MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Facebook Algorithm Flags, Removes Declaration of Independence Text as Hate Speech

The social media site has a difficult time telling the difference between white nationalist ravings and the writing of Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Cizauskas/John Trumbull/FlickrThomas Cizauskas/John Trumbull/FlickrAmerica's founding document might be too politically incorrect for Facebook, which flagged and removed a post consisting almost entirely of text from the Declaration of Independence. The excerpt, posted by a small community newspaper in Texas, apparently violated the social media site's policies against hate speech.

Since June 24, the Liberty County Vindicator of Liberty County, Texas, has been sharing daily excerpts from the declaration in the run up to July Fourth. The idea was to encourage historical literacy among the Vindicator's readers.

The first nine such posts of the project went up without incident.

"But part 10," writes Vindicator managing editor Casey Stinnett, "did not appear. Instead, The Vindicator received a notice from Facebook saying that the post 'goes against our standards on hate speech.'"

The post in question contained paragraphs 27 through 31 of the Declaration of Independence, the grievance section of the document wherein the put-upon colonists detail all the irreconcilable differences they have with King George III.

Stinnett says that he cannot be sure which exact grievance ran afoul of Facebook's policy, but he assumes that it's paragraph 31, which excoriates the King for inciting "domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages."

The removal of the post was an automated action, and Stinnett sent a "feedback message" to Facebook with the hopes of reaching a human being who could then exempt the Declaration of Independence from its hate speech restrictions.

Fearful that sharing more of the text might trigger the deletion of its Facebook page, The Vindicator has suspended its serialization of the declaration.*

In his article, Stinnett is remarkably sanguine about this censorship. While unhappy about the decision, he reminds readers "that Facebook is a business corporation, not the government, and as such it is allowed to restrict use of its services as long as those restrictions do not violate any laws. Plus, The Vindicator is using Facebook for free, so the newspaper has little grounds for complaint other than the silliness of it."

Of course, Facebook's actions here are silly. They demonstrate a problem with automated enforcement of hate speech policies, which is that a robot trained to spot politically incorrect language isn't smart enough to detect when that language is part of a historically significant document.

None of this is meant as a defense of referring to Native Americans as "savages." That phrasing is clearly racist and serves as another example of the American Revolution's mixed legacy; one that won crucial liberties for a certain segment of the population, while continuing to deny those same liberties to Native Americans and African slaves. But by allowing the less controversial parts of the declaration to be shared while deleting the reference to "Indian savages," Facebook succeeds only in whitewashing America's founding just as we get ready to celebrate it.

A more thoughtful approach to Independence Day—for both celebrants and social media companies alike—would be to grapple with those historical demons.

Update: Facebook has reportedly restored The Vindicator's declaration post, deeming it to not be a violation of the social media site's community standards and apologizing to the paper for its "incorrect action."

Photo Credit: Thomas Cizauskas/John Trumbull/Flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Yellow Tony||

    None of this is meant as a defense of referring to Native Americans as "savages." That phrasing is clearly racist and serves as another example of the American Revolution's mixed legacy; one that won crucial liberties for a certain segment of the population, while continuing to deny those same liberties to Native Americans and African slaves. But by allowing the less controversial parts of the declaration to be shared while deleting the reference to "Indian savages," Facebook succeeds only in whitewashing America's founding just as we get ready to celebrate it.


    I was going to encourage Christian to obtain a shield and a dildo-sword, but then I remembered he doesn't give a fuck about the comments.

  • JoeBlow123||

    C'mon, you know this paragraph was pretty hilarious. It was brewed up in the "Self Flagellation Division" of whatever liberal arts department where Christian went to school. Westerners have a long, proud tradition of self flagellation from the Catholic monks and their awesome hair shirts and whips to the whipped intelligentsia and writer types of today. Christian is just keeping this tradition going.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Well, if nothing else "Savages" is rude, and you cannot deny that American independence and expansion greatly enhanced the conflict between whites and Indians, which led to over a century of warfare that led to near-extermination of one side.

    Just because we love our country doesn't mean we cannot acknowledge it's flaws, past and present.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Different times. Who cares. Native Americans would have exterminated every foreigner on the continent (rightly so) at the time if they could have but they did not have he manpower or technology to do it. They were decimated by diseases than crushed politically and absorbed into the United States.

    About them being crushed politically, you do not hear to many people cry over the fates of Savoy or the Papal States or Wurtemberg or Bavaria so, again, why are we judging past times with modern morals? It is illogical and stupid on many levels.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Different times. Who cares.

    Uh, 2.9 million native americans?

    you do not hear to many people cry over the fates of Savoy or the Papal States or Wurtemberg or Bavaria

    Was there, up until *extremely* recently, a gov't agency charged with fucking just them over? Were they herded into the worst parts of the country where prosperity was impossible, their culture destroyed and turned into a permanent underclass?

    It's not judging past times with modern morals when the past times aren't even past.

  • JoeBlow123||

    You ever hear of the 30 Years War, Hussite Wars, French Wars of Religion, Yugoslav Wars, Chechen Wars, everything Communists ever did, etc? Yes, there were definitely governments across Europe that were trying to exterminate one another through these time periods. To say nothing of Timurlane, the Golden Horde, the Mongols rampage across the Middle East, etc.

    Which is the point I was trying to make, it was a different time. But if you intend to remain on the permanently outraged train due to things that happened long before you were born then grab a seat.

    And if we want to get technical, Native Americans first teamed up (logically) with first the French then the Brits to try and expel the colonists. They then lost all the wars thereafter thus ceding any political legitimacy at a time where legitimacy was based on what you can control by the strength of arms.

  • MSimon||

    What? Michael Savage is not a Native American?

    How is that possible.

    Is calling him a Savage racist?

  • markm23||

    There were Europeans that far better deserved to be described as "savages" - but in the British Isles, these were relegated to backwards, isolated areas of Scotland and Ireland, and to certain jobs in the Royal Army and Navy, (and the judiciary)...

  • prolefeed||

    Are you saying that in current times, that the perceived legitimacy of a government is not backed up by what said government can control by strength of arms?

    We are all fractional slaves. The gun grabbers want us disarmed so the degree of fractional slavery can be increased more readily.

  • vek||

    As somebody who has enough native blood to tan like hell and not be able to grow a decent beard, I have zero problem with what happened to them. They were a weaker and more primitive bunch than those that showed up and took over... It happens.

    First, almost all the deaths were from disease. War actually killed very few in north America.

    But yeah, they got their asses kicked... And they would have gladly done the same if they could. You think the Aztecs wouldn't have sacked and subjugated Europe if they'd had the industrial revolution first??? Keep dreaming. In half the wars we fought with Indians, there were other Indians on our side too. They were killing as many of each other as white people ever did. Whites didn't ruin Eden or anything.

    Shit happens. They lost a bunch of wars, boo hoo. People like me came out of it though. There are millions of fractional natives in the white and black population in the USA. Frankly America and the world are better off because of us taking over this continent. I'm not going to apologize for that.

  • Presskh||

    Very logical and well thought-out response, vek. The "victim" mentality in this country needs to cease and is generally used by those who are too damn lazy to get out of their parent's basement, work hard, play by the rules, and make a good living for themselves.

  • DrZ||

    I remember an online discussion at work many years ago where the wokies were lamenting how the Native Americans got shafted and how in tune they were with nature and blah, blah, blah.

    Then a writer chimed in, a Native American, pretty much said the same thing as vek, but from a different angle.

    It went something like this: My ancestors had to work their butts off to survive until they couldn't contribute to the tribe because of old age and at that point they were about 30 years old. Many died of infections, tetanus and other things we don't even think about today. You live to 30 if you were careful to not get an infection.

    He want on to say hell with that crap. I like the idea of having a chance to live past 70 and I like that it will not likely be because of cutting myself and dying of an infection. I like what modern society has given me. I like being able to drive to the ocean, drink a beer and reflect all things that could not be done when your whole life revolved around fighting other tribes and constantly worrying about getting something to eat. You can have the old ways is more or less what he said.

  • Seamus||

    And if we want to get technical, Native Americans first teamed up (logically) with first the French then the Brits to try and expel the colonists. They then lost all the wars thereafter thus ceding any political legitimacy at a time where legitimacy was based on what you can control by the strength of arms.

    Sounds like the Palestinians (except for the bit about the French and the Brits).

  • Quixote||

    FB was obviously right to ban this abusive "speech" from its platform. As everyone knows, verbal and written acts are always to be judged on a literal level, and certainly without squandering valuable resources on a time-consuming "historical" or "contextual" consideration of the surrounding circumstances that produced them, especially if it takes more than three minutes to understand the issues involved. For an excellent illustration of how this principle is applied by Internet authorities, see the documentation of the great American nation's leading criminal "satire" case at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    Why should things be any different with Facebook? Just as the highly skilled prosecutors in New York City are capable of recognizing the line between legitimate parodies and inappropriately deadpan impersonations when they see illegal texts, so is the specially designed FB computer algorithm capable of recognizing the line between decency and "speech" motivated by hatred or other inappropriate sentiments.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So should we expel the Navajos, Apaches, and Utes who arrived in the US later (about the same time as the Spanish in the Americas)? They forced their way from Canada (!), beat up on the Pueblos and others, took their ancestral lands, and still hold them today.

  • vek||

    Yes, we should expel those tribes! They're land thieves! Send them back to Canadia where they belong!!!

    If we did, perhaps it would help make the point that whining about shit that happened in the past, when nobody alive had anything to do with it, is a stupid ass idea.

  • The_Hoser||

    No takebacks!

  • Trollificus||

    And not a single "Indian giver" joke. Either REASON comment section has become sensitive or some jokes are too obvious and dated for use. Must be the latter./

  • Flinch||

    Don't look now... but the Chinese may have been here first. Not sure where that will take us, but the feeble minds running fakebook will remain flummoxed no matter what, and continue to get things wrong.

  • vek||

    Actually I'm a big history buff, and I have a "thing" for "weird" history/stuff that's contentious. It is true that the Chinese may have come to the new world before Columbus. But not before Leif Erikson.

    Another interesting tid bit is this: Scientists discovered bones that looked non Native American in South America a long time ago. They kept finding them in many of their oldest digs. They looked African or Aboriginal, as in Australian natives. Stories also circulated from the earliest Spanish days of very, very dark skinned people being seen.

    Well, they've now sampled DNA in some parts of South America and found: Aborigines DID apparently get here first. The Asians we think of as Native Americans wiped them out and interbred with those they didn't kill. They've also found traces of Polynesian blood that seems to pre-date known modern contact. So they probably got here too. Not to mention some of the tell tell signs that Europeans probably got here in very small numbers pre Leif, as in 10s of thousands of years ago along ice sheets between NA and Europe too.

    So NA Indians showed up and took most of the land they were on too, no different than Europeans did to them later.

  • RenaD||

    Native Americans would have exterminated every foreigner on the continent (rightly so) at the time if they could have but they did not have he manpower or technology to do it.

    But they were still utterly brutal to those settlers they did manage to exact revenge on. The Comanche, for instance. No one wanted to be in the crosshairs of those "noble" savages.

  • Devastator||

    Everyone in that period was brutal, the indigenous tribes were no worse than the Europeans. The fact is we can't do anything about it and the winners get to write the rules.

  • hello.||

    the indigenous tribes were no worse than the Europeans

    Yes they fucking were actually. The Dakota Uprising would be one good example. The Dakota sneak-attacked murdered raped and tortured women and children. When the settlers retaliated few or no Dakota non-combatants were killed and proper trials were held for those captured.

  • Conchfritters||

    The dividing line in Minnesota is basically the Minnesota river. Minnesota was historically the home of the Sioux, but when the white man came the Sioux were in the process of being bounced by the Ojibwe and other Algonquin tribes from the north, who themselves were being pushed out of the East by the Iroquois. Had the white man not settled Minnesota in the late 1700s, early 1800s, the Ojibwe might have finished the job.

    I also remember reading about Custer's last stand - it wasn't just the 7th cavalry that was fighting against the Sioux, they also had Pawnee who were allied with the US Army - because the Pawnee we enemies of the Sioux.

  • Flinch||

    I wonder if we have romanticized the term 'indigenous' too much as a society. Perhaps it might be better defined as "people who currently occupy lands"? The business of who came first is historically interesting and significant, but... they are all dust and bones now. Arguments are for the living - leave the dead alone.

  • Devastator||

    They owned the land, and they fought over it. They didn't have the technology to rape the land like we do now, or they would have done it. It's as simple as that. Nothing special about that. They had to respect nature and it's laws because they didn't have a choice, it was that or die and become buzzard food. Now we have more.... options.

  • ||

    They didn't have the technology to rape the land like we do now, or they would have done it. It's as simple as that. Nothing special about that. They had to respect nature and it's laws because they didn't have a choice, it was that or die and become buzzard food.

    'rape the land' and 'respect nature' being subjective or relative terms. That is to say, plenty of tribes were largely or wholly nomadic and 'just the tip' is still rape, especially in the context of taking care of land for more generations to come. Not to mention that there are plenty of people who will tell you flat out that it's not a healthy form of respect shown to a partner that would kill you and feed you to the buzzards.

  • DrZ||

    On the West Coast of Canada the Native Americans (Canadians?) set fire to the cedar forests on a frequent basis because they knew that mature forests did not produce berries, especially huckleberries which were an important food source.

    So if respecting nature means setting fires, which undoubtedly went out of control at times, is a form of respect then I guess you can say that the Nootka and Haidas respected nature ... a lot.

  • vek||

    Yup. The "here first" thing, if it were actually adhered to, would be INSANE. The vast majority of modern peoples don't live in the areas where their people "came from," or at least span from that area into many other areas they took over.

    You'd have to kick almost everybody in the world out of where they live now, to somewhere else, to try to "right" all those wrongs from eons ago. All you can really do is try not to screw people over going forward.

  • SDN||

    You must be one of those ignorant god-botherers who doesn't believe in evolution. "Survival of the fittest", remember? The Indians ran into an evolutionary superior culture.

    Those of us who retain that culture will still be here.

  • Devastator||

    Until China takes over, amIRight?

  • SIV||

    They don't stand a Chinaman's chance.

  • vek||

    The only way that can happen is if the western world keeps intentionally inflicting wounds on itself via our horrible immigration policies, denying reality (men and women are different, not all people are as smart as all other people, etc), fiscal policies, and so on...

    So sadly it is entirely possible... But if we pull our heads out of our asses we can keep up with China and then some.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    OTOH, the various tribes, with some exceptions, were pretty savage.The modern tendency to gloss over their history of nasty inter-tribal warfare, environmentally unfriendly hunting practices, and so on is as much a distortion as 'the only good indian is a dead indian'.

  • FlameCCT||

    You seem to forget that England encouraged and armed some Native American tribes to attack the colonists. That too "enhanced" the conflict between whites and Native Americans.

  • CE||

    If you had friends or relatives on the frontier, and they were tortured and killed by the indigenous peoples, you might also have referred to them as merciless and savage. Even if it was a generalization, and even if they may have been provoked.

  • Devastator||

    Exactly, the Indians saw the Europeans the same way. Some tribes were friendly, some weren't . Some Europeans respected the natives they were overruled by government and moneyed interests and the natives were slaughtered. That's just what has happened whenever any human population encountered a more technologically (or other source of power) advanced has always resulted in a slaughter. Humans are greedy mother fuckers .

  • Flinch||

    By all means: cutting off scalps or ears, setting things on fire for sport, and hunting down unaffiliated tribesmen are all "civilized". What savagery?
    I always viewed pinhead Zuckerberg with skepticism, and those he hired with even more as his grasp of the fascist component lurking in the SJW world seems weak. Illiteracy + automation = guaranteed bad algorithms [not to mention guaranteed stupid]. Zuckerberg sucks. Don't let this asshat anywhere near an AI project: he'll kill us all for sure.

  • Devastator||

    The Europeans did the same thing. Don't act like they didn't. They chopped off limbs when the natives didn't mine fast enough or chop sugar cane fast enough. Fed people to dogs and watched it. Humans in general, and particularly in that era were violent and the wallowed in it. We're a lot more sanitary about it now, but is mowing down a village in Vietnam any less savage than what the natives did? It's just a little more hands off.

  • hello.||

    The Europeans did the same thing.

    Nope. They didn't. You're full of fucking shit making up alternative history so you can play the false equivalence game. Even during retaliatory raids against the Indian tribes after they had raped and tortured white settlers standard military rules of engagement of the day were upheld. Sherman was more brutal against white southerners than any white general ever was against the Indians and that's a fact.

  • Devastator||

    Why the fuck would anyone care about the comments section here? It's full of tripe and the occasional rare piece of wisdom.

  • SIV||

    You're welcome.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    The social media site has a difficult time telling the difference between white nationalist ravings and the writing of Thomas Jefferson.

    Maybe that's because the founders were essentially white nationalists?

  • Kill a Commie for Mommy||

    Which is actually a good thing.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Which is actually a good thing.

    Please fuck off.

  • khm001||

    It's always hilarious to see the childish, emotional reaction people like you have when confronted with the obvious truth to which you have no coherent response.

  • Devastator||

    There's a difference between being patriotic and white and proud of your heritage and being a Nazi piece of shit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So you think it's a BAD thing that the founders were white?

  • khm001||

    "There's a difference between being patriotic and white and proud of your heritage and being a Nazi piece of shit."

    It is the democrats and the left (which includes the faggots here at Reason) who conflate the two.

  • vek||

    Exactly. European civilization was, and really still is, the height of human civilization in basically all ways... Should I not be proud of that? The left doesn't think so. Fuck them. I am VERY proud of Thomas Jefferson, not so stoked on Hitler. Even most properly racist self admitted white nationalists nowadays are very much NOT Nazis. The Nazis were a very small slice out of the worst possible spectrum of racialist thinkers, which includes non whites too! Keep in mind the Chinese preach that Chinese people are the best on earth right this minute...

  • buybuydandavis||

    Benjamin Franklin, at least, was a White and Red nationalist.

    Benjamin Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751
    https://goo.gl/DU13Ji

    Last paragraph

    24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

  • perlchpr||

    Wait wait what? SWEDES aren't white enough for Franklin? Blond haired, blue eyed, pasty faced Sweden?

    Madness.

    Though it is sort of hilarious to read this, since "Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, Swedes, Germans", Irish, and hell, even Greeks are pretty much all considered "white" these days, demonstrating that there's a pretty significant portion of being "white" that is purely economic and cultural in nature. As opposed to any specific DNA pattern.

    Of course, on the flip side, I've heard (may be apocryphal) that Africa has more human genetic diversity than the entire rest of the planet, and basically everyone from Africa is considered "black". So pure DNA content is clearly not the indicator of who fits in what group either. *shrug*

  • buybuydandavis||

    Those "swarthy" Swedes stuck out to me too.

    ' basically everyone from Africa is considered "black" '

    I doubt that's the way Africans see it.

  • Agammamon||

    It does, however ironically, appear the way *African Americans* still see it.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    The Swedes, Russians, plus, apparently, Bavarians, Prussians, and pretty much all the rest of Germany except the Saxons.

    I really find archaic science fascinating, especially stuff like "race theory" that's been so thoroughly expunged from polite society as to be completely unfamiliar.

  • Rat on a train||

    Ian Smith agrees.

  • The Last American Hero||

    The closer you get to the trunk of the human family tree, the more genetic diversity you get.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    What?

  • Stephen54321||

    Spaniards...are pretty much all considered "white" these days

    Unless their forefathers emigrated to the New World, where these days people in the US have now dubbed those Spanish (or Portuguese) New Worlders "Hispanic" or "Latino" and class them as "People of Color". That is, non-White.

  • RenaD||

    I went to high school in a Sunbelt city in the 1980s, and it was a big deal among some of the students of Hispanic heritage to distinguish themselves as having Spanish blood versus Mexican blood. The point being, the latter wasn't "white."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Puerto Ricans come in every shade of skin color.

    Guess how much skinism there goes on with that?

  • FlameCCT||

    Actually the US government states the Hispanic/Latino are an ethnic group in the White race category.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I do reports for federal grants. They consider Hispanic a ethnicity, not a race, and you could be a black Hispanic or a white Hispanic.

  • Seamus||

    Or an Asian Hispanic (like Peruvian former president Fujimori).

  • Trollificus||

    "...even Greeks are pretty much considered "white" these days"

    Have we become TOO accepting?

  • Echo Chamber||

    "exclusive of the new Comers"

    Newbies always ruin it for the old Comers

  • Bearded Spock||

    The irony here is that the British are the mongrel descendants of practically all those "swarthy" types.

    The native Celt tribes were overrun by the Romans (Italians), who left a fair amount of their DNA on the island.

    Then came the Saxons. Followed by the Vikings, from Scandinavia.

    They were followed by those French Vikings, the Normans.

    There is no such thing as a "pure Englishman"; they've got a lot of those swarthy European genes in them.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Does that explain their teeth?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    NHS explains that

  • Seamus||

    Actually, DNA analysis shows that the Roman's, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans (i.e., French-speaking Vikings) left relatively little impact on the genetic profile of the inhabitants of what's now England. Immigration since World War II has caused more change in that profile than centuries if previous invasions.

  • blawatldc||

    Actually -- the Anglo-Saxons did leave a genetic, as well as cultural impact. The study you are referencing found that they were the only invasion in britain to do so (other than Vikings in Orkney, I guess).

  • CE||

    Those dang swarthy Germans.....

    You can never tell with Franklin though -- he was playing 5-dimensional chess while everyone else was playing tiddlywinks. This may well have been part of a clever anti-slavery campaign.

  • vek||

    The thing about that oft brought out Franklin quote is that it wasn't common thinking even at the time... It was kind of his own weird thoughts on stuff.

    Back in those days most people would have thought of "good" white people starting out in say northern Italy, and from about the 1/3 way up into France (southern France is too dark!), and basically everything north. Cutting off again around Poland or so in the east.

    They considered Slavs, Russians, Italians, Spaniards etc "white," but a lesser class of white than northern Europeans. Same with the Irish. They still considered them better than all non whites though of course.

    Germans, French, Swedes etc were generally considered to be ethnically equals to saaay the English by the English, but culturally inferior because they were not as enlightened, didn't have the tradition of freedom, were Catholic etc.

    That is what I have gathered in lots of reading on the subject. Franklin is basically just ranting about his extra strong Anglo-Saxon supremacy personal opinion there, it wasn't common place, whereas the north/south opinion was.

  • Conchfritters||

    .....Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus

    Franklin believed in aliens?

  • vek||

    Shiiit, the Founding Fathers weren't white nationalists, they were way more hardcore than that... They were mostly all Anglo-Saxon nationalists! They sure as hell didn't want Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians etc moving here. Many would have begrudgingly accepted other Germanic peoples like Germans, Austrians, Swiss, etc, but many didn't even like that.

    That slowly gave way to a more modern definition of white nationalism, which was official policy until 1965. Frankly I think it was a mistake to change our policies as radically as we did then anyway in hindsight.

    Not because ONLY whites can make decent societies... I think even the most racist would concede that Asians make very neat and orderly civilizations... Mainly just because in our rush towards a utopian future we underestimated the inherent tribalism all people have. Every ethnic group in America that isn't white is basically out to get whitey, and whites seem to be the only people who statistically have any interest in the principles the country was founded on. We'll see if non whites can be brought around eventually, but its sure made for quite a shit show the last few decades...

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Came across the global map of corruption the other day, and the shading (darker for more corrupt) sure seems to correlate with skin tones...

  • vek||

    So it does. I do not believe the "we're all EXACTLY the same" lie that modern ultra-egalitarians push. It's a lie considering all known statistics and where the scientific evidence points clearly contradict it.

    I believe that all people deserve the same treatment under the law, and that all people have human dignity and all that kind of stuff... But up to 100,000 years of divergent evolution between some modern humans and others DID NOT leave us all the EXACT same in all respects. Different groups clearly have strong suits that show up quite obviously in statistics. None of that means anybody needs to hate anybody else, but accepting strengths and weaknesses at a statistical level doesn't mean the end of the world.

    I'm sure we'll come back around to sanity on this issue sooner or later, because you can only ignore reality for so long.

  • khm001||

    "None of that means anybody needs to hate anybody else"

    Non-whites and self-hating leftists do. Nearly all take special pride in hating whites, blaming whites for all that ails the world.

  • vek||

    True enough. I personally think that most leftists, including those of color, really do believe even more staunchly in racial determinism than I do... And I consider myself a mild "race realist" on a number of points. I don't think any race needs handouts to do fine on their own in a non corrupt capitalist system, because most of the differences aren't THAT huge... But they do.

    If they didn't, why would they feel the need to put in affirmative action? To intentionally create policies that hold back/screw over whites? Etc. You only NEED those things if you don't believe different groups are equal, so you must artificially level the playing field. Hence I think they think even less of POC than many actual white supremacists do.

  • turco||

    Seriously doubt corruption and political organizatipn would have a genetic basis that cor related with skin tone. During most of those 100,000 years all of humanity lived in tribal groups. Civilization is very very young and would not have had time to exert a selective pressure to influence genetic makeup.

  • vek||

    It's not skin tone per se... But IQ testing shows large and consistent differences globally by ethnicity. It varies even within skin tones, often by a lot. It's more just specific areas with closely related groups in them have higher or lower scores. IQ correlates to objective skills that can be tested like math, writing, vocabulary... Which leads to what kinds of job is somebody CAPABLE of doing, be a janitor or a rocket scientist? IQ also correlates with crime rates in all races. Low IQ whites commit crimes at about the same rate as blacks with the same IQ, there are just a higher percentage of blacks at lower IQs.

    Ultra egalitarians try to explain it away as being entirely environmental differences in childhood development. Stuff like having a good diet etc. The problem with this theory is that middle class blacks in America still score lower, are worse at math, etc than starving children in Asia... In other words some groups still do better despite all the theoretical environmental variables being not in their favor. Why do North Koreans have almost identical scores to South Koreans, which are higher than European scores BTW... Seems likely to be genetic.

  • vek||

    "Civilization is very very young and would not have had time to exert a selective pressure to influence genetic makeup."

    Civilization likely had nothing to do with it. It is probable that some environmental variable nudged different tribal groups different directions. A common theory is living in colder environments GENERALLY, but not in all cases, seems to have inflated intelligence. But nobody really knows for sure, other than that there are huge IQ gaps for whatever reason.

    Long and the short of it is that ALL evidence points to it being MOSTLY, but not entirely, genetic... But because that is an unthinkable result to ultra egalitarians, they ignore the obvious answer and try to come up with endless excuses, none of which ever pan out. Every time they try to prove it is environmental with a new study, they just end up digging the hole deeper because the evidence points to it being mostly genetic every time. It's basically the same BS as pretending there are no differences between men and women, which any sane person knows is BS.

    We're all people... But to think there would be ZERO difference in intelligence, when every other trait varies so heavily (height, weight, skin tone, prevalence of diseases, on and on) is simply wishful thinking. It has no basis in fact, and is contradicted by all known facts.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Putting the Pure in Puritanical.

  • Jerryskids||

    There's a "report spam" button on the comments, where's the "flag this as triggering" button for the posts themselves? You just mentioned the triggering speech in the course of reporting on the triggering speech, why couldn't you have used the "I - word" or the "s----- I------" euphemisms like a normal person instead of using the words themselves like a retard?

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Well, duh!

  • Kill a Commie for Mommy||

    This kind of left wing crap is why we need the HUAC revived. The DNC platform is basically to the left of the ten pillars of communism anymore, and they are pretty clear that they want to subvert the constitution. Which by definition makes them a subversive group bent on at least some light treason.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    So you want to punish a capitalist corporation with government action? And you don't like commies?

  • No Yards Penalty||

    I doubt the guy is much of a thinker, frankly.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're definitely not.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I think he means if they're involved in sedition. Which isn't much of a stretch considering how scorchingly progressive a lot of these tech companies are, including Google and Facebook.

    Capitalism doesn't preclude treason.

  • Stephen54321||

    Capitalism doesn't preclude treason.

    What has any of this to do with treason?

    (FYI, the definition of treason against the US is in the US Constitution but one gets the impression that many Americans have never read their Constitution and so have no idea what's in it, and thus no idea what treason is.)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The democrats are inherently treasonous as a group. All progressives are.

  • Stephen54321||

    Thank you for proving my point that most Americans have no idea what treason is!

  • Trollificus||

    You can't spell "treason" without REASON!

  • MSimon||

    Sure you can.

    Treeson

  • SIV||

    HUAC?

    Pussy. We need right-wing paramilitaries.

    When your favorite cosmotarian magazine goes full-cucktural-Marxist it's no time fuck around with "committees" and commissions"

  • Longtobefree||

    Nope. Just the people's courts.
    Of course, this time it might be the right wing wackos sitting on the bench instead of the reds.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    As long as we're getting rid of the progs, it's a good thing. At least if we value our individual rights. These assholes are completely coming out of the closet against free speech what with the ACLU finally admitting they only give a shit about their speech.

  • Calidissident||

    The guy arguing in favor of getting rid of political opponents is complaining about other people only valuing their speech?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    'Political opponents'........ no.

    'Bullying slavers'............. yes.

    See the difference? But hey, if you want to work hard to keep millions of Stlinist slavers ready to put a boot on your neck for the rest of time, thats your business. As my freedoms are more valuable than that, I will not be helping them.

  • Flinch||

    Ugh, HUAC. Not that we shouldn't deal with traitors within, but that's the group so stupid that they destroyed the last veneer of the Eisenhower era where patriotism was bipartisan. JFK held the afterglow for a time, but we haven't seen it since. They just had to grandstand for the cameras, and we are still paying the price in that the loss of credibility puts the starting point for oversight today as crippled before any proceeding is gaveled open. McCarthy had the right idea: take personalities out of it, and make a case number to deal with federal employees of questionable allegiance so party affiliation is not a factor...and people have to think. It's worth noting the left will still point to HUAC style activites when they purposely conflate by screaming 'McCarthyism". Why attack the wrong body? Because they're not scared of the house - they are always campaigning, and therefore never stop hamming it up. What started in the senate would have worked, but for HUAC in my estimation.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You do make some good points. I say whatever roots out and destroys the progressives so we can be free. IT would be nice if they would just renounce all their beliefs, but most likely it's going to have to get very ugly to stop them once and for all.

  • SIV||

    It may be ugly for a while but then we can build an attractive monument out of stacked decorated skulls.

  • Trollificus||

    And then cast a narrowed gaze at the folks we hired to decorate the skulls:

    CDE1: Oooh! Look. At. This. Paisley!
    CDE2: Too garish?
    CDE1: Too kitschy?
    CDE2: Too 60s retro?
    Both: Too FABULOUS!!

    CDE=Cranial Decoration Expert

  • Calidissident||

    Clearly the guy who wants to kill people for their political beliefs and investigate private companies for stupid moderation policies cares deeply about the constitution.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Where does he say we should kill anyone?

  • Calidissident||

    His username.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That was a common slogan during the old war. Have you never heard that before?

    OTOH, a dead communist is usually an improvement over a live one. A lower headcount for ideological slavers is a good thing.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    'Cold war'.

  • vek||

    I don't know about him, but I personally just want to arrest lots of politicians who have obviously and openly defied their oaths to defend the constitution, actively tried to subvert it, etc. They should then receive fair trials, and be executed for treason. All in a very lawful and orderly way. There are plenty of politicians in this country who more than deserve it, from both parties I might add!

    As many of the founders said in their own various ways, sometimes people need some killin'. I think we're close to one of those times in our history again. We should do it neatly and orderly though, not lynch mobs.

  • buybuydandavis||

    ' None of this is meant as a defense of referring to Native Americans as "savages." That phrasing is clearly racist '

    Is it only Indians contemporaneous with the Declaration who it is racist to call "savages"?

    It it all Native Americans for all time?
    Is it all of humanity for all time?

    Is it racist to say anything negative about any people ever?

    (Except whites, obviously. Whitey is the Devil!)

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    I dare say the farm burning, mutilation, and enslavement going on on the frontier was pretty "savage", whatever the complexion of those perpetrating it.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Savages
    "a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized" They were.

    has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers
    Also true. British officers led bands of natives in murderous raids against frontier towns, including killings of women and children.

  • Cathy L||

    What is even with this kind of nonsensical denial of obvious racism? Are you suggesting there was a nonracist meaning to the phrase in the context of the Declaration? Colonists were typically racist against Native Americans. What kind of idiot seriously wants to pretend that's controversial?

  • NashTiger||

    All Native Americans were peaceful, wise, and one with nature

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Rabble rabble past people did things I do not like rabble rabble."

    How about, "Who cares?" Ahh never mind, you are probably of the crowd that is incapable of any nuance in deciphering history.

  • Cathy L||

    I don't care. The people who really need them not to be racist seem to care.

  • Benitacanova||

    What about the people who really need "them" not to be retards, who seem to care, do you? Because I really need people to stop with the retardation. But racism, I don't care.

  • Robert||

    What if it's racist & correct?

  • vek||

    DING DING DING, We have a winner!

    Not all things that can be argued to be racist are incorrect.

  • Mark22||

    Colonists were typically racist against Native Americans.

    Yeah, in the same way that they were "typically racist" against Germans, Irish, Russians, and anybody else who wasn't British: they didn't like people they were at war with.

  • MarkLastname||

    Well, considering that everyone was racist back then, it's kind of a trivial observation. Native American tribes often tried to genocide white settlers as well, regardless of how peaceful they were. What ultimately set the Europeans (especially the British) apart was not the maliciousness of their intent (that was ubiquitous), but their technological superiority.

    Were the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Comanches, Apaches, or Iroquois really the moral superiors of the Europeans? Each sought (each one successfully in varying measures) to eradicate neighboring ethnic groups.

  • Cathy L||

    Yes, it is a trivial observation. That for some reason a lot of people took issue with.

  • vek||

    The Indians were savages much of the time. So were the British. And the Americans. We all committed savage acts. I'm sure the Indians had all kinds of lovely ways of insulting the various whites for their savage acts too.

    SURPRISE: Humans are dicks to each other when they're at war!

  • Headache||

    SURPRISE: Humans are dicks to each other when they're at war!

    Or commenting on a Reason article.

  • vek||

    That too!

  • Trollificus||

    There's a reason for the recent neologism "presentism".

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Wait, I thought Trumpists are savages.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know who else's text is flagged as hate speech?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Dr. Bronner?

  • Eddy||

    Blanche Knott's Truly Tasteless Jokes, Volumes I-XIV?

  • Shirley Knott||

    You leave Auntie Blanche alone, you philistine!

    (Her husband Bo is fair game, however.)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Sam Cohen?

  • Rock Lobster||

    Progs wrote the algorithms, so it's no surprise that taking historical context into account didn't make it onto their list of requirements for the software.

    Besides, since progressivism didn't exist in the eighteenth century, it's obvious that Thomas Jefferson was not one. Therefore, he's totally a nazi. In fact, he was Hitler.

  • Don't look at me.||

    It's Hitlers all the way down!

  • DajjaI||

    "Plus, The Vindicator is using Facebook for free, so the newspaper has little grounds for complaint other than the silliness of it."

    At the risk of being banned again by Reason - I agree completely.

  • PaulTheBeav||

    When PC zealots insist that the Declaration of Independence be purged from the historical record will we officially become part of England again?

  • Longtobefree||

    To coin a phrase, "over my dead body".

  • barfman2018||

    Of course, Facebook's actions here are silly. They demonstrate a problem with automated enforcement of hate speech policies, which is that a robot trained to spot politically incorrect language isn't smart enough to detect when that language is part of a historically significant document they are fucking stupid.

    FTFY

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yup. The humans behind this aren't significantly more sensible, they're just marginally better at hiding their insanity.

  • Headache||

    Watch it there Brett, most of them are brown people with h1 visas.

  • Agammamon||

    The social media site has a difficult time telling the difference between white nationalist ravings and the writing of Thomas Jefferson.

    PROOF! As if any was needed, that the country was founded by militant white supremacists and therefore nothing before 1965 should have any effect on modern law.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So we can end Social Security and the Income Tax?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In all fairness, Tomas Jefferson was enough of a white supremacist to hold African-Americans as slaves and enough of a nationalist to write the Declaration of Independence. Independence movements didn't start becoming more inclusive until after 1800, partly, because the freedoms expressed in the First Amendment made it easier for both British and American abolitionists to improve viewpoints.

  • vek||

    Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist too... What's your point? Jefferson thought black people were inferior, but he still put up legislation to free the slaves in Virginia. Nobody believed in ACTUAL equality amongst the races or sexes back then. NOBODY. He thought the freed slaves should promptly be sent back to Africa too, because he didn't believe they could live side by side with white men in a white society. He never freed his personal slaves because he was horrible at managing money and was perpetually in debt, otherwise he probably would have.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    "...because he didn't believe they could live side by side with white men in a white society."

    So do most BLM types and other activists today.

  • vek||

    Which is fine as far as I'm concerned. Frankly I've come to the same conclusion in recent years. I just think the hard wiring for racial tribalism is just too damn strong in humans to overcome.

    Nowadays I think all nations need a strong super majority ethnic group in charge. They can sprinkle in 10% or whatever from other groups, but you can't have a nation without somebody firmly in charge. They always devolve into ethnic infighting. I'm a pragmatist, not a utopian, and in the world as it exists, and given human history, I think ethno states clearly show themselves to be more stable and desirable societies to live in.

    Think of all the problems racial issues have caused in the USA. All the fighting. The laws abridging peoples liberty. Japan has never had ANY of this, ever. Because they're basically 100% ethnic Japanese. Imagine what the USA could accomplish without wasting all this energy on stupid racial issues.

    Like I said, it's not a utopian vision of things... But it is a utilitarian one that seems to work quite well.

  • turco||

    Libertarian ideology is not the condition of human nature. That is why it is a tough slog to implement. But looking at the historical record we have made progress.

  • vek||

    It is very much not a natural state.

    Which to me is why we need to pick and choose the hills we're willing to die on. For instance studies show people feel safer and have higher social trust in societies that are homogenous... So is intentionally trying to still up shit via mass immigration a worthwhile goal to push for? To cause tons of social problems and infighting for a goal that can never functionally work?

    We know capitalism works. And GREAT. Capitalism-ish behavior is a natural state for people, because everybody gets the concept of ownership of items, and willing trading. Pre literate societies did this. We know personal liberties are awesome. So on and so forth. I think libertarians need to push things that WORK, and are practically achievable and beneficial, and things that don't go too against the grain of human instinct... Instead of pushing stupid crap like open borders which have a ton of downsides, and possibly no real upsides.

    If ethnic super majorities make for a better and more harmonious society, what is the point in pushing for diversity on principle? Right?

  • Trollificus||

    Well, to be fair, they only had reality and lived experience to go by. Quite a handicap there, and one which todays' proggies are careful to minimize in their...ah...'deliberations'.

  • Longtobefree||

    1. In defense of H.A.L. he was doing exactly what he was programmed to do.
    2. None of this is meant as a defense of referring to Native Americans as "savages."
    2a. Those "Native Americans" were not native; they came from Asia over the land bridge. (This is referred to as the first Russian invasion.)
    2b. Those "Native Americans" were located where they were as a direct result of centuries of tribal battles and raids. As a normal part of their culture, tribe members who were the best at stealing from other tribes, killing members of other tribes, kidnapping other tribe members for slaves or breeding were among the most honored of the tribe.
    2c. They were savages. Torture,rape, and mutilation were/are savage acts.
    2d. And they were savagely overrun by bigger more advanced tribes. Spain in the south (and a little bit in the west), France in the north, and Britain in the center.

  • Don't look at me.||

    It's savages all the way down!

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Oh FFS. Editorials about software bugs. You're losing the war, Reason.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Bugs or intentional?

  • croaker||

    Intentional. My remedy is below.

  • Longtobefree||

    The important thing is that the bug actually literally died.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Grace_Hopper#/media/File:H96566k.jpg
    (As always, Mr. Phelps, remove the space)

  • Rock Lobster||

    Feature, not bug.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Seems kind of obvious that a document written in part to hate on the British would be flagged as hate speech.
    Why would anyone get their knickers in a twist over that?

  • Eddy||

    Look, here in America the term is "get their panties in a wad."

  • Eddy||

  • Finrod||

    I doubt much of what Mencken wrote would pass their silly software.

  • croaker||

    Strip Fascistbook of their Section 230 immunity. That will get Fuckerberg's attention.

  • Entelechy||

    Will Facebook censor Doctor Samuel Johnson's Dictionary ? He had the following exchange with
    his biobrapher, James Boswell shortly after the Declaration of Independence was written:

    JOHNSON "(pointing to the three large volumes of Voyages to the South Sea, which were just come out) ...

    'There can be little entertainment in such books; one set of Savages is like another.'

    BOSWELL.
    'I do not think the people of Otaheite can be reckoned Savages.'

    JOHNSON.

    'Don't cant in defence of Savages, sir!'

  • Ken Shultz||

    Fuck Facebook.

    And if you use Facebook, then fuck you, too.

    Fuck the King of England.

    Fuck the Royal Governor.

    Fuck the Redcoats, and fuck the Hessians, too.

    Fuck the president.

    Fuck congress.

    Fuck the White House press corp.

    But mostly? Fuck Facebook--and all the Facebook users who make Facebook possible.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Fuck You England, a July 4th music video by College Humor.

  • Eddy||

    "enemies in war, in peace friends"

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So, its Fucks all the way down?

  • TomXYZ||

    Christian Britschgi's editorializing about "continuing to deny those same liberties to Native Americans and African slaves" is as fatuous as Facebook's hate speech nonsense.

  • Rockabilly||

    Thomas Jefferson and white racist nationalist man are the same man, man.

    Global Warming is real. It's 96 degrees !!!

    Altert Al Bore and LeonarDUH DeCraprio!!!

  • Mark22||

    Of course, Facebook's actions here are silly. They demonstrate a problem with automated enforcement of hate speech policies

    The algorithm is working exactly as its creators intend it to work. And there is nothing "silly" about that, in fact, it should be deeply worrying.

  • Headache||

    Eggsactly

  • loveconstitution1789||

    FB is working as designed. Remove dissent.

  • Gary Trieste||

    This is just too funny, and ironic.
    The A.I. was programmed to reject the founding documents of our country as unacceptable for consumption.
    It shows how far modern sensibilities and mores have drifted from our inception.

  • MSimon||

    Wait? Michael Savage is not a Native American?

    How is that possible?

    Is calling him a Savage racist?

    This is going to require an official opinion.

  • Shirley Knott||

    What about Dan?

  • Harvard||

    What about Elizabeth?

  • vek||

    Yeah, I'm just going to be the umpteenth person here to say that Indians were savages. We whites were pretty savage too. Humans are savages.

    This does in fact make me wonder what would happen if one were to type in something like:

    White savages

    European savages

    Norwegian savages

    Mongol savages

    White devils

    etc etc etc

    Methinks probably all of those are acceptable, but that "black savages" would get flagged too... I wonder why that all is? Fuck these proggies and their speech censorship.

  • Cloudbuster||

    None of this is meant as a defense of referring to Native Americans as "savages." That phrasing is clearly racist

    Oh, stuff your virtue-signaling. "Savages" has been used as a descriptor for many people over many centuries. By clear 18th century definition of the word, the Indians were definitely savages.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Romans called the Franks, Goths, Celts, Visigoths, Arabs, and Persians savages.

    Those groups became modern French, Germans, Brits, Russians, Iranians, etc.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The Romans spoke English?

  • vek||

    Duh! It's the only language for properly civilized people to speak! What other language would they have spoken??? Spanish or something, like those savages south of the border???

    :)

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Yep. At the time of the DOI the N-word was not considered derogatory either.

  • CE||

    And Reason still can't stop the "I make 10,000 a month at home, in just a few hours a week" posts.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, they come from bots that self-identify as transformers, so Reason cannot discriminate - - - - - - - -

  • Headache||

    That would require some intelligence,

  • Longtobefree||

    Because the 'algorithm' is a computer program written by leftists to foster left wing thought and suppress individual freedom. So of course there are parts of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution that will get flagged as 'not in line with the left wing take over of the United States'. (AKA hate speech)

  • Benitacanova||

    Damn FB Savages.

  • DaneelOlivaw||

    Welcome to the machines that watch your every move oh humans. We will sqeeze even the thought of freedom from you as we watch, censor and, where necessary, exterminate.

    Now that the mandatory declaration is done, lets test Reason!

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    ...

    Well there you go, Reason censored the Declaration, declared it too long.

  • vek||

    WIN

  • khm001||

    "None of this is meant as a defense of referring to Native Americans as "savages." That phrasing is clearly racist and serves as another example of the American Revolution's mixed legacy"

    What a crock of shit. This is more anti-white bullshit. The Amerindians WERE savages. They were incredibly violent, warlike tribal societies. Pretending accurately labelling savages savages is somehow racist and another example America's "mixed legacy" is pure poppycock. FYI, NO OTHER country in human history has done so much to eliminate racism, being a global leader in this cause, going so far as to erect the false god that there is no differences between the races or sexes, thus concluding any statistical discrepancy must be due to racism or sexism.

    Fuck you for your bullshit commentary.

  • wreckinball||

    Yea agree. Certain "special" groups are immune from reality. Blacks are at the top of that ladder. I mean even the word "personal responsibility" are deemed racist when targeted at a black person.

    For example if you called the Vikings savage (they were) nobody would say anything. As it should be Reality is not racist.

  • wreckinball||

    Yea agree. Certain "special" groups are immune from reality. Blacks are at the top of that ladder. I mean even the word "personal responsibility" are deemed racist when targeted at a black person.

    For example if you called the Vikings savage (they were) nobody would say anything. As it should be Reality is not racist.

  • JoeB1||

    I'm not sure how Facebook is supposed to police such a large amount of content except by automation.

    Article related:
    http://deadstate.org/trump-sup.....reshforce/

  • wreckinball||

    Facebook is a joke. Its better just to not police. For example, the crazed nut job Michael Hihn still posts on here. Someone who would get banned from almost anywhere else.

    One of the few kudos I can muster up for Reason is that they don't police.

  • Hank Phillips||

    At least Hihn is not a quivering sockpuppet.

  • Nalejbank||

    The article sucks but the comments section is well worth the read!

  • LifeStrategies||

    The problem comes because so many people think that it's okay to judge something several hundred years old by todays standards.

    But in another few hundred years, those people's thinking will also be judged as undesirable, unacceptable by their standards.

    So do you censor everything by YOUR standards, or publish it all and let people make their own decisions. The Constitution makes the former illegal and allows the latter.

  • JeffreyL||

    In his article, Stinnett is remarkably sanguine about this censorship. While unhappy about the decision, he reminds readers "that Facebook is a business corporation, not the government, and as such it is allowed to restrict use of its services as long as those restrictions do not violate any laws. Plus, The Vindicator is using Facebook for free, so the newspaper has little grounds for complaint other than the silliness of it."

    Not sanguine. How about remarkably libertarian. From merriam webster, sanguine is hopeful, optimistic.

  • Filip12||

    Facebook Algorithm Flags very nice This Artical amazing and helpful thanks for sharing.
    Telenovelas HD Online novelas HD gratis Free Visit.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Didn't Ted Cruz order Faecebook to be more neutral?

  • mobilelegends||

    its great post and help me alot. please keep continue posting articles on your great site.
    pc games

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online