David Icke KICKED OFF FACEBOOK

a reply to: Thecakeisalie



KILL Or Be KILLED . These Sick People Need to be Culled for the Sake of Humanity Itself . US or THEM .......



www.infowars.com...

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: olaru12

But.....


He's not silenced there are plenty of platforms he can access to spread his message. I'll wager he would be welcomed on ATS as long as he kept the T&C.

They even let that moron Tom deLong on ATS to essentially say Nothing.

This all comes down to the fact that you do not lime him, or do not care about what he says.

BS, I own all his books and have read them all. I find some of his theories interesting and some just crazy BS he uses for shock value to keep his fans interested. Just like Alex Jones. If Icke wants to flavor his theories with Lime, that's his choice. I don't want to silence him. I find him entertaining. Perhaps he needs to move on to some "gay frogs" scenario's like the master of all things CT...AJ. I don't want Alex silenced either.

And yet you cannot understand how he is being silenced, which is very obvious. I have read none of his books, and do not intend too, but he has the right to think what he thinks.

Have you seen the horrible pages on Facebook? Racist, violent and hateful pages on Facebook, but that's ok? Yet, this one person, is being silenced. Why is that? Is it Because they do not want people thinking for themselves?

Why did the BBC go out of their way to get his interview banned on London real, and was it a coincidence thst after that, he gets banned on Facebook, and his youtube account deleted?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Im still trying to figure out why people think Facebook is so important and is some great platform to spread information.

It started as a hook up site, then turned into some vanity contest and now somehow is viewed as the great information suppository, the youth use other platforms now anyways, Facebook is for us aging folk.

To say ike is being silenced because he is booted from Facebook is like saying he's being starved because he's been banned from MacDonalds.

It's not just facebook. His page was deleted on YouTube, and chances are, he will be deleted on Twitter. Why is this important? Because billions of people use these platforms. So they are trying to cut him off. Over two billion people use facebook alone!

That is why it's so important.

Youtube as well, ok so he was also banned from subway, so that's subway and MacDonalds.

Billions of people also use those eateries.

I guess the point I'm making is if you're getting your information from YouTube and Facebook it's about as healthy as a diet of subway and MacDonalds.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Youtube as well, ok so he was also banned from subway, so that's subway and MacDonalds.
Billions of people also use those eateries.

So, when you go to subway and McDonald's, are you interacting with millions of people? Are you telling them how you feel, your thoughts etc?

Bit of a dumb example!

I guess the point I'm making is if you're getting your information from YouTube and Facebook it's about as healthy as a diet of subway and MacDonalds.

But people do get a lot of information from YouTube and Facebook. In fact, billions of people do. So what's your point?

a reply to: Jay-morris

The point is it's unhealthy to have a diet of MacDonalds and subways, it's ok to consume every now and again but do it too much it will rot your brain.

If I want to read one of his books I can go out and buy it and read it, if I want to watch his interviews I can go to his website and watch them all day, he's not being silenced.

a reply to: Jay-morris

My point is clear. Why does a "private company" give in to outside sources to ban him? This is a weak excuse to try and justify freedom of speech being shut down.

Thanks for making my point for me. You don't see the problem with what you are saying here?

Icke has his own site, does he not? I can access it from here no problem. He wants money. It's his business just like Facebook is not his business, and they are in it to make money also.

Just like a store can chose what it does and does not sell, Facebook can chose what it will and will not allow to be posted.

The definition of private ownership in the dictionary is the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body.

LINK

Only the government can take away freedom of speech by limiting it. Icke can start a thousand sites if he wants, he can even start his own version of Facebook if he wants. See how that works?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The point is it's unhealthy to have a diet of MacDonalds and subways, it's ok to consume every now and again but do it too much it will rot your brain.

Is it your choice though to eat at these places? Is it your choice and right to eat at these places every day if you want to?

If I want to read one of his books I can go out and buy it and read it, if I want to watch his interviews I can go to his website and watch them all day, he's not being silenced.

If he is not being silenced then why did the BBC pressure youtube to take his London real interview down. And in a matter of weeks, he is banned from Facebook and had his youtube channel deleted. Why is that if it's not to silence him?

You do realise that social media platforms like Facebook have over 2 billion members. How many people watch youtube videos? In the billions too.

So, the fact that social media has billions of followers, what better platform is there to silence him?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Jay-morris

My point is clear. Why does a "private company" give in to outside sources to ban him? This is a weak excuse to try and justify freedom of speech being shut down.

Thanks for making my point for me. You don't see the problem with what you are saying here?

Icke has his own site, does he not? I can access it from here no problem. He wants money.

It's his business just like Facebook is not his business, and they are in it to make money also.

Just like a store can chose what it does and does not sell, Facebook can chose what it will and will not allow to be posted.

The definition of private ownership in the dictionary is the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body.

LINK

Only the government can take away freedom of speech by limiting it. Icke can start a thousand sites if he wants, he can even start his own version of Facebook if he wants. See how that works?

How have I proven your point? Have you actually read any of my posts. It's been proven already that the BBC put pressure on Google to ban Icke on YouTube, and guess what, he was banned. So, this private company gave in to the pressure of the state owned BBC. Then, weeks later, he is band from Facebook and youtube.

As for his website. So cool media has billions of followers. Prople obviously spend more time on things like YouTube and Facebook. So what better way to silence him.

Are you saying his website has billions of followers, or billions of people go on their every day?

How many people actually got in to icke from watching his videos on YouTube or liking his Facebook page that finally drove them to his site.

Take him of Social media, then he is potentially missing out on millions of new followers.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Is it your choice though to eat at these places? Is it your choice and right to eat at these places every day if you want to? 

Yes it's my choice, I can choose to eat what I want and watch and read what want. I don't have a choice however to go MacDonalds or subway and demand pizza.

To address the rest of your post just because millions of people eat MacDonalds doesn't make it nescassarry for everyone to eat it, again it's a choice and luckily in a mostly free society I get to enjoy making my own choices.

a reply to: PandaPrincess

Sorry I starred your post thinking you were against censorship. But I was wrong. I take back my star, even though I cant technically take it back.

David icke and Alex Jones were right about many things.
And i will defend their right to speak their minds.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Jay-morris

Is it your choice though to eat at these places? Is it your choice and right to eat at these places every day if you want to? 

Yes it's my choice, I can choose to eat what I want and watch and read what want. I don't have a choice however to go MacDonalds or subway and demand pizza.

To address the rest of your post just because millions of people eat MacDonalds doesn't make it nescassarry for everyone to eat it, again it's a choice and luckily in a mostly free society I get to enjoy making my own choices.

You are completly not making any sense. You started off with an example you thought was good, to now digging yourself out of that example

Yes, it's your choice to east whatever everyday. Like it should be your choice to watch David Icke if you choose too. Yes, he still has his website, but you fail to understand thst they have taken him off the biggest viewing platforms in the world. They do not want people listening to him.

And what makes me laugh, is the people on here who say "these private companies can do what they want" completly ignoring the fact there companies were obviously pressured to do this.

a reply to: Jay-morris

My anology makes sense to me, sorry if you're not grasping it, as far as why Facebook and youtube kicked him off is none of my business and bears no impact at all on my ability to watch or listen to David ike.

To address your last paragraph private companies absolutely can do what they like and can you provide any proof of your assertation they were clearly pressured because I'm not seeing it.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

My anology makes sense to me, sorry if you're not grasping it, as far as why Facebook and youtube kicked him off is none of my business and bears no impact at all on my ability to watch or listen to David ike.

Oh I understood it, it just did not make any sense.

To address your last paragraph private companies absolutely can do what they like and can you provide any proof of your assertation they were clearly pressured because I'm not seeing it.

That is you have not looked into it.  YouTube were pressured to delete the video on London real then by coincidence, his channel is banned on YouTube and is deleted his Facebook page.

Of course there was outside pressure to ban him, mainly by the state owned BBC.

You can ignore this or dismiss this as much as you want, does not change the fact he is being silenced.

a reply to: Jay-morris

You don't seem to understand that he isn't being silenced either.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Jay-morris

You don't seem to understand that he isn't being silenced either.

So, bring taken if the biggest So cool media platform and having his page deleted on YouTube is not silencing him? I have explained this in previous posts on here, which you have ignored.

Jow many people will just randomly come across Ickes website?

What are the chances of people coming across Icke randomly in YouTube and Facebook? Quite high considering we are talking about billions of users who spend hours on these platforms.

You really think banning him on Facebook and youtube is not going to make any difference? Are you seriously saying that?

If an outside source put pressure on these "private companies" then of course he is being silenced. Is it really that hard for you to see?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Well ike is old news so perhaps the owners simply don't want him on their platform, it doesn't matter why really, or perhaps they know their subscribers are really gullible and feel they have a duty of care to protect them from themselves.

Of course less people will just come accross him, times change and platforms like Facebook and youtube are simply changing with the times to remain viable into the future, where you see nefarious gain i see the natural progression of this corporate world.

No. NO. You have fun living in a world without free speech. I am not ok with this. HE GETS TO SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS!
Along with Alex Jones and everyone else. If you do not want to tune in and listen you have a choice. What you are applauding is SLAVERY / CENSORSHIP. What the hell is the matter with you? LMAO.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Well ike is old news so perhaps the owners simply don't want him on their platform, 

Are you being serious? Icke certainly is not old news. He is more popular now, and is gaining more and more followers. It's like you are pulling random excuses out of thin air to justify this.

Anyways Icke would be the first facebook and youtube person to be banned for being "old news"

or perhaps they know their subscribers are really gullible and feel they have a duty of care to protect them from themselves.

Now we are getting to the bottom of your rant! You do not like him, so that means it's ok to take his freedom of speech away! Do you know bow hypocritical that is?

Of course less people will just come accross him, times change and platforms like Facebook and youtube are simply changing with the times to remain viable into the future, where you see nefarious gain i see the natural progression of this corporate world.

What a complete load of rubbish! You are just trying to find excuses for why this is justified, just because you do not like him.

Shall we ban all freedom if speech from people you do not like? Would that make you feel better?

a reply to: Jay-morris

You speak of freedom yet seek to force a private company to provide a platform for someone they don't want to give a platform too.

What's next forcing MacDonalds to serve pizzas ?