Paul McCartney has compared Global Warming skeptics to Holocaust Deniers. It’s nothing new here.  I have written on this before, criticizing Al Gore for his attempt to build credibility and line his pockets on the backs of 11 million murdered. When people are desperate, and the facts are in dispute,  they scream loudly with outlandish rhetoric to draw attention to the cause with motives something less than the nobility of affirming the truth and horror of the Holocaust.  One would think that Sir Paul demands enough attention on his own without having to resort to such ignorant tactics.  I would love to sit down with him  to find out what he really knows about the Holocaust or if he is simply  parroting Al Gore’s inappropriate use of the imagery.  Nothing more to be said. More of the sad old same old.

Why does NBC  continue to tolerate  the rantings of confirmed bigot and anti-semite Pat Buchanan?  The answer is simple.  He is popular. He drives print, television and new media ratings.

Pat’s latest anti-semitic rant was in relation to the proposed confirmation of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice.  Kagan is Jewish. Pat, true to form,  complains there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court bench.   In his May 13, 2010 column, he states,

“If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity?’

This is not the 1st time Buchanan has come under fire for his anti–Semitic viewpoints and not the 1st time NBC has turned a blind eye.

In 2009, Buchanan’s personal website, Buchanan.org, hosted a  forum entitled “Disinformation, Deception and Other Tricks” and within that, a thread called “Discussion about ‘The Holocaust. The thread discussions allegedly propagated the  revisionist historical theory of  “Holocaust Denial”

The entire forum section of the website was allegedly taken down hours after an op-ed by Menachem Rosensaft in the New York Daily News pointed out it’s existence.   NBC offered no statement and took no action against Buchanan.

NBC has a  corporate social responsibility to not sanction either by action or inaction, hatred towards racial, religious and ethnic minorities.  Along with this social responsibility comes the obligation to not allow those who they pay to represent them to espouse these despicable views or allow them to be espoused in a  forum under their control.  CBS understood this well when they fired Don Imus for racial slurs.

While Pat has the right to express certain views or allow them to be expressed on his personal site, NBC does not have to tolerate it when they are paying his bills and it reflects negatively on them.  Employers set policies and make such statements to employees in the realm of blogging and free expression on a regular basis. Pat has the right to say he does does agree with that policy and walk.  It boils down to the priorities and social consciousness of NBC.   What we are seeing from NBC is where money is involved social conscience takes a back seat to profit. Hate is for sale at NBC.

January 27th, 2010

Mark:

On this, the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi Concentration Camp, I felt this would be a good time to renew my plea to reconsider your decision to allow content which promotes the Anti-Semitic revisionist theory of Holocuast Denial.

This is not a 1st Amendment issue. Facebook has rules. These Rules prohibit hate speech. Holocaust Denial is Anti-Semitic speech. Anti-Semitic Speech is hate speech.  Hate speech leads to hate crimes against not only Jews but Muslims, Gays, African-Americans, and other protected classes. The ghosts of Martin Luther King, Matthew Shepard and Stephen Tyrone Johns can speak all to well to that.

While I agree that Facebook would never tolerate speech as we recently saw on Twitter threatening to go on a “Jew Killing Spree“  history and today’s remembrance teaches us that such sprees have occurred, can occur again and are directly fueled by hate speech.  Let there be no doubt.  Holocaust Denial is hate speech.

There is no dispute that Facebook’s Statement Of Rights And Responsibilities prohibit the uploading of hateful content. It is in black and white. Below is my original letter. I hope you will read it again and think about what hate speech is really all about and what Facebook’s social responsibilities are in providing a platform for and monetizing such such rhetoric.

Below is the letter I wrote to you back in May. Please take another look and think about hate content that leads to horrific hate crimes and what Facebook’s responsibility is in that regard.

May 10, 2009

Mark:

The last 7 days have seen much debate on the issue of Holocaust Denial Groups on Facebook.  There has been a lot of focus on the issues of free speech, open discussion of controversial issues and Facebook Terms Of Service(TOS).

While I have made it clear that I would like to see these groups removed, I have done a poor job in articulating why. I attempted to take a short-sighted, back door “lawyer’s approach” with Facebook by alleging that Holocaust Denial was illegal in other countries and, therefore, a violation of Facebook TOS.  While at the time, these were legitimate issues, I should have focused on the real issue.  The issue of the proliferation of Facebook groups that promote hatred of religious and ethnics groups and the hate speech those groups perpetrate. While you may have your doubts, I submit that this includes those who promote the fringe revisionist theory of Holocaust Denial.

The Holocaust Denial movement  is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like minded individuals to do the same.  Allowing these groups to flourish on Facebook under the guise of “open discussion”  does nothing more than help spread their  message of hate.  Is this the kind of open discussion that Facebook wants to encourage?  Is this really where you want to draw your line?

It is undisputed that as a collective , Holocaust Deniers are overwhelmingly antisemitic.  One cannot be separated from the other.   They use a fringe, discredited historical theory as a pretext and rallying point to perpetrate and promote their message of hate using Facebook as  recruiting ground.   By allowing these groups whether they number 1 or 1000, Facebook is not promoting open discussion of  a controversial issue.  It is  promoting and encouraging hatred towards ethnic and religious groups, nothing more.

By claiming open discussion as the rationale for allowing these groups to exist, Facebook is playing games with semantics.  Facebook is taking form over substance to protect their imaginary subjective corporate line in the sand they have drawn.

If Facebook is serious about encouraging open discourse on controversial subjects,  let’s start with Facebook itself.  Let’s talk about the controversial decision to allow Holocaust Denial groups.  Let’s talk about transparency.  Sending out canned email answers or spouting canned corporate-speak in an interview is not transparent.  I would like to see transparency on the specifics of how Facebook went about arriving at this controversial decision.  I would like you to address the following questions:

In a CNN interview,   Facebook representative Barry Schnitt stated:

“It’s a difficult decision to make. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk about it,” Schnitt said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it taken off Facebook. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”

Mark, I would like to know who at Facebook was involved in the “internal debate”  that resulted in the decision that Holocaust Denial does not constitute hate speech.  Were you involved?  Do you offer any input in these types of discussions?  How does Facebook define “internal debate”? How many people were involved?  What was their expertise to discuss this issue?  Did they bring their personal beliefs to the table?   What safeguards were employed to ensure objectivity in a decision that is innately subjective?  Were attorneys consulted that have experience in such matters or was it general counsel?  Do you agree that something can be legal but still constitute hate speech?  Was the final decision yours?  Did the buck stop with you?

I would also like to know what experts were consulted on this issue.  Were any Holocaust Denial experts consulted?  Were any experts on antisemitism consulted?   Were any hate speech experts in general  consulted?  If so, I would appreciate it if you would identify these experts spoken of by Barry Schnitt in his CNN interview.

Finally, Mark, in an interview for the CNET blog “Technically Incorrect”, Barry Schnitt stated:

“One thing to consider that someone actually mentioned in the thread was the idea that there may be a benefit to having these ideas discussed in the open. Would we rather Holocaust denial was discussed behind closed doors or quietly propagated by anonymous sources? Or would we rather it was discussed in the open on Facebook where people’s real names and their photo is associated with it for their friends, peers, and colleagues to see?”

Is this an official corporate statement from Facebook on how Holocaust Denial should be addressed in society?  What kind of open discussion was Mr. Schnitt talking about?   How was he defining  “open discussion”?  How does Facebook define “open discussion”?  What experts did Facebook consult in coming to the conclusion that “open discussion” was the most appropriate way to deal with this subject?   Are you aware of the Jewish/Holocaust historical significance of such a statement Mark?   I sent an email to Facebook asking for clarification of his statement but received no response other than the canned ,”we received your email”.

Mark, I hope you will take the time to respond to these important questions and issues, not just with regards to the Holocaust Denial issue, but with regards to transparency in how Facebook subjectively comes to these types of decisions in general.

Sincerely

Brian Cuban

©2010 Brian Cuban

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

I was watching Al Gore on Fox news the other night.  The debate was Global Warming.  Al Gore was on the defensive trying to defend is his position that man-made Global Warming was real and imminent. He then went on to call all those who disagreed with him “Global Warming Deniers”  I must be living in a cave because I had never heard that term used before.

I immediately got a knot in my stomach. It was a knot of history.  A knot of irritation at Al Gore for his ignorance of history and the power of the spoken word.

It had nothing to do with my views on Global Warming.  I got the knot in my stomach because I felt that Al Gore has intentionally attached the word “denier” to call up either conscious or sub-conscious images of the Holocaust.  Drawing on a subtle context and back of the mind imagery specifically designed to cause a subtle,  parallel inference in the viewer/listener.

I do not dispute that the term “denier” has been around for a long time pre-dating its attachment to Holocaust Denial,  a discredited revisionist historical theory that has been around since the 60′s.

There however, is also no disputing that in modern times the term “denier”, when attached to a scientific or other theory has become inextricably entwined with the Holocaust.  Attached to discredit those who are “denying the obvious”  I do not dispute Al Gore’s right to use it.  But why use it?  Why use it unless you are intentionally trying to draw up subtle inferences parallel with the Holocaust. THAT, in my  mind is inappropriate.

Is the highly educated Mr Gore claiming that in his entire internal linguistics  database there is no other appropriate way to make his point with the same force?

Am I being too sensitive? Possibly.  I still do not like it. When I feel like the term is purposely being used to draw on the Holocaust I feel like my history is being denied.  Regardless of my views on Global Warming, I view it as a desperation move on Mr. Gores part.  A move that is beneath his intellect and intent.

I wish he would stop.  Mr. Gore, please stop using that term