However, the one distinction being that you have recourse on public land to unfair treatment from the government. If they government does not permit you to voice your opinion or to demonstrate it has to state why and what legal rights it has to do this. And, you can take them to court to defend these rights.

In the public sphere you start with the default position of “having” the right to free speech. In the private domain you have no right to begin with.

That is the danger of using someone else’s services.

If I want to use “public land” for something like a gathering or an event, I need to fill out forms, I need to make requests, I need to check zoning, and I need to request an approval from the Federal, state, or local government.

The cops can still evict me from a public park.

The only “freedom” that is almost certainly guaranteed, to the point of being able to defend it with a gun is afforded to the property-owner, the land owner.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

And since this is a “time of war” and a “time of ever-present danger and terrorism” then the freedoms afforded on “public commons” is limited.

Am I wrong?

There is no Facebook community. There is no MySpace community. Nor is there no YouTube community. I’ve been thinking of writing a post on that very topic.

There are individuals on Facebook. OK, members. but the members don’t form a community. They can form groups on Facebook and if nutured correctly, they can for an actual ‘community’.

Also, remember that it takes a certain amount of members to formulate into a group and lodge a protest. If no one is protesting the anti-Christian group…one that called for killing a few Christians, then that is a sign of apathy when it comes to anti-Chrisianity. Which, again, is unfortunate.

It is the same thing we struggle with in our cities – creating public commons, where you are free to express yourself and your views, however if you enter private property you are not free to do so.

I think this element of Social Media has not been dealt with. That being, that Social Media Sites are ultimately private spaces that have no obligation to uphold your civil rights or freedom of speech. They are ultimately concerned with running a successful business.

So, they are always going to bend to the stronger lobby. This to me, points to the fundamental weakness of SNS. It IS NOT a free space for community to meet and engage. It is a controlled and regulated space that is policed for behavior and viewpoints that are viewed as inappropriate by others. And, are not regulated by the legal rights of our society.

I think it is a shame when we pick on hate speech over another hate speech to deride. There is plenty of hate speech in our society (and I am using the term “hate speech” loosely here) that aught to be banished, if we are going to banish hate speech to begin with.

Ultimately I am disappointed by the Facebook community for taking a stance against one groups views while allowing others to continue to exist with no comment. Yeah, Islam, is the hot issue but that doesn’t make it any more valuable then other religions or groups that endure negative commentary.

The uneven application of mob mentality if you ask me.

One, for me, I’ve never liked it when someone, or a group of people point out how another religion is wrong. Or bad. Sure, there are things I disagree with about the Islam is being carried out today – or any religion for that matter. But I think it is dangerous to condemn an entire faith.

And secondly, Saul does raise an important point. While it may not be a violation of free speech, there is a potential for wanton group or mob demanded shutting down of other groups on Facebook. And it will be interesting to see how it plays out. What will the standards be? Is it OK to say trash Christians but not Muslims? Do we base it on our current policies in the Middle East? What level of uproar is needed for a Facebook or a MySpace to action?

What if a group of pedophiles started a group on Facebook? Or people who advocated using crystal meth? Dog fighting a la Michael Vick?

There are some groups – and this ins’t about Facebook – that demand companies not advertise (or pull their advertisements) from gay-oriented media. Threatens of boycotts and other actions. Ford was targeted. The group had every right to call for a boycott – and Ford had every right to make a decision that they felt was in best interest of the company. They basically ignored the demands of the anti-gay group.

It is my hope that social media opens up opportunties for dialogue as opposed to simply have anti-this or anti-that groups to spew a one way monologue. But I bet it won’t. Because too many people love to hate.

It is hard to grok for me because my neighbors are devout Muslims, however, if you listen to This American Life from two weeks ago:

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1205

Then listen for:

Act One. And So We Meet Again.
Sam Slaven is an Iraq War veteran who came home from the War plagued by feelings of hate and anger toward Muslims. TAL producer Lisa Pollak tells the story of the unusual action Sam took to change himself, and the Muslim students who helped him do it. (34 minutes)

And listen to something that is pretty inspiring and pretty amazing and a better insight to how explosive the situation could be — and this is only one guy — we have hundreds of thousands who will will have been to Iraq.

You write “However, I wonder what would have happened had they stood up for the free speech rights of the individuals against the mob.”

I think that you are characterizing this wrong. At least that statement. Facebook’s suspending of the founder of F#@*k Islam does not deprive him or her of free speech rights. He has no free speech rights as it relates to Facebook. And Facebook had every right to suspend him. That may not bode well for what many of us see as social media, but, then again, social media is not always what we think it it.

Now, regarding the anti-Christian site…I’d say two reasons. One is that there hasn’t been an uproar with 58,000 people pissed off. And secondly, even if there was, being ‘anti-Christian’ is not yet politically incorrect. Unfortunately.