Popular ‘Cyanide & Happiness’ Comic Artist Gets Banned From Facebook For Mild Crucifix Joke

Cyanide & Happiness is a web comic (also available in book form) that gets pretty dark at times — as the name implies. Abortion, religion, death, and suicide are among the topics tackled by the four-man black-comedy team.

Yesterday, co-creator Rob DenBleyker found out he had been banned from Facebook for 12 hours. His offense? This comic (I can’t say I even understood the joke at first), which had been on his personal Facebook page for four months.

Out of the blue, someone (or several people?) decided that such heresy must be reported and punished.

Explains DenBleyker,

I stuck this one on my Facebook page shortly after it went on our site. … Through likes and shares, it reached over a million people overall. It makes me feel really good that my silly comic was viewed by that many people. But then four months later, this morning, I logged in to an alert that the comic had been removed for being abusive, followed by a 12 hour ban message. …

This strip is a dude innocently using a crucifix as a workout machine rather than a torture device. I don’t want to toot my own horn, but this could possibly be the most G-rated cartoon about a crucifix ever made.

He’s left scratching his head about Team Zuckerberg’s odd and inconsistent censorship — a problem not just in this instance, but across the board.

Like I said, this comic was viewed by a million people.  It would be fair to say most of them weren’t fans of my page, or readers of Cyanide & Happiness. They saw it on their news feeds due to others sharing it. I offended some very specific people, the kinds of people who don’t like my comics to begin with, and those people filed reports. Enough of them did so that Facebook banned the comic, and banned me.

That’s kind of a weird protocol. The largest social platform (which makes it a platform for art and ideas, too) in history blocks content and threatens creators based solely on the opinions of a minority that doesn’t even care for said content to begin with. I think you can do better, Facebook.

One solution DenBleyker proposes:

Include a feature by which people who don’t like a thing don’t have to see it on their [Facebook] feed. I would gladly welcome an “I Hate This” button on my page if it means people who don’t like what I make never have to see it.

Fine by me. Or we could just all live by Stephen Fry‘s suitably grown-up credo:

A man can dream.

About Terry Firma

Terry Firma, though born and Journalism-school-educated in Europe, has lived in the U.S. for the past 20-odd years. Stateside, his feature articles have been published in the New York Times, Reason, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Wired. Terry is the founder and Main Mischief Maker of Moral Compass, a site that pokes fun at the delusional claim by people of faith that a belief in God equips them with superior moral standards.

  • C Peterson

    Why anybody would choose to place their personal content under the control of other people makes no sense to me. People who have something to say and share should do so with a personal website.

    I’ve never been to a Facebook page, and never felt I’ve missed out on anything. This sort of nonsense just reinforces my opinion about the general lack of value of some of these social media sites.

    • Terry Firma

      So, you’ve never even been to a Facebook page … but you have an opinion about how it all works — and what others should and shouldn’t do, social-media-wise — anyway? I wasn’t expecting that! What else do you have zero experience with that you would like to give us all advice about? ;-)

      • C Peterson

        I’ve never been to a Scientology service, and I have an opinion about those. I’ve never been to a child porn site, and I have an opinion about those. I’m very technologically savvy; why should I not have an opinion about Facebook? It’s not like I need to use it myself to see how it is used, and how it abuses its users.

        I’m afraid I see no value at all in Facebook. If others want to use it, fine with me. But this example provides a clear idea of just how bad it can be.

        • 3lemenope

          …why should I not have an opinion about Facebook? It’s not like I need to use it myself to see how it is used, and how it abuses its users.

          Kind of like ethics. And philosophy. And political science.

          Please tell us again how all of philosophy is gobbledegook because your lay opinion.

          For a scientist, you really know how to mimic fundamentalists with the best of them.

          • C Peterson

            I never speak about anything I don’t understand.

            Your comment here is uncharacteristically ignorant and rude for you, and has no relevance at all to my informed opinion about the value of Facebook.

            • Gavitron

              If you have something to say and share, why are you posting it here and not on a personal site?

              • C Peterson

                That’s just stupid. It joins a lot of other stupid, silly, or irrelevant responses to my original comment. So far there has been exactly one reasonable response (from regexp). If you disagree with my opinion, you might actually try stating why.

            • 3lemenope

              It’s in light of the fact that you generally enjoy a free pass for opining on things about which you clearly know very little beyond casual exposure. You dismiss entire fields of study, and the only apparent reason is that the actual findings in those fields don’t match your intuitions of what they ought to be.

              If the criticism came off as rude, it’s only because I’m tired of it. Your comment about knowing the implications of Facebook besides not participating in it and self-admittedly not even understanding why people use it is just a choice example of your general attitude.

              • C Peterson

                As I said, I speak out about nothing I’m now well educated about. FYI, you disagreeing with my opinions does not make me ignorant.

                BTW, I develop websites for businesses. Some like to connect their sites to Facebook pages, which I’ll do if they insist. But I generally discourage it, because it dilutes their web presence, to their detriment.

                • 3lemenope

                  As I said, I speak out about nothing I’m now well educated about.

                  Give me a break. If you are well-educated in the fields I mentioned, you hide it really well. I’m not saying it to be mean or flippant or rude. It is what it is. When a person trades in idiosyncratic or personal definitions for technical terms, or utterly ignores the parameters of concepts how they appear in the field, or dismisses entire segments of a field, or denies the value or fruits of a field because they don’t match their own intuitions, it is reasonable to assume until evidence shows otherwise that, on that topic and that topic alone, they are ignorant. And that wouldn’t be a big deal at that, if you weren’t so arrogantly stubborn about not knowing what you clearly don’t know.

                  Me being about as arrogant a person as you (at least by all appearances), I certainly understand that too. Doesn’t make it a good thing, and I’m still gonna call you out on it.

                  FYI, you disagreeing with my opinions does not make me ignorant.

                  Of course not. I disagree with many people I interact with on an intellectual level, most of whom I do not consider ignorant. Many of them, in fact, are better informed on a topic than I happen to be, and so my disagreeing with them, such as it is, I am perfectly willing to assume is based in part on some incompleteness in my understanding. You’re not ignorant because I disagree with you. You’re ignorant (from where I stand)–and ignorant at that only of a few notable fields–because you show no sign you know what you’re talking about, and when challenged on that point usually resort to attacking the validity of the field in general instead of learning even a little bit. It’s a pretty big clue. Dismissal is the lazy man’s skepticism.

                  And the only reason I care is the fields you just so happen to be feeling your way through happen to be ones I’ve spent a large amount of effort and time studying AND happen to be ones that the active atheist Internet community tends to be particularly uncomfortable with. Most fields suffer from enough public misunderstanding that a person perpetuating and amplifying those errors tends to send an expert in that field batty at least some of the time. It’s so much worse when the crowd starts nodding their heads to keep time with the nonsense.

                • C Peterson

                  If you don’t recognize the value of my arguments, I’d have to say that reflects on your own lack of knowledge or education. Again, just because you may disagree with me about matters of philosophy, that doesn’t make my opinions less valid than others.

                • Rain

                  It depends on how “spammy” they are. If they are clever it works great. I’ll never understand “spammy” social media people. They think people just automatically flock to their businesses even if they look like cold sociopathic spammers. They probably don’t realize that’s how they look I guess.

    • viddy_well

      People who have something to say and share should do so with a personal website.

      Yet you choose to share your poorly developed thoughts on this using the Disqus comment hosting service. How lovely.

      • C Peterson

        What does Disqus have to do with Facebook? I didn’t condemn social networking in general.

        • viddy_well

          The first paragraph of your comment makes no reference to Facebook and speaks in generalities.

          Why anybody would choose to place their personal content under the control of other people makes no sense to me.

          Does it only confuse you when the “other people” are people employed at Facebook?

          I’m sorry if this comment joins the other “stupid, silly, or irrelevant responses.” It certainly couldn’t just be that you’re being uncharacteristically obtuse.

          • C Peterson

            The question remains a reasonable one, largely unanswered.

    • 3lemenope

      Why anybody would choose to place their personal content under the control of other people makes no sense to me.

      You could–and I know this is just crazy now–actually ask them why they do.

    • regexp

      You are missing the point. These guys are a business and they are using facebook to expose and sell a product. You may not like it – but Facebook has a huge user base that looks for and buys stuff. Businesses ignore facebook at their peril.

      • C Peterson

        I do understand that theory, and no doubt it is true for some businesses. But I think it is overrated as a business tool, and I have firsthand experience with Facebook hurting businesses.

        The worst is businesses that have no web presence besides Facebook, and completely lose a significant share of the market… those like myself who either don’t have Facebook accounts, or choose not to log into them just to access a commercial link.

        • FTP_LTR

          ^– I think this comment would’ve gone across better than your first comment, C Peterson. :-)

          Given the facts at my disposal, it doesn’t make sense to me either that someone would put their commercial content under the control of another entity (like Facebook). If Facebook is the sole channel for getting content in front of consumers – and prospective customers – it does bring a great deal of risk. Relying on a single delivery channel is risky. Especially when that channel is at the whim of a third party with no contractual obligations.

          I have been to Facebook page, which served to reinforce my opinion about the general lack of value of some of these social media sites. (Emphasis on “general” and “some”. Social media is a tool – it can be used well, or it can be used badly. When it works well – in my experience – it’s as part of a set of tools. Used in isolation it can be either very unsuccessful, very hard work, or both.)

          Don’t even get me started on twitter.

          • C Peterson

            I have also been to Facebook pages. I have several fake accounts I use for testing websites that require connectivity through the Facebook APIs. When I said I never went to a Facebook page, I meant I’ve never followed a link to one, or used one for any sort of communication. Just site development.

            Twitter is certainly lame 99 percent of the time, although it does have a few uses. I use it from my primary website to automatically notify followers about meteor events. I also allow the option of email, which I think is a better method, but Twitter offers a free way to leverage SMS and other mobile notifications for those who prefer it.

            • Fentwin

              “I’ve never been to a Facebook page”

              followed by;

              “I have also been to Facebook pages.”

              Just curious, which is it?

              • C Peterson

                Did you even read what I wrote?

                • Fentwin

                  Yep, thats my fault, I was assuming
                  never been” to mean “never been” so yes, apologies for not reading your re-definition of “never been”.

        • smrnda

          I also do not have a facebook account, but I don’t think it means that I cannot criticize facebook for what it does here. I just don’t want much of a web presence at all. However, I will object to facebook *banning people for bullshit reasons.*

          • C Peterson

            I agree. But I also feel that people who choose to utilize Facebook are agreeing to be banned for bullshit reasons. Unless people vote against this sort of crap with their feet, it’s not going to stop. Businesses, especially.

            • smrnda

              So, do movie directors agree to have their films censored by studios or banned from distribution because it’s a voluntary business relationship? Let’s say amazon refuses to carry a book – are we all seriously going to stop using the service, and what’s the alternative?

              “Vote with your feet” is built on the illusion that meaningful choices exist. Rather than telling people to ‘vote with their feet,’ tell the company to change its policies. I see no reason why putting pressure on a company isn’t valid – it’s done all the time. I don’t ‘vote with my feet’ not to shop at Hobby Lobby owing to its misogyny I demand that they change.

              • C Peterson

                Fair enough. For you. Personally, I do vote with my feet. There are quite a few businesses I don’t patronize because I can’t support them. If Amazon refused to carry a book for what I’d consider bullshit reasons, yes, I’d stop doing business with them. Of course there are alternatives. Meaningful choices almost always exist.

  • Jeffrey Hitchin

    I saw that cartoon today and thought, “Oh, he’s going to get into trouble, that one.”

  • tasteless chap

    Funniest thing I’ve seen all week!!!

  • Art_Vandelay

    Wow. I have way more offensive crucifix jokes on my Facebook page. This for instance…

    • Richard Thomas

      I’m borrowing this.

      • Art_Vandelay

        Oh yeah, just to clarify…I didn’t make this. I wish I were that awesome.

    • Crazy Russian

      Sacrilicious!

  • TommyNIK

    Christian privilege is apparently alive and well at Facebook.

  • Vernon

    I saw this along with a suggestion to share the cartoon so that despite FB’s ban, it’d go all over the place, sort of a Streisand Effect. I happily posted it onto my page.

    • PSG

      I didn’t see any suggestion, but it was an automatic reaction of mine to post it. : )

  • Kevin R Breen

    This really doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with Christianity, innately. Lots of people were crucified.

    • pennyroyal

      Jay-zus was crucified upside down. Christianity got it all wrong.

      • Intelligent Donkey

        He was crucified in Australia?

  • A3Kr0n
    • Terry Firma

      As a vegetarian, I’m deeply offended by that, and I’ve asked Facebook to take it down.

      • ShoeUnited

        As the dominant party of omnivores, I take offense at your persecution of the delicious meats. As such I’ve asked Facebook to take down all references to any vegetables, tubers, and legumes. Fruit is shaky ground.

        Furthermore, I’m offended by Facebook. So I’ve asked Facebook to remove any and all posts that are offensive, could have been offensive in the last 3,000 years, or will be potentially offensive in the next 3,000 years. I expect them to shut down the site shortly.

        Finally, I’ve found my intolerance to be quite intolerable and have asked Facebook to remove all references to any post I have made in the past through to the futu

    • Ron

      I’m offended. Asparagus totally ruins the joke. A cruciferous vegetable would have worked better.

      Eat more kale.

  • Canadian Atheist, eh!

    A 12-hour ban? Ooh, how cruel. LOL.

    • Terry Firma

      And he got his comic removed. That’s arguably the larger problem.

      • Canadian Atheist, eh!

        Yes. I’ll go further and say it’s unequivocally the larger problem. The banning someone for a measly 12 hours, though, just underscores the inanity of the whole thing. Is that how important is (or thinks it is) now? That having to go without it for half a single day is somehow punitive? Come on.

        • Canadian Atheist, eh!

          Sorry: Is that how important Facebook is (or thinks it is) etc.

        • allein

          I’ve been grounded for less time than that as a kid..

        • Canadian Atheist, eh!

          Down votes for this? Seriously? LOL, ok.

          • smrnda

            Should I up-vote the decision by Facebook? All said, to assess ANY penalty for this comic is absurd, so if the only punishment was a nasty note, I’d object just as much.

            • Canadian Atheist, eh!

              I am not defending Facebook, nor am I suggesting outrage or whatever at this development is not completely warranted. I am laughing, fully and completely, at the silliness of the terms of the “ban.” First of all, it isn’t a ban at all if it expires the same day it takes effect. Second, it suggests, like I already said, that Facebook takes itself so seriously that even it thinks it would be cruel and unusual to actually ban someone, regardless of whether the “offense” was in any way legitimate.

              But so, ok — your post makes it a little more clear that some people took my remarks as indicative that I think the negative response was unwarranted. I don’t. I think Facebook’s actions in this are preposterous, ALL THE MORE SO for the silliness of the terms (other than removing the comic, which as I agree with Terry, IS the real problem).

              Is that clear now?

    • EdmondWherever

      I felt a little of that, too. It was kind of like the Simpsons line. “You’re banned from this historical society! You, and your children, and your children’s children! For three months.”
      .
      But, I don’t know Facebook’s deeper policies. A 12 hour ban could be the first level of harsher penalties.

      • Terry Firma

        It is.

      • JohnnieCanuck

        Second level is the comfy couch.

    • Stev84

      Banning him for three days would have fit the topic better.

  • regexp

    I’m going to defend facebook (ugh). Its very easy as an enduser to sit at home and bitch about “inconsistent” policies (do you actually have real evidence of this – btw?). What FB has to do is very very hard. There are billions of posts every day. Some of them legitimately offensive or downright legal in many jurisdictions. Curating posts is a very difficult legal, business, and technical problem. You can’t just do nothing. Mistakes will happen. The question is – when they do happen – how does the vendor respond? That makes all the difference.

    • Gavitron

      If you’re going to ban people over content others might find offensive, you should have very clear rules defining what is allowed and what isn’t.

      • 3lemenope

        Quite so. But rules (at least, ones meant to regulate human behavior) are only ever generalizations over cases, so they can never be perfectly applied. There will always be, in a sample as large as billions, significant exceptions and anomalies that resist having the rules applied effectively.

        So it’s not like they shouldn’t try to write their rules as clearly as possible, but only that we shouldn’t be shocked and appalled when they occasionally fail. Like regexp says, what really matters is what happens after the failure.

        • regexp

          Quite so.

        • David Kopp

          The problem is that they just basically ban on volume of complaints. There are some completely verboten posts, but the only way they look at something is by complaints, and then that gets almost anything banned as long as there are enough complaints.

          • 3lemenope

            I agree that the situation is not optimal, but until content rules can become machine-executable without human supervision, I don’t see much of an alternative. The heckler’s veto is always available, unfortunately, to anyone in any medium that really wants to put the effort in to exercise it.

    • http://yogscast.wikia.com/wiki/User:Supertoastfairy Supertoastfairy

      But they ban this guy for probably the most innocent comic ever made by C&H? And yet they allow comics about abortion, rape, murder, pedophilia, and a bunch of other touchy subjects. Logic = flawless.

      • regexp

        And the evidence for this is what? All I ever see is anecdotal evidence like this blog post. Point me to a study or evidence that what happened here is widespread and systematic. Remember something – it isn’t in Facebook’s interests to mistakenly remove posts – especially from something as popular as Cyanide & Happiness. Show me the data or stop the fake outrage.

        • http://yogscast.wikia.com/wiki/User:Supertoastfairy Supertoastfairy

          Perhaps my phrasing was incorrect. I’m talking of those complaining enough for FB to remove it. They complained and continuously flagged this comic, when this is probably one of the least offensive comics they’ve made about religion. I’m not complaining about the FB rule itself, but those who flagged this comic, when there are thousands upon thousands of comics on FaceBook from this guy that could be found more offensive than this.

    • baal

      The almost certainly have paid hourly folks in India or somesuch applying ‘community standards.’ That more or less means supporting a majoritarian status quo. While that’s not all bad, that also means FB is codifying standard abuses of minority groups and enforcing social privileges like those the christians and rich get. They could do much better with trivial amounts of retraining.

  • http://yogscast.wikia.com/wiki/User:Supertoastfairy Supertoastfairy

    Seriously? Are you kidding me? Of all the jokes towards Christianity, such as suggesting Jesus was gay, depicting Jesus as a bloodthirsty zombie every Easter, depicting God as a peeping Tom, etc. Not to mention all the other comics about abortion, rape, murder, genocide, politics, and they choose to ban him for THIS? This is probably the most innocent comic ever made by C&H. This is absurd.

  • Jeanette Jessamy Fornier

    They sure are sensitive little people, the butthurt is big with some people, don’t let being banned from facebook upset you in any way, it is almost a badge of honour! You made someone think, it was possibly the pinnacle of their entire life and you created that ten seconds of fame for someone who’s name now eludes us all, go you!

  • Scott Peterson

    A perfect example of why I’m a fan of Stephen Fry!

    • John Small Berries

      Of course, quite a lot of the atheist blogosphere consists of pointing out things which religious groups and organizations do which we find offensive (for example, their treatment of LGBT folks and women, the fact that they get tax deductions for no particularly justifiable reason, their attempts to replace science in the classroom with fairy tales, their calls for murdering people for drawing stick figures if they’re labeled with the name of their prophet, et cetera ad nauseam).

      But I suppose Mr. Fry’s idea goes both ways, and the religious people can just say “So fucking what?” when we try to get them to realize that their actions are offensive, and simply ignore it as “no more than a whine”.

      • Chris Campbell

        I think that a great many religious people do exactly that. One only needs to look at the comment sections on some popular conservative blogs (or even Salon) to see that. (If only I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen the word “libtard”.) The big difference to me (for arguments on any side of the matter) is whether or not it goes any further. If the beginning and end of your argument is “I’m offended” well, sorry for you, that’s life unfortunately.

        For me, the examples you gave are examples of taking the conversation further – I’m offended because your actions are leading directly to little children being hurt, it’s more valid. There’s a reason there other than “my feelings were hurt”.

      • Terry Firma

        Fry was talking about “That offends me” being used as a discussion stopper — as if the phrase were its own self-evident argument.

        For sure every one of us will find certain things offensive. In protesting them, though, we’d better be prepared to make our case.

      • baal

        We value harm to ego based on belief in the supernatural substantially less than we value harm to the emotions and thinking of the LGBT folks. The later can and does lead to suicide whereas the former might get someone to reconsider their harmful beliefs.

  • Andrew Kilian

    As to the Stephen Fry quote; to be perfectly fair we refrain fro using the words “Nigger” and “Faggot” specifically because people are offended. I’d hardly expect anyone to reply with “so fucking what” to that scenario. Also as the Friendly Atheist I suspect caring whether someone was offended or not would be the “friendly” thing to do. I think the question becomes what is generally agreed upon to be offensive and that depends on the circumstances and scenario. In the interests of equal time I’m not offended by C&H (quite the opposite), but jokes are supposed to be taboo. Being funny and maybe offensive to some isn’t the same as being a troll and offending because, “Well, so fucking what?”

    • primenumbers

      There’s a vast difference between attacking someone’s chosen beliefs and an immutable characteristic of their being, like skin colour, gender or race.

      • baal

        I think your assertion that beliefs are chosen is overstated. However, beliefs a certainly more mutable than skin colour, gender or race.

        • primenumbers

          Well if they’re not chosen, what are they? We’re not born with beliefs so I find it hard to think that they’re an innate characteristic. If they’re imposed from outside, again, they’re not an innate characteristic and attacking a belief that has been imposed on a person is most certainly not attacking the person.

          • baal

            Indoctrinated. Kids are highly credulous and it take s a special effort, circumstance or unusual person to throw off indoctrination. College seems to work mostly which is why the right is big on being anti-education as well as on wanting social hegemony – it keeps folks from breaking the indoctrination.

    • dexeron

      Thing is, we don’t refrain from using certain words because they are “offensive” or because they tweak someone’s sensibilities. We use them because they are actively harmful to certain groups of people who have been traditionally victimized by the majority, and these words are a continuation of that abuse. They don’t exist outside of a historical context, and it is within that context that we make decisions whether using a word (or making a joke) will be actively harmful to someone else.

      Beyond that, there is a difference between attacking a person’s innate characteristics (by using words or stereotyping or telling certain jokes) and attacking their chosen beliefs.

      • Andrew Kilian

        So your position is that we don’t refrain because the word is “offensive”, but because it is “actively harmful”. I believe that’s what the definition of offensive is. As for refraining because it’s considered a continuation of historical abuse sure that’s a valid explanation as to why those words are offensive, but it doesn’t move the goalposts, and it doesn’t disable my point. The goalposts that are being moved is that it’s okay to actively offend religious people because they haven’t been traditionally victimized. I dispute this as we all know that the laity of religious organizations have received the brunt of abuse for centuries, by the leaders of their own in group.

        This is all beside the point; not caring about being offensive isn’t friendly, it doesn’t build bridges, and it doesn’t change minds. It just polarizes people and shuts down dialogue. Not caring about being offensive is sociopathic and a bad tactic that sabotages the movement.

    • smrnda

      I agree. I get a bit irritated by white people who argue that minorities, or straight people who think that GLBT people need to ‘lighten up’ and take a joke or get over being offended, because part of keeping people down is creating a climate where it’s perfectly okay to talk about certain demographics in a derogatory fashion. It’s quite easy for a white person to argue that a joke about a ‘white stereotype’ doesn’t bother them, since a socially dominant group isn’t likely to be stereotyped so negatively, nor are minorities in a position of power to discriminate based on their stereotypes of the dominant group.

      • kaydenpat

        Hopefully, Mr. Fry wasn’t actually being as glib as the quoted comment appears to be. I’m sure he’d agree with you.

  • Timothy McLean

    I don’t get it, either. Since when are torture/execution devices ideal workout anything?

    • Highlander

      Honestly, most workout devices are sort of torture machines. I mean, a Roman Chair even sounds like a torture device. The joke is in the play on words for “cross training.”

      • Timothy McLean

        Oh.

        …Not one of C&H’s better comics, from what I’ve seen.

  • pennyroyal

    you have the right to blaspheme!! At least for now!!

  • Malby

    Facebook responds to the dumbest complaints. All you have to do is use some “magic words” and off you go.

    • Kevin

      Guess the words are only available to Christians. I’ve reported dozens of racist and sexist images far far worse than this one, and I’ll I ever get back is that they have reviewed my request and the image was not removed.

  • Rain

    Pretty typical of social media platforms. Complaints do matter when enough people complain, except when they complain about the platform itself, lol.

  • Ann Onymous

    So, Facebook thinks a page advocating a feminist’s (Miri Mogilevsky’s) murder (http://skepchick.org/2013/10/facebook-says-a-page-about-murdering-a-feminist-isnt-harassment/) isn’t harrassment and Facebook does nothing…
    but a cute little comic about a crucifix being used as an exercise machine, no violence, nothing inappropriate, gets removed and gets the author a 12-hr ban?
    Seriously, Facebook?

    • smrnda

      Facebook seems to care only when *certain people* are offended. If it’s death threats to feminists, it’s ‘free speech.’ A cartoon that contains a joke about a cross (and seriously, Jesus wasn’t the only person allegedly crucified, so I don’t even necessarily see a connection to Jesus in this comic. The army of Sparctacus was crucified) it must be taken down.

  • http://pandarogue.blogspot.com/ Yǒuhǎo Huǒ Māo

    So, to Facebook – videos depicting people being beheaded, pages dedicated to the question of whether a popular feminist blogger should be murdered, and revenge rape fantasy pages are a-ok, but mild jokes about the crucifixion and breast-feeding pictures are horrible and should be banned.

    WTF Zuckerberg?

  • Dorothy
  • Jan Kafka

    Amazon permanently banned me from posting in Amazon-hosted forums and from reviewing products for the alleged crime of posting ‘spiteful’ comments. Pointing out bigotry, hypocrisy, trolling, and such apparently constitutes being ‘spiteful’…But only if the person doing so is a non-Christian. Amazon’s censors seem to be cool with bashing atheists, Jews, and Muslims, homophobia, misogyny, spam, phishing, and a host of other unsavory behaviors.

    • baal

      Your comment is extra apt given your nym.

    • Jan Kafka

      As an example of Amazon’s practice, here’s the text of an email I received from Amazon :

      “We’ve repeatedly removed your discussion board posts from the Amazon.com website, as they were outside of our guidelines and were considered to be spiteful.

      “Post: Uhhh…’goblue’ (aka ‘Ferengi’) is a long-time Amazon troll. He’s been banned a couple of times but Amazon is a lot more tolerant of trolls these days while apparently having become far less tolerant of sincere posters who don’t toe the Amazon party line (IE, Amazon seems to be bigoted against non-Christians in general and non-believers in particular). ‘goblue’ might be an annoying, repetitive, thick-headed jerk but as a self-identified Christian, he fits in with Amazon’s agenda.

      “If this continues, we’ll remove your review privileges from your account in accordance with our Conditions of Use.”

      Compare this to a recent post on the Amazon Atheist Forum:

      “If there are a 100 atheists in a room, and a skin-head Australian Nazi
      comes in with a machine gun and kills them all, is a crime committed?”

      http://www.amazon.com/forum/atheist/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3VDTKO61HE6U7&cdMsgID=MxWOM6PX8AG8AE&cdMsgNo=7205&cdPage=289&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1BZVKXCWL1G7N#MxWOM6PX8AG8AE

  • Stevie B

    I thought the cartoon was about cross training.

  • LS

    I thought this was relevant: http://po.st/1xbBvL

  • http://shinytoyrobots.com/ Robin Cannon

    I
    really wish people would understand that there aren’t just some dudes
    at Facebook saying “oh, we’ll ban this because some people complained”.
    It’s an algorithmic thing; enough people report something as
    inappropriate and it’ll get taken down automatically as a safety measure
    and will later get reassessed by a human.

    • smrnda

      Then this process seems to be greatly flawed, and I say this as a person who actually comes up with algorithms for handling things.

      Also, they don’t seem to feel the need to take down actual threats towards say, feminists.

  • Gringa123

    This from a site that kept videos of people getting beheaded online?

  • JJ

    Can’t help but think about Lenny Bruce’s remark, “If Jesus had been executed 50 years ago, would little Catholic school children be wearing tiny electric chairs around their neck?” or words to that effect.

    • Itarion

      Depends on which state. It could be they’d be wearing needles.

  • Itarion

    I object. Cyanide and Happiness is an excellent comic.

    I also find it interesting that THAT comic got taken down, but this one didn’t. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152628578100476&set=a.427422470475.216607.67400590475&type=1&theater

    And good news. He’s made a replacement. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151759932529998&set=a.376139849997.159257.51191684997&type=1&theater

  • Maxx Kremer

    People who are offended by something, are really saying that the action they experience, they decide, based on their emotions, that the action is offensive. So the problem is not with the action, but with the persons reaction to that action. To then try to make the another person responsible for being offensive, is erroneous.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X