What part of Facebook's TOS did the removal fall under?

I can think of no obvious reason why anyone could sue Facebook over this. The only right it infringes is free speech, which does not apply on Facebook since they have the right to remove content on their own service.

Technically, you don't even have the "Right" of free speech. By using Facebook, you agree to their T&C's. Freedom of speech and press applies to your own, not via another service. Same as it always has been with newspapers. You can write up a flier and post it saying what ever the hell you please, but if you request a newspaper run it, they can turn you do. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. To try to put it more clearly, I was referring to a double standard in which one can have freedom of speech but at the same time have it prohibited in almost any circumstance. Even calling someone a name could earn you a hefty punishment.

It depends where you do it, I think. If you call somebody a name in real life or over the phone, the worst they can do it hit you. If you post derogatory comments online, where anybody in the world can see them, then a hefty punishment is not only expected, but also—in my opinion—appropriate. If one's comments are warranted (calling Bin Laden "an evil terrorist", for example) or stem from differing viewpoints ("Gordon Brown is a bad prime minister"; "Charles Darwin was wrong about evolution"), then it is not right to punish them for it, but in the case of applauding the actions of this man—who is nothing more than a terrorist, whatever he and his supporters choose to call him—Facebook were certainly right to remove the comments.

Most of the groups did not applaud the actions, they applauded the thoughts. I have no comment on those without reading them carefuly and thinking it over, but it is important not to dismiss his points merely because of the murderous way in which he chose to make them. I often agree with the words of dictators; it does not mean I support them.