Facebook Now Suspending Accounts Which Question Mainstream Media Reporting/Account of Events

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
Facebook is for socializing with friends and family, not for making political statements. There are children on it and it's open to the general public. They have a standard to uphold.

If they had a way to set boundaries for pages that were "questionable" then they would do that, but they don't. Everything is open so everyting is held to the same standard.

That is total rubbish. Facebook do not care about censoring adult stuff from children! There are tonnes of adult groups that kids can easily access! I have reported numerous racist, hate speech, and offensive picture posts and each time facebook ignore them and reply that they are not against the rules, even though some of the comments would land you in prison in England.

They have no class or standard to uphold, facebook makes it own rules, they think they are above the law..

The sooner it implodes the better, and the instagram situation is going to sink them..

screw Facebook you shouldn't be useing it anyway no one should use it.we need to take are country back from crazy people.telling you you can't say what you want.its called freedom of speech its are first amendment its our constitution.wake-up people.

reply to post by rugger


That's why you have the WBC running around, good work

reply to post by aivlas


Wbc, what is it? brain cramp

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

That is total rubbish. Facebook do not care about censoring adult stuff from children! There are tonnes of adult groups that kids can easily access! I have reported numerous racist, hate speech, and offensive picture posts and each time facebook ignore them and reply that they are not against the rules, even though some of the comments would land you in prison in England.

They have no class or standard to uphold, facebook makes it own rules, they think they are above the law..

The sooner it implodes the better, and the instagram situation is going to sink them..

Their community standards say otherwise. If you disagree, feel free to take it up with them.
www.facebook.com...

Originally posted by rugger

screw Facebook you shouldn't be useing it anyway no one should use it.we need to take are country back from crazy people.telling you you can't say what you want.its called freedom of speech its are first amendment its our constitution.wake-up people.

Do you actually know what the first ammendment says?
Seriously, do you?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It says absolutely nothing about what you can post on websites. It says absolutely nothing about what you can and can't say. All it says is "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't say you are entitled to say and do as you please, it merely says that Congress will make no laws to prevent you from doing so.

It doesn't say a darn thing about what other people may do, about what other laws may be broken while you're doing whatever it is that you're doing, about what rules may be set by private parties or anything else.

I grow so tired of people shouting "Free speech!!! Free speech!!" and having no idea what it's really about.

Here's more detail if you want to learn more:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by rugger
reply to post by aivlas

 

Wbc, what is it? brain cramp

WBC= Westboro Baptist Church Cult

reply to post by rugger


wbc freespeech

search

ahhhh L8RT8RZ that was a simple search

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


Err...

Perhaps I read it differently but according to your reference;
No Government can stipulate what you can/can't say, therefor you can say what ever you want.

I do agree however, that it doesn't say you can DO what ever you want.
BUT, certain actions are covered under 'Free Speech'.

I'd just like to add;
I'm not being nasty about this, I'm not attacking people. I'm just stating what the facts are. Some people are getting very angry about it, but those are the facts. You can like them, you can hate them, but it doesn't change the nature of them.

Earlier in the thread, I stated that I agreed that it be removed and I do. I, personally, thought it was very distasteful and I'm allowed to feel that way about it. I'm not the one who removed it, facebook is.

Attacking me because you didn't want it removed serves no purpose whatsoever. I have no control of facebook, nor do you, even if you own stock in it. The rules are there, they enforce their rules in whatever manner they see fit. They are well within their rights to do so. They haven't broken any laws, they haven't bent any of their own rules. They saw fit to remove it so they removed it. If you don't like it, contact facebook and ask them why if it was your post/account. Otherwise, there really isn't anything in this world that we can do about it.

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Err...

Perhaps I read it differently but according to your reference;
No Government can stipulate what you can/can't say, therefor you can say what ever you want.

I do agree however, that it doesn't say you can DO what ever you want.
BUT, certain actions are covered under 'Free Speech'.

No, it says that Congress cannot make laws abridging your freedom of speech. It says nothing about saying whatever you want. You are reading into what isn't there.

Unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, what you read into it has no effect.

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
No, it says that Congress cannot make laws abridging your freedom of speech. It says nothing about saying whatever you want. You are reading into what isn't there.

Unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, what you read into it has no effect.

edit on 18-12-2012 by L8RT8RZ because: (no reason given)

Congress = Government.
"cannot make laws abridging your freedom of speech" = Cannot tell you what you can or cannot say.
Therefor they cannot tell you what you can or cannot say, means you can in fact, say what ever you want to say.

Supreme Court Justice = Government; Therefor cannot tell you what you can and cannot say.

Originally posted by Sovaka

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
No, it says that Congress cannot make laws abridging your freedom of speech. It says nothing about saying whatever you want. You are reading into what isn't there.

Unless you're a Supreme Court Justice, what you read into it has no effect.

edit on 18-12-2012 by L8RT8RZ because: (no reason given)

Congress = Government.
"cannot make laws abridging your freedom of speech" = Cannot tell you what you can or cannot say.
Therefor they cannot tell you what you can or cannot say, means you can in fact, say what ever you want to say.

Supreme Court Justice = Government; Therefor cannot tell you what you can and cannot say.

edit on 18/12/2012 by Sovaka because: Slightly more info.

Laymen's terms do not apply to the Constitution, it is a legal document and those "interpretations" are extremely simplified and do not pertain to what is actually written there.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


Clearly we are in need of an English lesson;

According to Dictionary;

a·bridge [uh-brij]
verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Since Government cannot abridge freedom of speech, they therefor cannot limit what you can say.
Therefor, you can say what ever you want to say.

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Clearly we are in need of an English lesson;

According to Dictionary;

a·bridge [uh-brij]
verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Since Government cannot abridge freedom of speech, they therefor cannot limit what you can say.
Therefor, you can say what ever you want to say.

edit on 18/12/2012 by Sovaka because: Fixed link and quote.

Again, Congress (not "Government") can make now LAWS to abridge (shorten, reduce, diminish, curtail, deprive, cut off) your freedom of speech.
Congress is only the legislative branch of the government, not the government in and of itself.

Furthermore:
www.uscourts.gov...

Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
To engage in symbolic speech, e.g., burning the flag in protest.

However, there are things that freedom of speech does NOT include:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


As you state, Congress is a BRANCH of the Government... Therefor Congress = Government.

In terms of what you state "Freedom of Speech" covers, of course certain actions aren't covered... as I originally stated in my OP.
Actions that cause harm to another being a prime example.
This comes down to common sense and common law.
Cause no loss or harm to another (abridged version).

However, the other examples like "Can't release an article in a school paper criticizing the school administration" is a blatant case of overreach by a Governing body.
To say that one can't express something in contrast to a perceived power is a total tyrannical dictatorship.
That would be akin to Government passing a law that you will be arrested and charged with treason if you disagree with anything the Government has to say.

So, it comes down to what you have been conditioned to accept.
You sir, have been conditioned to accept that your "Freedom of Speech" is based on conditions.
Which in fact, is wrong and goes against your very basic human right of self defense and defense against those that would otherwise wish to keep you silent.

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

As you state, Congress is a BRANCH of the Government... Therefor Congress = Government.

In terms of what you state "Freedom of Speech" covers, of course certain actions aren't covered... as I originally stated in my OP.
Actions that cause harm to another being a prime example.
This comes down to common sense and common law.
Cause no loss or harm to another (abridged version).

However, the other examples like "Can't release an article in a school paper criticizing the school administration" is a blatant case of overreach by a Governing body.
To say that one can't express something in contrast to a perceived power is a total tyrannical dictatorship.
That would be akin to Government passing a law that you will be arrested and charged with treason if you disagree with anything the Government has to say.

So, it comes down to what you have been conditioned to accept.
You sir, have been conditioned to accept that your "Freedom of Speech" is based on conditions.
Which in fact, is wrong and goes against your very basic human right of self defense and defense against those that would otherwise wish to keep you silent.

edit on 18/12/2012 by Sovaka because: Grammar

Check the link, they come from a website that gives the court case that they pertain to. The SCOTUS has spoken and they are the ones with the final say.

Again, it's "make no laws abridging", it doesn't mean "you can say whatever you want" and it also applies to political discourse.

You don't have to like it, but that's what it is.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


That's right, people don't have to like it as much as they don't have to accept it.
Which by point of fact, they don't have to.

It's a sad state that the Western world has gotten into, that what the Government says, goes...
Don't forget who put them in power to begin with... Don't forget who keeps giving them power daily!

As some point, critical mass will be reached where you say enough is enough.
At the rate you are going however, that time will be long passed when you had any power to do anything about it.

I assert that you have the freedom to say what ever you want to say as long as it doesn't cause any harm or loss to another.

Plenty of people read the 1st Amendment as how I have stated because they know of the ramifications of what happens if they start "listening" to the Government and what they have to say on the matter.
Never let ANYONE tell you what to think.
If you judge your course of action to be the right one, then follow that path.
If however, you change your point of view (which you are free to do so), then know there are plenty of people there to support you.

reply to post by Sovaka


The fact that a multitude of people misread something doesn't change the meaning of it. The link is given, the information is there. If you choose to ignore it, that's on you, not me.

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
Good, that stuff doesn't belong on facebook. Facebook is not a conspiracy website.

Indeed... and these angry, scared, paranoid, pathological conspiracy nuts with the self control of 2 year olds have NO RESPECT whatsoever for the grieving families by turning this horrible tragedy into a circus.

"Hey Grieving Families, The Shadow Government Planned The Death of Your Darling Innocent Child".

Truly Sickening!

IRM :shk:

Yet IF everything these conspiracy nuts say is true?

What if the universe rides on the back of a giant celestial squid named Trevor? I'd say the probability of both is extremely low... and it's a poor argument (if you can even call it that) that you've put forward to enable this pathological/delusional behaviour.

IRM