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

 

[Doc Spector]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":2qwx4ae6]

Doc Spector[/url]":2qwx4ae6]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":2qwx4ae6]
I don't think the Court would agree with you any more than it would throw out obscenity
and all liability for broadcasting it.

Then... you'd be wrong. As I said, whether or not obscenity is protected speech depends on which state you happen to be standing in at the time. Some states have more extensive protections for freedom of speech than does the federal first amendment.

The right to free speech in Oregon is broader than the federal level:[8]

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
— Oregon Constitution, Art. I §8

In State v. Robertson,[9] the Oregon Supreme Court has cited this right against parts of Oregon's disorderly conduct statute, against content-based restrictions on billboards and murals, and against laws restricting the sale of pornography.[10] Later in 1987, the court cited this provision when it abolished the state's obscenity statute in State v. Henry.

From the Wikipedia entry on the Oregon Constitution.

And yes, a law that said that companies of size X that did (whatever) lose their rights would fail a 14th amendment challenge... handily.

Internet services were exempted from such liability--but that exemption is repealable and they could be made as liable as television networks are, if we actually wanted them to be. (Which we really don't, except maybe insofar as we could use it as a cudgel, in the manner I've outlined).

Not in Oregon. Well, not without a Constitutional amendment, first.

Then any internet service which wants to operate safely only Oregon might be perfectly free to ignore the repeal of CDA (though still not DMCA) safe harbor provisions. Assuming they wanted to operate in the other 49 states without risking a constant barrage of various obscenity charges and lawsuits though, potentially both in state and federal courts, they'd have to adjust their practices to the new legal reality.

Again, because you seem to be too dense to get it, it depends on which state you happen to be standing in at the time. States can, and several have, provided protections which go beyond the federal protections. You tried to latch onto "obscenity" as something that is OBVIOUSLY not protected speech and... oops, sometimes it is. Rather than taking this as a sign that your legal knowledge is not as strong as you thought it was, you choose to ignore it and continue on as if nothing happened.

If they wrote the bill the way you described at the top of this thread, the federal 14th amendment would be invoked quickly and effectively to invalidate it. Because it is, was, would be, unconstitutional.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

TellarHK[/url]":2ly0f5s0]

심돌산[/url]":2ly0f5s0]I don't kniw anything about this anti-islam group, but i don't automaticlly trust the classifications of the southern poverty law center. Pretty much any group that doesn't mirror the SLPC's own social politics counts as a hate group in their eyes.

The SLPC has occasionally gone a hair too far, for some people's opinions but not often. And in this case, they're spot on. These are real scumbags.

You may disagree with their opinions on Islam, but I don't view them as any such thing. They're just people who are deeply troubled by the fact that Islam is too often more than just a religion--it's also, in its most common formulation outside the U.S., a theocratic political philosophy whose mainstream adherents, according to unbiased Pew Research data, believe things like this:

Geller et al. are also people who were almost murdered by Islamic extremists--in Texas of all places--for the offense of drawing and exhibiting cartoons like this one:

You or the SPLC can call some of what they say or do "hate speech" if you want. That's your right. But at least some of what they've done has been very important IMHO, and in the service of our Free Speech values here in the U.S.

Reasonable people can disagree. But I do worry that partisans promoting certain values, like the SPLC, are increasingly seen as apolitical or nonpartisan at a time when their activism in politics and partisanship is arguably increasing. It means that values are shifting--and polarizing--in potentially problematic and divisive ways...

 

[digi99]

Pam Geller is a hatemonger to the highest levels. Let the alt-right whine about not being able to say racist, bigoted things. Maybe they can all go to Reaganbook and Conservapedia with the rest of the dingbats...

 

[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.

 

[psarhjinian]

HO[/url]":2n7a9eym]

[T]he United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Tell that to GM.

GM went hat in hand to the government. They were free to not use the government as a lender of last resort and simply go into C7 bankruptcy instead.

 

[the_ancient1]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":3t1o9dmw]

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.

I would disagree with the censorship, but I would not file a lawsuit or otherwise attempt to have the government force the company to publish my views.

I am a Geo-Libertarian, my political views are about as far from the main stream as one can get, I routinely debate politics on several websites. I have only ever been banned from 1, Hacker News, because a dared to call Taxation theft. I feel the mod was unreasonable and politically biased, Many libertarians have been banned from Hacker News. It is however Hacker News' right to have a site free from libertarian points of view if that is what they desire.

If a website, or social media platform wants to be exclusive to only certain people, certain points of view, they are and should be free to do so.

People that support free speech will migrate away from these platforms to other things where they are free to express themselves

The internet existed before Facebook, people communicated and shared ideas before Facebook, and millions of people still communicate with each other with out the need for Facebook.

Communication and the internet has a whole will out last Facebook or any other Social Media Platform.

I personally have never, and will never have a Facebook account.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

Doc Spector[/url]":3tgkdg5i]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":3tgkdg5i]

Doc Spector[/url]":3tgkdg5i]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":3tgkdg5i]
I don't think the Court would agree with you any more than it would throw out obscenity
and all liability for broadcasting it.

Then... you'd be wrong. As I said, whether or not obscenity is protected speech depends on which state you happen to be standing in at the time. Some states have more extensive protections for freedom of speech than does the federal first amendment.

The right to free speech in Oregon is broader than the federal level:[8]

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
— Oregon Constitution, Art. I §8

In State v. Robertson,[9] the Oregon Supreme Court has cited this right against parts of Oregon's disorderly conduct statute, against content-based restrictions on billboards and murals, and against laws restricting the sale of pornography.[10] Later in 1987, the court cited this provision when it abolished the state's obscenity statute in State v. Henry.

From the Wikipedia entry on the Oregon Constitution.

And yes, a law that said that companies of size X that did (whatever) lose their rights would fail a 14th amendment challenge... handily.

Internet services were exempted from such liability--but that exemption is repealable and they could be made as liable as television networks are, if we actually wanted them to be. (Which we really don't, except maybe insofar as we could use it as a cudgel, in the manner I've outlined).

Not in Oregon. Well, not without a Constitutional amendment, first.

Then any internet service which wants to operate safely only Oregon might be perfectly free to ignore the repeal of CDA (though still not DMCA) safe harbor provisions. Assuming they wanted to operate in the other 49 states without risking a constant barrage of various obscenity charges and lawsuits though, potentially both in state and federal courts, they'd have to adjust their practices to the new legal reality.

Again, because you seem to be too dense to get it, it depends on which state you happen to be standing in at the time. States can, and several have, provided protections which go beyond the federal protections. You tried to latch onto "obscenity" as something that is OBVIOUSLY not protected speech and... oops, sometimes it is. Rather than taking this as a sign that your legal knowledge is not as strong as you thought it was, you choose to ignore it and continue on as if nothing happened.

If they wrote the bill the way you described at the top of this thread, the federal 14th amendment would be invoked quickly and effectively to invalidate it. Because it is, was, would be, unconstitutional.

You seem to keep thinking that the fact that states can choose not to have state obscenity laws, means that all federal obscenity laws are invalidated, and that all other states' obscenity laws are irrelevant. They are not and there's no evidence that they ever will be. The most that Oregon choosing not to have obscenity laws could ever mean, is that there would be no state or federal obscenity violations charged in Oregon since there are no community standards violations in Oregon for prosecuting them. Oregon's court decision invalidating its obscenity laws has literally no value outside Oregon. None. It may as well not exist for the other 49 states and the Federal bench. So again, any internet service would be free to operate without the protection of CDA safe harbor provisions--within Oregon alone. The second they send bits outside state lines, without CDA safe harbor they'd be liable if those bits are considered obscene according to the community standards of wherever they're received. If you disbelieve that obscenity exists and can be prosecuted today in the U.S., go ask Rob Black or Max Hardcore about it.

 

[cyclingsm]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":1couq3qs]

marf[/url]":1couq3qs]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.

I see your argument but that is also their right. Property law trumps personal freedoms every time in court. As we were taught in pre-law "you have freedom of speech right up to my property line, then I can tell you to leave."

This isn't a group that is being shut down universally. They can host their own content on their own website and post all the content they want. Nothing stops them from doing so. Could it be costly? Sure. But it's costly for Facebook to have that content on their site and lose potential advertisers. No one wants people viewing their ad hosted next to hate speech. And ultimately, that's what Facebook and Twitter care about, the advertisements they can host. They are not doing this altruistically. They are doing it because it could potentially cost them money.

 

[daemonios]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":22ue90z2]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.

I think your argument, while appealing at first, suffers from a false equivalence. You imply that all ideas are equal, and equally worthy of publication. I don't think that's the case. The positions that were censored (I use the term loosely here) by FB and other social media weren't just outside the mainstream - they were hate speech. It's not like they deleted posts advocating a social-democrat welfare State, which is pretty controversial in the US. There is a reason why certain countries, even while having free speech as a constitutional right, prohibit certain extreme forms of hate speech.

Yes, there is the risk that these companies might try to stifle unwanted speech. But there's a mechanism in place to prevent them from going too far, which is user backlash. This was seen just recently when FB deleted the "napalm girl" photo. Even though they're free to set their own rules in their own house, they caved to public backlash at their action.

 

[nbs2]

SmokeTest[/url]":2480vhdv]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":2480vhdv]

marf[/url]":2480vhdv]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.

False equivalence. We don't have to tolerate hate speech which is known to incite violence and put people in real danger, getting real people killed, based on some hypothetical nightmare scenario.

Nobody in history ever said "I'm sure glad we didn't stand up to the Nazis, because if we did then maybe somebody else would have done the same to things I like." They tend to say things more like "Why oh why didn't anybody do anything about the problem before it got so bad?"

Also, it's worth noting that political affiliation is not a protected class. People are free to discriminate against anyone based on their political beliefs in the United States. This isn't an oversight.

Go to DC sometime...You won't believe what #12 says.

While it says political party and not political beliefs, the two are often conflated, as seen in your post. http://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits

 

[jannos]

Why is censors in quotes? They censored it, regardless of what your views on what they said are.

 

[klexas]

Pamela Geller has been known to say :

"Obama is a third worlder and a coward. He will do nothing but beat up on our friends to appease his Islamic overlords."

With ideas like that.. She really comes across comical. But I'm sure she's making a nice amount of money for her BS.

She's delusional and stunt like this massage her ego and 'profile'. When really she's scum of the earth.

 

[WaveRunner]

It's not hate speech if it's organized! They even have a lawyer, this must be ok.

 

[mebeSajid]

marf[/url]":2gr00azd]
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.

 

[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.

 

[AlexisR200X]

People keep failing to understand that YouTube, Facebook and any other social media sites/services reserve the right to remove any content they want on whatever grounds they deem right. Its very much like you causing a ruckus on private property and being removed from the premises for it.

Hate groups that want to be able to post their shit without getting it removed should consider making and operating a social media site for themselves. Only then they have full control of what is allowed to be posted and what isn't. (You know, to put out the money to run such a platform)

That said, it be fun to watch them be quickly outed as hypocrites when they start removing posts that are counter to their own views. (Just the way YouTube and other sites do it.)

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRachael]

Not all people hate cops. Not all cops are bad. Media distorts the truth for sensationlism and revenue.
I don't condone hate. I do condone the need for the truth, no matter who doesn't want to hear it.

 

[sid2000]

Say I run a website for discussion of matters to do with playing cricket. Someone keeps using it to post abusive comments because he doesn't like that I post appreciative comments about a cricketer from Yorkshire (I live in the UK and so I will use a personal experience). I block his IP and delete all his posts.

Have I infringed his "right to free speech"? NO!

I pay all the domain registration and hosting fees. I own the domain name. I own the website. It is my "toy box" and if I don't like someone or they are annoying the other members, then I can throw them out.

In this case Facebook are a business, so they also have to adhere to the law of the land. But they are not an arm of government, despite whatever lunatic conspiracy ideas you hold. And if they decide that your views break their rules, or are against the law, or more likely have attracted a large number of complaints, then they have every right to throw you out and shut the door.

This sort of lawsuit is just and example of how corrupted the legal landscape, and how putrid the political situation, have become in the US.

 

[mebeSajid]

Balanza[/url]":14mnl2lp]
This is quite common. You would think the concept of free speech is pretty clear. It amazing how many people don't embrace it. I would say well over 50% don't agree with the USA founders. That is why they were revolutionaries.

You give perfect examples. Imagine people with ideas much less acceptable than yours? They are just shut down. The Southern Law Poverty Center does just that. Quoted in this article like they are some kind of authority. They are a tool to shut down free speech.

Or perhaps, because few other groups take the time and energy to actually track down hate speech. It's not as if they're some nefarious group that's out to censor speech. They even explain what their criteria are:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

AND, the vast majority of groups that the SPLC characterizes as hate groups are Klan-affiliated white supremacists, aka Stormfront types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o ... ate_groups

It's not as if AFDI isn't a hate group. They pretty clearly are. Even the ADL has called them out.

 

[psarhjinian]

Balanza[/url]":f57x7kxj]

marf[/url]":f57x7kxj]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":f57x7kxj]

marf[/url]":f57x7kxj]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"

This is quite common. You would think the concept of free speech is pretty clear. It amazing how many people don't embrace it. I would say well over 50% don't agree with the USA founders. That is why they were revolutionaries.

You give perfect examples. Imagine people with ideas much less acceptable than yours? They are just shut down. The Southern Law Poverty Center does just that. Quoted in this article like they are some kind of authority. They are a tool to shut down free speech.

The concept of free speech (in the US) is quite clear: you can say more or less what you like, but you aren't entitled to either attention or respect. That founding fathers are quite clear on that.

If you want to move somewhere like Canada or western Europe, where they don't have quite as unfettered a tradition, and where the government actually intercedes based on things like human rights and or hate-speech laws, then please, go ahead. I would note that those countries ***actually censor*** people like Ms. Geller, whereas the US allows her to say what she likes.

 

[mebeSajid]

Doc Spector[/url]":1kckdyxp]Technically, I'm 99.999% sure that what the government has filed is a motion under FRCP 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim.

The way that works is, the court assumes that everything the plaintiff has claimed is true. If there are no legal claims for which the court has power to address, the suit is dismissed.

I would expect this motion to succeed. The question, then, is whether it will be followed by a motion for sanctions against the attorney(s) who filed the suit. Hopefully, the answer will be "yes".

After looking at the brief, it's actually a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction - FRCP 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim under 12b6.

Standing, in Federal Court at least, is usually an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

[psarhjinian]

klexas[/url]"ibigzzj]Pamela Geller has been known to say :

"Obama is a third worlder and a coward. He will do nothing but beat up on our friends to appease his Islamic overlords."

With ideas like that.. She really comes across comical. But I'm sure she's making a nice amount of money for her BS.

She's delusional and stunt like this massage her ego and 'profile'. When really she's scum of the earth.

I'm not sure if she's really crazy or just crazy like a fox inasmuch she's just figured out the alt-right gravy-train.

Which, frankly, seems to entail being Il Duce Barbie.

 

[rabish12]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":1xfp4sez]

TellarHK[/url]":1xfp4sez]

심돌산[/url]":1xfp4sez]I don't kniw anything about this anti-islam group, but i don't automaticlly trust the classifications of the southern poverty law center. Pretty much any group that doesn't mirror the SLPC's own social politics counts as a hate group in their eyes.

The SLPC has occasionally gone a hair too far, for some people's opinions but not often. And in this case, they're spot on. These are real scumbags.

You may disagree with their opinions on Islam, but I don't view them as any such thing. They're just people who are deeply troubled by the fact that Islam is too often more than just a religion--it's also, in its most common formulation outside the U.S., a theocratic political philosophy whose mainstream adherents, according to unbiased Pew Research data, believe things like this:

Geller et al. are also people who were almost murdered by Islamic extremists--in Texas of all places--for the offense of drawing and exhibiting cartoons like this one:

You or the SPLC can call some of what they say or do "hate speech" if you want. That's your right. But at least some of what they've done has been very important IMHO, and in the service of our Free Speech values here in the U.S.

Reasonable people can disagree. But I do worry that partisans promoting certain values, like the SPLC, are increasingly seen as apolitical or nonpartisan at a time when their activism in politics and partisanship is arguably increasing. It means that values are shifting--and polarizing--in potentially problematic and divisive ways...

The study that first graphic is from is rather interesting, and you should probably read it rather than stopping at the graphic. Take the bit on Sharia, for example:

First, the study found that a majority of those who support Sharia as official law in each region also supported having that law apply to Muslims only. The lowest percent of supporters who thought it should apply only to Muslims was 51 in North Africa and the Middle East.

Second, the study found that support for Sharia law had a strong relation with the existing laws and constitutions of the countries involved. For example:

"In Lebanon, Islam is not the favored religion of the state, but the major Muslim sects in the country their own courts overseeing family law. Attitudes of Lebanese Muslims appear to mirror political and legal structure: While roughly in-ten (29%) say sharia should be the official of the land, about half (53%) say religious should have the power to decide family and disputes.

Tunisia’s legal framework is, in key respects, the opposite of Lebanon’s: The Tunisian Constitution favors Islam over other religions, but religious courts, which once governed family law, were abolished in 1956. Perhaps reflecting this history, more than half of Tunisian Muslims (56%) want sharia to be the official law of the land, but a minority (42%) says religious courts should oversee family and property law.

Turkey’s evolution in the early 20th century included sweeping legal reforms resulting in a secular constitution and legal framework. As part of these changes, traditional sharia courts were eliminated in the 1920s. Today, only minorities of Turkish Muslims back enshrining sharia as official law (12%) or letting religious judges decide family and property disputes (14%)."

Basically, there's a lot of support for it specifically where it's already the status quo (which, as it turns it, includes most of the regions surveyed) and far less in regions where it isn't.

More broadly, you'll generally find that religious fundamentalism like that tends to be tied to social and political situations rather than religious ones. That's a really important nuance that's completely lost to groups like the one mentioned in the article who'd rather focus on Islam being an evil and "unchristian" religion than on what actually drives people to adhere to the worst parts of it.

 

[WaveRunner]

dfavro[/url]":3kj4z4vd]

Balanza[/url]":3kj4z4vd]

marf[/url]":3kj4z4vd]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":3kj4z4vd]

marf[/url]":3kj4z4vd]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"

This is quite common. You would think the concept of free speech is pretty clear. It amazing how many people don't embrace it. I would say well over 50% don't agree with the USA founders. That is why they were revolutionaries.

You give perfect examples. Imagine people with ideas much less acceptable than yours? They are just shut down. The Southern Law Poverty Center does just that. Quoted in this article like they are some kind of authority. They are a tool to shut down free speech.

The concept of free speech (in the US) is quite clear: you can say more or less what you like, but you aren't entitled to either attention or respect. That founding fathers are quite clear on that.

If you want to move somewhere like Canada or western Europe, where they don't have quite as unfettered a tradition, and where the government actually intercedes based on things like human rights and or hate-speech laws, then please, go ahead. I would note that those countries ***actually censor*** people like Ms. Geller, whereas the US allows her to say what she likes.

Somehow I would throw it back on you that the government who monitors and records every phone call and conversation is the one more guilty of violating or suppressing such freedoms of speech.

 

[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.

 

[kittyhawk-contrail]

jasonq[/url]":1brwwqk6]

linuxfan66[/url]":1brwwqk6]as said in first post...
freedom of speech doesnt work like this. and its morally wrong that someone is obliged to broadcast your generally offensive opinion.

While I don't agree with what these people have to say, what about the catering company that refused to cater for a gay wedding? Is Facebook the catering company?

"Bigot" isn't a protected class.

And that catering company could have refused to put gay stuff on the cake, just like they could refuse to put "Hitler did nothing wrong" on a cake. What they couldn't do was refuse to sell a cake they would have sold to a hetero couple to a gay couple.

 

[Horkthane]

SmokeTest[/url]":2h6k4u4n]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":2h6k4u4n]

marf[/url]":2h6k4u4n]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.

False equivalence. We don't have to tolerate hate speech which is known to incite violence and put people in real danger, getting real people killed, based on some hypothetical nightmare scenario.

Nobody in history ever said "I'm sure glad we didn't stand up to the Nazis, because if we did then maybe somebody else would have done the same to things I like." They tend to say things more like "Why oh why didn't anybody do anything about the problem before it got so bad?"

Also, it's worth noting that political affiliation is not a protected class. People are free to discriminate against anyone based on their political beliefs in the United States. This isn't an oversight.

Man, if only I could think of a hateful ideology that has inspired mass killings all over the globe. One that, like the Nazi's seems to really, really hate jews.

What is the Anti-Islam hate speech body count VS the Islamic body count?

Because, I mean, if you think we should ban speech based on the pile of bodies it has the potential to create... Islam's critics have nothing on Islam itself. No matter how hatefully they state their opinions.

 

[KGFish]

JohnBrooks[/url]":2s2yf7im]If a Muslim enters a gay bar, do you blame the gay bar for being a hate group?
If a Muslim stabs a bunch of people in a mall do you blame those injured?

Sure most of us were not, yet, affected by Islamic actions - but we can and should imagine being in that French airport next to the bomber and sympathize with the victims - not the terrorists.

There is no hate groups here. Stop victim blaming Ars.

Sure. And the vast majority of victims of Muslim extremists are... Muslim. Your attempt to conflate extremists with everyone else lacks consistency. Or are you also arguing that when somebody shoots a black church to start a race war, it's because all Whites and Christians want to exterminate black people?

 

[psarhjinian]

JohnBrooks[/url]":9duove88]If a Muslim enters a gay bar, do you blame the gay bar for being a hate group?

Depends, what are the priest and the rabbi doing at the time?

If a Muslim stabs a bunch of people in a mall do you blame those injured?

Sure most of us were not, yet, affected by Islamic actions - but we can and should imagine being in that French airport next to the bomber and sympathize with the victims - not the terrorists.

There is no hate groups here. Stop victim blaming Ars.

It's really awesome to watch the alt-right cry crocodile tears. I'm expecting to see thema adopt more and more terms from the apparent persecutors and start claiming they're "triggered" next.

Here's the way it works if you aren't a racist: I can demand justice for the victims of violence and demand that we despotic governments to account, but, and this is the trick, do it because they're douchebags and not because they're Muslim. Hating them for being Muslim loses you the opportunity to hate them because they're douchebags.

 

[Zak]

There was a discussion in Polish FB on the Arab situation in Europe. The refuges often receive help from the government which is close to 1,000 Euro per moth. This is more than many single mothers, elder people and WWII veterans receive. So the discussion was "why are these people who contributed nothing to the country, who came illegal and behave aggressively towards locals receive such high help" instead of being turned back. Most of these posts were removed by Facebook, leaving only those who were supportive of the idea.

People posted videos of Arab emigrants consisting mostly of young, aggressive men, armed with cellphones, GPS and cameras, tearing down road blocks, throwing trash at the Police, screaming demands. No women and children anywhere to be seen. Just a mob of strong, aggressive dudes forcing themselves through roadblocks. Most of those videos were take down too. These were statements of facts, some hateful indeed, but it's hard to stay civil in the face of aggression towards your community and media hiding the truth, but based on reality that was different from the sanitized mass media content.

 

[KGFish]

rabish12[/url]":2n3lk3cz]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":2n3lk3cz]

TellarHK[/url]":2n3lk3cz]

심돌산[/url]":2n3lk3cz]I don't kniw anything about this anti-islam group, but i don't automaticlly trust the classifications of the southern poverty law center. Pretty much any group that doesn't mirror the SLPC's own social politics counts as a hate group in their eyes.

The SLPC has occasionally gone a hair too far, for some people's opinions but not often. And in this case, they're spot on. These are real scumbags.

You may disagree with their opinions on Islam, but I don't view them as any such thing. They're just people who are deeply troubled by the fact that Islam is too often more than just a religion--it's also, in its most common formulation outside the U.S., a theocratic political philosophy whose mainstream adherents, according to unbiased Pew Research data, believe things like this:

Geller et al. are also people who were almost murdered by Islamic extremists--in Texas of all places--for the offense of drawing and exhibiting cartoons like this one:

You or the SPLC can call some of what they say or do "hate speech" if you want. That's your right. But at least some of what they've done has been very important IMHO, and in the service of our Free Speech values here in the U.S.

Reasonable people can disagree. But I do worry that partisans promoting certain values, like the SPLC, are increasingly seen as apolitical or nonpartisan at a time when their activism in politics and partisanship is arguably increasing. It means that values are shifting--and polarizing--in potentially problematic and divisive ways...

The study that first graphic is from is rather interesting, and you should probably read it rather than stopping at the graphic. Take the bit on Sharia, for example:

First, the study found that a majority of those who support Sharia as official law in each region also supported having that law apply to Muslims only. The lowest percent of supporters who thought it should apply only to Muslims was 51 in North Africa and the Middle East.

Second, the study found that support for Sharia law had a strong relation with the existing laws and constitutions of the countries involved. For example:

"In Lebanon, Islam is not the favored religion of the state, but the major Muslim sects in the country their own courts overseeing family law. Attitudes of Lebanese Muslims appear to mirror political and legal structure: While roughly in-ten (29%) say sharia should be the official of the land, about half (53%) say religious should have the power to decide family and disputes.

Tunisia’s legal framework is, in key respects, the opposite of Lebanon’s: The Tunisian Constitution favors Islam over other religions, but religious courts, which once governed family law, were abolished in 1956. Perhaps reflecting this history, more than half of Tunisian Muslims (56%) want sharia to be the official law of the land, but a minority (42%) says religious courts should oversee family and property law.

Turkey’s evolution in the early 20th century included sweeping legal reforms resulting in a secular constitution and legal framework. As part of these changes, traditional sharia courts were eliminated in the 1920s. Today, only minorities of Turkish Muslims back enshrining sharia as official law (12%) or letting religious judges decide family and property disputes (14%)."

Basically, there's a lot of support for it specifically where it's already the status quo (which, as it turns it, includes most of the regions surveyed) and far less in regions where it isn't.

More broadly, you'll generally find that religious fundamentalism like that tends to be tied to social and political situations rather than religious ones. That's a really important nuance that's completely lost to groups like the one mentioned in the article who'd rather focus on Islam being an evil and "unchristian" religion than on what actually drives people to adhere to the worst parts of it.

Just as an FYI - SergeiEsenin loves to post context-less graphics that are pulled straight from the KKK. They are completely misleading at best, by leaving out transformative context.

 

[AlexisR200X]

JohnBrooks[/url]":3ln4bbe6]If a Muslim enters a gay bar, do you blame the gay bar for being a hate group?
If a Muslim stabs a bunch of people in a mall do you blame those injured?

Sure most of us were not, yet, affected by Islamic actions - but we can and should imagine being in that French airport next to the bomber and sympathize with the victims - not the terrorists.

There is no hate groups here. Stop victim blaming Ars.

Actually in all the scenarios you describe the only correct way to go about it would be to blame any person who commits a crime by his own name and prosecute/punish him accordingly to the severity of the crime rather than merely blaming calling out his particular religion.

If some nut out there starts murdering people and happens to be Christian you don't punish every Christian out there for it, do you?

Using the victim's of the airport massacre as a way to legitimize your argument is pretty damn low. Tantamount to the now overused "Think of the children".

 

[psarhjinian]

WaveRunner[/url]":8ymavjl7]

dfavro[/url]":8ymavjl7]

Balanza[/url]":8ymavjl7]

marf[/url]":8ymavjl7]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":8ymavjl7]

marf[/url]":8ymavjl7]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"

This is quite common. You would think the concept of free speech is pretty clear. It amazing how many people don't embrace it. I would say well over 50% don't agree with the USA founders. That is why they were revolutionaries.

You give perfect examples. Imagine people with ideas much less acceptable than yours? They are just shut down. The Southern Law Poverty Center does just that. Quoted in this article like they are some kind of authority. They are a tool to shut down free speech.

The concept of free speech (in the US) is quite clear: you can say more or less what you like, but you aren't entitled to either attention or respect. That founding fathers are quite clear on that.

If you want to move somewhere like Canada or western Europe, where they don't have quite as unfettered a tradition, and where the government actually intercedes based on things like human rights and or hate-speech laws, then please, go ahead. I would note that those countries ***actually censor*** people like Ms. Geller, whereas the US allows her to say what she likes.

Somehow I would throw it back on you that the government who monitors and records every phone call and conversation is the one more guilty of violating or suppressing such freedoms of speech.

Yes, but that's not the issue here. You're deflecting.

Facebook, last I checked, is the one censoring these people.

When the United States government starts doing it, or coerces Facebook into doing so on it's behalf, then they have a case.