world

Trump attacks social media companies after Facebook bans

82 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

82 Comments
Login to comment

Isn't discrimination supposed to be illegal in the US?

-3 ( +13 / -16 )

You would think true conservatives would be horrified to be linked to the alt-right or people like Alex Jones. If they aren't, I would say they aren't very good people. Or very intelligent. 

CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. 

Congress, not Facebook, not any private company, not your boss, not your Mom, etc. The Constitution only applies to the GOVERNMENT. It only protects you against the GOVERNMENT restricting your speech. It does not protect you against a private company saying you can’t use our product to spew your hate. It’s actually interesting that Trump so readily admits that these hateful people are part of the right - the Republican Party.

9 ( +21 / -12 )

Facebook doesn't care about any of that. This is all about profits. The public, or a loud minority from the public is threatening to boycott some of these ad companies, and they in turn put pressure on FB to get rid of the content that these people don't like.

What these people who push for all this need to understand is that they are doing their own cause a disservice. Whether certain information or speech is "hateful", "racist" or "anti-semitic" is irrelevant. That's a weak argument that tends to have the opposite effect of the desired one. What matters is whether what the person says or writes is "correct" or not. If you think it is incorrect, then correct him, debunk him, prove him wrong, expose him. Calling their arguments "racist" and then shutting them down does not prove them wrong, in fact, it emboldens them, and it helps them attract more attention.

I admire their cause, but they need to start fighting with arguments, otherwise they are doing themselves a disservice. If they don't publicly debunk what they think is "wrong", then they will just embolden them, put the spotlight on them, and make them more appealing. It gives them more weapons -- "they know we are right, so they are trying to shut us down". Fight lies with facts. Fight cherry picked facts with more facts.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

"monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms."

Big state led by Trump competing with big data corporations in a battle among private and public leviathans competing to censor individuals.

Trump's got despot envy. He sees what leaders in China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other totalitarian states are doing to manipulate and control information and wants to be like them.

The company also removed right-wing personalities Paul Nehlen, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer, along with Jones' site, Infowars, which often posts conspiracy theories. 

Trump knows these right wingers laud him. They serve PR purposes for him along with Rupert Murdoch and Putin’s respective global media empires, Sinclair Media and others. Trump’s joined them in pushing conspiracy theories, e.g. Obama’s religion and birthplace, Ted Cruz’s father’s roles re Cuba, ‘Spygate’, among so many others.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

The Constitution only applies to the GOVERNMENT. It only protects you against the GOVERNMENT restricting your speech. It does not protect you against a private company

That's true, but it's only half the story. Pointing out that the constitution only limits government action is not an argument against those who say that congress should pass legislation extending 1st amendment protections into the private sphere. For example, the 14th amendment also applies only to government, but that hasn't stopped congress from extending the principles of the equal protection clause to private companies with laws banning racial and gender discrimination in hiring and housing.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

You would think true conservatives would be horrified to be linked to the alt-right or people like Alex Jones. If they aren't, I would say they aren't very good people. Or very intelligent. 

I don like these people, but if FB is going that route then why not do the same to far leftist groups? If you believe in freedom of speech, you allow either everyone the right to say what they want or block everyone, you don’t block one group and then allow another group to say whatever they wish, that’s fascism in its purest form. No wonder people are dropping off FB like flies.

Congress, not Facebook, not any private company, not your boss, not your Mom, etc. The Constitution only applies to the GOVERNMENT. It only protects you against the GOVERNMENT restricting your speech. It does not protect you against a private company saying you can’t use our product to spew your hate. 

Hate speech is protected, like it or not. There are a lot of liberals that traffic in it, don’t like or respect these people, but their right to speak out should always be protected. The US is not China or Cuba.

Also, if there were a conservative site that blocked every radical liberal from its platform, liberals would lose their mind, so food for thought there....

It’s actually interesting that Trump so readily admits that these hateful people are part of the right - the Republican Party.

Trump also excoriated a lot more on the left, but that somehow skips the liberals minds.

-4 ( +11 / -15 )

Look I am NOT a fan of far right nut jobs NOR am I a fan of left wing nut jobs!

As I have said elsewhere before, while I may strongly disagree with a point of view, BANNING is a very bad idea, and it does seem that a bunch of loudmouths going on about being offended are making enough noise to get bans put in place in various media & elsewhere.

We also see these with speakers being cancelled or not allowed on campuses etc, IT IS getting BAD & this will come back on us all!

 

We are seeing a lot of bans, de-monetizing video's etc all because of simply disagreeing with IDEAS.

Again I see lots of nutters left & right. I say let them SPEAK, we CANT have them banned because they offend, offending is NOT a reason to ban, and people are now USING words like hate improperly & it is causing problems & they seem to be getting worse

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Trump knows these right wingers laud him. They serve PR purposes for him along with Rupert Murdoch and Putin’s respective global media empires, Sinclair Media and others. Trump’s joined them in pushing conspiracy theories, e.g. Obama’s religion and birthplace, Ted Cruz’s father’s roles re Cuba, ‘Spygate’, among so many others.

The same way George Soros and Antifa, Bill Ayers, Media Matters, Jeff Zucker, Phill Griffin are the exact vile people that use their platform to promote hate and to attack any conservative speech on every level. Liberals care about one thing only, to drive this President out of office, their failed attempt at the Delusional Russian collusion witch hunt backfired and now they are trying to resort to finding something of obstruction which doesn’t exist. They didn’t have a back up plan. Anita Dunn tried moronically to ban FNC from the airwaves and it failed miserably in her face. Liberals can’t win on the issues so they have to try and find new and creative ways to silence them at any cost even the radical ones.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Facebook is sooo last decade.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The same way George Soros and Antifa, Bill Ayers, Media Matters, Jeff Zucker, Phill Griffin are the exact vile people that use their platform to promote hate and to attack any conservative speech on every level. Liberals care about one thing only, to drive this President out of office, their failed attempt at the Delusional Russian collusion witch hunt backfired and now they are trying to resort to finding something of obstruction which doesn’t exist.

· List of people on the left that the right has decided are evil: Check.

· Base-grabbing words like hate and conservative speech: Check.

· Repetition of baseless bubble claims about liberals: Check.

· Base-friendly words like witch hunt: Check.

Standard template for a Bass post. What do you figure, 80% of his posts follow this template?

4 ( +13 / -9 )

The US is becoming a very intolerant society.

Very scary when dissenting opinions are silenced.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Facebook should ban Trump himself. Better yet they should have a dog house or a jail page where they explain why they have banned people. I would like to see the policy used to ban people in writing.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Very scary when dissenting opinions are silenced.

I find it interesting that the people who make the most noise about being silenced, are the ones who want the freedom to continue to say hateful things.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Trump’s joined them in pushing conspiracy theories, e.g. Obama’s religion and birthplace, Ted Cruz’s father’s roles re Cuba, ‘Spygate’, among so many others.

If there is a good reason to ban people from social media, pushing fake news is one of the better ones.

Looking at another platform, I’m surprised Trump got away with retweeting dodgy videos from a known racist group. That surely deserved a suspension at least.

I’m in favour of letting everyone have their say, but dealing in lies to support your point of view must not go unpunished.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Facebook should ban Trump himself.

I think Twitter is Trump's drug of choice, not Facebook.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The same way George Soros and Antifa, Bill Ayers, Media Matters, Jeff Zucker, Phill Griffin are the exact vile people that use their platform to promote hate and to attack any conservative speech on every level. Liberals care about one thing only, to drive this President out of office, their failed attempt at the Delusional Russian collusion witch hunt backfired and now they are trying to resort to finding something of obstruction which doesn’t exist.

· List of people on the left that the right has decided are evil: Check.

· Base-grabbing words like hate and conservative speechCheck.

· Repetition of baseless bubble claims about liberals: Check.

· Base-friendly words like witch huntCheck.

Standard template for a Bass post. What do you figure, 80% of his posts follow this template?

Haha. Spot on.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

The guy is publicly backing racists. Nice guy huh.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

See this is what they right does - they try to claim that the right to free speech means the right to say whatever they want, anywhere they want. And it is not. The right to free speech is the right to speak without fear of prosecution and imprisonment.

It's the right to express without governmental restriction or interference. Prosecution and imprisonment are merely the harshest form of governmental interference and restriction.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).

Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Either you believe in the freedom of speech or you don't.

Supporting the right to free speech when it is unpopular, hurtful, nasty, is hard. But it is the right thing. Idiots should be allowed to say dumb things in public.

Public.

Facebook, twitter, insta-whatever, pine-whatever ARE NOT PUBLIC places. They are owned by private companies who are free to ban anyone they like, for any reason they like. Period.

Censorship is an quick, easy-appearing, way to fight this. It will fail. All that will happen is common terms will be used as "code words" and facebook will have to ban "Winnie the Pooh" just like China does.

Censorship doesn't work.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Absolutely I am in favor of free speech. Once speech is curtailed, criminalized, or banned it will be very hard if not impossible to reverse the course.

And one must always ask; Who gets to decide what speech is considered "hate" or criminal? Zuckerberg? Trump? Bernie Sanders? The admin at the Japan Today?

Personally I want none of the above to decide for me what is hateful. I would prefer to make these decisions myself

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Absolutely I am in favor of free speech. Once speech is curtailed, criminalized, or banned it will be very hard if not impossible to reverse the course.

And one must always ask; Who gets to decide what speech is considered "hate" or criminal? Zuckerberg? Trump? Bernie Sanders? The admin at the Japan Today?

Personally I want none of the above to decide for me what is hateful. I would prefer to make these decisions myself.

Hit it out of the ballpark. 110% agreed!

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@Braze Trump is the greatest troll in history as well as the greatest U.S. president in history and he's only 2 years and 3 months into his first term.

Meanwhile blue states are moving to block him from the 2020 ballot, well, it's the only way they would ever win at this point with the possible exception of California and New York, lol.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

PTownsend

Trump's got despot envy. He sees what leaders in China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other totalitarian states are doing to manipulate and control information and wants to be like them.

The company also removed right-wing personalities Paul Nehlen, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer, along with Jones' site, Infowars, which often posts conspiracy theories. 

Since WHEN is advocating ILLEGAL and immoral acts like child molestation good and right, like Milo said? And since WHEN is it OK to post 'conspiracy theories' (LIES) knowing that they could lead to criminal activity and even DEATH? Inducing panic is a CRIME.

Donnie il Douche whines, moans and groans about the 'bad' things Google says about him, and he recently advocated censoring that - like the little Nero baby-man that he is. Well the truth HURTS, doesn't it? WAH!

theFuToday 09:47 am JSTEither you believe in the freedom of speech or you don't.

Supporting the right to free speech when it is unpopular, hurtful, nasty, is hard. But it is the right thing. Idiots should be allowed to say dumb things in public.

Dumdum Donnie is espousing HATEFUL words, words of discord and elitism - and those words and his attitude ALWAYS leads to violence because they portray others as less than human. Dictator Don referred to migrants/Hispanics as 'animals' just before he kidnapped thousands of their children who are now DYING in concentration camps. He has openly encouraged a GOP congressman to assault a press reporter in Montana. He has openly blubbered about shooting resistance in 2016. Supporters and advocates of his hate have committed atrocities - like that moron behind that mosque massacre in NZ. And just last fall a Trumpturd initiated that pipe bomb scare and Dufus Donnie said nothing.

FB is supposed to be a platform for online friendships and info sharing - a public service medium, and hate advocates like the aforementioned imbeciles and others, including Screwy Louie Farrakhan have NO place on their spreading their hateful screeds. Isn't 4chan and Faux News (in)famous for that crap anyway?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

So we have a private capitalist company Facebook, in the free market economy deciding what is best for their business model by banning hate speech which has been very active on the site since 2010.

Then Trump and his supporters jump on the wagon claiming a ban on free speech is wrong. Some of these same JT Trump supporters who also claimed that for his business model, Trump had the right not to rent his New York apartments to blacks because they were all violent drug dealers.

The Trump supporters also claim only the rightwing or alt right have been banned and equally should extend to leftwing hate speech. I don't know the list of banned people but I do know it includes Louis Farrakhan.

Facebook, which I stopped using like 10 years ago, hasn't banned hate speech because it don't have that much power, but it does have the legal power to ban hate speech users from it's business website. Which BTW, is free. So if you don't like it, then don't use it, as I have done. I also stopped Twitter at the same time and just about all other social network sites.

Just as much as you wouldn't use a hotel you don't like because of their business practices.

President Trump and some these now protesting Trump supporters are the same ones who said black footballers and other black sportsmen should be banned or even fired because they refused to stand for the national anthem. Isn't that free speech too. It wasn't written into their contracts that they had to stand.

JT, with it's own business model curtails, deletes or at times modifies posted comments at at times bans extreme users from its site.

But is it right for Facebook to ban the haters, probably not and is only doing so to try and save it's business model, which is still majority owned by Suckerburgers. Moving with the times, some would say.

Personally, I don't care what FB and Instagram do since I never even visit those sites.

So FB hasn't banned free speech, it's banned users who post hate speech.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

So interesting, that at least one JT down voter disagrees with the right of free speech, and it wasn't even hate speech, unless you call hating FB hate speech?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

A private publishing service (Facebook) does not have a responsibility to allow all its users to engage in violent speech or any other type of speech ostensibly protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment covers political speech but advocating violence is not protected.

Conservatives (as they self identify) who are in fact reactionaries with fascist foundations are quick to cry persecution when in fact they will persecute anyone who disagrees with them let alone disparages them. I have never read or heard any progressive use the First Amendment to advocate violence against the right-wing. This attitude that "Trump will investigate" is more posturing (expletive deleted) to make the rubes think he is protecting their fellow travelers from persecution.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yeah the whole problem is that liberals seem to get to define what is “hate” speech.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Trump is the greatest troll in history

He’s a pretty good troll. I wouldn’t ban trolls, but I think it is the duty of social media platforms to smack people like Trump into line when he posts fake news like the dodgy videos from racists which he retweeted. This was fabricated rancid trash. Asking his followers to search out a non-existent sex tape also deserved a slap.

I’m in favour of allowing the likes of Farrakhan, Trump or any other loudmouth to use social media and share their ideas, but they need to be slapped around when they post demonstrably false trash. This is an idea which has more in common with hygiene than censorship.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

How do you know what’s “false” at the time it’s posted? Lots of things that were supposedly false 2 years ago have been proven true. And supposedly true things proven false.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

How do you know what’s “false” at the time it’s posted?

In the case of Trump retweeting videos from a known racist group, it was later found that the videos were dodgy. The responsibility surely lies with the person who retweets inflammatory racist material to check if the material is at least legitimate. He should have been punished for this.

As for the example of the non-existent sex tape he asked his followers to watch, there is no evidence this tape exists and he even denied his rancid tweet existed during a live debate. This should convince even the most partisan mind that he was dealing in lies again. He should have been punished for this.

As much as I hate racism, I think the best way to deal with this problem is not to try to shut racists up. However, retweeting dodgy racist material is unacceptable.

Truth matters.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It’s not “inflammatory racist material” if it’s true. I suppose that is what it was called when people said the supposed hate crime against Smollett was fake. Then we found out it was.

Appears in the specific case you are referencing it was false. So in that case it should be removed once it is confirmed false.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

And one must always ask; Who gets to decide what speech is considered "hate" or criminal? Zuckerberg? Trump? Bernie Sanders? The admin at the Japan Today?

On private property, the owner of that property gets to decide was is allowed or not.

If you don't like how any private property decides to censor or not censor, stop visiting those sites. They can use any reason they want and don't need to explain themselves.

I'd need to talk with a lawyer about what is mandated by current law, but I think individuals violating laws by making threats on any public forum, are responsible for their own words, just like people posting illegal images are liable for doing that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Every internet site like FB, Twitter, Google, JT have TOS agreements which most probably don't even read but it sets out the terms the users must agree by if they want to use the site.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Recently all my software and communication systems require me to update and agree to new conditions. When I read the very small print of the 20 pages, I found something I don’t agree with. If I don’t agree I can’t use the programme. Recently I lost a little bit of money because of Skype new update. I understand they are private companies, but they lure you into becoming dependent, then you are their birch.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Facebook is a company not the government. Facebook can ban whomever they please.

Twitter should ban Trump since we don't have to hear about how he's going to be "monitoring and watching (FB) closely".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

he feels the special counsel investigation is behind him.

So does most of the rest of the country. Unfortunately the Democrats just can't let go of it. it will be their undoing.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Trump will take the Mueller investigation to the his grave and will never fully recover from it. It will remain his worse nightmare.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

and other extremists, saying they violated its ban on "dangerous individuals."

Paul Joseph Watson is an "extremist" that made me laugh he actually posted a video about the Presidents response to his ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDxRlsBi4Ac

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk

FB is a business and free to operate under the rules of capitalism to further its business model so you can't be opposed to that or was it like the NRA HQ banning guns and you don't mind that 2nd amendment violation. You objected to the black sportsman not standing for the national anthem.

You post many negative comments about Obama during his term in office. Trump claimed to like Assange when it suited his campaign but then recently denied knowing much about him? So how you also support the free speech of Assange.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Trump will take the Mueller investigation to the his grave and will never fully recover from it. It will remain his worse nightmare.

I doubt that. He doesn’t care, Mueller couldn’t find him doing any collusion with any foreign government and didn’t have any evidence to indict him on corruption. Case closed. If Mueller can’t do that, then he’s not guilty, either you are or you’re not. 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents couldn’t find it, then Nadler sure as heck won’t. Lol

A private publishing service (Facebook) does not have a responsibility to allow all its users to engage in violent speech or any other type of speech ostensibly protected by the First Amendment.

But they can allow every liberal spew vile towards conservatives? That’s ok?

The First Amendment covers political speech but advocating violence is not protected.

So you hate Antifa as well....great!

Conservatives (as they self identify) who are in fact reactionaries with fascist foundations are quick to cry persecution when in fact they will persecute anyone who disagrees with them let alone disparages them.

No you didn’t say that! Liberals are reactionary towards anything that involves race, identity politics, sexism, when it comes to issues on abortion, what ever it is or any social issues they lose their minds and if you’re not for any of that then you are a sexist, you are a homophobes, you are whatever flavor they want to categorize you in. For conservatives you can do whatever you want they could care less what you do with your life just as long as you don’t push your beliefs on us. Liberals on the other hand they think you have to believe in us we do otherwise you will be assaulted, verbally, physically, mentally.

I have never read or heard any progressive use the First Amendment to advocate violence against the right-wing.

Oh, I have! Here you go, just a small sample.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/list-15-democratic-attacks-assaults-threats-on-republicans

This attitude that "Trump will investigate" is more posturing (expletive deleted) to make the rubes think he is protecting their fellow travelers from persecution.

No, not really. Barr is coming, stay tuned....

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

FB is a business and free to operate under the rules of capitalism to further its business model so you can't be opposed to that.

Yes, I can and No, it’s not the same thing, the difference is allowing one group to spew the puke into see whatever they want and then to not allow another group to say whatever they want., Facebook has the right to do whatever it wants to do as a private company, but do not tell me or any other conservative that they are being fair, don’t even go there.

You post many negative comments about Obama during his term in office.

Yes, that is correct, but I don’t own a company like Facebook and would not tell other people what they can or cannot post on my site. I think Farrakhan is a vile person, but I wouldn’t silence him, in fact I would want to know what he is saying.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I doubt that. He doesn’t care, Mueller couldn’t find him doing any collusion with any foreign government and didn’t have any evidence to indict him on corruption. Case closed.

Seems not for Trump who himself has posted tweets and brought it up again and again. I never said anything except Trump will never forget or forgive. He's a revengeful person and hates those who betray him. His actions speak louder than your words and it will get honorable mentions in his 2020 campaign. Biden just gave hime the nickname of "clown". Clowns are actually very sad individuals.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I doubt that. He doesn’t care,

Then why is he constantly moaning about Mueller?

Mueller couldn’t find him doing any collusion with any foreign government and didn’t have any evidence to indict him on corruption

That's not what Mueller's report says at all.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

bass4funk

who are the 6 people and one company banned by FB?

Infowars is the media company we're talking about. It's basically a far-right conspiracy news website known for things like claiming that the Sandy Hook elementary school murders in 2012 either didn't occur or were a "false flag operation" by gun control activists.

Alex Jones, a far-right conspiracy theorist who runs Infowars.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been called anti-Semitic and homophobic.

Laura Loomer, a media personality who has been accused of peddling far-right conspiracy theories.

Paul Nehlen, a former congressional candidate who described himself as a "pro-White Christian" and had been banned from Breitbart News in 2018 for "for ties to neo-Nazis and racist comments about Meghan Markle," according to The Washington Post.

Paul Joseph Watson, who also works for Infowars and was described as a "far-right Youtube pesonality" by the Post.

Milo Yiannopoulos, a British right wing media personality.

That's six people out of how many members, well there are 2.8 billion members. One of them Paul Nehlen was also previously banned from Breitbart News.

What about JT they too ban users who don't follow the TOS?

Trump banned blacks from his New York apartments.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

bass4funk

I haven't used FB for more than 10 years but I see you still have an account so will you now exterminate your account? Or still give dollars to Suckerburger?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Infowars is the media company we're talking about. It's basically a far-right conspiracy news website known for things like claiming that the Sandy Hook elementary school murders in 2012 either didn't occur or were a "false flag operation" by gun control activists.

Alex Jones, a far-right conspiracy theorist who runs Infowars.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been called anti-Semitic and homophobic.

Laura Loomer, a media personality who has been accused of peddling far-right conspiracy theories.

Paul Nehlen, a former congressional candidate who described himself as a "pro-White Christian" and had been banned from Breitbart News in 2018 for "for ties to neo-Nazis and racist comments about Meghan Markle," according to The Washington Post.

Paul Joseph Watson, who also works for Infowars and was described as a "far-right Youtube pesonality" by the Post.

Milo Yiannopoulos, a British right wing media personality.

Donald Trump, conspiracy theorist and fantasist who promulgated the birther theory, Ted Cruz’s father being in on the JFK assassination and sees non-existent people dancing in celebration of attacks along with non-existent sex tapes. Son of Fred Trump who was born in Germany, New York or possibly on Atlantis.

He does fit in quite well.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Jimizo

yes! thank you adding the missing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Youtube also banned Alex Jones and Infowars from its site.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why don't they just set up their own sites? It is not that hard. A couple of tech-savy conservative billionaires should just do it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is a very interesting line. On one hand, SCOUTS has decided that Internet content providers are, within a reasonable degree, not responsible for the content users upload to their site. On the other hand, the site is akin to a magazine - and one would not as soon allow, say, submissions of pornography as one would hate speech.

All in all, I'm in favor of this move, if only to rein in the more extreme actors. They can find other outlets.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Biden just gave hime ( Trump ) the nickname of "clown"

Biden will forever be Sleepy Joe.

 the Democrat Party

Seriously, how many nails can the Democrats keep putting in their coffin? They probably got the hammers from Clinton, lol.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The more they call Trump names, the more they ensure he is gonna win again.

Unemployment at 50 year lows! Incomes rising! It is unbelievable what he has achieved.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Youtube also banned Alex Jones and Infowars from its site.

That'll shut him up! lol

It is unbelievable what he ( Trump ) has achieved.

And this is with the Democrats and RINOS trying to block everything he does.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Trump almost on a daily basis when on about fake news so FB took actions against that but Trump is not pleased.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trump plays the victim card again.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Youtube also banned Alex Jones and Infowars from its site.

That'll shut him up! lol

Trump is a fan of Alex Jones. Get ready for some top-notch conspiracy theory trash about the Democrat candidates.

Trump will carry that torch.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Get ready for some top-notch conspiracy theory trash about the Democrat candidates.

Don't need conspiracy theories for the Dems, just let them keep talking nonsense and dig themselves an ever deeper hole. Russia, blah blah, obstruction, blah blah, impeach, blah blah, subpoena, blah blah, we got 12 years left to do something about climate change, blah blah blah blah...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

*That's six people out of how many members, well there are 2.8 billion members. One of them Paul Nehlen was also previously banned from Breitbart News.*

So what’s your point?

Trump banned blacks from his New York apartments.

Yes and with good reason, that was the time when Frank Lucas saturated the city with drugs and dealers squatting anywhere they could, so he had every right to protect his properties from that. Again, I only know 3 of the people you mentioned and could care less what the number ratio is, I don’t care about any of it. The only thing I care about is, as Americans do we have freedom of speech or not AND should a private company be allowed to silence only conservative radicals, but give the liberal radicals like George Soros (for example) a free pass?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Donald Trump, conspiracy theorist and fantasist who promulgated the birther theory, Ted Cruz’s father being in on the JFK assassination and sees non-existent people dancing in celebration of attacks along with non-existent sex tapes. Son of Fred Trump who was born in Germany, New York or possibly on Atlantis. 

He does fit in quite well.

Well, not nearly as bad or as trashy as what most liberals in Hollywood or TV say, but we shall give them a pass because liberals are perfectly fine with people on their side spewing garbage. When you have idiots like Anita Dunn trying to shut down the largest news network in cable TV, you know something upstairs is broken. So once again to recap: free speech only applies to liberals good or bad and conservatives they don’t like get banned

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The president had more than social media on his mind Saturday. Trump also tweeted that he was holding out hopes for a deal with North Korea on its nuclear program, as well as improved relations with Russia, now that he feels the special counsel investigation is behind him.

Russian Embassy: Trump Initiated Putin Call, And It Was 90 Minutes, Not 60

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump-initiated-putin-call-013550345.html

LOL!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Previously banned were also Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes and English anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson.

bass4funk

will you end your FB account? JT also bans users who violate its TOS?

Trump claims James Wood was also banned but not correct. His Twitter account is also still active. Wood's Twitter account was locked out for a violation of its TOS. Twitter spokeswoman Katie Rosborough said he will need to delete a tweet that violated Twitter rules before he can be reinstated.

Youtube removed millions of video's and accounts of extreme contents.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Get ready for some top-notch conspiracy theory trash about the Democrat candidates.

Don't need conspiracy theories for the Dems, just let them keep talking nonsense and dig themselves an ever deeper hole. Russia, blah blah, obstruction, blah blah, impeach, blah blah, subpoena, blah blah, we got 12 years left to do something about climate change, blah blah blah blah...

Trump has thrown a barrage of rancid conspiracy trash at Republicans and beauty queens. He’s an equal opportunity trashmonger.

Well, not nearly as bad or trashy as what most liberals in Hollywood or TV say

Yes, but what about the jihadist liberal socialists robbing Paul to pay Peter in the unicornverse?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Trump claims James Wood was also banned but not correct.

It was banned for awhile until they woke up at Twitter. Smh.

His Twitter account is also still active. Wood's Twitter account was locked out for a violation of its TOS. Twitter spokeswoman Katie Rosborough said he will need to delete a tweet that violated Twitter rules before he can be reinstated.

Will Omar be banned from FB? How about Keith Olbermann, you know the man that got the ball rolling on liberal trash meltdown, Kathy Griffin? How about Jeff Zucker or Petter Griffin? Will Johnny Depp other Hollywood celebs get their accounts blocked?

Youtube removed millions of video's and accounts of extreme contents.

Oc conservatives, not liberals...Dennis Prager is another one, so if FB gives equal haters the same treatment, I’ll owe you an apology.

Trump has thrown a barrage of rancid conspiracy trash at Republicans and beauty queens. He’s an equal opportunity trashmonger. 

Most of the Democrats do even better than Trump, I don’t see any of them and their liberals friends getting banned.

Yes, but what about the jihadist liberal socialists robbing Paul to pay Peter in the unicornverse.

Still have their accounts up and running, shameful.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

JimizoMay 5 12:48 pm JSTTrump is the greatest troll in history

I’m in favour of allowing the likes of Farrakhan, Trump or any other loudmouth to use social media and share their ideas, but they need to be slapped around when they post demonstrably false trash. This is an idea which has more in common with hygiene than censorship.

Farrakhan blubbers hate screeds about an evil black scientist named Yacub who 'invented' the 'inferior' white (and other) races. And he always slams Jews and gays. Trump has posted Islamophobic videos, expresses seething hatred for Hispanics - didn't give timely hurricane relief aid to Puerto Rico, kidnaps Hispanic children, calls migrants 'animals' and talks of 'war' (he tear-gassed them on Thanksgiving weekend in a violation of foreign airspace!). A loudmouth boor is just that - a total bullying JERK who has no place in conversations, forums, diplomatic meetings, conferences, anything.

FB, Youtube and other sites and such have their rules - and if those users can't be considerate for other people who may think differently than they do, if they can't shut up and read and/or listen to what others may say, if they can't shut up and act civilized and stop spouting their hate-soaked flatulence in the air then these media sites can kick them out. That's their prerogative, and trolls have no place there. They ain't welcome.

And yes if Twitter decides to kick out and block the uncouth motormouth Trump then he has no right to cry and bellyache about that either. He can't talk or post anything w/o putting someone down, which shows his maturity (elementary school level). The blogs, FB, chats, etc. are for mature discussions and those who can't post or act in such a manner don't belong there.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"It starts in 1973, when the United States Department of Justice went to court with a discrimination complaint against the Trump family business, which rented apartments across Brooklyn and Queens. Coming from the administration of Richard Nixon, who was hardly a civil rights agitator, the complaint was based on an investigation that found four different Trump employees confirming that applicants for leases were screened by race. One rental agent said Trump’s father had told him not to rent to blacks and that he actually wanted to reduce the number of African Americans in his buildings. Three doormen said they had been instructed to deflect blacks who came to Trump buildings to apply for apartments."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why is the president of the United States of America even making a comment on this FB decision?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Yeah the whole problem is that liberals seem to get to define what is “hate” speech.

So why doesn't the right work with the left to come up with an accurate definition of it? It's like voting - if you choose not to participate, you don't get much credibility when whining about the result.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

> Chip StarMay 5  09:44 am JST

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).

Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

-1( +4 / -5 )

Astonishing that a post simply summarizing free speech jurisprudence gets any downvotes. I guess knowledge offends some.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Farrakhan blubbers hate screeds

But as an American as bad as the man is has the right to free speech and I’m definitely no fan of the man.

*Trump has posted Islamophobic videos, expresses seething hatred for Hispanics *

There is no way you can prove where Trump has said verbatim that he hates Hispanics. None, because he never said it. That is an old and tired liberal debunked narrative. The issue was and has always been LEGAL immigration which most people want.

didn't give timely hurricane relief aid to Puerto Rico,

PR for years and years had infrastructure problems.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/353506-puerto-rico-was-a-disaster-long-before-maria-ravaged-the-island

kidnaps Hispanic children,

Obama and his administration did the exact same thing.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213525764.html

*FB, Youtube and other sites and such have their rules - and if those users can't be considerate for other people who may think differently than they do, if they can't shut up and read and/or listen to what others may say, if they can't shut up and act civilized and stop spouting their hate-soaked flatulence in the air then these media sites can kick them out. That's their prerogative, and trolls have no place there. They ain't welcome. *

I understand FB should be allowed to shut up conservatives they don’t like, but allow far left liberals to say what they want. Interesting.....so George Soros as radical as he is can say what he wants, Antifa and Code Pink as well, gotcha.

And yes if Twitter decides to kick out and block the uncouth motormouth Trump then he has no right to cry and bellyache about that either.

Ok, so Twitter can block any conservative from expressing any opposing view, but when Breitbart news or FNC say something that gets under their skin, they want the network off the air like Anita Hill.

He can't talk or post anything w/o putting someone down, which shows his maturity (elementary school level). The blogs, FB, chats, etc. are for mature discussions and those who can't post or act in such a manner don't belong there.

Code: we want free speech for people we like regardless of what they say or do, conservatives with opposing viewpoints need not say anything and should be shutdown.

It’s a start and I hope the trend continues, good days ahead....

https://www.marketplace.org/2019/03/06/tech/exclusive-look-numbers-showing-users-leaving-facebook-by-the-millions

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Is the president upset because FB banned some users for hate speech or because he actually agrees with the ideology of those banned users?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Trump is a billionaire (he says). So why doesn't he use his money to set up a platform that reflects his conservative viewpoint? It is not very difficult.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Is the president upset because FB banned some users for hate speech

Yes and they’re all conservative.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"How dare you take the bullhorn out of the hands of my loudest supporters!!!!"

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes and they’re all conservative

Don't publish hate speech and those conservatives wouldn't be banned.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Trump is the greatest troll in history as well as the greatest U.S. president in history and he's only 2 years and 3 months into his first term.Meanwhile blue states are moving to block him from the 2020 ballot, well, it's the only way they would ever win at this point with the possible exception of California and New York, lol

I do not think Trump is the greatest POTUS in US history at all, he's just another in a long line of Statist. Everything else you wrote about him is true, Trump is not in the elites club, he is indeed under attack and that's obvious. Trump constantly steps on the elites feet, a POTUS should never do that, however he is keeping to American Exceptionalism and the elite do like that. I digress Trump only has until 2024 at the latest to carry the ball so to speak, the elite are on no timetable, they will just carry on with their Globalist agenda when Trump is gone. The elite have most people right where they want them, the 4 d's are almost complete, the people are distracted, demoralized, dumbed down and almost totally divided, that last one is the most important to any Conqueror.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How come no Democrats have been banned? Bunch of cry babies is why.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Trump is a billionaire (he says). So why doesn't he use his money to set up a platform that reflects his conservative viewpoint? It is not very difficult.

Because while he's POTUS he has no access to his personal money or businesses. You'd know this if you bothered to research.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Only matters when his Twitter account is cancelled

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Democrats: "Facebook is a private company and can do whatever it wants."

Also Democrats: "Russia bought Facebook ads! Collusion!"

Either companies like Facebook are independent or they aren't. Make up your mind.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yes and they’re all conservative.

Huh... never knew Louis Farrakhan would be classified as a conservative.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

FB and sites like that should be able to ban whatever they want. It's their platform and brand after all. If you don't like the site or their policies, don't use it!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites