Facebook's online poll crosses a line

The Los Angeles Times posted an opinion stating that Facebook reacted properly to a President Obama assassination entry. The social networking site is used by "more then 340 million users" mainly college students and middle age adults. To attract the audience the subject is extremely negative no matter what your views are negitivity sales. the argument is that Facebook made the right decision to take the poll down from the site. The assumptions the argument relys on is that "Facebook cannot police all of its users," so "It's appropriate for Facebook to give users the tools to police themselves." The L.A. Times is basically saying that people should not put up death threats whether real or insinuated, and that Facebook should act against these acts if possible, but it's not their responsiblity. The argument is supported by facts saying that people can report unethical behavior through links provided by Facebook. This argument I feel is not successful in convincing its reader. I personally agree with the argument, but if I didn't it would not convince me, because it did not seem to be a strong argument to one side, it seemed wishy-washy. At the beginning of the argument it talks about how Facebook did the right thing, but people should monitor themselves. In the end of the argument it seems like what the L.A. Times ment by monitoring themselves is to hide it, they said "Facebook should do a better job teaching its users how to guard their privacy against the risk posed even by seemingly innocuous application." So now they are saying the poll is harmless. If the poll was harmless why would Facebook take it down?