Jewish elites used to fight for the maximum of free expression. That was important back in the 1950s when Jews were still fighting their way to the top. Now that Jews are America’s elite, organized Jewry often wants to limit speech.<\/p>\n
The Israel Foreign Ministry pretends this is about stopping incitements to violence but there are already plenty of laws against incitement to violence. This move is about censoring critical opinions.<\/p>\n
If these Jewish elites want to ban websites questioning conventional narratives about the Holocaust, what other historical events do they want to ban discussion about? Should people be permitted incorrect opinions about history? <\/p>\n
Jerusalem Post<\/a>: <\/p>\n The Foreign Ministry called on governments around the world to regulate social media in order to combat anti-Semitism and violent incitement, reiterating the government\u2019s support last year for Internet censorship during an anti-racism conference.<\/p>\n Speaking at the annual gathering of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem, Akiva Tor, the director of the Foreign Ministry\u2019s Department for Jewish Communities, stated that while the issue is certainly controversial for Americans, it is important to discern the nature of the Internet and to act accordingly.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is YouTube? What is Facebook? What is Twitter? And what is Google?\u201d he asked. \u201cAre they a free speech corner like [London\u2019s] Hyde Park or are they more similar to a radio station in the public domain?\u201d Referring to cartoons of Palestinians killing Jews and other such material circulating online, Tor asked why platforms such as Google search, You- Tube, Facebook and Twitter are \u201ctolerating\u201d violent incitement and \u201csaying they are protected in a holy way by free speech.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHow is it possible that the government of France and the European Union all feel that incitement in Arabic on social media in Europe calling for physical attacks on Jews is permitted and that there is no requirement from industry to do something about it,\u201d he continued, adding that Israel is working with European partners to push the technology sector to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism so its constituent companies can \u201ctake responsibility for what they host.\u201d<\/p>\n Tor also took issue with Facebook for its position that it will take down material that violates its terms of service following a complaint, asking why the social-networking giant cannot self-regulate and use the technology at its disposal to identify and take down offending content automatically.<\/p>\n \u201cIf they know how to deliver a specific ad to your Facebook page, they know how to detect speech in Arabic calling to stab someone in the neck. It is outrageous [that technology] companies hide behind the First Amendment. Industry won\u2019t correct itself without regulatory requirements by governments,\u201d he asserted.<\/p>\n Following the Foreign Ministry\u2019s biennial Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism last year, a similar statement was issued calling for the scrubbing of Holocaust denial websites from the Internet and the omission of \u201chate websites and content\u201d from web searches.<\/p>\n Citing the \u201cpervasive, expansive and transnational\u201d nature of the Internet and the viral nature of hate materials, that conference\u2019s final document called upon Internet service providers, web hosting companies and social media platforms to adopt a \u201cclear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism\u201d as well as terms of service that prohibit their posting.<\/p>\n Such moves, the document asserted, must be implemented while preserving the Internet\u2019s \u201cessential freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n The GFCA document called upon national governments to establish legal units focused on combating cyberhate and to utilize existing legislation to prosecute those engaging in such prejudices online.<\/p>\n Governments, likewise, should require the adoption of \u201cglobal terms of service prohibiting the posting of hate speech and anti-Semitic materials,\u201d it was recommended.<\/p>\n In the United States, content- hosting companies are generally exempt from liability for illegal material as long as they take steps to take it down when notified.<\/p>\n According to Harvard\u2019s Digital Media Law Project, online publishers who passively host third-party content are considered fully protected from liability for acts such as defamation under the Communications Decency Act.<\/p>\n Despite the broad immunities given to online publishers, both under the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act, there are many in Israel who believe that social networks bear significant responsibility for hosted content.<\/p>\n Last October, 20,000 Israelis sued Facebook, alleging the social media platform is disregarding incitement and calls to murder Jews being posted by Palestinians.<\/p>\n The civil complaint sought an injunction to require Facebook to block all racist incitement and calls for violence against Jews in Israel, but no damages.<\/p>\n It acknowledged that Facebook has taken some steps (such as implementing rules concerning content it will prohibit) and that it has taken down some extreme calls for murder, but only after Israelis complained.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs argue that Facebook is \u201cfar from a neutral or passive social media platform and cannot claim it is a mere bulletin board for other parties\u2019 postings.\u201d<\/p>\n They say Facebook \u201cutilizes sophisticated algorithms to serve personalized ads, monitor users\u2019 activities and connect them to potential friends\u201d and claim it \u201chas the ability to monitor and block postings by extremists and terrorists urging violence, just as it restricts pornography.\u201d<\/p>\n In a December op-ed in The New York Times, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt wrote that the technology industry \u201cshould build tools to help deescalate tensions on social media \u2013 sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice.<\/p>\n Without this type of leadership from government, from citizens, from tech companies, the Internet could become a vehicle for further disaggregation of poorly built societies, and the empowerment of the wrong people and the wrong voices,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n Several days later, Germany announced that Facebook, Google and Twitter had agreed to delete hate speech from their websites within 24 hours.<\/p>\n Berlin has been trying to get social platforms to crack down on the rise in anti-foreigner comments in German on the web as the country struggles to cope with an influx of more than 1 million refugees last year.<\/p>\n Despite these efforts, however, Twitter recently posted on its company blog that \u201cthere is no \u2018magic algorithm\u2019 for identifying terrorist content on the Internet, so global online platforms are forced to make challenging judgment calls based on very limited information and guidance.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIn spite of these challenges, we will continue to aggressively enforce our rules in this area, and engage with authorities and other relevant organizations to find solutions to this critical issue and promote powerful counter-speech narratives.\u201d<\/p>\n Asked about Tor\u2019s policy recommendations Monday, Simon Wiesenthal Center associate dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper replied that based on recent meetings he believes that both private industry and European governments have been taking the issue much more seriously since November\u2019s terrorist attacks in Paris.<\/p>\n In the case of Twitter, Cooper said that while work remains to be done, the micro-blogging company is \u201cnow taking significant steps on the terrorism issue and\u2026 [now] there is a whole different mentality and attitude when it comes to terrorism.\u201d<\/p>\n This issue requires a great deal of effort by interested parties to lobby companies to have more transparent rules regarding hate, Cooper added, saying Tor is \u201cright to raise the alarm\u201d but that he is unsure that passing legislation should be the first priority.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t know if you have to go there,\u201d he said. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Jewish elites used to fight for the maximum of free expression. That was important back in the 1950s when Jews were still fighting their way to the top. Now that Jews are America’s elite, organized Jewry often wants to limit … Continue reading