Should Facebook Take Down Aurora Shooter's Fanpages?
SodaHead News
2012/07/28 20:30:27
|
|
|||||
|
674 votes
|
|
68% | |||
|
321 votes
|
|
32% | |||
The name James Holmes will forever live in infamy after the accused criminal murdered 12 people with gunfire and wounded many more during a midnight screening of "The Dark Night Rises" in a theater in Aurora, Colorado. Based on various reports following the shootings, it seems as though Holmes planned to become a real life comic book villain. As for other details, those are still scarce and getting inside a psychotic, cold-blooded man's head will be tough for prosecutors.
But getting rid of tasteless content in support of the Colorado shooter; that should be easy for Facebook, right? Not according to a report by CNN.com, which states that there are multiple fanpages for the killer, including one with more than 800 followers [or "likes"]. Facebook isn't like YouTube or message boards, where one can be anonymous. So unless they're using fake aliases and lack profile pictures, Holmes supporters are making themselves known publicly on the fanpage. Maybe they're Internet trolls. They could even be people with the same mental state as Holmes.
Regardless, Facebook won't remove the pages. Company spokesman Fred Wolens explained that the most popular Holmes fanpage "while incredibly distasteful, doesn't violate our terms." In order to be removed, it would have to post credible threats against specific people or intend to incite violence. We agree that free speech should be protected. But this lenient policy seems pretty inconsistent with the numerous stories we've heard over the years of everyday people having photos/content flagged and taken down, at times unfairly.
What do you think SodaHeads? Should Facebook remove the Colorado shooter's fanpages?
Read More: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/tech/social-media/fa...
Top Opinion
-
thomas.fox.54 2012/07/28 21:24:17No
+221st amendment. these people are sick, disgusting animals but they have the right to the 1st amendment. i hate censored websites anyway. people need to realize that they share a country with these people and they need to deal with it not pretend that these sick people dont exist
I believe in "the least restrictive alternative" and find that shutting down pages that glorify the guy and encourage like behaviors are within that realm of unprotected speech.
However, why then do we have The Least Restrictive Alternative Principle in law? Because some people treat quotes, ideals and ideas as absolutes, no matter what? There have been exceptions to absolute freedom of speech since the beginning. In this case, the danger of copycat mass murder is very high. That puts taking the page down in the best interests of the public. People want to go to the movies or the mall without getting shot up and killed.
It's a matter of life and death.
Does America have a thoroughly demented sub-culture of wackoids . . . . YES!
If the question were "Should Holmes fans' personal websites be removed from the internet?" then I would have to say no.
REMOVING ovomit this election is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ANY CITIZEN CAN NOW DO ovomit is the BIGGEST DANGER this Country is faceing.To SAVE OUR COUNTRY and CONSTITUTION DON'T VOTE FOR ovomit this November.ANY VOTE FOR ovomit is another NAIL in the COFFIN of FREEDOM.
NOBAMA 2012 NOBAMA 2012 NOBAMA 2012 NOBAMA 2012 NOBAMA 2012
We can't hide this and act like it never happened. We're just going to have to accept the fact that there will be murderers and there will be the people that support them.
Whether we like it or not, we can't help it.
Isn't that what this site is kind of about?
Let the tards have their fanpages, it'll die out soon enough.
You want to take away a persons freedom of speech because they have a twisted fan page but you won't take away automatic and semi automatic military weapons so these mass killings stop ?
Isn't free speech protected by the constitution just like gun rights ?
Why then is one constitutional law any better than another ?