Facebook goes full tilt Orwellian... Bans "dangerous" commentators, including Farrakhan.

Do as I say not as I do.

 

PF suppresses free speech every day. Do you have a problem with that?

 

Try this link: https://twitter.com/biiimurray/status/603262580119842816?lang=en

 

I do. Rules governing decorum are fine, as the purpose of this site is debate, and debates need moderation otherwise it just devolves into you telling me my mom wears army boots or as one poster said to me today I am a sad and pathetic person because he disagreed with my position. That ceases to be debate. But censoring content is something I object to in almost every case.

That said, like FB, PF can censor and ban to its heart's content.

 

no, freedom of speech shoul dnot be restricted for talking about the President if this country

and have you seen the Trump NDA's, they can never say anything bad about Trump or his businesses... ever - these are not government secrets, these are Trump secrets... sad!

if one doesn't want their secretes out there, don't become President

all NDA's should be null and void when you become President

"What does this have to do with Facebook?? How does it even equate to such things?"

cause Trump is silencing real freedom of speech with his NDA's that prevent the American people from talking about their President

"I signed an NDA and I was nowhere near the White House."

you work(ed) for Trump?

 

you said "OK, so there's one vote against free speech. Good to know where you stand."

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...uding-farrakhan.555189/page-3#post-1070528549

 

SIGH.

Yes, free speech as a concept. You are confusing that with the First Amendment it would appear. They are two very different things. There is the concept of free speech which is a societal more, and then there is the constitutionally-guaranteed right that disallows the state from infringing on the citizens' rights to the exercise thereof. Hence your confusion. I was speaking of the former, not the latter. Had I been speaking of the latter, I would have actually used the word violation and you wouldn't have had to pretend I did.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...uding-farrakhan.555189/page-4#post-1070528724

 

<sigh> I am not a mind reader, can only go by what you say

you need to be more clear that your not talking about "free speech", but you were talking about "free" speech as in not having to pay facebook to re-broadcast it

what do you think of Trump making people sign NDA's and not being allowed to use real free speech rights to talk about their President?

 

Most rational people understand the difference between the concept of FREE SPEECH and FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Even you... I know this because you intentionally inserted the word 'violation' which I never used in my position. You did this because you wanted to make it look like I was arguing that the government should force Facebook to allow Alex Jones et al to use their site. Even though I CLEARLY STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN MY OP when I said "First, Facebook is a private business. It can ban whomever it wants for any reason it wants." You have been exposed. Your fraud is there for all to see. You cannot win this argument on its merits because your argument has no merit. You have done nothing in this discussion except make false claims and post fallacies. And when pushed to provide evidence of your false claims, you conveniently skip right over that part of the post and go back to making even more false claims and posting more fallacies.

Off topic. Start a thread if you want to discuss.

 

Unfortunately most Leftists want to pressure all Internet Platforms to disallow speech critical of the Left. That would leave at least 40% of Americans without Free Speech.

 

If you want to know, "should Facebook ban people like Farrakhan and Jones, and I say yes on public safety grounds. With the rise of platforms like Facebook, we have seen a rise in radicalism. Perhaps too many humans lack the intelligence to handle open ended information, especially when much of that information is purposefully misleading.

I prefer, and greatly more trust the information in the encyclopedia and textbooks on my book shelves, than anything on the internet. Same with the news. Local print papers are far more reliable, as news sources, than anything that pops up on the internet.

 

Simple we need a law declaring any and all social media platforms part of the 'public commons' if they are free to belong to and offer a public platform anyone can join, like being on a public street corner. If they ban parties fine them say $10,000 a day per offense until the parties are unbanned.

 

Funny that you would make the Orwellian reference. Wilson's job, at one point, is to cleanse the historical record. This is exactly what the internet has allowed to happen. Don't like history, create a new one. Don't like current events, just pretend something else happened. Don't like someone just make up something disparaging about them. That is what the internet has brought us.

What better way to keep the conservative world conforming than to make sure they see the propaganda as often as possible. Besides, in the anonymity of internet, it is rather easy to practice ones daily two minutes of hate, as prescribed by the Party. (another Orwell reference) Isn't half the replies I receive, from conservatives, just a variation of I don't like you?

It is interesting to see how others think, but it is not always pretty. It is even interesting to see opinions form and evolve under the influence of rhetoric. .

 

In the end it really depends on whether or not facebook is a public forum.

They want to be considered a public forum because it gives them immunity from being held liable for things their users use their service for.

However, as a public forum, they are legally prohibited from discrimination based on the viewpoints of their users. They must be completely neutral. Since they are now banning users whose viewpoints and opinions they consider "Dangerous" they are failing in this requirement. They are blatantly violation their users rights to free speech in a public forum.

 

Disagree completely. All of those employed in the White House should sign an NDA and it should include not bad mouthing anyone publicly, especially the President. The White House and other areas, such as the DOJ need to have them in place to prevent people from leaking information out that could damage our country. An NDA is very common in many companies, especially those companies that have "bleeding edge" technology. They are not allowed to even discuss what they are working on. Do you consider that a ban on free speech as well?

I never worked for Trump.

 

I've never had to sign a NDA. Rather it was always more of a non-compete clause. That I couldn't start or work for a company that competed directly with the company I worked for, for five years.

 

Kind of like how repealing the fairness doctrine allowed right wing radio to thrive without contrasting views. There no longer is a fairness doctrine in American law. Each media outlet can say whatever they want, without contrasting views.

 

Farrakhan is a crackpot, but he is fascinating and entertaining to watch. It's just like MSM -- just because you might watch it doesn't mean you b'leve.

Jones is boring and rather dumb.

Never seen Yainnopoulos.

 

Is that a vote against free speech?
How did the government force facebook to come to this decision?

None of their freedoms were taken away.

I think this is all a unforeseen consequence of the right getting their way again. Once the baker won his case, it opened the flood gates for this sorta thing.

 

Read: FREE SPEECH, not FIRST AMENDMENT. Please re-read the first sentence of my OP.

Nor did I claim they were.

Which baker?

 

Where did I type first amendment?

I asked you a question.

The one that went before the supreme court.

 

You implied I was referring to the First Amendment when I was not.

 

It's not about the government. Facebook, as a company, is considered a public forum. They do this because it gives them legal immunity against any illegal things their customers use their service for. They simply give the general public a platform to share their views and ideas, and as a public forum they are allowed to make rules to regulate decorum and other such things, but they are not allowed to discriminate against anyone based on their believes, if their use of the service is within the established rules, and they are not allowed to have rules which ban certain viewpoints, for example, they can't ban racist views. They are bound by the first amendment the same as a government ran public forum would be.

They can ban people for calls of violence, threatening or harrassing oher users etc, but not simply because they express ideas or values that facebook doesn't like. If facebook is going to start discriminating against their users, then one of two thijngs needs to happen,....

1; They keep their status as a public forum, and are fined for illegal discrimination, and possibly sued by users for it as well....

2; They lose their status as a public forum. They would have the right to discriminate, but they would be legally liable for everything done or said by their users. Anything they allow to happen on facebook is their fault, and if it's illegal, they are responsible forit for allowing it to happen.

 

"
So ... What Are You Facebook?


Given the fact that Facebook provides a public space for government officials, departments, and agencies, to engage in public outreach by creating pages, courts have found that a limited public forum exists, where First Amendment protections apply to these types of Facebook pages. Fortunately, for our personal pages, and business pages, the First Amendment doesn't apply, at least until you're a government official. If you can recall, recently, the court told President Trump that his blocking people on Twitter violates the First Amendment.


However, courts have also routinely upheld Facebook and other platforms' rights, as well as the rights of individual and business users, to remove content that violates the terms of service, while also not holding Facebook or other platforms liable for the content users post.


Caught in a Loophole?


In addition to providing the platform, Facebook also curates, and even has a hand in making some of the content that users see, which, arguably, makes it less platform and more media.


The line between publisher and platform for Facebook, and other social media companies, is getting blurrier and blurrier as nefarious forces seek to manipulate social media. For instance, after the last presidential election, Facebook was forced to confront its role in spreading fake news, and Twitter had to deal with the "bot" problem. Basically, social media becomes less of a platform as community moderation fails and the companies have to step in to do more moderating and curating of content."
https://blogs.findlaw.com/technolog...ublic-forum-publisher-or-just-a-platform.html

Seems they made the correct decision, given they have a bottom line to look after.

If other peoples pages start to affect ad revenue, I don't think its fair to claim they are suppressing free speech.

"If you can recall, recently, the court told President Trump that his blocking people on Twitter violates the First Amendment."
And this proves again why it is important to at least have some type of Law degree before running for president.

 

I would have no problem with it if they weren't being BIASED TOOLS of liberals, but instead applied their policies CONSISTENTLY, and also banning antifa groups who call for the assassination of Trump!