Connect with us

Tech

Facebook Said It’s Okay To Call For Violence Against People They Don’t Like

Facebook briefly gave users the opportunity to plot for the assassination of anyone they dislike.

Published

on

Facebook Call Violence People They Don't Like

Facebook amended its policies to allow users to call for violence and harassment against individuals, provided Facebook does not like them, before quickly changing them back after a massive backlash. 

Readers will remember when Facebook and its wholly owned subsidiary, Instagram, banned Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Paul Joseph Watson for being dangerous, hate figures. This was widely met with skepticism, users wondering how a radio talk show host from Texas, a Jewish woman critical of radical Islam, a gay Brit married to a black man, or a mild mannered Englishman who makes YouTube videos could be possibly be considered dangerous.

However, because Facebook determined them to be dangerous, Facebook users were briefly able able to call for a violent end to their lives.

Trending: Disgraced Former CIA Chief John Brennan: Biden White House Will Use Homeland Security to Crush Trump ‘Insurgency’

Last night, Facebook updated its Community Standards regarding calls to violence to state that “calls for high-severity violence” were unacceptable “unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy”.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In other words, for a few hours last night, users could actively advocate for and plan the murders of any individual Facebook finds distasteful.

https://twitter.com/newschute/status/1148729146241146880?s=12

Ironically, this directly contradicts the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The only form of speech prohibited in the United States are “true threats” for violence.

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute:

The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”1224 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.1225 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”1226He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”1227 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,’ ” but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”1228

Apparently someone at Facebook realized this new policy created horrifying opportunities for violence and calls for violence to fester on its platform, and the speech was removed later last night.

However, Facebook stopped short of admitting it was in error, and instead simply said the language was removed because it was “imprecise”.

https://twitter.com/NewsChute/status/1149026880236003328

 

Tech

Lawsuit: Twitter Kept Child Porn on Platform Because It Does Not Violate Their Terms of Service

Published

on

A lawsuit is alleging that the social media giant Twitter did not remove child pornography from their platform because the tech monopoly claims it does not violate their terms of service.

The lawsuit is accusing Twitter of profiting from child pornography that was shared on their platform. It was filed by the victim and her mother in federal court in the Northern District of California on Wednesday. 

The victim, who is now 17, reportedly was targeted by sex traffickers at the age of 13 over Snapchat who then blackmailed him into sending lewd photographs. They then coerced him into performing sex acts with another minor on video, and copies were eventually leaked into child pornography rings.

The videos were allegedly displayed on Twitter, who was alerted to the child sex videos at least three times. According to the suit, Twitter refused to do anything to remove the child sex videos until a federal law enforcement official intervened.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Twitter’s alleged response was that the social media provider “didn’t find a violation of our policies” with the content:

 

Big League Politics has reported on how Twitter altered their terms of service to make their social media platform more hospitable to pedophiles:

Social media giant Twitter has quietly amended their terms of service to allow for “discussions related to… attraction towards minors” to be allowed on their platform.

“Discussions related to child sexual exploitation as a phenomenon or attraction towards minors are permitted, provided they don’t promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way,” reads Twitter’s terms of service.

Twitter allow noted that they would allow for nude depictions of children on their platform in certain instances.

“Artistic depictions of nude minors in a non-sexualized context or setting may be permitted in a limited number of scenarios e.g., works by internationally renowned artists that feature minors,” they added.

Twitter’s pro-pedo policy may have been implemented at the behest of Dr. James Cantor, who describes himself as a proud Jewish homosexual. Cantor is a leading researcher and advocate for pedophiles, who he refers to as minor-attracted persons.

Cantor wrote a letter in Jan. 2018 to John Starr, who works as Director of Trust and Safety with Twitter, with other university academics. The letter urged Twitter to allow pedophiles to network and discuss their attraction to children on the monolithic social media platform.

“Many of us have worked with a group of such non-offending pedophiles, also known as anti-contact MAPs (Minor-Attracted Persons), in a peer support network called Virtuous Pedophiles (@virpeds), as well as in other support networks,” they wrote in their letter.

“Recently, a prominent member of Virtuous Pedophiles, who goes by the pseudonym Ender Wiggin (@enderphile2), had his account permanently suspended by Twitter. At least one other member of the same network, Šimon Falko (@simgiran), also had his account permanently suspended around the same time, and a number of other accounts of non-offending, anti-contact MAPs have since been permanently or temporarily suspended,” they added.

It seems that Big Tech is deliberately allowing social media platforms to permit child porn, as the LGBT agenda pushes to normalize child sexuality and pedophilia. America is set to become Sodom and Gomorrah on steroids if globalism cannot be thwarted.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending