Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: PURGED: Facebook Permanently Bans Inforwars After Intense Lobbying by Mainstream Media Competitors
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://russia-insider.com/en/purge ... g-mainstream-media-competitors
Published: Aug 7, 2018
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2018-08-07 09:41:28 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 235
Comments: 21

There's a war on for you mind. The establishment extracts billions in corporate and taxpayer monies to fight it, why would they balk at purging the media space by outright political censorship?

Facebook has permanently banned Infowars for using language that is derogatory towards Muslims, transgender people and immigrants in a shocking intensification of Big Tech’s censorship purge.

Facebook announced in a blog post that the four main Infowars pages were “unpublished for repeated violations of Community Standards and accumulating too many strikes.”

“More content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies,” states the post.

Facebook did not specifically state which posts or videos violated their policies or in what way.

The termination of the pages follows an intensive lobbying campaign by the likes of CNN and BuzzFeed to pressure Facebook into banning Infowars.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.

#6. To: Ada (#0)

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2018-08-07   13:01:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: ghostdogtxn (#6)

Alex Jones is a goofball,

Not the point, I suppose. The question is whether Facebook, Google, Twitter are public utilities like the telephone company.

Facebook apparently has suffered a sharp drop in revenue. Remains to be seen whether it will be permanent or just a blip.

Ada  posted on  2018-08-07   13:25:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Ada, NN, GDTXN, randge, 4 (#7)

this topic is getting even FR, where any mention of AJ had been banned, lots of comments and support for Alex and our internet rights.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3677347/posts

Lod  posted on  2018-08-07   19:50:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Lod (#8)

130+ posts.

"Conservatives" have tolerated way too much shit in the last 25 years - and I don't have regurgitate the laundry list for those that post here.

Now the Left is bringing out the long knives. Anyone's guess if they will hit a major organ.

Many are rethinking the meaning of words like "monopoly" and "public accomdation."

I'll be glad to see these boys put back in their box and will support almost anyone who will dance on their graves. Almost anyone.

randge  posted on  2018-08-08   10:26:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: randge (#10)

Even JimRob, the banner of all banners, finally weighed in to support AJ's right to free speech.

Maybe Trump will tweet about this clear and present danger to the First Amendment.

Lod  posted on  2018-08-08   11:24:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Lod, All (#11)

Hopefully, yes.

And not all corp media is following the YouTube, Facebook banned wagon.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defends decision not to ban Alex Jones, Infowars

www.usatoday.com/story/te...-ceo-jack-dorsey-defends- decision-not-ban-alex-jones/932606002/

randge  posted on  2018-08-08   12:20:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: randge (#13)

The page you're looking for isn't here. Either someone gave you a bad link or there's something funky going on. Either way, we're truly sorry for the inconvenience.

Hey ~ would you please try again? I could use some good news in this arena. Thanks

Lod  posted on  2018-08-08   13:18:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Lod (#14)

Hope this helps. ; )

www.thewrap.com/twitter-w...ebate-about-it-ensues-on- twitter/

randge  posted on  2018-08-08   14:24:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: randge (#16) (Edited)

It just worked for me somehow after an error on the first try.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2018-08-08   14:29:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 17.

#18. To: Fred Mertz (#17) (Edited)

Chew thru this one if you have time. I'm finishing some summer projects and only had a few minutes to digest this. Posted on another site.

When they censor Alex Jones that make them content providers which means they can be sued for their other content on their platforms if it says supports terrorism etcetera

I believe you have misstated what you tried to say, and confused content providers with publishers.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230 of 1996 protects content providers from liability or lawsuit depending on what court is making up its mind. In any case, it offers immunity to content providers.

By engaging in censorship, what are content providers may be converting themselves into publishers and fall outside the immunity protection offered by CDA § 230.

The below Law Review article is from 2002 and lots of litigation has taken place since, but as far as the immunity for content providers and the lack thereof for publishers, it appears clear and acurate.

digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1618&context=nmlr

New Mexico Law Review

32 N.M. L. Rev. 75 (2002) Winter 2002

Comment: Untangling the Publisher versus Information Content Provider Paradox of 47 U.S.C. 230: Toward a Rational Application of the Communications Decency Act in Defamation Suits against Internet Service Providers

Bryan J. Davis

At 76-78:

But with the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), Congress immunized Internet service providers (ISPs) from suits arising out of user access to third-party-created defamatory material. Why did Congress so generously immunize ISPs from defamation suits arising from user access to third-party content when newspapers, magazines, bookstores, libraries, and other sources of potentially defamatory content enjoy no such protection? Congress justifies the CDA's cloak of defamation suit immunity for ISPs on two main grounds. First, the federal government cannot create a web- watching army of sufficient size to scan the Internet for defamatory material because it would be ineffective due to the sheer volume of information available to the millions of users of the Internet. Second, the federal government does not want to regulate content on the Internet in hopes that ISPs will do so on their own without the government looking over their shoulders.

Although these justifications seem rational, the statute's defamation immunity for ISPs begs the question: Has Congress effectively eliminated a remedy for plaintiffs who want to hold ISPs liable for defamation that occurs in cyberspace? The plain language of the statute answers a simple "no." The statute only immunizes ISPs that act as "publishers" of third-party-created content. ISPs that act as "information content providers" are not afforded defamation immunity, because they are directly involved with creating the offending content, as opposed to ISPs that only allow access to third-party-created content.

A simple "no" to the question of whether 47 U.S.C. § 230 deprives plaintiffs of a remedy in cyberspace defamation claims against ISPs seems to have transformed into a "maybe," or arguably even a "yes" under the prevailing interpretation of the scope of the statute. The federal court cases that have addressed the defamation immunity afforded ISPs under 47 U.S.C. § 230 have not articulated an intelligible test for how to determine whether an ISP falls into either the "publisher" or the "information content provider" category when an ISP is implicated in co-creation of defamatory content. Instead, they adopt an approach grounded on the notion that the amount or quality of ISP editorial control over third-party content is dispositive of whether an ISP is a "publisher" or an "information content provider" under the statute. As a result, a paradox emerges. An ISP as a "publisher" of third-party-created content will not be liable for defamation, but an ISP that acts as an "information content provider" by co-creating content with third parties will be liable, even though an ISP is a "publisher" by definition, and therefore should not be liable under the statute. Stated differently, case law suggests that an ISP that simply allows access to third-party-created content will not be liable under 47 U.S.C. § 230 for defamation, and ISPs found co-creating defamatory content with third parties will also not be liable, even though those ISPs might indeed be "information content providers."

47 U.S.C. § 230, Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

nolu chan posted on 2018-08-08 0:47:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

randge  posted on  2018-08-08 14:40:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest