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

President Barack Obama recently spoke at a Holocaust Remembrance Day event. The event was put on by the National Holocaust Memorial Museum. He stated that he was committed to battling those who deny the atrocities of World War II.

“To this day, there are those who insist the Holocaust never happened, who perpetrate every form of intolerance,… “We have an opportunity as well as an obligation to confront these scourges… That is my commitment as president.”

The ugly face of Holocaust Denial is still smiling across the globe over 63 years after the last concentration camp was liberated at the end of World War II. It has become especially virulent in the area of social media where anonymity protects deniers like a white sheet.

Facebook is a prime example. The following groups promoting Holocaust Denial are currently active on Facebook (as of the writing of this article).

“Based on the facts….There was no Holocaust”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2452587161

“Holocaust: A series of Lies”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=80565100143

“Holocaust is a Holohoax”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18701411294

“Holohoax”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9371162562

“Holocaust is a Myth”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15631489021

Holocaust Denial is not against the law in the United States. It is also important to note that there is no such thing as a 1st Amendment private right of free speech in the United States. The belief that the 1st amendment protects speech in the private social media arena or at your place of employment is a common misconception. The 1st Amendment only applies where there is federal government or state action.(there are situations in which the government can regulate speech if a compelling interest is shown.) Private companies such as Facebook are free to regulate speech however they see fit.

How do private social media/networking companies such as Facebook regulate various types of speech within their vast, relatively unguarded international borders? What types of speech do they regulate? As we traverse the social media universe, stopping at blogs and popular social media sites such as MySpace, Digg, Facebook and YouTube we are bombarded with unpopular opinions. Opinions on subjects such as the Holocaust that fly in the face of all accepted historical research. Should we care? Facebook certainly has the right to allow diverse points of view on politically and historically sensitive issues. Facebook also has Terms Of Service(TOS) in place that dictate the limitations on such content. Facebook’s TOS contains the following limitation on the types of content that may not be posted on its site:

“upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law.”

This is an important Term Of Service as it relates to Holocaust Denial because Holocaust Denial does not enjoy the same protection in other countries that it does in the United States. The advocation of Holocaust Denial is a crime in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Israel, Slovakia and Switzerland.

Do the existence of Facebook groups that advocate beliefs that are crimes in other countries violate Facebook TOS? Seems to be a straightforward question that Facebook representatives are capable of answering. Here is the argument for removal of Holocaust Denial groups:

Holocaust Denial is a crime in countries in which Facebook as an active presence. Germany is an example. Facebook in fact, has an independent presence/platform in Germany. Facebook TOS would seem to prohibit content that violate the laws of the countries in which Facebook has a presence. There are some simple questions Facebook could answer to address this issue.

Why does Facebook allow groups that promote Holocaust Denial?

Does the Facebook TOS referenced above apply to Holocaust Denial groups? Why or why not?

I recently sent Facebook the following email:

Alex:

The article I am writing is regarding Facebook TOS and Facebook Groups that support Holocaust Denial. You may or may not know that Holocaust Denial is a crime in many European countries including countries where Facebook seeks to establish a presence such as Germany. Facebook TOS specifically prohibit such groups from:

“upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law.”

I am specifically referring to the following Facebook Groups:

Based on the facts….There was no Holocaust
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2452587161

Holocaust: A series of Lies
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=80565100143

Holocaust is a Holohoax
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18701411294

Holohoax
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9371162562

Holocaust is a Myth
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15631489021

Is there anyone at Facebook I can ask for a comment on why these groups are permitted and/or do not violate Facebook TOS before I write the article?

Sincerely,

Brian Cuban

To date I have received no response to my email from anyone at Facebook. No action of any kind has been taken even if that action would be to simply explain the Facebook TOS to me and how it applies to such groups. There appears to be a humorous irony in Facebook’s discretionary enforcement of its TOS. Upload a copyrighted video. Remove it or you are gone. Post someone’s Facebook profile on a blog. You are gone. Deny the Holocaust. Have a field day. It reminds me of a quote that is often seen in the context of the Holocaust:

All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing”

To Facebook: Thank you for doing nothing.

With Passover upon us and the International Holocaust Remembrance Day approaching,  I thought it would be a great time to review some Holocaust films worth checking out.

2008-2009 has seen the return of the Holocaust in Hollywood with several movies either dealing with the subject directly or tangentially.  The Holocaust has always been sporadic material for Hollywood.  Every few years a small budget independent or documentary will show up.  Mainstream Hollywood rarely invests big dollars.  While many Holocaust films are done very few are big budget.  A great documentary on the subject of how Hollywood has addressed the Holocaust is Imaginary Witness:Hollywood and the Holocaust. 

There is no denying that sentiments and views of the Holocaust have changed over the years since the end of World War II.  Hollywood has changed right along with those sentiments and views and changed the types of movies and the way events are depicted.  A review of the Internet Movie Database reveals that from 1945-2008  there were over 400 theatrical productions and documentaries made which addressed the Holocaust in one form or another.  Of those, the majority were foreign-made documentaries.

Here is my list of Hollywood movies and television media that I feel offer the most to the viewer in the portrayal of events and figures of the Holocaust.   I include foreign films if they had mainstream United States release.   I am only including films whose main focus was the Holocaust as compared to the Holocaust being just one historical event in the movie.  An example would be Band Of Brothers. This mini-series addresses the Holocaust but is not about the Holocaust.  Another recent two films I left off because I did not consider them  Holocaust films are Defiance(2008) and Good(2008).  I will start with the most recent entries into the Holocaust genre, “The Boy In The Striped Pajamas”  and “The Reader”.

The Boy In The Striped Pajamas.  Adapted from the book of the same name by John Boyne.  A short, faithful adpation to the book.   A movie similar to  Life Is Beautiful.  This time the story is told from the side of the child of a Concentration Camp Commandant who befriends a Jewish child imprisoned in the a camp. The child has been shielded by his father from the horror, brutality and the truth of the purpose of the camp.

The Reader(2009).   Ralph Fiennes reminds us of his brilliant performance in Schindler’s List to once again tackle the Holocaust in a much different light. His character has an affair with his care-taker. Years later, while a law student observing a Nazi war crime trial, he is re-united in a shocking way.   She is a defendant charged with war crimes. The Reader has sparked some revisionist sentiment in the Jewish community.  The criticism is that the film through its central theme attempts to  legitimize a notion that ordinary Germans were completely ignorant of The Final Solution until after the war.  The producers were certainly more interested in producing an Oscar winning film than staying true to history.  The Reader brought Holocaust sensitivities in Hollywood portrayals front and center again.

Paperclips(2004) An extraordinary documentary that I stumbled across surfing cables channels once night.  Whitwell Middle School in rural Tennessee is the last place you would think would be a hot bed of Holocaust study.  It however is the setting for this documentary about a unique experiment in Holocaust understanding. The students at Whitewell collect six-million paper clips to better understand the extent of Holocaust and share that understanding with Holocaust survivors.

The Diary Of Anne Frank(1959). The 1959 version appears to be Hollywood’s first mainstream attempt to bring the Holocaust to the masses although it did so by sacrificing the depth and emotion of the Holocaust to give the public a Hollywood blockbuster movie. The movie itself was a Hollywood hit by the standards of the day. It won three Oscars. An interesting side note is that Audrey Hepburn turned down the role of Anne Frank because she herself lived in occupied Holland and witnessed Nazi atrocities first-hand.  To get a feel for early Hollywood treatment of the Holocaust, the Diary of Anne Frank is a must see, but be sure to view the original before viewing the remakes.

Holocaust(1978).  A four-part made-for-TV mini-series. That was the first major network big time portrayal of the subject. The series was a monstrous success, drawing a 49 percent market share. So many people watched this mini-series in New York City when first broadcast, that when commercials were on, the local water pressure dropped due to the large number of people using their toilets at once. It won Golden Globe and Emmy awards. It was instrumental in rocketing the career of Meryl Streep.  Michael Moriarty is brilliant as an out of work lawyer who enters the Nazi party and advances through brutality and helping implement “The Final Solution.”

Schindler’s List(1993). The Holocaust comes to Generation X with the Steven Spielberg story of Oskar Schindler, a German industrialist and Nazi party member who started out getting rich off the backs of Jewish slave labor and ended up finding his own humanity.  He went on to save thousands of Jews from the gas chamber, risking both his personal wealth and his safety to save as many Jews as possible. He spent his entire fortune to bribe Germans and buy the lives of the  Jews who worked for him.  He kept them for the most part safe until Germany’s surrender.  He ended up penniless.  Today, there are more than 6000 descendants of “Schindler Jews” living around the world.   The movie is done in and black and white and riveting from beginning to end.  The movie itself was a huge critical and box office success winning seven Oscars

Sophie’s Choice(1982). Sophie’s Choice is a brilliant performance by Meryl Streep as a Holocaust survivor with dark secrets in her family’s past. Her performance as Sophie Zawistowska is ranked #3 on Premiere Magazine’s 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.  She won an academy award for her performance.  It should be noted that this film was released 11 years prior to Schindler’s list. It contains one of the most heart wrenching moments in movie history when Sophie recounts the night she arrived at Auschwitz with her children, and of how she was forced by a Nazi officer to choose life for one child and death for the other.

Life Is Beautiful(1997).   Life Is Beautiful is told from the view of a man who uses the gift of humor to protect his only son from the inhumanity while in a concentration camp. The film is incredible in that it allows you to smile and laugh with Guido right up until the tragic end and not feel sad.  This movie won three Academy Awards. While classified as a Holocaust film, this film is also a joyous celebration of the human spirit.

The Pianist(2002). This movie is told from the viewpoint of a very talented piano player played by Adrian Brody.  He  hides out in the Warsaw Ghetto throughout the Warsaw Ghetto Liquidation and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.  When the German occupation begins, he simply wonders when he will be able to return to his music. When the killing begins, he is forced to hide and change his priorities to simply trying to survive. Even though he can no longer play, music is the hope and salvation that keeps him alive.

The Grey Zone(2001). The Grey Zone is gritty, dark and sometimes hard to follow.  It is, however, a must-see for all those who want an understanding of the Holocaust beyond the basics. The Grey Zone deals with an issue that is very sensitive to Holocaust survivors.  Jews sending other Jews to the gas chamber.  These Jews were called “Sonderkommandos“.  Sonderkommando members did not participate directly in the killing  which was reserved for the guards.  While their primary responsibility was disposing of the corpses, they often took a much more active role in getting the inmates ready to enter the gas chambers. These inmates were kept in close groups and had much better living conditions than the average inmate.  They were also killed off at regular intervals to prevent any word of the inner workings of the Nazi death apparatus from leaking to the outside world.  This movie is about one of several Sonderkommado revolts that took place.  It features an outstanding peformance by Harvey Keitel.

Playing for Time.    Playing for Time is a made-for-T.V piece that is worth seeing.  It ias another movie that gives a perspective on the inner workings of  Nazi concentration camps in which some inmates were forced to play music for the others as they marched to the gas chambers or life-death selection process. The purpose was to keep them calm and reduce the chances of revolt.

Europa Europa(1991). A young Jewish boy poses as a German “Aryan” orphan and joins the Hitler Youth in the early days of World War II.  An interesting look at the racial, moral and religious identity struggles faced by Jews as they did what they could to prevent their extermination in Nazi Germany.

Music Box(1989). This is one of the few movies dealing with the issues of aging former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers who committed war crimes living in the United States.  Jessica Lange and Armin Mueller-Stah give great performances. The movie is based on the true story of John Demjanjuk.   While the premise of a daughter representing her father on trial with such high stakes is a stretch, it works well here.  Jessica’s emotional opening statement is also unrealistic and inadmissible. The movie is incredibly moving on all levels. You are torn between her father as a loving grandfather and a brutal murderer guilty of terrible war crimes. In an interesting twist of life imitating art, the father of Joe Eszterhas who wrote the screenplay, was accused of writing anti-Semitic propaganda before and during World War II. Like the character in Music Box, his father denied being the person who wrote these materials. Mr. Ezterhas denies knowing anything about his father’s past at the time he wrote the screenplay.

Also of interest is that the real life John Demjanjuk was recently ordered deported to Germany.  They want to put him on trial  for  Nazi era war crimes.  An appeals court has stayed the deportation while it considers whether his deportation constitutes “torture” due to his age and health.

That is my list of Holocaust films that I feel are must sees for anyone wanting to get a good understanding of the subject through Hollywood.  Is this a definitive list?  Absolutely not. There are numerous foreign films and documentaries dealing with general and specific issues surrounding the Holocaust.

Please feel free to comment and add you own movies to the list with an explanation of why you feel it is an important film or simply why you enjoyed it.