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: North Carolina Police Officer Viciously Beaten as Onlookers Laugh, Film for 11 Minutes

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

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • 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

 

Campaign 2020

Thanks to Spineless, Establishment Republicans, Senate Panel Delays Vote to Subpoena Big Tech CEOs

Republicans Continue to Show Pathetic They are on the Issues that Matter Most

Published

on

America First nationalist’s hopes of having Big Tech CEOs testify before Congress about allegations of censorship directed towards the Right were temporarily dashed on October 19, 2020.

Politico reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed plans to vote on subpoenas to force the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook to go before the Senate and be questioned about their anti-Right wing censorship policies.

Some Republicans ended up having cold feet and decided to postpone the vote much to the disappointment of right wing activists who have complained about Big Tech’s anti-free speech policies.

President Donald Trump and a number of nationalist Republicans have sharply criticized Facebook and Twitter over their censorship of a controversial New York Post report that exposed Hunter Biden, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, and his corrupt behavior.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • 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.

Originally, GOP officials in the Judiciary Committee announced plans to hold a markup on October 20 to determine if they would subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to get his perspective on allegations concerning his company’s policies that muzzle conservative viewpoints. Twitter denies claims regarding Twitter’s censorship policies.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, revealed that the planned vote would also call on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify.

The panel stated on October 19 that it would determine whether they would issue subpoenas during a executive session on October 22 where it will also allegedly approve Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The committee declared in a statement that it will maintain negotiations with the companies “to allow for voluntary testimony” by the CEO. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the panel will proceed to take a vote on the subpoenas “at a date to be determined.”

The subpoenas would compel the tech big wigs to testify on the reports of “suppression and/or censorship” of New York Post stories and on “any other content moderation policies, practices, or actions that may interfere with or influence elections for federal office,” according to a committee document released on October 19.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is the chair of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution said to reporters that he’s expecting the committee to preside over testimonies from the Twitter and Facebook chiefs “shortly” regardless of whether they come to the decision on their own volition.

“One way or another, either voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena, they will testify and they will testify before the election,” Cruz stated.

In a separate hearing for the Senate Commerce Committee, Zuckerberg and Dorsey will join Google CEO Sundar Pichai on October 28 for a hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields Big Tech companies from a liability.

Cruz, who is a member of both Judiciary and Commerce committees, wants each panel to carry out their own hearings with the tech chiefs before election day. “I believe we need a separate hearing in Judiciary because the issues being discussed in the two committees are different,” Cruz remarked.

Big Tech has become too powerful, especially during a time when social media has become the de facto public square. Republicans will need to get serious about making online speech receive the same treatment as general political speech.

 

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


Trending