Archive for the ‘Holocaust Revisionism’ Category

Facebook moderators being told not to remove Holocaust denial – Jewish News

Facebook moderators are being told not to remove Holocaust denial or revisionism even in countries where that is illegal, according to leaked internal documents.

The guidance notes, published in The Guardian, show that the company does not remove offensive content in ten of the 14 countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, and that it only removes it in the others because of the threat of legal action.

By way of an example, one document says a picture of a concentration camp with the caption Never again believe the lies would be allowed if posted anywhere other than in Israel, France, Germany or Austria.

The Facebook documents, which include training manuals, reveals that the social media site will use geo-blocking only when a country has taken sufficient steps to demonstrate that the local legislation permits censorship in that specific case.

Citing a defence of free speech, it says Facebook does not welcome local law that stands as an obstacle to an open and connected world and will only consider blocking or hiding Holocaust denial comments and images if we face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk.

It continues: Some 14 countries have legislation on their books prohibiting the expression of claims that the volume of death and severity of the Holocaust is overestimated. Less than half the countries with these laws actually pursue it. We block on report only in those countries that actively pursue the issue with us.

Monika Bickert, head of global policy management at Facebook, said: Whether reported by government entities or individual users, we remove content that violates our community standards.

Read this article:
Facebook moderators being told not to remove Holocaust denial – Jewish News

Fair Usage Law

May 24, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

British Labour leader’s worrying ties to Holocaust deniers – Ynetnews

An investigation published on Sunday by British newspaper The Telegraph revealed that Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is considered anti-Israeli and was accused in the past of anti-Semitism, was a loyal supporter of the anti-Israel campaign group Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR) years after its organizers were exposed publicly for their extreme anti-Semitic views.

“While there is no suggestion Mr. Corbyn shares their views, his association raises serious questions about his judgment,” wrote the Telegraph.

Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn (Photo: GettyImages)

Kaffash added that Corbyn was “a very important supporter” of DYR, saying that although she does not believe that he was not aware of what Eisen’s or her views were, she does not think that he is Holocaust denier nor an anti-Semite.

Photo: Reuters

Corbyn himself stated that had he known Mr Eisen was a Holocaust denier he would have had nothing to do with DYR, claiming he was utterly unaware of his views.

Corbyn is not a stranger to this sort of controversy. Though regretting it later, he was criticized for saying that he regards militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends,” saying that their labeling by the British government as terror groups is a “historical mistake.”

Corbyn was also involved in a major crisis last year after claims spread that he did little to counter reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and even reportedly got angry when his team told him he needed to improve relations with the Jewish community.

(Translated & edited by Lior Mor)

Follow this link:
British Labour leader’s worrying ties to Holocaust deniers – Ynetnews

Fair Usage Law

May 22, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mussolini in Lower Manhattan – The Villager


The Villager
Mussolini in Lower Manhattan
The Villager
I was deeply chagrined that sharing the stage with Atzmon (who has a website full of Holocaust revisionism and recycles every anti-Semitic trope about Jews and world domination) was attorney Stanley Cohen, long a hero on the Lower East Side for his …

Continued here:
Mussolini in Lower Manhattan – The Villager

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

How fake news is destroying transparency on the internet – Irish Times

Many of the early, optimistic assumptions about how the internet would create a public sphere with greater openness, transparency and accuracy have been battered by how it has actually been used and abused, according to Frank Pasquale, professor of law at the University of Maryland.

During a talk, The Automated Public Sphere, last week at Berlins digital culture festival Re:publica, Pasquale said that fake news stories, the spread of propaganda, secret sponsors behind what we see and read, and hashtag flooding (using hashtags to flood searches on a topic) had all damaged utopian ideas about the public benefits of the internet.

We were told the internet would empower everyone and reduce the dominance of mainstream media, but it has also encouraged extremism, he says. It promised openness, but lets influence go unchecked and unmonitored because it is difficult to figure out who is actually funding and supporting many websites.

He also notes that academic researchers have established that tens of thousands of posts to social-media sites during the American presidential election came from automated bots. Hundreds of fake stories were shared.

The use of so-called dark ads (promoted but unpublished posts, visible only to followers of a Facebook page) and ad personalisation directly targeted certain types of content to those who are most susceptible to it because such content and news stories appeared in an individuals personal news feed where a wider community could neither see the posts nor refute them.

So, you can accelerate propaganda, as well as accelerate truth, he says.

While some fake news stories rightly appear ridiculous to most such as the pizzagate story that claimed Hillary Clinton and others were secretly running a child-abuse ring in the back of a popular Washington DC pizza restaurant there are susceptible audiences.

We have to worry a great deal about floating voters, low education voters, voters at the edge of the political process being susceptible, he says. Sometimes the goal is simply to create doubt, so that some voters never vote at all.

On Facebook, everything looks the same, and appears with the same level of authority on a newsfeed, but this provides a debased egalitarianism. And theres little incentive for tech giants to rush to address the problem. Profits are linked to the proliferation of fake news: Sensational lies and outrage cycles promote user engagement.

Rhetoric in the US again, largely from the tech industry about the need to have one unbroken, unified internet deters addressing the problem. The common assertion is that introducing regulation and oversight means you will break the internet, Pasquale says.

And deregulation is very disingenuous because deregulation is a lie. You essentially cede power to massive corporations to be de facto regulators. Facebook and Google are effectively the regulators but acting in ways without public accountability.

He is also very worried that the US-centric view of the world is overinfluencing international bodies, when culturally specific models are needed.

What could be done to improve the situation?

Labelling, monitoring and explaining hate-driven, biased search results is Pasquales first suggestion. He points to the rise of alt-right and Holocaust revisionism, the expert gaming of search results by the extreme right so that a Google search on topics such as the Holocaust returns false stories as top results.

Autocomplete bias, where a partially typed in search query returns hate-driven suggestions for completing the search phrase, is also an issue. Whole racial groups have hate-filled autocompletes, he said.

After Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof had googled subjects such as black on white crime and seen racist autocompletes and fake news that suggested white genocide was a possibility, he murdered nine people in a historically black church. And the fake pizzagate story reportedly originated in a white supremacists tweet.

To address the problem, automatic logs could reveal where such information originates, which also could be crucial to rapid responses and information take-downs by tech companies before a gunman goes to a location, as happened after the proliferation of the pizzagate story.

We should require immutable audit logs, Pasquale says. Silicon Valley experts say the internet is now so complicated that laws can never catch up, but I think its very important . . . that we push back immediately. We cannot adopt this condescending mode that the coding sphere is too complicated for the rest of us to understand. We can at least have logs of the data that are influencing certain results on Google and could help identify certain sources of information.

Google continues to maintain it doesnt want human interference with its algorithms, he says. So often in tech companies, anything involving a human is seen as a defect.

But Pasquale says restoring human editors is also an inevitable part of this process. Failure to keep human editors has led to the proliferation of fake news. We have to restore the integrity of journalism as a profession, not merely as a source of piecework, propaganda and PR.

He says we need some sort of analysis and labelling process for data, which shouldnt be that alien a concept. We already accept labelling of drugs and food, he says.

What we need as a second step in the information economy is, we need to have information about the information we get. That would help us decide what news we are going to trust, and what feeds are we going to follow. Too often, technology giants use assertions of trade secrecy to block offering any transparency about their algorithms and what they do.

Entities meaning news organisations and websites as well as search platforms have to recognise people may only be reading the headlines on search returns, which may imply a fake story is a real story. Even a story-verification website such as Snopes contributes to this problem because a search produces a result that is just a headline that states the fake story. This may then be shown to be false within a Snopes article, but many people never read the story.

The public probably need intermediaries sites such as Google and Facebook, which carry the stories and headlines and links to assess and address such problems, and some of the funding for such an exercise probably has to come from intermediaries themselves, especially as more and more revenue goes to intermediaries, not the media organisations supplying the news they link to.

He thinks further development of a principle such as the EUs right to be forgotten to have links to irrelevant or outdated information removed from search engines has a place, too.

I know it is controversial and that there are concerns in the press about links being removed to factual stories or information, but he thinks that in individual cases a humane, compassionate response . . . is for the intermediary to intervene.

Many people dont understand the difference between sponsored content and organic content. These basic levels of media literacy should be taught in school to children from about age nine on, Pasquale believes.

And just addressing the filter bubble where people increasingly only see news that aligns with and reinforces their existing point of view, thanks to social media and search algorithms doesnt work.

He points to factually misleading tweets from Fox News (although he notes something similarly misleading could come from left-wing news sources) and says offering such posts isnt a proper counterbalance.

The problem here is [that] modulation presumes rational deliberation.

He argues that his suggested modes of regulation would enable us to move a bit closer to a better modulated, more legitimate public sphere.

He adds: Its really a plea for structure. The current process offers little structure and is instead one of extreme corporate power.

Go here to read the rest:
How fake news is destroying transparency on the internet – Irish Times

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mark Oppenheimer: What’s good about odious speech – Winona Daily News

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power.

I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra tight before leaving home.

Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists now have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious.

On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley.

Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform.

At Wellesley College, for example, a student editorial in March insinuated that Laura Kipnis new book, which questions how Title IX is applied to sexual life on campuses, undermines the existence and rights of others. Students at Claremont McKenna, and the other four colleges in Pomona, wrote a letter stating that merely engaging with Mac Donald is a form of violence.

The same logic undergirds the vicious campaign against philosopher Rebecca Tuvel, who recently published an article using the analogy of trans people to interrogate the transracialism of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously passed as black. In a letter to Hypatia, the feminist journal that published Tuvels article, hundreds of signatories argued that the articles failures of scholarship do harm to the communities who might expect better from Hypatia. The articles continued availability, they claimed, causes further harm.

Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views: critics of Israel, defenders of revolutionary movements, anti-vaccine activists. Those who run from unpopular views, moreover, may ultimately harm themselves.

Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists?

Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win.

Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others actually empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking.

I dont think that can be everyones response to every speaker. There are good reasons that a victim of sexual violence might avoid speeches that could trigger memories of the assault. Victims of police violence might carefully consider how theyd feel listening to a speaker who plays down their experience. A concentration-camp survivor might not, to put it mildly, be the right person to interview Smith and Weber.

Each person has to be her own best judge of what experiences will be valuable, detrimental, painful or simply a waste of time. Id skip Coulter because I know what I think of her views. Id rather read a novel or scramble some eggs.

But imagine if, instead of protesting Mac Donalds speech at Claremont, students had waited until she finished, taken the microphone, and then described the abuses theyd experienced at the hands of police officers?

They might have changed her mind, if only a little. But even if they hadnt, theyd have used their experience to shrink hers. Theyd have said, You dont scare us. Theyd have enlarged the scope of their world, and theyd have done so as allies of free speech. And I suspect that theyd have left the room emboldened, ready for the next time.

Mark Oppenheimer is a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section and the author of three books, most recently Wisenheimer: A Childhood Subject to Debate.

Excerpt from:
Mark Oppenheimer: What’s good about odious speech – Winona Daily News

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Column: What?s good about odious speech – Bend Bulletin

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power.

I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case, I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra-tight before leaving home.

Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious.

On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley.

Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform.

Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views.

Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists?

Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win.

Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking.

Mark Oppenheimer, a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section, is the host of the podcast Unorthodox.

Excerpt from:
Column: What?s good about odious speech – Bend Bulletin

Fair Usage Law

May 13, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

What’s good about odious speech? – Arizona Daily Sun

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power.

I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra tight before leaving home.

Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists now have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious.

On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley.

Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform.

At Wellesley College, for example, a student editorial in March insinuated that Laura Kipnis new book, which questions how Title IX is applied to sexual life on campuses, undermines the existence and rights of others. Students at Claremont McKenna, and the other four colleges in Pomona, wrote a letter stating that merely engaging with Mac Donald is a form of violence.

The same logic undergirds the vicious campaign against philosopher Rebecca Tuvel, who recently published an article using the analogy of trans people to interrogate the transracialism of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously passed as black. In a letter to Hypatia, the feminist journal that published Tuvels article, hundreds of signatories argued that the articles failures of scholarship do harm to the communities who might expect better from Hypatia. The articles continued availability, they claimed, causes further harm.

Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views: critics of Israel, defenders of revolutionary movements, anti-vaccine activists. Those who run from unpopular views, moreover, may ultimately harm themselves.

Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists?

Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win.

Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others actually empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking.

I dont think that can be everyones response to every speaker. There are good reasons that a victim of sexual violence might avoid speeches that could trigger memories of the assault. Victims of police violence might carefully consider how theyd feel listening to a speaker who plays down their experience. A concentration-camp survivor might not, to put it mildly, be the right person to interview Smith and Weber.

Each person has to be her own best judge of what experiences will be valuable, detrimental, painful or simply a waste of time. Id skip Coulter because I know what I think of her views. Id rather read a novel or scramble some eggs.

But imagine if, instead of protesting Mac Donalds speech at Claremont, students had waited until she finished, taken the microphone, and then described the abuses theyd experienced at the hands of police officers?

They might have changed her mind, if only a little. But even if they hadnt, theyd have used their experience to shrink hers. Theyd have said, You dont scare us. Theyd have enlarged the scope of their world, and theyd have done so as allies of free speech. And I suspect that theyd have left the room emboldened, ready for the next time.

Mark Oppenheimer, a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section, is the host of the podcast Unorthodox.

View post:
What’s good about odious speech? – Arizona Daily Sun

Fair Usage Law

May 12, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Carmel ceremony urges attendees to ‘Never forget’ atrocities of Holocaust – Current in Carmel

By Mark Ambrogi

Carmel Mayor Jim Brainards theme for the citys Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony was consistent.

Maya Shmoel shares the story of her father, a Holocaust survivor. (Photo courtesy City of Carmel)

Never forget was a constant refrain during Brianards address at the April 28 ceremony at The Tarkington. Keynote speaker Maya Shmoel, an Indianapolis resident, shared the story of her father, Marcus Hirsch, being a Holocaust survivor. She did not learn most of the details of h until after he died 21 years ago.

The message of the Holocaust does not change, Brainard said. Every day you read in the papers, watch on television or the internet, the violent graphic images of acts of terrorism carried out in the name of ethnic cleansing. We see terrorism acts in the name of religion. We see example after example of people showing intolerance of people that are different from themselves. This is not the 1930s and 1940s. Were not in a World War against a single dictator, but we are dealing with faces of evil.

Brainard said the issues remain the same years after the Holocaust.

Which is why its important we talk about the Holocaust so we never forget what can happen when democracy fails, Brainard said. Not so very long ago in the heart of civilized modern Europe, democracy did fail. The courage to remember this horrific time is essential so that we protect our own society from a similar fate. Its important to remember that the Holocaust did not happen during so-called primitive times. It occurred in an enlightened, cultured, well-educated society. We must remember it was professional engineers who designed and built the gas chambers. It was professional well-educated lawyers who built the Nuremberg laws, excluding Jews and others from German life and taking away many of their natural rights. It was medical doctors who conducted so-called scientific experiments on human beings at Auschwitz and other extermination centers.

Brainard said it was ordinary people that were capable of doing evil.

We must remember how that happened and must continue to strive to overcome intolerance and indifference so such terrible things can never happen again, Brainard said.

Michael Wallack, representing the Mayors Advisory Commission on Human Relations, said society cant pretend those sort of attitudes and actions cant occur in modern society. He said the Anti-Defamation League reported that anti-Semitic hate crimes spiked in the U.S. 2016.

Sadly, 2017 is on pace for even more anti-Semitic crimes, Wallack said. We see a continued increase in Holocaust denials or Holocaust revisionism that either denies the Holocaust occurred or minimizes the severity, deflects blame or redirects blame to Jews. And weve seen discussion of the Holocaust without recognitions Jews were its primary victims. Since the election, weve seen reports all over the country of hate crimes or overt acts of prejudice.

Wallack pointed out Indiana again refused to fail to pass hate crime legislation this year, one of the few states without a law.

Read this article:
Carmel ceremony urges attendees to ‘Never forget’ atrocities of Holocaust – Current in Carmel

Fair Usage Law

May 12, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

The dark history at the heart of the French election – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The dark history at the heart of the French election
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Versions of Holocaust denial and revisionism have clouded Ms. Le Pen's National Front party throughout the 2017 campaign. In early March, a party official in Nice was caught on camera saying that there weren't mass killings as it's been said. In late
Marine Le Pen wrong choice for FranceMitzpeh
Emmanuel Macron projected to win the French presidential electionMic
Newcomer Emmanuel Macron wins French election in landslide rejection of populismVICE News
Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council –Jezebel –Stuff.co.nz
all 4,955 news articles »

The rest is here:
The dark history at the heart of the French election – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Fair Usage Law

May 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Facebook moderators being told not to remove Holocaust denial – Jewish News

Facebook moderators are being told not to remove Holocaust denial or revisionism even in countries where that is illegal, according to leaked internal documents. The guidance notes, published in The Guardian, show that the company does not remove offensive content in ten of the 14 countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, and that it only removes it in the others because of the threat of legal action. By way of an example, one document says a picture of a concentration camp with the caption Never again believe the lies would be allowed if posted anywhere other than in Israel, France, Germany or Austria. The Facebook documents, which include training manuals, reveals that the social media site will use geo-blocking only when a country has taken sufficient steps to demonstrate that the local legislation permits censorship in that specific case. Citing a defence of free speech, it says Facebook does not welcome local law that stands as an obstacle to an open and connected world and will only consider blocking or hiding Holocaust denial comments and images if we face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk. It continues: Some 14 countries have legislation on their books prohibiting the expression of claims that the volume of death and severity of the Holocaust is overestimated. Less than half the countries with these laws actually pursue it. We block on report only in those countries that actively pursue the issue with us. Monika Bickert, head of global policy management at Facebook, said: Whether reported by government entities or individual users, we remove content that violates our community standards.

Fair Usage Law

May 24, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

British Labour leader’s worrying ties to Holocaust deniers – Ynetnews

An investigation published on Sunday by British newspaper The Telegraph revealed that Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is considered anti-Israeli and was accused in the past of anti-Semitism, was a loyal supporter of the anti-Israel campaign group Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR) years after its organizers were exposed publicly for their extreme anti-Semitic views. “While there is no suggestion Mr. Corbyn shares their views, his association raises serious questions about his judgment,” wrote the Telegraph. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn (Photo: GettyImages) Kaffash added that Corbyn was “a very important supporter” of DYR, saying that although she does not believe that he was not aware of what Eisen’s or her views were, she does not think that he is Holocaust denier nor an anti-Semite. Photo: Reuters Corbyn himself stated that had he known Mr Eisen was a Holocaust denier he would have had nothing to do with DYR, claiming he was utterly unaware of his views. Corbyn is not a stranger to this sort of controversy. Though regretting it later, he was criticized for saying that he regards militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends,” saying that their labeling by the British government as terror groups is a “historical mistake.” Corbyn was also involved in a major crisis last year after claims spread that he did little to counter reports of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and even reportedly got angry when his team told him he needed to improve relations with the Jewish community. (Translated & edited by Lior Mor)

Fair Usage Law

May 22, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mussolini in Lower Manhattan – The Villager

The Villager Mussolini in Lower Manhattan The Villager I was deeply chagrined that sharing the stage with Atzmon (who has a website full of Holocaust revisionism and recycles every anti-Semitic trope about Jews and world domination) was attorney Stanley Cohen, long a hero on the Lower East Side for his …

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

How fake news is destroying transparency on the internet – Irish Times

Many of the early, optimistic assumptions about how the internet would create a public sphere with greater openness, transparency and accuracy have been battered by how it has actually been used and abused, according to Frank Pasquale, professor of law at the University of Maryland. During a talk, The Automated Public Sphere, last week at Berlins digital culture festival Re:publica, Pasquale said that fake news stories, the spread of propaganda, secret sponsors behind what we see and read, and hashtag flooding (using hashtags to flood searches on a topic) had all damaged utopian ideas about the public benefits of the internet. We were told the internet would empower everyone and reduce the dominance of mainstream media, but it has also encouraged extremism, he says. It promised openness, but lets influence go unchecked and unmonitored because it is difficult to figure out who is actually funding and supporting many websites. He also notes that academic researchers have established that tens of thousands of posts to social-media sites during the American presidential election came from automated bots. Hundreds of fake stories were shared. The use of so-called dark ads (promoted but unpublished posts, visible only to followers of a Facebook page) and ad personalisation directly targeted certain types of content to those who are most susceptible to it because such content and news stories appeared in an individuals personal news feed where a wider community could neither see the posts nor refute them. So, you can accelerate propaganda, as well as accelerate truth, he says. While some fake news stories rightly appear ridiculous to most such as the pizzagate story that claimed Hillary Clinton and others were secretly running a child-abuse ring in the back of a popular Washington DC pizza restaurant there are susceptible audiences. We have to worry a great deal about floating voters, low education voters, voters at the edge of the political process being susceptible, he says. Sometimes the goal is simply to create doubt, so that some voters never vote at all. On Facebook, everything looks the same, and appears with the same level of authority on a newsfeed, but this provides a debased egalitarianism. And theres little incentive for tech giants to rush to address the problem. Profits are linked to the proliferation of fake news: Sensational lies and outrage cycles promote user engagement. Rhetoric in the US again, largely from the tech industry about the need to have one unbroken, unified internet deters addressing the problem. The common assertion is that introducing regulation and oversight means you will break the internet, Pasquale says. And deregulation is very disingenuous because deregulation is a lie. You essentially cede power to massive corporations to be de facto regulators. Facebook and Google are effectively the regulators but acting in ways without public accountability. He is also very worried that the US-centric view of the world is overinfluencing international bodies, when culturally specific models are needed. What could be done to improve the situation? Labelling, monitoring and explaining hate-driven, biased search results is Pasquales first suggestion. He points to the rise of alt-right and Holocaust revisionism, the expert gaming of search results by the extreme right so that a Google search on topics such as the Holocaust returns false stories as top results. Autocomplete bias, where a partially typed in search query returns hate-driven suggestions for completing the search phrase, is also an issue. Whole racial groups have hate-filled autocompletes, he said. After Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof had googled subjects such as black on white crime and seen racist autocompletes and fake news that suggested white genocide was a possibility, he murdered nine people in a historically black church. And the fake pizzagate story reportedly originated in a white supremacists tweet. To address the problem, automatic logs could reveal where such information originates, which also could be crucial to rapid responses and information take-downs by tech companies before a gunman goes to a location, as happened after the proliferation of the pizzagate story. We should require immutable audit logs, Pasquale says. Silicon Valley experts say the internet is now so complicated that laws can never catch up, but I think its very important . . . that we push back immediately. We cannot adopt this condescending mode that the coding sphere is too complicated for the rest of us to understand. We can at least have logs of the data that are influencing certain results on Google and could help identify certain sources of information. Google continues to maintain it doesnt want human interference with its algorithms, he says. So often in tech companies, anything involving a human is seen as a defect. But Pasquale says restoring human editors is also an inevitable part of this process. Failure to keep human editors has led to the proliferation of fake news. We have to restore the integrity of journalism as a profession, not merely as a source of piecework, propaganda and PR. He says we need some sort of analysis and labelling process for data, which shouldnt be that alien a concept. We already accept labelling of drugs and food, he says. What we need as a second step in the information economy is, we need to have information about the information we get. That would help us decide what news we are going to trust, and what feeds are we going to follow. Too often, technology giants use assertions of trade secrecy to block offering any transparency about their algorithms and what they do. Entities meaning news organisations and websites as well as search platforms have to recognise people may only be reading the headlines on search returns, which may imply a fake story is a real story. Even a story-verification website such as Snopes contributes to this problem because a search produces a result that is just a headline that states the fake story. This may then be shown to be false within a Snopes article, but many people never read the story. The public probably need intermediaries sites such as Google and Facebook, which carry the stories and headlines and links to assess and address such problems, and some of the funding for such an exercise probably has to come from intermediaries themselves, especially as more and more revenue goes to intermediaries, not the media organisations supplying the news they link to. He thinks further development of a principle such as the EUs right to be forgotten to have links to irrelevant or outdated information removed from search engines has a place, too. I know it is controversial and that there are concerns in the press about links being removed to factual stories or information, but he thinks that in individual cases a humane, compassionate response . . . is for the intermediary to intervene. Many people dont understand the difference between sponsored content and organic content. These basic levels of media literacy should be taught in school to children from about age nine on, Pasquale believes. And just addressing the filter bubble where people increasingly only see news that aligns with and reinforces their existing point of view, thanks to social media and search algorithms doesnt work. He points to factually misleading tweets from Fox News (although he notes something similarly misleading could come from left-wing news sources) and says offering such posts isnt a proper counterbalance. The problem here is [that] modulation presumes rational deliberation. He argues that his suggested modes of regulation would enable us to move a bit closer to a better modulated, more legitimate public sphere. He adds: Its really a plea for structure. The current process offers little structure and is instead one of extreme corporate power.

Fair Usage Law

May 18, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Mark Oppenheimer: What’s good about odious speech – Winona Daily News

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power. I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra tight before leaving home. Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists now have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious. On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley. Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform. At Wellesley College, for example, a student editorial in March insinuated that Laura Kipnis new book, which questions how Title IX is applied to sexual life on campuses, undermines the existence and rights of others. Students at Claremont McKenna, and the other four colleges in Pomona, wrote a letter stating that merely engaging with Mac Donald is a form of violence. The same logic undergirds the vicious campaign against philosopher Rebecca Tuvel, who recently published an article using the analogy of trans people to interrogate the transracialism of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously passed as black. In a letter to Hypatia, the feminist journal that published Tuvels article, hundreds of signatories argued that the articles failures of scholarship do harm to the communities who might expect better from Hypatia. The articles continued availability, they claimed, causes further harm. Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views: critics of Israel, defenders of revolutionary movements, anti-vaccine activists. Those who run from unpopular views, moreover, may ultimately harm themselves. Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists? Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win. Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others actually empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking. I dont think that can be everyones response to every speaker. There are good reasons that a victim of sexual violence might avoid speeches that could trigger memories of the assault. Victims of police violence might carefully consider how theyd feel listening to a speaker who plays down their experience. A concentration-camp survivor might not, to put it mildly, be the right person to interview Smith and Weber. Each person has to be her own best judge of what experiences will be valuable, detrimental, painful or simply a waste of time. Id skip Coulter because I know what I think of her views. Id rather read a novel or scramble some eggs. But imagine if, instead of protesting Mac Donalds speech at Claremont, students had waited until she finished, taken the microphone, and then described the abuses theyd experienced at the hands of police officers? They might have changed her mind, if only a little. But even if they hadnt, theyd have used their experience to shrink hers. Theyd have said, You dont scare us. Theyd have enlarged the scope of their world, and theyd have done so as allies of free speech. And I suspect that theyd have left the room emboldened, ready for the next time. Mark Oppenheimer is a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section and the author of three books, most recently Wisenheimer: A Childhood Subject to Debate.

Fair Usage Law

May 15, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Column: What?s good about odious speech – Bend Bulletin

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power. I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case, I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra-tight before leaving home. Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious. On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley. Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform. Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views. Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists? Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win. Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking. Mark Oppenheimer, a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section, is the host of the podcast Unorthodox.

Fair Usage Law

May 13, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

What’s good about odious speech? – Arizona Daily Sun

In 2009, I interviewed Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, two amateur historians notorious for being among the leading Holocaust revisionists. Smith is an old-school denier, dubious about the existence of gas chambers, while Weber merely believes that Jews exaggerate history to help consolidate Zionist power. I interviewed Weber in his offices outside Los Angeles, and Smith at a coffee shop close to the border of Mexico, where he lived. In each case I went alone. Although I wasnt afraid neither had a history of physical violence meeting with two men whod spent their professional lives spinning theories about the perfidy of my people was, at the least, a bit creepy. Lets put it this way: I hugged my wife extra tight before leaving home. Lately, Ive been reminiscing about my time with Smith and Weber, and not just because white nationalists now have a president who they feel is sympathetic to their cause. Rather, the triggering event, if you will, is the national debate about how to confront speech we find odious. On college campuses across the country, students have reacted with fear and anger to the possibility that far-right (or even slightly right) thinkers might speak some words somewhere in their vicinity. At Middlebury College, students violently protested a talk featuring Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that many call racist. At Claremont McKenna College, protesters shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald, whose recent book defends police officers. Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley. Protesters have not argued these speakers pose an immediate physical threat to students of color, or women, or anybody. Instead, they posit that its wrong or somehow psychically damaging to allow certain views a platform. At Wellesley College, for example, a student editorial in March insinuated that Laura Kipnis new book, which questions how Title IX is applied to sexual life on campuses, undermines the existence and rights of others. Students at Claremont McKenna, and the other four colleges in Pomona, wrote a letter stating that merely engaging with Mac Donald is a form of violence. The same logic undergirds the vicious campaign against philosopher Rebecca Tuvel, who recently published an article using the analogy of trans people to interrogate the transracialism of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who famously passed as black. In a letter to Hypatia, the feminist journal that published Tuvels article, hundreds of signatories argued that the articles failures of scholarship do harm to the communities who might expect better from Hypatia. The articles continued availability, they claimed, causes further harm. Unquestionably, words can, and do, cause harm. Im not interested in lending support to policies that I despise. But free speech is an important value, one that protects everyone with unpopular views: critics of Israel, defenders of revolutionary movements, anti-vaccine activists. Those who run from unpopular views, moreover, may ultimately harm themselves. Let me return to the question everyone asked me in 2009: What was it like to meet with Holocaust revisionists? And then spend many more hours on the telephone, listening to their cracked, sinister theories about me, my relatives, my dead co-religionists? Truth be told, it was invigorating. They were so deluded, so sad, and so alone in the world. Their lives were tangled webs of failed ambitions, failed ideas, even failed marriages. They werent well. I was. It was heartening to listen to my enemies respectfully, and conclude that in a country that permits free inquiry, they would never win. Interviewing Smith and Weber two men who downplay the literal genocide of my people; who dehumanize me more profoundly than even Murrays critics believe that he dehumanizes others actually empowered me as a thinker, as a progressive, and as a Jew. Having looked at evil, I found it puny. We can beat this, I found myself thinking. I dont think that can be everyones response to every speaker. There are good reasons that a victim of sexual violence might avoid speeches that could trigger memories of the assault. Victims of police violence might carefully consider how theyd feel listening to a speaker who plays down their experience. A concentration-camp survivor might not, to put it mildly, be the right person to interview Smith and Weber. Each person has to be her own best judge of what experiences will be valuable, detrimental, painful or simply a waste of time. Id skip Coulter because I know what I think of her views. Id rather read a novel or scramble some eggs. But imagine if, instead of protesting Mac Donalds speech at Claremont, students had waited until she finished, taken the microphone, and then described the abuses theyd experienced at the hands of police officers? They might have changed her mind, if only a little. But even if they hadnt, theyd have used their experience to shrink hers. Theyd have said, You dont scare us. Theyd have enlarged the scope of their world, and theyd have done so as allies of free speech. And I suspect that theyd have left the room emboldened, ready for the next time. Mark Oppenheimer, a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times opinion section, is the host of the podcast Unorthodox.

Fair Usage Law

May 12, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Carmel ceremony urges attendees to ‘Never forget’ atrocities of Holocaust – Current in Carmel

By Mark Ambrogi Carmel Mayor Jim Brainards theme for the citys Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony was consistent. Maya Shmoel shares the story of her father, a Holocaust survivor. (Photo courtesy City of Carmel) Never forget was a constant refrain during Brianards address at the April 28 ceremony at The Tarkington. Keynote speaker Maya Shmoel, an Indianapolis resident, shared the story of her father, Marcus Hirsch, being a Holocaust survivor. She did not learn most of the details of h until after he died 21 years ago. The message of the Holocaust does not change, Brainard said. Every day you read in the papers, watch on television or the internet, the violent graphic images of acts of terrorism carried out in the name of ethnic cleansing. We see terrorism acts in the name of religion. We see example after example of people showing intolerance of people that are different from themselves. This is not the 1930s and 1940s. Were not in a World War against a single dictator, but we are dealing with faces of evil. Brainard said the issues remain the same years after the Holocaust. Which is why its important we talk about the Holocaust so we never forget what can happen when democracy fails, Brainard said. Not so very long ago in the heart of civilized modern Europe, democracy did fail. The courage to remember this horrific time is essential so that we protect our own society from a similar fate. Its important to remember that the Holocaust did not happen during so-called primitive times. It occurred in an enlightened, cultured, well-educated society. We must remember it was professional engineers who designed and built the gas chambers. It was professional well-educated lawyers who built the Nuremberg laws, excluding Jews and others from German life and taking away many of their natural rights. It was medical doctors who conducted so-called scientific experiments on human beings at Auschwitz and other extermination centers. Brainard said it was ordinary people that were capable of doing evil. We must remember how that happened and must continue to strive to overcome intolerance and indifference so such terrible things can never happen again, Brainard said. Michael Wallack, representing the Mayors Advisory Commission on Human Relations, said society cant pretend those sort of attitudes and actions cant occur in modern society. He said the Anti-Defamation League reported that anti-Semitic hate crimes spiked in the U.S. 2016. Sadly, 2017 is on pace for even more anti-Semitic crimes, Wallack said. We see a continued increase in Holocaust denials or Holocaust revisionism that either denies the Holocaust occurred or minimizes the severity, deflects blame or redirects blame to Jews. And weve seen discussion of the Holocaust without recognitions Jews were its primary victims. Since the election, weve seen reports all over the country of hate crimes or overt acts of prejudice. Wallack pointed out Indiana again refused to fail to pass hate crime legislation this year, one of the few states without a law.

Fair Usage Law

May 12, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

The dark history at the heart of the French election – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The dark history at the heart of the French election Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Versions of Holocaust denial and revisionism have clouded Ms. Le Pen's National Front party throughout the 2017 campaign. In early March, a party official in Nice was caught on camera saying that there weren't mass killings as it's been said. In late … Marine Le Pen wrong choice for France Mitzpeh Emmanuel Macron projected to win the French presidential election Mic Newcomer Emmanuel Macron wins French election in landslide rejection of populism VICE News Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council  – Jezebel  – Stuff.co.nz all 4,955 news articles »

Fair Usage Law

May 7, 2017   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."