Facebook deletes Norway PM's post as 'napalm girl' row escalates

Post by ivan_gammel » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #126

falcolas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the freedom of expression is generally believed to apply more broadly than just to governments. For example, from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontier…

Sarcastically, I ask you: I would like to express myself by spray-painting swastikas on the side of your house. Is that protected? I would expect not, but that means there's a line somewhere. Where is it?

Post by thescriptkiddie » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #129

red_admiral wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's more effective to lobby your local member of parliament/congress to pass laws restricting what media organisations can or cannot do. Granted, by "more effective" I mean something like 0.1% instead of 0.01%, but it's worth a try.

It may be "more effective" to implore the government to crack down on media policies you don't like, but it's also as much a threat to free expression as Facebook's ridiculous and overt censorship of this image.

Post by chris_wot » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

pwg wrote: post #57

the_af wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This particular picture was on the cover of the New York Times. Surely a human reviewer from Facebook must consider this as reason enough to revert the censorship?

Sadly, the human reviewer at Facebook is quite likely to not have even been alive in 1972 (or not old enough to even remember the photo) and so it is likely they are just following the "official facebook policy" without thinking, and thereby hitting the "censor" button. Note - this does not excuse their actions, but may put some context around 'why' it is happening.

Post by chris_wot » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 2:53 PM UTC

daenney wrote: post #75

planetjones wrote: post #15

Was the Norwegian Prime Minister's post removed because she posted the image again in that post ? This is a crucial question and not clear from the article. If Facebook censored only words then this is a much larger issue. If they censored the whole post (including photo) then while debatable this is Facebook's policy i.e. a blanket ban on such imagery, irrespective of history. Edit: I don't find it clear journalism,…

In the article itself the PM gives Facebook credit for at least being consistent, w.r.t removing posts that contain that photo. So yes, it seems likely it was removed because of that picture. However, you probably want to think twice before removing a post by any PM. Having done so only fuels the fire, which arguably can be a good thing in this case.

Post by lloyd-christmas » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 2:53 PM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #144

zelos wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it: "A Facebook spokeswoman said: “While we recognise that this photo is iconic, it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others. "

>it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others. I'm assuming this is just PR, but if not, what a dumb statement. I'm sure there are cases where this might be true, but given the photograph we're talking about, give me a break. You really can't create a distinction between this and most other nude photos? Unless she meant algorithmically. I could se…