• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

JasperL said:
That won't do it, any more than you can get a speeding ticket dismissed by "proving" the police didn't ticket those other 100 guys speeding that day.
Click to expand...

Provides basis for civil action. Police can always claim they didn't see it. Its been pointed out to FB and they ignore it. The behavior pattern is altogether different.
 
JasperL said:
I don't think government has any business getting into it, regulating it, or hiring a bunch of free speech police to enforce whatever rules the incompetents in Congress might come up with on a subject like this. It's very simple - Facebook like DP and thousands of other websites get to set the rules and enforce them as they want. The end.

If you don't like it, why is a 'conservative' running to big daddy government to make things right? You're not owed a platform on Facebook, or DP, or Twitter, or anywhere else. Those are PRIVATE platforms, privately owned. Free markets, etc. You know the drill and the talking point - why doesn't it apply here?

And FWIW, being "neutral" on politics is just a hopelessly vague standard, and inappropriate even if definable. Neo-Nazis have "political" positions, but I don't actually think a private website has any obligation to be a platform for anti-Semitism and overt bigotry and racism. DP ban hammers those morons with a vengeance and purpose and this place is better for it, IMO. Why should a private company be forced BY government to be "neutral" with respect to those positions, which will turn off and deter use by the other 99.9% of the public?
Click to expand...

Neutral is easily defined. Political speech is entirely okay unless and until it damages another as the courts understand damage---by impeding the rights of another. Its not vague at all, its really specific.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Anticipated behavior based on previous actions and business decisions are made upon this behavior can be the basis for legal action. FB can certainly have accountability for banning someone, just not criminal, civil is always a possibility, no matter what their user agreement looks like. It all depends on the internal decisions and whether they have rationale.

Like it or not, we aren't anywhere near settled civil law on social media.
Click to expand...

Probably because nobody is both rich enough and crazy enough to spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees and years in court just to have their account unbanned.
 
JasperL said:
But they are gathering on private property. Being big doesn't convert the space to 'public' property. Can you "discriminate" on your property? Of course you can. So why is FB prohibited?
Click to expand...

Monopolies are illegal. In the era of the significant monopolies, such as breaking up Standard Oil, those companies did not have 1/10th the market share that Google/Facebook/Twitter or Amazon had.

Google is over 80% of the Internet. Amazon is over half of all retail sales in the USA. NO company forced to break up for being monopolies were even close to their size nor wealth.

But virtually every politicians protects and defends them - and so do nearly all Democrats on this forum.

There are almost no liberals left in the Democratic Party. Nearly all now are corporate fascists. They also want to drive us peasants into the economic dirt so they can save them with corporate socialism for all they financially ruin, while seeking total control of all political discourse, as they pocket the wealth of the world for themselves - giving politicians a tiny piece of the action.

The super rich always want a totalitarian fascist government that controls all information flow and news outlets - that they now do own. The Democratic Party is 100% on board with this.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Probably because nobody is both rich enough and crazy enough to spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees and years in court just to have their account unbanned.
Click to expand...

Yet you want to argue for FB to take advantage of that, I thought you guys were the champions of the little guy?

Where is the ACLU? This would seem to be right up their alley.
 
Winston said:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?




Well, they are certainly free to do as they please. But, these social media giants are definitely gatekeepers to information in this day & age. I'm of the belief that when you start banning people it's against the principle of Free Speech. I say let them stay. Let them stay and let the fake news stay too. I'd rather have an atmosphere on Facebook that was Wild Wild West style. Here's a ton of information and then you the user have to sift through what is verifiable and accurate and what is fake news.

"promoting hate speech and violence" sounds like a copout for getting away with an easy ban of despised public figures. I don't agree with censoring hate speech, I tend to agree the KKK can say what they damn well please, but, the left will be there to push back on their hatred. Promoting violence is a legitimate reason for banning an account. Facebook needs to establish some guidelines for what constitutes promoting violence on Facebook. I can't see the rantings of Alex Jones where he says faux-patriotic things like "Don't Tread on my freedoms bro or we're coming for you" as rising to the legal level of a "Imminent lawless action".

Given that's the government's standard for protected and unprotected speech, shouldn't it be Facebook's as well? Or, should it not?
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:

59551423_10216518531013338_6369389113593823232_n.jpg
 
OpportunityCost said:
Provides basis for civil action. Police can always claim they didn't see it. Its been pointed out to FB and they ignore it. The behavior pattern is altogether different.
Click to expand...

I don't think "it" does provide a basis for civil action. If it does you'll need to cite the authority, because I haven't seen it.

I assume what has "been pointed out" by someone unnamed is the discriminatory treatment of 'conservatives' versus 'liberals' but I've never seen anything like a study on it that proves anything. What analyses I have seen are wholly anecdotal, dealing with high profile individuals and comparisons of various comments that aren't at all the 'same' but might have similarities. What isn't done is a review of a few high profile persons' entire history on the site, versus just the 'last straw' and that kind of analysis simply is not evidence of a systemic bias.

But why should FB or Twitter be obligated to treat, say, the views of a neo-Nazi equivalently to those of a Democratic socialist. There are some people who find the latter more offensive than the former, and vice versa, but IMO FB has the prerogative to ban one but not the other from its platform.

DP ban hammers neo-Nazis with a vengeance. Why is that not the owners' prerogative?
 
JasperL said:
Sad story, bro. :boohoo:

Just a FWIW, protest is a form of protected speech. In fact, a "free speech" regime or set of rules or laws that does not especially protect protest is the opposite of free speech. Much of your list is at best/worst protest, which is obviously protected 'free speech.'

And by conflating vandalism and violence against individuals with things like not-banning books or confederate statues but protesting them, and not-banning Christmas trees, you illustrate you have no idea what 'free speech' even is or what the 1A protects. You appear to believe you have a right not to be confronted with opinions that disagree with your own, but you do not, sadly for you.
Click to expand...


"Protest"? Bwahahahahahaha! That's cute. The intolerant, safe-space crowd has come to believe that since spineless liberal mayors issue "stand-down" orders to police ... that their right to protest opposing speech includes firebombing buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders. That's what happens when you enable and encourage liberal fascism. Oh, and now the kicker ... "You appear to believe you have a right not to be confronted with opinions that disagree with your own ..." Yikes! That's some priceless projection right there, has the ENTIRE point escaped you?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yet you want to argue for FB to take advantage of that, I thought you guys were the champions of the little guy?

Where is the ACLU? This would seem to be right up their alley.
Click to expand...

The ACLU properly recognizes and defends "free speech" as protected by the 1A, and not the decisions of private entities that aren't subject to 1A protection. The ACLU would (I assume, haven't done a proper research effort on the subject) that, e.g., a Catholic website has the prerogative to establish a welcoming home for Catholics, and isn't forced by the GOVERNMENT to tolerate racist and pro-abortion trolls that ruin the experience for everyone. Private property and free association are also protected rights.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yet you want to argue for FB to take advantage of that, I thought you guys were the champions of the little guy?

Where is the ACLU? This would seem to be right up their alley.
Click to expand...

On balance the ACLU is essential to protect the rights of average people, but I'll be the first to admit that they do take up some bizarre cases.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
"Protest"? Bwahahahahahaha! That's cute. The intolerant, safe-space crowd has come to believe that since spineless liberal mayors issue "stand-down" orders to police ... that their right to protest opposing speech includes firebombing buildings and assaulting innocent bystanders. That's what happens when you enable and encourage liberal fascism. Oh, and now the kicker ... "You appear to believe you have a right not to be confronted with opinions that disagree with your own ..." Yikes! That's some priceless projection right there, has the ENTIRE point escaped you?
Click to expand...

Right to protest does not include vandalism or assault.

If you want to discuss things rationally, don't spew nonsense.
 
joko104 said:
Monopolies are illegal. In the era of the significant monopolies, such as breaking up Standard Oil, those companies did not have 1/10th the market share that Google/Facebook/Twitter or Amazon had.

Google is over 80% of the Internet. Amazon is over half of all retail sales in the USA. NO company forced to break up for being monopolies were even close to their size nor wealth.

But virtually every politicians protects and defends them - and so do nearly all Democrats on this forum.
Click to expand...

Like I said, your problem isn't censorship but monopolies. I don't know why you ignored that comment directly to you on an earlier post, but you're demonstrating my point. I agree with you, and so does the liberal everyone loves to hate, Elizabeth Warren:

Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon and Facebook - The New York Times

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is bidding to be the policy pacesetter in the Democratic presidential primary, championed another expansive idea on Friday evening in front of a crowd of thousands in Queens: a regulatory plan aimed at breaking up some of America’s largest tech companies, including Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook.
Click to expand...

So before you attribute views to me, you might find out what my views are first. Seems like the polite thing to do.

Can you tell me any on the right proposing or supporting Warren's proposal? I think the answer is no, but I'd love to find out I'm wrong. One of the liberal writers I follow most closely is Martin Longman at boomantribune, and he's been calling for breaking up monopolies for years.

There are almost no liberals left in the Democratic Party. Nearly all now are corporate fascists. They also want to drive us peasants into the economic dirt so they can save them with corporate socialism for all they financially ruin, while seeking total control of all political discourse, as they pocket the wealth of the world for themselves - giving politicians a tiny piece of the action.

The super rich always want a totalitarian fascist government that controls all information flow and news outlets - that they now do own. The Democratic Party is 100% on board with this.
Click to expand...

If you want to respond to me, please don't create BS, baseless views that you attribute to me. It's just worthless drivel that adds nothing to the debate. And I don't know how in the hell you square your call for a free speech police monitoring FB and Twitter ban decisions with something other than a totalitarian fascist government that controls information flow. By definition, FB and thousands of other websites would cede editorial control over to a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats enforcing laws made by congress about what is and isn't allowed.

That's some 1984 Orwellian BS right there. We're going to protect 'free speech' by putting an army of free speech police in service to enforce government standards about 'free speech!' :shock:
 
Everyone's asking for the law or court case which shows that private entities don't have the right to censor absolutely.

The Supreme Court case is Marsh v. Alabama, where a Jehovah's witness was charged with trespassing for distributing pamphlets on private property: the sidewalks of a town which was owned by a shipbuilding company. Marsh won on appeal to the Supreme court, which ruled 5-3 that the more private property is opened to public use and functions as a commons, the more legal weight should be given to the first amendment rights of the people using it.

A separate legal concern is the platform v. publisher argument. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes social media platforms generally exempt from common law libel torts; this law was passed by Congress in order to facilitate the free flow of information and public discourse online. If platforms cease to do that and start to censor more widely, the law could easily be repealed, and the old status quo upheld in cases like Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. would reemerge, which made any online site legally accountable for all information published on it. Many of the biggest social media sites would not stay solvent for long under this older set of rules, as it would introduce almost insurmountable problems of scale as far as moderation goes.

Also, the idea that Facebook censors in order to increase the comfort of its users and would lose users if it didn't is dumb. A lot of Facebook censorship has to do with dissolving private groups that nobody who isn't interested in ever interacts with, and the banning of people who can easily be blocked by those who don't want to hear them. So are the arguments that those people who were banned called for violence; Laura Loomer is as milquetoast as you can get and she was banned. It's purely a culling of the ideological fringes.
 
JasperL said:
Can you tell me any on the right proposing or supporting Warren's proposal? I think the answer is no, but I'd love to find out I'm wrong. One of the liberal writers I follow most closely is Martin Longman at boomantribune, and he's been calling for breaking up monopolies for years.
Click to expand...

You probably aren't hearing them because they've been banned from most social media platforms. That's the scary thing about censorship: it destroys your own access to information, and distorts how you see reality. The only conservatives left with unimpeded online voices are the ones who tow the line on Israel and Capitalism. I'm generally a right-wing person socially, and the idea of breaking up both banks and media companies is popular with many right-wing people outside of libertarians and the stereotypical boomer conservatives. We understand that Facebook and Twitter are our enemies, not our allies. Only those dumb enough not to see that are being platformed right now.
 
Desert Storm said:
Okay, if no criminal charges then which law do you plan on holding FB accountable to??
And after you're done telling me which law, what type of punishment do you have in mind?? Monetary???
Click to expand...

Civil. Let me know when you can read and understand that.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
On balance the ACLU is essential to protect the rights of average people, but I'll be the first to admit that they do take up some bizarre cases.
Click to expand...

The ACLU mission is to protect Constitutional rights. This is most definitely a free speech issue because without a public square you don't have a right to free speech that matters. FB and social media is the new public square.
 
JasperL said:
The ACLU properly recognizes and defends "free speech" as protected by the 1A, and not the decisions of private entities that aren't subject to 1A protection. The ACLU would (I assume, haven't done a proper research effort on the subject) that, e.g., a Catholic website has the prerogative to establish a welcoming home for Catholics, and isn't forced by the GOVERNMENT to tolerate racist and pro-abortion trolls that ruin the experience for everyone. Private property and free association are also protected rights.
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't noticed but we have gone in a generation from free speech unless harmed to you offend me, you must be silenced. Ruin the experience? Don't visit their page...

FYI by stating pro abortion trolls, you just made it an entirely political issue.
 
JasperL said:
I don't think "it" does provide a basis for civil action. If it does you'll need to cite the authority, because I haven't seen it.

I assume what has "been pointed out" by someone unnamed is the discriminatory treatment of 'conservatives' versus 'liberals' but I've never seen anything like a study on it that proves anything. What analyses I have seen are wholly anecdotal, dealing with high profile individuals and comparisons of various comments that aren't at all the 'same' but might have similarities. What isn't done is a review of a few high profile persons' entire history on the site, versus just the 'last straw' and that kind of analysis simply is not evidence of a systemic bias.

But why should FB or Twitter be obligated to treat, say, the views of a neo-Nazi equivalently to those of a Democratic socialist. There are some people who find the latter more offensive than the former, and vice versa, but IMO FB has the prerogative to ban one but not the other from its platform.

DP ban hammers neo-Nazis with a vengeance. Why is that not the owners' prerogative?
Click to expand...

DP didn't go before Congress and pretend that they were going to do one thing and then a few months later decide to do the exact opposite. Sworn testimony tends to lead to an expected outcome or expected behavior. Doing the opposite easily demonstrates dishonest---maybe fraudulent, behavior. If you think you cant get a civil tort on that, lots of cases have been won on less.
 
Desert Storm said:
Hey I wasnt sure what you meant. No need to get snappy.

So are talking civil lawsuits by FB users, or civil government monetary penalties??
Click to expand...

Possibly both, FB is breaking their word to continue to act as a platform, but by banning they are conducting discrimination in which people they allow access to their platform. That's a publisher's prerogative, a platform shouldn't care unless the rights of another are harmed and then they should step in.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Possibly both, FB is breaking their word to continue to act as a platform, but by banning they are conducting discrimination in which people they allow access to their platform. That's a publisher's prerogative, a platform shouldn't care unless the rights of another are harmed and then they should step in
Click to expand...
Thats gonna be really hard to prove because FB, Twitter, IG....etc have the right to ban people if they violate their service agreement.
Alex Jones and a few others were banned for hate speech and inciting violence. No govt I know of could successfully challenge that.

Let me use an example, if I own a nightclub and I have a strict no swearing rule, and some drunk comes along and starts swearing and arguing with everyone, I have the right to toss him. Especially if the perpetrator signed a form to come inside my establishment (which is similar to what you have to do to sign up with FB)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom