What about a post that calls for women to vote? Or for black people to sit in the front of the bus?

That sounds like a recipe for abuse. It would be more reasonable to only ban enticing violence, for example.

So, professional wrestling?

What about illegal actions like downloading copyrighted material? Depicting Muhammad? Criticising president Erdogan?

Criticizing Erdogan is illegal in Iran. Depicting Mohammed can get you imprisoned or killed in the middle east.

They don't. The government does. Which is why even that simple rule is submission to an external, uncontrollable force. The right approach is to sort out your own internal values (free speech, or rule of law, or whatever) and act accordingly to that internal principle.

For example, if you believe certain speech should not be censored, and officials in the country you operate in disagree, you can cease operations or fight back. This approach has been taken by many in China.

Or, if you acknowledge the legitimacy of the local government, and your values say that means ALL its edicts and claimed jurisdiction, then you might collaborate fully.

Or there might be something in the middle. The point is that your internal values guide, not anything else. Retain personal sovereignty and/or corporate responsibility.

"[G]uarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Brandenburg v. Ohio

But on a more serious note, the opinions of Supreme Courts have very strong moral force, express well-fashioned legal reasoning, and are frequently cross-cited between nations.

> except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The Israeli government claims they were "likely to incite" such action. Should they have to prove it in a court, for each separate comment posted, before they can ask Facebook to remove that comment? Clearly that would never scale; it's suitable for books, not for Internet forum comments. What do you think would be reasonable here?

Yes, absolutely, without any doubt or qualification of any kind. "Scalability" is not even an applicable concept.

If Facebook wishes to collaborate with a government, as in this case, that fact establishes a sufficient nexus with the state that invokes the same standard of scrutiny.

In other words, if Facebook acts as the agent of the government, it is subject to the same restrictions as the government. In which case, each and every removal constitutes a specific deprivation of an individual's free speech, and thus must be treated as the extremely grave action that it is.

Your position is suitable for cattle, not humans.

Edit in reply:

True civility is defending the values of the civil.

You are advocating a dangerous and amoral position, and I will not shy away from opposing that position directly.

One may hide behind soothing phrasing and call it "civility," but when advocating censorship, they should always be met with a swift and unwavering response.

Although rhetorical questions do exist, including questions used as arguments or to belittle, is it bad that this interpretation of questions has become so common that people have felt the need to disclaim it somewhat routinely?

I'm genuinely curious. :-)

On the other hand, such misinterpretation - even though it's probably often an honest mistake - is also a signal that the other person might have incompatible goals for the conversation. I try to follow the Principle of Charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity), the conversational equivalent of "Be liberal in what you accept". But if the other person doesn't do the same, the conversation can become unproductive, and I just disengage.

In addition to charitably reading the words of others, I do want my words to also be charitably read. Not (just) because it's hard not to leave room for misinterpretation, but also because it just feels better. After all, I joined the forum for fun.

Should blaming Islam, the religion, for disseminating hate be considered hate speech? Islam does exactly that, the Coran having passages that are hateful and truth be told, we can all see what happens when such a religion ends up being followed by extremists with the ability to buy guns. Sure you can blame those nutjobs, but then again, they wouldn't have such an easy time recruiting if we wouldn't be so tolerant of Islam being taught in schools.

Now don't get me wrong, because our own Old Testament also has passages containing hate speech and our religion is also guilty of crusades and murders, but thankfully we outgrew them. Religion, at least in the hands of the uneducated masses, is poison and should have no manifestation in public life outside the places of worship. And on Israel I have nothing against them, except that I think the oppressed became the oppressors, being guilty of unjustified crimes against Palestinians, financed by the tax-payers in the west no less.

Now, should I be allowed to say any of this? Isn't this hate speech? And if it should be censored, then why?

Just because it is illegal? Illegal for whom? In many countries you're allowed to say the above, whereas in other countries it is illegal. Should Facebook just ban everything that's illegal somewhere in this world?

They are clearly doing just that. You know, in Europe pictures of nude children aren't so taboo. In fact I bet most parents down here have pictures of their children nude and you can see nude children aged six and below on most beaches.

Did you, really? Have you looked at the gay-bashing that Christians indulge in? Or how about actively encouraging the destruction of Palestinian property and removal (even murder) of Palestinians, simply because they believe that "Jesus" won't reappear unless all of Palestine is ruled by Jews??

But look at matters of scale. In Islamic theocracies, it is frequently illegal and the punishments severe. Even in attitudes, the numbers are really, really bad. Compare these two polls, one of predominantly Islamic countries and one of America (arguably the most Christian nation in the world). Obviously the US still has some work to do, but it's way ahead on this issue.[0] [1]

[0]: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...

[1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-...

*edit: Typo, and added a qualifier

The only reason its not illegal in much of the US (and, actually, the laws prohibiting it are on the books in a number of states but unenforceable due to federal action) is that would be Christian theocrats have been defeated by other political actors. Which is a certainly a good sign for the US, but hardly consistent with the idea that Islam is uniquely problematic and that Christianity has "outgrown" the same kind of repressive tendencies.

> America (arguably the most Christian nation in the world)

Maybe the most Christian first-world state with an area greater than 110 acres, but certainly not the most Christian nation in the world.

>would be Christian theocrats have been defeated by other political actors.

What happens to the people in Islamic theocracies that try to challenge the religious status quo?

And which more Christian nation did you have in mind? Maybe we can dig up something on attitudes there if you think it's a more accurate comparison.