After Facebook “censors” anti-Muslim posts, hate groups sue US gov’t

Gov't lawyers now ask judge to dismiss lawsuit, as activists "lack standing."

Read the whole story

 

[marf]

Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

 

[marf]

Facebook obeying the law is one thing, trying to make out that Facebook is a government tool subject to arbitrary governmental censorship in contravention of 1A is quite another!

 

[marf]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":1mm7s352]

marf[/url]":1mm7s352]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

This is true. But it is also very easy for you to agree with this because you are the sort of person who will never be banned from any internet community because your opinions are probably very pollitically correct (please don't downvote because I called someone PC, just hear me out).

Suppose one day these social media behemoths start banning people for supporting a certain progressive idea (let's say gay adoption). They would be within their right to do it, but you would disagree that your opinion is deserving of being censored.

I think this is how the plaintiffs feel in this case.
But let us hope you never have the need to express opinions that go against the stream, and then find that you can't do that, because Facebook and Twitter and the like are choosing who can use their platform based on political views.

Oh I've been banned for sharing honestly held negative opinions of Islam, despite being an apostate of Islam... it sucks but there it is.

I've also been banned from the Guardian website on four separate occasions for daring to state that I disagree with the routine religious/cultural/prophylactic circumcision of male children, even when making the reasoned argument that a simple pinprick to a girls parts is considered FGM under international law.

So yeah, banned for basically asking for equality in law for male kids, and banned for sharing my own personal experience of Islam and leaving it behind.

"telling the truth in times of deceit is a revolutionary act"

 

[marf]

iamaelephant[/url]":2e2dolru]I wish I had the energy it must take to be an anti Muslim activist.

I'm not anti-muslim as such, just anti those who want to shut down all discussion of Islam because its "racist"

Getting past the liberal bias and political correctness is hard, and I say that as a "liberal" (in the classical sense)

Ben Affleck/Bill Maher/Sam Harris is a good example of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

 

[marf]

listenupguys[/url]":24caf64p]

marf wrote:
Facebook obeying the law is one thing, trying to make out that Facebook is a government tool subject to arbitrary governmental censorship in contravention of 1A is quite another!

What about that story from when the migrant crisis began in Europe, when Angela Merkel was recorded asking Mark Zuckerberg what Facebook is going to do about all the anti-migrant and anti-Merkel posts on Facebook? That does kind of sound like the German government has an arrangement with Facebook, to me at least. The video is no doubt still on YouTube.

If they violated Facebook's terms of service, then fair enough.

Also, I'm pretty sure there is no hard and fast right to freedom of speech in Germany, especially when it comes to "hate speech". There is afterall some history there.

I say that as someone who is torn between respecting Merkel for doing the charitable thing in accepting these people, and criticising her for allowing this many people in without the ability to do any real background checking.

 

[marf]

I don't often agree with Sergei, but on the pew research and drawing Mo' points he's spot on.

Look at this little guy

_\|/^
(_oo
|
/|\
|
LL

Why do people want to kill me if I do this?

_\|/^
(_oo
| <--- Mohamad
/|\
|
LL

Theocratic fascism, that's why.


The points Sergei makes are factual, unpalatable, but factual.

This is what certain elements do not want to hear, and when reasonable people(i like to count myself amongst them!) point this out, we are shouted down in a most illiberal fashion.

 

[marf]

mebeSajid[/url]":4ndpdbif]

marf[/url]":4ndpdbif]
Oh I've been banned for sharing honestly held negative opinions of Islam, despite being an apostate of Islam... it sucks but there it is.

I've also been banned from the Guardian website on four separate occasions for daring to state that I disagree with the routine religious/cultural/prophylactic circumcision of male children, even when making the reasoned argument that a simple pinprick to a girls parts is considered FGM under international law.

So yeah, banned for basically asking for equality in law for male kids, and banned for sharing my own personal experience of Islam and leaving it behind.

"telling the truth in times of deceit is a revolutionary act"

My experience has been that it takes a *LOT* to get banned from the Guardian. They let quite a bit go.

I agree, they are usually pretty wide open. MGM seems to be a red rag to a bull over there with zero tolerance.

 

[marf]

rabish12[/url]":1g8240vn]
More broadly, you'll generally find that religious fundamentalism like that tends to be tied to social and political situations rather than religious ones.

And that my friend, is precisely why people rally against Political Islamism, because we absolutely do not want it taking a foothold in our social and political spheres.

This is what many people seem to be ignorant of, wilfully or otherwise - at it's heart, Islam is a doctrine for a particular kind of societal construct, i.e. a theocracy.

This runs counter to our idea of a western liberal democracy.

 

[marf]

rabish12[/url]":1dujyxte]

marf[/url]":1dujyxte]

rabish12[/url]":1dujyxte]
More broadly, you'll generally find that religious fundamentalism like that tends to be tied to social and political situations rather than religious ones.

And that my friend, is precisely why people rally against Political Islamism, because we absolutely do not want it taking a foothold in our social and political spheres.

This is what many people seem to be ignorant of, wilfully or otherwise - at it's heart, Islam is a doctrine for a particular kind of societal construct, i.e. a theocracy.

This runs counter to our idea of a western liberal democracy.

You probably should have read my entire post instead of cherry-picking a single quote, because... woosh. Just a hint to get you started: the point is not that the religion creates social and political situations that make people more willing to enforce its worst aspects. The point is that social and political situations create an adherence to the religion that's stringent enough to make people willing to enforce those aspects. That's not at all exclusive to Islam, and one of the main reasons you see so much Islamic fundamentalism as compared to, say, Christian fundamentalism is because so many Muslims are living in absolutely abhorrent conditions.

Focusing on Islamic fundamentalism is focusing on a symptom in a way that makes the underlying problem much, much worse.

Nope, no woosh, and not so much cherry picking rather not wanting to post a quote mountain when that point was a good jumping off point for a reply.

Again, do I need to remind you I was a Muslim?

If first generation migrants from Islamic countries bring these ideas with them, they should be challenged and told in no uncertain terms that they cannot apply their ideology to western ideals of liberal democracy and social freedom. These people do not separate religion from the social/political constructs they grew up in.

If the second generation leave those ideas behind, great. More power to them.

If not we should be deeply concerned.

No-one, not a single person should feel like they are being intolerant, bigoted or racist for saying "I don't want political islam in my country, we are a liberal democracy where you are free to practice your religion in absence of a negative effect on your fellow citizens"

I do agree that religious fundamentalism is driven by abhorrent living conditions, often through a lack of education(Boko Haram translated means "western education forbidden") or massive income inequality(Saudi/Kuwaiti royal families anyone?).

Anyway, let the downvotes flow.

 

[marf]

daemonios[/url]":7gge3kb8]

marf[/url]":7gge3kb8]

mebeSajid[/url]":7gge3kb8]

marf[/url]":7gge3kb8]
Oh I've been banned for sharing honestly held negative opinions of Islam, despite being an apostate of Islam... it sucks but there it is.

I've also been banned from the Guardian website on four separate occasions for daring to state that I disagree with the routine religious/cultural/prophylactic circumcision of male children, even when making the reasoned argument that a simple pinprick to a girls parts is considered FGM under international law.

So yeah, banned for basically asking for equality in law for male kids, and banned for sharing my own personal experience of Islam and leaving it behind.

"telling the truth in times of deceit is a revolutionary act"

My experience has been that it takes a *LOT* to get banned from the Guardian. They let quite a bit go.

I agree, they are usually pretty wide open. MGM seems to be a red rag to a bull over there with zero tolerance.

I can see how you'd ruffle some feathers if you go around calling female circumcision a "pinprick".

Snipping a flap of skin has its issues, and I'm also against it. But it is NOT comparable to the AMPUTATION OF A FUNCTIONAL PART OF A WOMAN'S SEX ORGANS.

Learning some tact is a valuable tool if you want to engage in discussions.

Did you miss this bit of my post?

"even when making the reasoned argument that a simple pinprick to a girls parts is considered FGM under international law."

You should go and look up what FGM is defined as under international law.

It exists on a continuum starting with a pin prick to draw a token drop of blood, to full removal of external genitalia and infibulation(sewing up the vaginal canal)

Pin prick |--------------------------| infibulation

All illegal and defined as FGM.

I am against ALL forms of FGM from that pinprick all the way along the legally defined continuum, I simply find it abhorrent that 50-70% of the skin of a boys dick can be removed
legally for no reason when a pinrick to a girls parts is considered FGM.


So please, dismount from your high horse and perhaps teach yourself that tact that you say I'm missing.

 

[marf]

rabish12[/url]":2mj2db8d]

marf[/url]":2mj2db8d]

rabish12[/url]":2mj2db8d]

marf[/url]":2mj2db8d]

rabish12[/url]":2mj2db8d]
More broadly, you'll generally find that religious fundamentalism like that tends to be tied to social and political situations rather than religious ones.

And that my friend, is precisely why people rally against Political Islamism, because we absolutely do not want it taking a foothold in our social and political spheres.

This is what many people seem to be ignorant of, wilfully or otherwise - at it's heart, Islam is a doctrine for a particular kind of societal construct, i.e. a theocracy.

This runs counter to our idea of a western liberal democracy.

You probably should have read my entire post instead of cherry-picking a single quote, because... woosh. Just a hint to get you started: the point is not that the religion creates social and political situations that make people more willing to enforce its worst aspects. The point is that social and political situations create an adherence to the religion that's stringent enough to make people willing to enforce those aspects. That's not at all exclusive to Islam, and one of the main reasons you see so much Islamic fundamentalism as compared to, say, Christian fundamentalism is because so many Muslims are living in absolutely abhorrent conditions.

Focusing on Islamic fundamentalism is focusing on a symptom in a way that makes the underlying problem much, much worse.

Nope, no woosh, and not so much cherry picking rather not wanting to post a quote mountain when that point was a good jumping off point for a reply.

Again, do I need to remind you I was a Muslim?

And?

If first generation migrants from Islamic countries bring these ideas with them, they should be challenged and told in no uncertain terms that they cannot apply their ideology to western ideals of liberal democracy and social freedom. These people do not separate religion from the social/political constructs they grew up in.

Sure. That's still a world apart from claiming that Islam is inherently bad or corrupting in a way that other religions aren't, saying that the root cause of the kind of fundamentalist bullshit that they engage in is just that their religion is evil, or (as Sergei did) presenting statistics about Muslims in Asia and Africa with no context so that you can imply that they're talking about Muslims in the western world by claiming that they represent "moderate" Muslims.

If the second generation leave those ideas behind, great. More power to them.

If not we should be deeply concerned.

No-one, not a single person should feel like they are being intolerant, bigoted or racist for saying "I don't want political islam in my country, we are a liberal democracy where you are free to practice your religion in absence of a negative effect on your fellow citizens"

I do agree that religious fundamentalism is driven by abhorrent living conditions, often through a lack of education(Boko Haram translated means "western education forbidden") or massive income inequality(Saudi/Kuwaiti royal families anyone?).

Anyway, let the downvotes flow.

The downvotes will flow because you're trying to cast it as a stance against "political Islam" when that's not what Sergei was pushing against and very definitely not what the organizations covered in the article are pushing against, and (at least to me) it looks a lot like you're doing that on purpose so that you can try and cast his position as something justifiable when it really isn't.

Parts of his position are entirely justifiable, the risk that we run is throwing out the valid facts along with the bigotry he displays. I'm simply trying to extract the flecks of gold from his bile.

 

[marf]

daemonios[/url]":3if4c8yj]
My post was misinformed, not tactless. I did miss that part of your post since I grabbed it from someone who'd replied to you earlier. Apologies for that. No need to involve innocent horses in the discussion.

Thank you for your fairness. Apology accepted.

 

[marf]

rabish12[/url]":2u1elnsy]

marf[/url]":2u1elnsy]Parts of his position are entirely justifiable, the risk that we run is throwing out the valid facts along with the bigotry he displays. I'm simply trying to extract the flecks of gold from his bile.

You'd probably be better off looking for gold in a gold mine or jewelry store rather than in someone's vomit.

You asked what the relevance of my being an ex-Muslim was. The relevance is seeing the evidence of the pew polls first hand in my own damned family.

Seeing women subjugated. Seeing anti-semetism and racism flow from their mouths when in the company of their own and changing that tact outside their safe zones. Taqiyya dear boy, taqiyya...

I am so thankful that I am mixed race and have a pretty normal family on my mothers side. My fathers side are frankly batshit mental when viewed in western terms.

I don't say these things to be intentionally inflammatory, I say these things because of the naivete that so many people demonstrate when talking about these issues.

This naivete comes from an admirable place, i.e. wanting an equal inclusive society, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be cowed into not speaking out because someone is trying to beat me over the head with the doctrine of PC or the label of a bigot(this does not describe you, I hasten to add!)

rabish12[/url]":2u1elnsy]

EDIT: Just to more directly address what you said in your last post: the second generation does tend to leave those ideas behind. Universally? No, but that kind of adherence generally goes down rather than up over time when they're living in a society that doesn't consider their religion to be a fundamental and inherent good to be followed at all costs.

You're right, they "usually" do. What freaks me out is the huge number of British 2nd and 3rd generation types leaving the UK to join ISIS. It seems Brits are over represented here.

 

[marf]

rabish12[/url]":36idnprp]

marf[/url]":36idnprp]

rabish12[/url]":36idnprp]

marf[/url]":36idnprp]Parts of his position are entirely justifiable, the risk that we run is throwing out the valid facts along with the bigotry he displays. I'm simply trying to extract the flecks of gold from his bile.

You'd probably be better off looking for gold in a gold mine or jewelry store rather than in someone's vomit.

You asked what the relevance of my being an ex-Muslim was. The relevance is seeing the evidence of the pew polls first hand in my own damned family.

Seeing women subjugated. Seeing anti-semetism and racism flow from their mouths when in the company of their own and changing that tact outside their safe zones. Taqiyya dear boy.

I am so thankful that I am mixed race and have a pretty normal family on my mothers side. My fathers side are frankly batshit mental when viewed in western terms.

I don't say these things to be intentionally inflammatory, I say these things because of the naivete that so many people demonstrate when talking about these issues.

First, you can't see the evidence of the polls involved in that study first-hand if you've been living in a western country because it didn't cover western countries. That was one of the main points I was making in responding to it: it's dishonest to present it as a global representation of the Muslim population and especially to present it as representative of western Muslim populations because it flatly did not include them.

Second, my asking why it matters that you were a Muslim was rhetorical. The point is that it doesn't matter. You can't make sound conclusions about a global population on the basis of personal experiences with a subset of it, no matter how awful those experiences are.

Third, don't presume that I'm naive about the problems with the religion. I do not have a positive opinion of Islam, at all, and I'll gladly debate against it when there's a need to do so. I'm just not foolish enough to let any of that blind me to the kinds of dishonest bullshit that people like Sergei do, the level of distortion it creates, or the exceptional degree of damage that results from it.

You're right, they "usually" do. What freaks me out is the huge number of British 2nd and 3rd generation types leaving the UK to join ISIS. It seems Brits are over represented here.

There are somewhere over 2.7 million Muslims in the UK. Around 1500 have tried to leave in order to join ISIS (not 1500 from a particular generation, 1500 period). That's under 0.06% of the population. It's a "huge number" only if you ignore the exceptionally small portion of the overall Muslim population that it represents.

It's a huge number in terms of the numbers of muslims leaving western countries. Brits are overrepresented here compared to Muslims leaving the US or other EU countries to join ISIS.

And I agree with you that the plural of anecdote is not data, I often throw that out myself!

However I've spent enough time in Islamic countries to know that I'm not pissing in the wind here and the experiences I have with my fathers family are pretty commonplace throughout the mid east.

I will note that I did start out my agreement with Sergei by saying "I don't normally agree with Sergei" and then clarified the two small points I did agree on.

It feels like I am being thrown under the same bus that I would throw him under myself.

 

[marf]

rabish12[/url]":t2vwbrdk]

marf[/url]":t2vwbrdk]It's a huge number in terms of the numbers of muslims leaving western countries. Brits are overrepresented here compared to Muslims leaving the US or other EU countries to join ISIS.

Are they, though? I know it's the case for the US (which is unsurprising, given how difficult and expensive it would be to attempt it from there in the first place), but I can't find statistics for any other EU country. All I find are more articles about the UK, which makes sense given that the UK is the only country that seems to have official statements about how big of an issue it is.

Either way, assume the UK is a high outlier. So? That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the Muslim population there (and in western countries in general) isn't engaging in the same thing, and it really just raises the question of why the UK is a high outlier in that way. If anything, it would imply that the issue isn't the religion or the societies that their families are coming from, else you'd expect to see a fairly even distribution.

And I agree with you that the plural of anecdote is not data, I often throw that out myself!

However I've spent enough time in Islamic countries to know that I'm not pissing in the wind here and the experiences I have with my fathers family are pretty commonplace throughout the mid east.

It's somewhat odd to say that you agree that the plural of anecdote is not data and then argue that you know that this is the case based on a plurality of personal anecdotal experiences.

That said, I'm not saying that these kinds of things aren't commonplace throughout the mid east because I know that they are. I'm saying that the fear of Muslims in western society, and that they'll force their religion into control of the government in those countries, isn't well-founded.

I will note that I did start out my agreement with Sergei by saying "I don't normally agree with Sergei" and then clarified the two small points I did agree on.

It feels like I am being thrown under the same bus that I would throw him under myself.

You're being thrown under that bus because of your response to my post pointing out the extremely dishonest crap that he was pulling, not your response to his. Specifically, there's two things you did:

1) You completely ignored almost the entirety of the post so that you could provide apologetics on the basis that it's really the politics of Islam that people are rallying against. It isn't.

2) You said this:

This is what many people seem to be ignorant of, wilfully or otherwise - at it's heart, Islam is a doctrine for a particular kind of societal construct, i.e. a theocracy.

This runs counter to our idea of a western liberal democracy.

This pretty much seems to be saying that Islam itself, not its politics, is necessarily problematic because it fundamentally favors and caters to theocracy. Putting it alone on that kind of pedestal shows a pretty high level of ignorance of the nature and history of the other Abrahamic religions, not to mention the vast majority of religions in general.

It's not that I don't recognise the history and nature of the other Abrahamic religions, its that I recognise that today only Islam still espouses these ideas. Judaism and Christianity have become a largely secular pursuit, if that makes sense?

My comments about the UK are more a lament, it feels like we've failed as a society if we have the most ISIS pledges flitting off to join the Jihad.