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

[Phys251]

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?

Bye-bye, hatemongers! :2wave:

 

[Desert Storm]

Censorship has never worked, and will never work.
Social media is making a mistake by delving into politics and picking sides.

Having said that, its their company so they have the right to ban people

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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?

Free speech is only in what the government can't do to you if it does not like your speech, not what private entities can do.

There is no 'free speech' in my house. If you say enough things that I don't like, I'm going to throw your ass out, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Facebook is Zuckerberg's house. If he doesn't like what you say, he gets to throw your ass out, too.

 

[ocean515]

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?

I agree with your perspective Winston.

I don't care if it's some racist like Farrakhan, who I understand they have also banned.

This slippery slope people are so anxious to enter onto is alarming.

We certainly are smarter, and more discerning, than these companies, and our government are given us credit for.

When something like Facebook gets as massive as it has, and then starts deciding on it's own what people can view, they have crossed a line.

This is especially true, considering it costs nothing to join Facebook.

I would feel completely different if Facebook was a pay for use operation, where only members could view content. At that point, they could do as they wanted.

We're in very dangerous territory when we start allowing people to take away our unalienable rights.

 

[Lovebug]

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.

Ok, makes sense, but begs the question whether only the far right are held to TOS. Hate speech isn't one sided, right?

 

[Winston]

Free speech is only in what the government can't do to you if it does not like your speech, not what private entities can do.

There is no 'free speech' in my house. If you say enough things that I don't like, I'm going to throw your ass out, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Facebook is Zuckerberg's house. If he doesn't like what you say, he gets to throw your ass out, too.

This seems reasonable to me but, Facebook is a communication platform. How are you gonna ban someone for communicating things you don't like when you run a communication platform lol.

 

[apdst]

Farakahn is a far right figure?...lol

 

[3leftsdoo]

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?

Facebook has banned large numbers of leftist groups as well.

Completely unacceptable practice whether it's attacking the free speech of the left or right.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

Incorrect in several ways.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

As gatekeepers of the new areas of public discourse, Facebook and other enormous social media entities have an obligation to honor free speech, including speech which may disturb some.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

No.

FB has obligations to honor free speech.

 

[Peter King]

First let me say, good work Facebook, ban the hell out of extremist, anti-jew, anti-christian, anti-immigrant, anti-black, pro-racism, etc. etc. etc. etc.

And no, this is not a first amendment problem, facebook is not the US government. The US government has to respect free speech, what companies do on their websites sadly/luckily is their own right to decide.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

Incorrect regarding Facebook.

DP, however, is a different matter - you're correct there.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

Some excellent points.

But by creating an area of public discourse, Facebook cannot arbitrarily deny some voices their right to speak.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

Incorrect - Facebook has an obligation to honor speech.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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?

This is a restriction of free speech by a private company which has established an enormous open forum.

It is both wrong and unconstitutional.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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!

They've already banned large numbers of leftist groups.

Morally wrong and unconstitutional.

 

[poweRob]

Farakahn is a far right figure?...lol

He's religious conservativism incarnate. So yes. He is. Just because you don't like his religious doesn't make him not conservative.

Society is just a mass of people trying not to be collateral damage between one religious conservative sect trying to kill some other conservative religious sect.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

Because of their enormous scale and reach, as well as global platform status, Facebook cannot arbitrarily deny free speech rights.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

I condemn Facebook's attack on the Constitution.

 

[poweRob]

This is a restriction of free speech by a private company which has established an enormous open forum.

Then don't us it. You have that choice.

It is both wrong and unconstitutional.

:lol: You should stay away from trying to interpret law.

 

[apdst]

He's religious conservativism incarnate. So yes. He is. Just because you don't like his religious doesn't make him not conservative.

Society is just a mass of people trying not to be collateral damage between one religious conservative sect trying to kill some other conservative religious sect.

His politics aren't Conservative.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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. .

Facebook's scale is too great as a public forum.

What they've done is unconstitutional.

 

[poweRob]

I condemn Facebook's attack on the Constitution.

Moar lulz...

 

[poweRob]

Facebook's scale is too great as a public forum.

Then don't use it.

What they've done is unconstitutional.

further more lulz.