This is Facebook's explanation (Emphasis added by EFA):
From: 'The Facebook Team'
Sent: Wednesday, 15 September 2010 12:25 AM
To: Gour Lentell
Subject: Re: My Facebook Page was Disabled
Thank you for providing us with this information regarding your Page "Bet we can find 1 million Australians who say NO to the internet filter". Because you were not able to authenticate your Page by one of the methods previously offered, we are requiring that the name of your Page be elaborated upon to accurately represent the content of the Page.
If you are using your Page primarily as a blog and you do not own the domain that's related to your Page, we will need to add a byline for you. For example, if the name of your Page were "Food" but you did not own "www.food.com," we would need to add "By Firstname Lastname" to the Page's title in order to authenticate it. Please note that only full names will be accepted and initials will not be allowed.
If your Page is for a business, we will need to change the name of your Page to more accurately reflect your business. For example, a Page titled "New York" affiliated and administrated by "www.iloveny.com" would need to be corrected to either "Iloveny.com" or "New York by Iloveny.com."
Once we have received your preferred Page name alternative, we will be able to assist you further. If you do not contact us within three weeks, your Page's publishing rights will be blocked and any custom URL that may be associated with your Page will be removed. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
Here is Lentell's response to Facebook:
From: Gour Lentell
Sent: Wednesday, 15 September 2010 8:03 AM
To: 'The Facebook Team'
Subject: RE: My Facebook Page was Disabled
Good to hear from you. However I am still confused.
I do not recall receiving any previous communication about authenticating my page - I would be more than happy to authenticate it via one of the standard methods.
My page is a "Community" page to post comments and articles and generate discussion regarding a specific issue of community concern, i.e. proposed government legislation to implement an internet filter in Australia.
It is ironic that Facebook have elected to "filter" this page. This action is starting to generate media interest in Australia, given the subject focus of the page.
The page is not related to a specific domain name so I cannot see how the page can be amended as outlined in the email below.
Please read this email and advise how to properly authenticate the page and restore my publishing rights.
So the page has not been blocked due to pro-filter activists, nor by any number of other reasons that have been speculated. It has been removed because according to Facebook the title Bet we can find 1 million Australians who say NO to the internet filter is not descriptive enough for the content on the page. It is absurd that Facebook find it beyond belief that a page rallying people against the Internet Filter would share news related to the Filter.
Additionally, what is not addressed in the emails is how a page can be blocked from 5 September and no apparent contact made by Facebook to notify and explain the situation. And why has Facebook taken 10 days to respond to Lentell’s numerous appeal requests?
It would appear that this is a case of censorship by bureaucracy and reinforces the dangers of building communities exclusively on platforms you cannot control.
EFA will continue to monitor the situation, and will report on the outcome. Members of the page can contact Gour Lentell by sending a message via his Facebook account.