figure out what was going on from this ridiculous summary"
I had the same problem.
And if the accusations against facebook are true, they definitely want to keep it quiet -- how would they be able to explain what looks like helping the Indian government marginalize a minority.
Also it's funny how the write up "Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the U.S. based rights group's encouragement of religious discrimination" makes it sound like the Sikhs are the ones with an ethics problem.
Freedom of the press belongs to... (Score:1)
...the owners of the presses. Still.
If Facebook dominates eyeballs and Facebook gets to moderate content - so, for example, a nipple is verboten, while racist "Britain First" gets to spam its crap ad inf. - then Facebook effectively sets the agenda. It doesn't matter that someone can set up a competing service in theory, because unless people use those competing services in practice, they might as well not exist. And to know that competing services are worthwhile, you have to be aware of what you're missing
Facebook? You still use that? (Score:1)
Why is this surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's their website. It's free. They can block whatever they want. You are not paying for a QoS guaranteeing content. They can delete all your shit if they feel like it. I don't understand this debate.
To really understand it, you would first have to grok this insidious entitlement mentality first perfected by the Baby Boomers with their love of government "entitlements" (as they are literally called) and lack of concern for the long-term ability (of their grandchildren) to pay for them, handed down to the younger generations in the form of "you're a special snowflake no matter what" and later expanded to "you must have high self-esteem, no matter what, and it must never be conneced to any regard for whet
Re: (Score:2)
Until I encounter some more plausible explanation, I'm going to consider that an intentional error. It reads that the Sikh's are doing the discriminating, but the rest of the article reads that they are the ones being discriminated against. So to single that sentence out for republication is at best misleading, and reasonably considered malicious.
Now there may be some evidence not mentioned that would justify that statement, but as it wasn't mentioned, I don't feel it's reasonable to include in the summa
Isn't Facebook a private company? (Score:1)
Basically isn't that the core of it? Regardless of one's feelings about it, doesn't FB have the right to dictate what content they allow?
First Amendment issues might be different is this was a gov't run/controlled site, right? Oh wait... um, hmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Basically isn't that the core of it? Regardless of one's feelings about it, doesn't FB have the right to dictate what content they allow?
First Amendment issues might be different is this was a gov't run/controlled site, right? Oh wait... um, hmmm...
Sure, but by exercising editorial control, they now bear an increased responsibility for the content they do allow to be posted. You can't have it both ways: either you are a disinterested common carrier that provides a medium of transmission, or you are an active curator who is liable for what your users post.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has never been a common carrier. Like all websites, they can (and do) remove content when it infringes copyright. Unlike your ISP or phone which they don't monitor the content (and don't have the capabilities to monitor it all in real time -- supposedly).
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously never happened to notice how they deal with nudity of any kind. That's a bit more editorial control than mere copyright watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Then some freedom of expression and record keeping that might just fully cover public comments made
A government selecting to use part of a social media and web 2.0 product cannot then fall back on the private sector to remove freedoms before during or after speech if the gov set up a fancy web 2.0 site and invited people in to comment.
Halfway to a monopoly, but not there yet (Score:2)
That said, people that treat Facebook as a requirement for using their internet services (dating websites are notorious for doing this) are scumbag douches that deserve to fail. It's the web, not Facebook, and you are overcharging and limiting your user base by doing this.
If you need people
Re: (Score:2)
I can't get the benefits I get from Facebook in any other way. It's the network effect.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a couple of FB accounts with nothing on them, and that I never log onto, purely for using on those websites that want to use FB accounts to log in with.
Well... (Score:1)
Facebook is for Suckers. Just Post on Slashdot! (Score:2)
Facebook sucks. You can post any old shit on Slashdot, and it always had a Dislike button (we call it Mod -1 Troll, but it is the same thing).
Here you have freedom to let your inner Troll run free! Many here think I am a complete asshole, but Slashdot keeps giving me mod points for my "contributions". It's so empowering!
Except when it comes to you asking them to remove (Score:2)
something. I had to spend hours trying to find a contact form where I could attach a screen shot of 1 star reviews on my FB business page that stated I sell weed at my store from several fake accounts Found some forms but they would not post finally found one. Got a reply a few days ago basically saying nothing and to block those people. Well that's great but still wont remove reviews that say I well weed I my store.
Since I already spend $750 advertising on FB I decided to keep my page for now and disable t
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously social media is useless for small business.
You say that as if it is new information. FB has always sucked, and always will.
Re: (Score:2)
something. I had to spend hours trying to find a contact form where I could attach a screen shot of 1 star reviews on my FB business page that stated I sell weed at my store from several fake accounts Found some forms but they would not post finally found one. Got a reply a few days ago basically saying nothing and to block those people. Well that's great but still wont remove reviews that say I well weed I my store.
Since I already spend $750 advertising on FB I decided to keep my page for now and disable the reviews. Once my site is finished I'll be removing the FB for good same with Google+ Not sure what they did but the page I keep up to date synched with FB posts no longer shows on searches but a new one I didn't create is showing with no page updates.
Seriously social media is useless for small business. I'd get better results standing on a corner of a busy street giving out flyer.
Dude, weed sells itself. Stop working so hard.
Facebook censoring private messages (Score:1)
So they condone everything they don't block? (Score:1)
How many times do I have to say this? (Score:1)
Facebook is a private service, not a public square. Stop depending on it thus.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, please, take your pills. I know you think your doctor wants you to so he can implant those chips into you that are contained inside those pills, but trust me, you'll feel so much better after taking them...
Re: (Score:2)
The company I know about who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in addition maligned the couple on the net, and organized harassment. That can be worth suing over, and that's what the bakery was sued for.