Perhaps his point is not that they should take down the denier groups but instead let back in the breast feeding pictures.

Clearly the tone of the article doesn't make that appear to be the case, but Arrington is indeed correct in pointing out a discrepancy here. I find it funny that people champion Facebook in the comments for taking such a "high ground", when clearly they are not doing so in the case of breast feeding images. Facebook is censoring its content, albeit making some controversial choices, but censoring all the same.

If free speech is free speech, then the images should be allowed back on. There exists no reasonable argument for removing them outside of "they're offensive to X group", and that is the exact same argument being made about the denier situation.

I think its great that Facebook has relatively pro free speech attitudes, but let's not kid ourselves here: every choice about what stays on and what doesn't is purely based on marketing. In this country we have a problem with nudity, so the breast feeding pictures are out. If enough people got angry about the denier groups, I guarantee those would be taken out as well. At the end of the day, its absolutely true that these choices are a function of cowardice: not wanting to upset certain demographics that would leave their service.

At the risk of being polemic: The discrepancy you point out is perceived much more generally about the US as a whole by, dare I say, much of the rest of the world. High-minded talk about freedom coexisting with military aggression/intervention and even torture coexisting with incredible pettiness about sexual matters (bared nipples anyone?). But perhaps you are right in a deeper way: Who cares about logic. It's all about marketing!

Ask yourself this question. When someone starts spreading slanderous lies about you, whoever you are, which threaten your family and your business are you going to resort to the statement that "free speech is free speech."

Anyone with a basic knowledge of how the Holocaust started would be surprised how easy it was to rile up the mobs of people against a segment of people in their society.

Speech is powerful. Things start in the mind, move towards speech, and come to final expression in action. It is no surprise that Ahmadinjehad is one of those who actively denies the Holocaust happening and openly intends to wipe the Jewish state of Israel off of the face of the map. Speech >> Action.

A holocaust denial law in the US would be bullshit b/c holocaust denial here is only slightly dangerous.

In some countries, e.g. Germany, it's a lingering part of world war 2 which is not yet obsolete. It's a war act, and it's suppressing a genuine, serious risk of violence.

I know that's a bit hard to believe for an American who would never do such a thing. The holocaust was hard to believe too. We should not ask or encourage Germany to repeal their holocaust denial laws before Germans judge that they are ready.

You really think that Germans are likely to commit atrocious acts in the future, but are being held back by something like the denial laws?

Additionally, you think Americans 'would never do such a thing'? I don't know how you can argue against denial laws in the US and for them in Germany.

People in general have always had flaws that result in them committing horrible deeds. The holocaust occurred because many individuals committed acts that they were able to rationalize to themselves - which as a whole resulted in a great evil. No law about what people can say in public will prevent such an event.

Yes I really think what I wrote. Do you really think questioning my genuineness is a serious or valid way of arguing?

This is flawed logic.

You can't stop Holocaust denial with a law. You just drive it underground. Worse yet you give Holocaust deniers a valid recruitment argument in that they can say the government is "trying to silence them" which makes their beliefs seem more plausible than they are.

The best thing to do with Holocaust deniers, or any other foolish movement for that matter, is to let them speak their mind and make fools of themselves.

It matters what the authority of Government says about an issue. Government opposition makes it illegitimate. Many people care about that and avoid illegitimate things.

Some things should have to be underground, which many will see as a mark of shame for it. Most people don't want to be underground. You seem to take "opposed by the Government" as a badge of honor, which is understandable, but it is not how a majority of people think, especially outside the US.

That may be true for rational thought but belief isn't rational thought. If the Government of the United States decided tomorrow to make believing in Alien Abductions and Crop Circles a law I'd simply be forced to break the law.

That's where the flaw is. The governments of these other countries think they can suppress belief simply by suppressing speech and they can't.

It's not really about suppressing beliefs, it's about suppressing instantiations of those beliefs, especially legitimate organizations that people can be part of and enjoy their life without shame or hiding underground. That discourages many people away from them. Why suppress such organizations, groups, discussion meetups, social circles, etc? Because of the danger of violence.