• 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

Winston

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,694
Reaction score
24,055
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


Facebook Inc. said it’s banning a number of controversial far-right figures, including Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer, for violating the social-media company’s policies on hate speech and promoting violence.

The company is also blocking religious leader Louis Farrakhan, who is known for sharing anti-Semitic views; Paul Nehlen, a white nationalist who ran for Congress in 2018; and conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson. All of these individuals and accounts that represent them are also banned from photo-sharing app Instagram.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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...

That belief does not square with the US Constitution, however.

The principle of Free Speech as protected by the First Amendment applies only to criminality of speech. Facebook is not making or enforcing any criminal law.
 
Winston said:
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.
Click to expand...

You agree to follow the TOS when you register. If you don't like the TOS, don't register. If you violate the TOS, there can be consequences.

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on private and moderated platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Their core function is to harvest your personal data and sell it to pollsters, advertisers, analytical companies, etc.
 
Rogue Valley said:
You agree to follow the TOS when you register. If you don't like the TOS, don't register. If you violate the TOS, there can be consequences.

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on private and moderated platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Their core function is to harvest your personal data and sell it to pollsters, advertisers, analytical companies, etc.
Click to expand...

Which is why I use those platforms only for business; never anything personal. :)
 
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...


Heya, Winston. :)

Honestly, I'm not inclined to agree. If freedom of speech was dependent on FB allowing people to post whatever they feel like, then freedom of speech was born in February 2004. Since that's not the case, then freedom of speech can exist without FB. Therefore FB creating standards that reflect their corporate strategy, and enforcing them through bans, does not infringe upon freedom of speech. I mean, it's a free service, there's not even a refund to issue here.

Ultimately the consumer has the power to go to another website. If FB steps too far out of line, they will lose their market. I think that's as complicated as it is, and should be.
 
I was in the computer business for over 30 years. I fixed them, set them up blah blah blah. So I know something about the computer business... I've never once log on to Facebook or Twitter. Anybody who does is nuts, you're risking having your life ripped apart.

I'm off my soapbox now.
 
Though Alex Jones, Luis Farrakhan and the like have a right to free speech, Facebook has no obligation to give them a platform from which to speak.

Try posting hate speech here on DP and see how far you get. You may have a First Amendment right to speak, but no one has an obligation to give you a pulpit.
 
OlNate said:
Heya, Winston. :)

Honestly, I'm not inclined to agree. If freedom of speech was dependent on FB allowing people to post whatever they feel like, then freedom of speech was born in February 2004. Since that's not the case, then freedom of speech can exist without FB. Therefore FB creating standards that reflect their corporate strategy, and enforcing them through bans, does not infringe upon freedom of speech. I mean, it's a free service, there's not even a refund to issue here.

Ultimately the consumer has the power to go to another website. If FB steps too far out of line, they will lose their market. I think that's as complicated as it is, and should be.
Click to expand...

Your economic argument is persuasive enough.

I just disagree with the censorship. If people don't like what Alex Jones has to say, can't they block him? I know Alex Jones can go out on a street corner and scream at the skies that Hillary is a pedophile and being banned from Facebook is totally unrelated. I'm not saying that Facebook's actions disrupt a citizen's right to free speech. They aren't a government entity. However, what they are doing I disagree with from a standpoint of I believe that people should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want. And if Facebook starts banning people for hate speech, I got news for you Ilhan Omar is next on their list. Even though, we know that what she said wasn't hate speech and just criticism of Israel.
 
Winston said:
Your economic argument is persuasive enough.

I just disagree with the censorship. If people don't like what Alex Jones has to say, can't they block him? I know Alex Jones can go out on a street corner and scream at the skies that Hillary is a pedophile and being banned from Facebook is totally unrelated. I'm not saying that Facebook's actions disrupt a citizen's right to free speech. They aren't a government entity. However, what they are doing I disagree with from a standpoint of I believe that people should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want. And if Facebook starts banning people for hate speech, I got news for you Ilhan Omar is next on their list. Even though, we know that what she said wasn't hate speech and just criticism of Israel.
Click to expand...

They are. As a private company, Facebook has no requirement to spend their time and money enabling people to do so. And it shouldn't have any such requirement. People can always buy their own servers and publish anything considered protected speech.
 
Winston said:
Your economic argument is persuasive enough.

I just disagree with the censorship. If people don't like what Alex Jones has to say, can't they block him? I know Alex Jones can go out on a street corner and scream at the skies that Hillary is a pedophile and being banned from Facebook is totally unrelated. I'm not saying that Facebook's actions disrupt a citizen's right to free speech. They aren't a government entity. However, what they are doing I disagree with from a standpoint of I believe that people should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want. And if Facebook starts banning people for hate speech, I got news for you Ilhan Omar is next on their list. Even though, we know that what she said wasn't hate speech and just criticism of Israel.
Click to expand...


I hear you, man, but we're going to come at this differently...for one thing, I'm Canadian, we're too damn polite for all that "a person should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want" business... ;)

Kudos to you for having integrity, I guess... I just can't be bothered to get too excited about the likes of Alex Jones getting a couple private / corporate carpets pulled out from under him. If it were a case of being silenced entirely, I might think differently, depending on the content of his speech - we have hate speech laws up here, and I support them. But this isn't a restriction on freedom of speech, this is a company denying service for TOS violation. There are any number of ways he can continue to get his nonsense to market.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well could be, not being American....but doesn't your free speech rules include the prevention of compelled speech? And given that corporations are entities with rights, wouldn't forcing FB to allow Jones to continue to publish on their privately owned website constitute compelled speech? I tried to look this up, and it's a bit confusing, as A) some compelled speech is allowed while others is not (though Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974) could be used in this case, maybe?), and B) I'm not sure if a corporation has all the rights as a person would... But, making all the assumptions required to make myself right (lol), it would appear that the true freedom of speech infringement here would be forcing FB to publish Jones.

Too far of a reach? :)
 
DifferentDrummr said:
They are. As a private company, Facebook has no requirement to spend their time and money enabling people to do so. And it shouldn't have any such requirement. People can always buy their own servers and publish anything considered protected speech.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it, I just think that #1 against the principle of free speech. And #2 I haven't seen this so called hate speech and violence. I think if we allow Facebook to start banning people for whatever they want to call hate speech, they are going to come for the left friend. The left are the real enemies of the oligarchy, not the Right. Use your head!
 
OlNate said:
I hear you, man, but we're going to come at this differently...for one thing, I'm Canadian, we're too damn polite for all that "a person should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want" business... ;)

Kudos to you for having integrity, I guess... I just can't be bothered to get too excited about the likes of Alex Jones getting a couple private / corporate carpets pulled out from under him. If it were a case of being silenced entirely, I might think differently, depending on the content of his speech - we have hate speech laws up here, and I support them. But this isn't a restriction on freedom of speech, this is a company denying service for TOS violation. There are any number of ways he can continue to get his nonsense to market.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well could be, not being American....but doesn't your free speech rules include the prevention of compelled speech? And given that corporations are entities with rights, wouldn't forcing FB to allow Jones to continue to publish on their privately owned website constitute compelled speech? I tried to look this up, and it's a bit confusing, as A) some compelled speech is allowed while others is not (though Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974) could be used in this case, maybe?), and B) I'm not sure if a corporation has all the rights as a person would... But, making all the assumptions required to make myself right (lol), it would appear that the true freedom of speech infringement here would be forcing FB to publish Jones.

Too far of a reach? :)
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about compelled speech could you give me a primer on it?
 
At the end of the day these are private, voluntary services that you are under no obligation to use and who are under no obligation to provide you their platform.

Now there is something to be said for the argument that they are so pervasive methods of communication that by restricting someone’s use of these platforms it could be construed as an infringement of free speech... There is something to be said for that but I’ll say that if the Supreme Court has said that businesses can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because they believe in a sky zombie son of a all powerful being well... good luck arguing that.
 
Winston said:
Your economic argument is persuasive enough.

I just disagree with the censorship. If people don't like what Alex Jones has to say, can't they block him? I know Alex Jones can go out on a street corner and scream at the skies that Hillary is a pedophile and being banned from Facebook is totally unrelated. I'm not saying that Facebook's actions disrupt a citizen's right to free speech. They aren't a government entity. However, what they are doing I disagree with from a standpoint of I believe that people should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want. And if Facebook starts banning people for hate speech, I got news for you Ilhan Omar is next on their list. Even though, we know that what she said wasn't hate speech and just criticism of Israel.
Click to expand...
FB and Twitter are pretty open ended with their TOS, so it take a real talent to breach their rules.

FB and YT warned Jones and Milo that condoning and promoting political violence would not be tolerated. They made the choice to disobey those rules and give the finger to the administrators, and finally the sites said "enough is enough", and followed through with consequences.

I, for one, applaud them for taking a stand against the promotion of violence.
 
Winston said:
Yeah, I get it, I just think that #1 against the principle of free speech. And #2 I haven't seen this so called hate speech and violence. I think if we allow Facebook to start banning people for whatever they want to call hate speech, they are going to come for the left friend. The left are the real enemies of the oligarchy, not the Right. Use your head!
Click to expand...

Facebook isn't interested in right or left: only in making money. Of course, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be regulated more and/or better.

BTW, all online social discussion sites have always legally been able to ban anyone for any reason or no reason. That even predates the web, dude. And it doesn't seem to have any kind of "chilling effect" on protected speech. .
 
Winston said:
I don't know anything about compelled speech could you give me a primer on it?
Click to expand...
You get raped with a steel dildo until you say certain things.

At least, that's what George Carlin would want.
 
MovingPictures said:
FB and Twitter are pretty open ended with their TOS, so it take a real talent to breach their rules.

FB and YT warned Jones and Milo that condoning and promoting political violence would not be tolerated. They made the choice to disobey those rules and give the finger to the administrators, and finally the sites said "enough is enough", and followed through with consequences.

I, for one, applaud them for taking a stand against the promotion of violence.
Click to expand...

Ironically, Trump has violated Twitter's TOS countless times. I have very little respect for them for choosing to overlook that so blatantly.
 
Rogue Valley said:
You agree to follow the TOS when you register. If you don't like the TOS, don't register. If you violate the TOS, there can be consequences.

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on private and moderated platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Their core function is to harvest your personal data and sell it to pollsters, advertisers, analytical companies, etc.
Click to expand...

indeed! reading is fundamental.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Ironically, Trump has violated Twitter's TOS countless times. I have very little respect for them for choosing to overlook that so blatantly.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the waterworks if they banned Trump xD
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Which is why I use those platforms only for business; never anything personal. :)
Click to expand...

My personal social media consists of nothing but pics of gourmet meals that I've made after a few beers thinking I'm Gordon Ramsey and the occasional pic of my guitar/s. Absolutely nothing of value or use for any third party. You get out of social media what you put into it. The more of yourself you put out there, the more garbage you'll collect.
 
Its easy to not slander people. Good riddance.
 
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...
Free speech rights includes the right to not allow yourself to be used to spread messages you oppose.

Facebook has free speech rights too, and it is exercising its rights when it decides what types of messages can be spread through its system
 
sangha said:
Free speech rights includes the right to not allow yourself to be used to spread messages you oppose.

Facebook has free speech rights too, and it is exercising its rights when it decides what types of messages can be spread through its system
Click to expand...

/thread
 
As long as Facebook applies it's standards equally there is no reason to be upset. Anyone not happy with how Facebook is run is free to start a social media platform that has no standards if they so choose
 
Rogue Valley said:
You agree to follow the TOS when you register. If you don't like the TOS, don't register. If you violate the TOS, there can be consequences.

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" on private and moderated platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Their core function is to harvest your personal data and sell it to pollsters, advertisers, analytical companies, etc.
Click to expand...

Conversely, when you moderate your platform you should no longer be indemnified from lawsuits under previous rulings that platforms cannot be held liable for things said on their service. At this point, they are playing the publisher and should be able to be sued for libel anytime someone posts something defamatory. They should not be falling under the same regulations that phone companies fall under, who actually don't moderate their phone services.

So fine...I'll take that compromise. No lets see how long Facebook survives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom