Posted on 07/13/2016 8:13:08 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Today the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment.
Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch.
As alleged in the lawsuit, Geller and Spencer, along with the organizations they run, are often subject to censorship and discrimination by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube because of Geller’s and Spencer’s beliefs and views, which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube consider expression that is offensive to Muslims.
Such discrimination, which is largely religion-based in that these California businesses are favoring adherents of Islam over those who are not, is prohibited in many states, but particularly in California by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which is broadly construed to prohibit all forms of discrimination. However, because of the immunity granted by the federal government, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are free to engage in their otherwise unlawful, discriminatory practices.
As set forth in the lawsuit, Section 230 of the CDA immunizes businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from civil liability for any action taken to “restrict access to or availability of material that” that they “consider[] to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:
“Section 230 of the CDA confers broad powers of censorship upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube officials, who can silence constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government in violation of the First Amendment.”
Muise went on to explain:
“Section 230 is a federal statute that alters the legal relations between our clients and Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, resulting in the withdrawal from our clients of legal protections against private acts. Consequently, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state action lies in our clients’ challenge under the First Amendment.”
David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added:
“Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have notoriously censored speech that they deem critical of Islam, thereby effectively enforcing blasphemy laws here in the United States with the assistance of the federal government.”
Yerushalmi concluded:
“It has been the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists to impose such standards on the West. Its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which co-sponsored, with support from Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, a U.N. resolution which called on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are falling in line, and we seek to stop this assault on our First Amendment freedoms.”
This appears to be more of a wish list than actual fact.
Related:
“Sharia: Illinois To Create Official State Government Muslim Council”
By Pamela Geller on July 11, 2016
Some pigs are more equal than others.
Um, the forum you're currently using can and does censor posts, and drops posters. It is based in California, and is a private business.
Did you read the filing?
This forum does the same. It censors posts (deletes them), censors posters or removes access for posters, and controls the content. It is based in California.
Yes, I did. How does Facebook differ from FR? FR censors posts and removes users for things FR deems improper or out of alignment with its values.
I don’t think they’re equivalent.
The only fundamental difference I can think of is Facebook exists to mine and sell its members' data.
Otherwise, you already know the answer.
There are wedding cake bakers who would disagree with that statement.
The Control of Words and Language will control beliefs and emotions of the masses and is a MIND CONTROL system to make the masses into “happy slaves” of the State. That is why people like Stalin and Lenin and Hitler always control ALL the ideas/words, etc. their people hear- and all the books they are allowed to read—and they KILL those who go off the Narrative (like Andrew Breitbart). (That is how CRUCIAL ideas are.)
Only Truth will set you Free—give you Free Will (choice). With lies and misinformation (all MSM) we are slaves of the state and dupes/pawns and controlled only by emotions.
Wittgenstein and ALL history proves that whoever controls the information of the masses (controls Words), will control the Minds of the masses. Facebook/Twitter, Google, etc. are all highly controlled by a few psychopathic elites, and is embedded with sophisticated psychology to control your emotions and “thinking” which is NEVER “thinking”. Eddy Bernays perfected “marketing of ideas” by 1910. Lenin, Stalin and Hitler copied his ideas and methods (he was Freud’s nephew).
Twitter, Facebook, Google are a great propaganda source. They can completely control the Narrative (the proper emotions in the masses by use of words/placement of images.) It is extremely powerful, and in evil hands can be diabolical and extremely DANGEROUS—esp. to the young who have no real life experiences or been exposed to Truth (the Great Books and Wisdom of the Ages.
All people in control of these platforms are ALL agents of Satan—the psychopathic sodomites, who control the banks/wall street, etc. Otherwise, they would not be alive. That is how the system has worked since Wilson was put into office and the CFR created. Go with their globalization—or you will not live.
It is exactly like the radio and TV and schools were in the past. The masses were shaped by the media (and believed it and bought the lies continually—enough to fight wars for the psychopaths to make them filthy rich so they could control everything, even the Supreme Court).
These programs addict and keep people from seeking Truth (God) and real life experiences (Wisdom) and having real-life interactions with real human beings (dehumanization).
It creates an artificial reality of agitprop—which is only designed to control emotions and keep you from Wisdom, so you can NEVER think coherently (with is only done with wisdom and true knowledge).
How is works: Put together the words “homosexual” marriage which is an oxymoron and completely unnatural and dumb and evil, and repeat it over and over and over-—and it becomes “good” and “truth” (LOLOL) and a Reality. (Esp. when children are told lies over and over in schools (a reality) and to take “Pride” (a vice) in sodomy (a vice)-—which literally flips 2000 years of ethics to irrational Satanism (Ba’al Rites))
We live in a culture of controlled Words/Language/Images and most people live in the Matrix and put their children into Ba’als he/she hands-—so the sick, perversions of the sick, orchestrated Reality of the psychopaths are embedded into the sub conscience of your children (They “think” like Satanists where sodomy and baby-sacrifice is a virtue). The psychopaths want us all in cages and drugged, to be their consumers and interchangeable worker “bots” (and all individuality— identity, even male/female, will be ERASED in children).
There are wedding cake bakers who would disagree with that statement.
Context is everything. In this case, it's about the ability of social media websites to limit speech, not cake bakers.
Facebook is only censoring anything they deem offensive to Islam only. Discrimination laws usually apply to protected groups, of which political ideologies are not.
” But it’s a private business - they can do what they want.”
Unless you own a lunch counter.
See my response in #32
The purpose of social media websites is ‘speech’.
Just like the purpose of lunch counters is to serve lunch.
And the purpose of cake bakers is to serve cake.
I have mixed emotions about this.
1. We have freedom of speech granted by our Constitution.
2. Businesses are owned by PRIVATE investors and can regulate what is on their internet sites. It is not a violation of free speech for it is a matter of judgement by the owners (not the users) as to what the site is utilized for.
3. We (the people) have complete control over our own will to go there or not. When we do, it increases their advertising revenues and membership fees (if applicable). If we don’t go there, it could possibly affect their revenues. However, they are the ones...not the visitors...who make the call.
4. If you don’t like it...simply don’t go there!
The minute the government comes in and MAKES THEM publish everything anyone posts there, our First Amendment will be the casualty and will be a trophy for those who wish the government to control all thought and speech.
Get over it.....it’s a business!
The slow track to sharia.
Yes, in today’s “Justice” system, it is definitely a wish.
But a wish to return to our true (constitutional) Justice System, where fraud and lies could be prosecuted (LOL—criminals run our “Justice” system now). The “Free Press” should be held accountable for their lies but we devolved into fascism where truth is banned from not only the public schools, but the public square.
Truth is crucial to Freedom and Free Will (choice) so any organization that puts out information is required to promote the Truth. (That is the Constitutional concept).
As Solzhenitsyn stated in 78, there is no liability for the US Press or journalists for lying and misleading the masses, and for deliberately repeating lies —None. They are never held accountable for anything and he noted that our “Press” was worse than Pravda because the useful idiots in America believed they were getting the “truth”.
With any Natural Right, there is a Natural Duty which is embedded in a true “justice” system. (I know the Marxist welfare system removed “Duties” from our vocabularies.)
So Twitter—etc., think their “duties” with such a powerful media platform is to control it (which is fine), and promote the globalist narrative (which is evil, and undermines our Constitution).
They rearrage the “Trending News”, ban anything which debunks their lies about islam, rig the google search results to create the desired “perceptions”, block Wikipedia entries, and hide (ban) articles which show rapes of boys and girls, esp. if they are by a Hollywood producer or in the White House or are “aliens”.
Control is great-—if they don’t promote lies and misinformation and the wrong perceptions in the masses. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Control of Words/Images is extremely powerful and with that power comes a duty always, a public trust, as with all businesses, to promote truth.
We need to expect that our airwaves will be used for public virtue and truth-—not vice and lies, which only enslave and kill and destroy cultures, since free civil societies depend on Virtue, or will collapse into tyranny.
Until the journalists/elites are held responsible for all the chaos and deaths they cause by intentional lies and suppression of the truth, we will not have any freedom, any Free Will, or any “Justice”. (No Constitution and no Rule of Law).
obama does not have the authority to abridge our First Amendment rights and he most certainly does not have any Constitutional authority to give someone else power to abridge First Amendment rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.