Once word of the tour reached Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., he and New York City Council member Melissa Mark-Viverito sent the tour company a letter, stating that they are “sickened” by the borough’s “despicable” portrayal in the tours. The letter urged Real Bronx Tours to modify the way the tour is marketed and presented. From the letter:

We are more than happy to welcome tours to our community that celebrate the rich culture and history of our neighborhoods, treat Bronx residents with dignity and encourage visits to our wonderful landmarks and beautiful parks. However, using the Bronx to sell a so-called “ghetto” experience to tourists is completely unacceptable and the highest insult to the communities we represent.

Now, Real Bronx Tours has caved to public pressure, and will no longer offer the ghetto tours. The company’s website has now disappeared, though the company has not issued a statement.

“I am happy to hear that Real Bronx Tours has decided to end its inaccurate and disrespectful tours of our beautiful borough,” said Diaz. “The Bronx has come a long way in the past few years, and we will not accept such a despicable and irresponsible depiction of our borough.”

(Image courtesy Gryffindor/Wikimedia Commons)

The image, which is being called a “hate filled post targeted at Muslims,” features an older man in a cowboy hat aiming down the sights of a long-barreled shotgun. “HOW TO WINK AT A MUSLIM,” says the caption. Here’s a screencap of the post, courtesy of The Daily Dot. West has since deleted the post:

West says that he didn’t actually create the image, but he did share it. He also said that it was meant to be humorous.

“Why am I being singled out?” he asked.

“I’m prejudiced against anyone who’s trying to tear down this country, Muslims, Mexicans, anybody,” he told The Tullahoma News. “If you come into this country illegally or harm us or take away benefits, I’m against it”

“I just showed it to somebody else,” he continued. “If you’re going to harm this country, I’m not in favor of you…I don’t appreciate people trying to tear down this country.”

Concerned with a recent string of anti-Muslim acts in Middle Tennessee, The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro had this to say:

“This does not only incite hatred but also violence against law-abiding citizens of our great country. Mr. West obviously lacks in wisdom and judgment and, therefore, cannot be trusted as commissioner. I wonder what would Mr. West’s response would be if the same photo was posted by someone with a caption that says: ‘How to Wink at Mr. West, a Coffee County Commissioner?’”

West is also drawing criticism from groups on Facebook, like the Christian Left.

“Coffee County, TN Commissioner Barry West (D) posted this on his facebook page on Saturday. This is a hate filled post targeted at Muslims and is not acceptable from anyone, let alone someone holding a public office!
Tell Commissioner Barry West this is NOT acceptable and that he needs to apologize to the Muslim community immediately,” they say in a post.

Coffee County Mayor David Pennington has released a statement distancing himself from West:

“As the Mayor of Coffee County I apologize to the Muslim people. I have no control over what the commissioners do outside of public meetings. I personally wouldn’t have done it, I have a great relationship with the Muslim community.”

Good luck trying to find it on YouTube. You can find it on Spotify, if you’re so inclined. Here’s what some are saying about it on Twitter:

Some of the reactions on YouTube have been interesting:

Here are the lyrics (via AZLyrics):

To the man that waited on me at the Starbucks down on Main, I hope you understand
When I put on that t-shirt, the only thing I meant to say is I’m a Skynyrd fan
The red flag on my chest somehow is like the elephant in the corner of the south
And I just walked him right in the room
Just a proud rebel son with an ‘ol can of worms
Lookin’ like I got a lot to learn but from my point of view

Oh, Dixieland
(The relationship between the Mason-Dixon needs some fixin’)
I hope you understand what this is all about
(Quite frankly I’m a black Yankee but I’ve been thinkin’ about this lately)
I’m a son of the new south
(The past is the past, you feel me)
And I just want to make things right
(Let bygones be bygones)
Where all that’s left is southern pride
(RIP Robert E. Lee but I’ve gotta thank Abraham Lincoln for freeing me, know what I mean)
It’s real, it’s real
It’s truth

Here’s my attempt to make a long story short:

Back in October of 2012, a hashtag emerged on Twitter that many users found exceedingly offensive. The hashtag, #unbonjuif, roughly translates to “a good jew.” Some Twitter users jumped on the hashtag, posting photos of dust-filled dustpans and other anti-Semitic jokes alongside the hashtag.

A handful of French anti-racism groups called out Twitter, asking that the site remove all of the offending tweets. Eventually, as the pressure mounted, Twitter complied.

But some of the groups, including the French Jewish Students Union (UEJF), decided to push Twitter a bit further. They demanded that Twitter give up the names of all of the users associated with the #unbonjuif tweets, so that they could be prosecuted under local anti-hate speech laws. Twitter wasn’t too keen on this idea, and that led the UEJF to file a summons against the company back in November.

In January, a French court ruled that Twitter must provide the identities of the requested users, to comply with French law. Twitter said that they would review the decision.

And that brings us up to date. The UEJF has officially taken action against Twitter, suing them for roughly $50 million for failing to carry through with the court’s order. Twitter apparently had two weeks to hand over the names, and that time has come and gone.

“Twitter is playing the indifference card and does not respect the ruling,” said UEJF President Jonathan Hayoun. “They have resolved to protect the anonymity of the authors of these tweets and have made themselves accomplices to racists and anti-Semites.”

Twitter reserves the right to give up any information it holds on users if requested by law enforcement or by a court order. They say so in their terms of service – this is not part of the debate. In the past, however, Twitter has gone to bat to protect user privacy when they sense some government overreach. In September of 2012, Twitter gave in to the Manhattan D.A.’s office and gave up the deleted, inaccessible tweets of an Occupy Wall Street protester – but only after they fought it tooth and nail.

You may remember that they also blocked a neo-Nazi account in Germany last year, utilizing their self-appointed authority to censor content locally if they saw fit. Blocking or removing content is one thing, but disclosing the identities of users in order to aid in regional hate-speech laws is a different ballgame.

[UEJF via JTA]

After reports emerged that Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is prepared to be the first human sent into space by Iranian scientists, Senator McCain took to Twitter and made the following jab:

“So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space – wasn’t he just there last week?”

He linked to an article on Iran’s recent monkey-led adventure into space:

Follow @SenJohnMcCain

John McCain
@SenJohnMcCain

So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space – wasn’t he just there last week? “Iran launches monkey into space” http://t.co/PaZKAqac

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
1 hour ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Last week we learned that Iran had sent a monkey into space, and that it had returned safely to Earth – at least it may have made it home alive. Iran’s Space agency confirmed that they used images of two different monkeys before and after the flight, but claim that it’s not an attempt at a coverup and the space monkey is alive and well.

Either way, John McCain has received some negative feedback for his Twitter joke.

In response to that, McCain just tweeted this:

Follow @SenJohnMcCain

John McCain
@SenJohnMcCain

Re: Iran space tweet – lighten up folks, can’t everyone take a joke?

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
49 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Maybe the Senator’s Twitter account has been compromised. It’s just a joke, but it still feels strange coming from the official Twitter account of a sitting U.S. Senator, even one with a history of being hawkish on the subject of Iran.

The court ruled that Twitter must turn over the identities of users behind a specific set of tweets, after they had been deemed to be in violation of French anti-hate speech laws.

The whole thing started back in October of 2012 when some Twitter users jumped on a trending hashtag, #unbonjuif, which roughly translates to “a good jew.” Some users posted photos of dust-filled dustpans, among other offensive jokes alongside the hashtag. French anti-racism groups made their displeasure known, and Twitter agreed to remove the offending tweets amidst mounting pressure.

Although Twitter complied with the requests of the French Jewish Students Union (among others), they balked at the groups’ next request. the UEJF demanded that Twitter turn over the names of the users behind the aforementioned tweets, so that they could be prosecuted under local anti-hate speech laws.

The UEJF filed a summons in a French court back in November.

And today, the court has ruled that Twitter must provide the identities of the requested users, as accordance with French law. Twitter has only responded that they are reviewing the decision.

Twitter definitely reserves the right to give up any information it holds on users if requested by law enforcement or by a court order. But they have, at least in the past, gone to bat to protect user privacy when they sense some government overreach. Back in September, Twitter finally gave in to the Manhattan D.A.’s office and gave up the deleted, inaccessible tweets of an Occupy Wall Street protester – but only after they fought it tooth and nail.

Any time something like this comes up, the topic of free speech usually accompanies the dialogue. In this case, it comes down to speech vs. hate-speech laws in France.

Twitter faced backlash from free speech advocates last year when they blocked a neo-Nazi account – but in Germany only. It was the first time that Twitter had utilized a “power” that it gave itself last year, the power to locally censor content if they saw fit.

As the story goes, Murray Lip, activist and founder of advocacy group Gay Marriage USA, was recently banned from posting content on his Facebook page after Facebook deemed a photo that he had posted was in “violation of their policies and community standards.”

Lipp, whose ‘Gay Marriage USA’ page has around 300,000 likes, says that this is not the first time that Facebook has reprimanded him for content posted to his page. He claims that the content is not offensive or in violation of Facebook standards, but it is being flagged by the site due to numerous complaints from homophobic Facebook users.

The photo that Facebook removed and for which Lipp was scolded feature an interracial gay couple being married. Here it is:

After protests, Facebook reinstated the photo and issued this statement:

The content of the photograph in question did not violate our terms, however it was removed in error. Our dedicated User Operations team reviews millions of pieces of this content a day to help keep Facebook safe for all. Our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and block a piece of content we shouldn’t have.

When Facebook mistakenly removed a New Yorker cartoon last September, here’s the statement they made:

Recently, we mistakenly blocked a cartoon as part of our efforts to keep the site safe for all and quickly worked to rectify the mistake as soon as we were notified. Facebook is a place where almost a billion people share click more than a trillion links a day. Our dedicated User Operations Team reviews millions of pieces of this content a day to help keep Facebook safe for all. Our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and block a piece of content we shouldn’t have. We have already taken steps to prevent this from happening in the future and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.

Nearly identical responses, as you can see. What’s the common thread here? It’s that Facebook screwed up and they’re sorry.

And we shouldn’t be too surprised when Facebook gets it wrong and removes content that they shouldn’t. That “dedicated user operations team” that they mention mostly consists of outsourced content moderators who are given some often confusing guidelines on what is acceptable and what isn’t. Facebook has millions and millions of pieces of content uploaded every day, and it’s impossible to police it all without the help of users themselves.

That’s why Facebook relies heavily on user reports of content that violates policies. That’s probably what triggered this photo (and all of Lipp’s other photos in the past) to be removed – lots of complaining.

Facebook is not perfect in their content moderation (not even close). They have a severe breast phobia, and have made some ridiculous content removals based on that.

Many of those removals are eventually restored, however. And Facebook always says “sorry, our bad.” With over 1 billion active users and tens of thousands of pieces of content rolling in every day, you can see why they screw it up every now and then.

Then again, Facebook’s content guidelines clearly say nothing about photos of gay couples. They do say something about harassment and hate speech, however. In a perfect world, that’s the content that would be getting purged from Gay Marriage USA’s Facebook page. While the innocuous image shown above is nowhere near offensive, hate speech is offensive.

Gay Marriage USA had started a petition on Change.org called Facebook: Stop Pandering to Homophobes. Part of the petitions’s goal has already been fulfilled – the photo has been restored. But the general “stop pandering” request is still unfulfilled, and legitimate. I would agree that Facebook is probably pandering to homophobes when they remove certain content. But I would also say that it’s not just homophobes. Facebook’s content removal system is flawed. It makes mistakes.

But if non-violating content from a page like Gay Marriage USA is being removed this often, based on complaints from users, Facebook needs to make sure its content moderators are a little more hesitant to act in the future.

A Judge has given Facebook 72 hours to remove a page called Keeping our kids safe from predators, which routinely posts personal information and photos of child predators in Northern Ireland.

The decree stems from a suit brought by a convicted sex offender, only referred to as “XY.” XY claims that the Facebook page amounts to harassment, misuse of private info, and a violation of his privacy. He fears that he may be attacked or otherwise publicly degraded as a result of the page. Facebook has apparently already removed any mention of XY on the page, but the court’s ruling demands that Facebook take an extra step and nix the page altogether.

“Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law. He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle,” said the Judge.

The page owners have acknowledged the ruling, and are already suggesting alternative pages for pedophile tracking and claim to be in the process of setting up an alternate page in the event of the current page’s removal:

“Hi all, Un fortunately this page may be removed any time soon. On this other facebook page you can see daily paedophile crimes listed. So far over 17,000 UK paedophiles have been named on the website, and a few from each days court cases are posted on to the page below

The next page will be called “keeping our kids safe from predators 2″ and it will b coming from america at least there they wont take the page down so every1 keep and eye out 4 it,” they say.

“So the man, or I mean mess of a human being, that’s taken this page to court, he must want to be the head paedophile and rule over all sex offenders. He will be like a god to them.”

Facebook policy bans any convicted sex offender from operating an account, but this ruling takes a look at the flip side and looks to protect them from additional punishment via the actions of other Facebook users. What do you think? Should Facebook be forced to remove the page?

[via BBC]

The French Jewish Students Union (UEJF) has filed a summons against Twitter, hoping that the company will give up the users so that they can be prosecuted under local anti-hate speech laws.

The tweets in question stem from a particular hashtag that trended on the site a little over a month ago. #unbonjuif, translated in English to mean “a good jew,” led some Twitter users to post inflammatory images, holocaust jokes, and other unsavory messages. For instance, one Twitter user posted a photo of a dustpan alongside the #unbonjuif hashtag – clearly offensive.

After pressure from the UEJF, Twitter agreed to remove the tweets on their own volition, as well as to wipe tweets containing another controversial hashtag prompting similar tweets about Muslims.

“Twitter does not mediate content. If we are alerted to content that may be in violation of our terms of service, we will investigate each report and respond according to the policies and procedures outlined in our support pages,” said Twitter in a statement. But the action was seen as a mediation of content by some, although Twitter’s terms clearly gives the company the right to remove any content it wants, really.

“We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services,” says Twitter in their TOS. They also state that Twitter users “may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities. International users agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content.”

Apparently, deletion of the offending tweets wasn’t enough. The UEJF wants to hold those responsible accountable, and they want Twitter’s help.

Twitter, who has broadcast their firm support of free speech and user privacy protection in the past, has also made some decisions as of late that have thrown that commitment into question (at least in the eyes of free speech activists). Back in September, Twitter finally gave in the Manhattan D.A.’s office and handed over old, inaccessible tweets of an Occupy Wall Street protester. To be fair to Twitter, they fought it tooth and nail, only caving when facing a hefty fine.

Back in January, Twitter also gave themselves the ability to locally censor content. “we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why,” they said.

It took Twitter nearly nine months to use this ability, when at that time they blocked a neo-Nazi account in Germany only, leaving it accessible for the rest of the world. In the case of the #unbonjuif tweets, Twitter didn’t employ their local censoring tactic – they simply yanked them from the site altogether.

[France Info via The Next Web]

In the end, you have to cut Facebook some slack. Just think about how difficult the task of moderating all of that content must be. Of course, no amount of discerning eyes could adequately cycle through the billions and billions of links, photos, and videos shared each and every day. Facebook continues to rely heavily on user reporting, and its crew of moderators at multiple global offices have a tough job – mainly determining what content violates Facebook restrictions, however convoluted they may be.

Having said that, it’s always funny when Facebook bans content that has no reason to be banned. The latest case involves this image, which features a nude women reclining in a bathtub.

Except there’s no nudity or even any suggestion of sexual activity. Here’s the image:

Did it fool you? Yes, what appears to be an exposed breast is actually just the woman’s elbow. Doesn’t matter, however, as Facebook removed the content anyway.

The image was posted by the Theories of the deep understanding of things page, who decided to troll the social network in order to test its photo removal policy.

“So, Here’s last night’s FB alertness test results: FB moderators can’t tell an elbow from a dangerous, filthy, uncanny and violent female breast>> no questions were asked and the post is down> Imagine our surprise >” they said in a post.

Apparently, they set out to provoke Facebook and succeeded.

Facebook’s current policy bans “Any obvious sexual activity, even if naked parts are hidden from view by hands, clothing or other objects. Cartoon/art included. Foreplay allowed (kissing, groping, etc.) even for same-sex individuals. Naked ‘private part,’ including females nipple bulges and naked butt cracks; male nipples are ok.” Arty nudity is OK, but breastfeeding images are still a no-go. It looks like elbows are on the no-post list as well.

Like I said before, policing all of that content must be a nightmare. Back in September, Facebook mistakenly removed a New Yorker cartoon, which contained the most harmless depiction of female breasts imaginable (two black dots for nipples). After public outcry, Facebook made this statement:

“Recently, we mistakenly blocked a cartoon as part of our efforts to keep the site safe for all and quickly worked to rectify the mistake as soon as we were notified. Facebook is a place where almost a billion people share click more than a trillion links a day. Our dedicated User Operations Team reviews millions of pieces of this content a day to help keep Facebook safe for all. Our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and block a piece of content we shouldn’t have. We have already taken steps to prevent this from happening in the future and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.”

In short, Facebook and its content moderators make mistakes. It’s inevitable. But a slight relaxing of the aforementioned content policies probably wouldn’t hurt. It would definitely result in less ridiculous removals like we see in this case. Then again, nobody wants Facebook to turn into YouPorn.