View Full Version : Facebook censoring anti-Obama memes
SassyLady
10-31-2012, 02:34 AM
Do you think Facebook was justified in removing this?
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Screen-Shot-2012-10-30-at-7.43.56-PM.png (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-obama-benghazi-meme-gets-censored-for-violating-facebooks-statement-of-rights-and-responsibilities/screen-shot-2012-10-30-at-7-43-56-pm/)
(source: Breitbart.com)
Facebook reportedly took down an image (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate), or a meme, posted by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) that was critical of President Barack Obama’s handling of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. You may have actually seen it before it was taken down — it had earned roughly 24,000 “likes.”
The meme, which can be seen below, shows both Obama and deceased al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden with the following message: “Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama, THEY GOT DENIED.”
The message is based on reports that indicate CIA operatives in Benghazi were told to “stand down” rather than help (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/explosive-benghazi-allegation-cia-told-to-stand-down-during-attack-3-urgent-requests-for-military-back-up-were-denied/) after Americans on the ground in Libya attempted to call out for help. Reports also suggest that the White House situation room had access to a live feed of the chaos at the U.S. compound as well as real-time email updates (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/emails-white-house-informed-within-two-hours-of-benghazi-attack-that-radical-islamic-group-claimed-responsibility/) from within State Department.
Breitbart.com’s Awr Hawkins (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate) reportedly spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc., the company responsible for the SOS Facebook account.
“We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALs the backup they requested,” Ward told Breitbart.com (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate).
He continued: “Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people — all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.”
The re-posted meme was removed within 8 hours before Facebook suspended the SOS PAC’s account for 24 hours.
Is this a violation of free speech or did SOS violate Facebook policy?
Should they of removed it? IMO no.
Is this a violation of free speech? Again no, unless Facebook became a state organisation while i was asleep.
The powers behind Facebook clearly support Obama.
Harvard types who never worked a day in their lives tend to support Obama.
lets be honest, money made easy( Hollywood etc) has little value.
People making easy money can afford Obama policies.
Those of us who work, in industries that contribute to the economy rarely can afford these punitive measures.
The powers behind Facebook clearly support Obama.
Harvard types who never worked a day in their lives tend to support Obama.
lets be honest, money made easy( Hollywood etc) has little value.
People making easy money can afford Obama policies.
Those of us who work, in industries that contribute to the economy rarely can afford these punitive measures.
Zuckerburg made his money so easy, that you decided it would of been too easy a path for you to take, which is why you're not a billionaire, right?
In any case, who cares who 'the powers that be' at facebook support, they're a private company.
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-31-2012, 08:16 AM
Do you think Facebook was justified in removing this?
No, it was not justified and yes it was a violation of free speech but likely is not actionable.
I think it was a very bad move on the part of Facebook and Romney supporters by the millions should let Facebook know it!-Tyr
No, it was not justified and yes it was a violation of free speech but likely is not actionable.
I think it was a very bad move on the part of Facebook and Romney supporters by the millions should let Facebook know it!-Tyr
*Private Company*
You dont have a right to free speech so there's nothing to violate. Just like if the admin or mods deleted a post on here.
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-31-2012, 09:42 AM
*Private Company*
You dont have a right to free speech so there's nothing to violate. Just like if the admin or mods deleted a post on here.
READ MY POST AGAIN, SEE THAT --"NOT ACTIONABLE" in my post. I ALREADY COVERED THAT.
Its not actionable but it is a deliberate infringement on free speech. Even worse its a deliberate infringement of political free speech. Facebook needs to have a few million Romney supporters apply some pressure by cancelling accounts. Maybe the liberal punks would wake up. -Tyr
Anton Chigurh
10-31-2012, 09:51 AM
*Private Company*
You dont have a right to free speech so there's nothing to violate. Just like if the admin or mods deleted a post on here.It actually went public, it's a publicly held company.
But it still ain't the G, you're right.
gabosaurus
10-31-2012, 10:47 AM
Facebook has also removed anti-Romney and anti-religious content it has deemed to be "in poor taste." This is part of Facebook's terms of service, which every user agrees to.
Zuckerburg made his money so easy, that you decided it would of been too easy a path for you to take, which is why you're not a billionaire, right?
In any case, who cares who 'the powers that be' at facebook support, they're a private company.
His was a stroke of luck.
what I have can has been earned in blood, sweat and danger.
greedy liberals hate those who work for their money.
They value out of touch Hollywood Multi millionaires, silver spoon socialists, drains on the economy such as bums on welfare and schoolteachers( unionised and on government payroll, meritorious teachers are despised).
The punitive taxation is always directed at the worker!
Anton Chigurh
10-31-2012, 12:22 PM
All they've really accomplished is further proliferation of this than it already had or was going to have.
Gabby: How exactly was this a violation of FB's ToS? Last time I checked, factual information wasn't against any ToS.
aboutime
10-31-2012, 12:57 PM
Everybody should pay attention to this story.
Facebook is a private company with stockholders. Facebook can censor anyone, or any story they want, and it does not have anything to do with FIRST Amendment rights, or freedom of speech.
NOW...Pay attention. THIS FORUM called DebatePolicy is jimnyc's FORUM, and he has the sole decision making power to Determine WHAT ANY OF US SAY HERE.
If you dislike it. Go somewhere else. Just like those SEAL'S must do...even though I agree with them, and I also tried to post something in support of OBAMA'S 'BENGHAZI' LIES....which Facebook removed.
Anton Chigurh
10-31-2012, 01:20 PM
Everybody should pay attention to this story.
Facebook is a private company with stockholders. Facebook can censor anyone, or any story they want, and it does not have anything to do with FIRST Amendment rights, or freedom of speech.
NOW...Pay attention. THIS FORUM called DebatePolicy is jimnyc's FORUM, and he has the sole decision making power to Determine WHAT ANY OF US SAY HERE.
If you dislike it. Go somewhere else. Just like those SEAL'S must do...even though I agree with them, and I also tried to post something in support of OBAMA'S 'BENGHAZI' LIES....which Facebook removed.That's right, there's NO freedom of speech on private property. First Amendment addresses state action, not private.
jimnyc
10-31-2012, 01:23 PM
I guess they feel, as a private company, that if they get rid of dumb pictures all over that somehow this will change the outcome of the election? Dumb pictures are posted by both sides and won't change a damn thing anyway. They can get rid of the entire word "romney" and everything associated with it and it won't make a bit of difference. Do people really change their minds over Facebook posts?
Anton Chigurh
10-31-2012, 01:26 PM
I guess they feel, as a private company, that if they get rid of dumb pictures all over that somehow this will change the outcome of the election? Dumb pictures are posted by both sides and won't change a damn thing anyway. They can get rid of the entire word "romney" and everything associated with it and it won't make a bit of difference. Do people really change their minds over Facebook posts?Being far lefties, they feel it is their duty to be part of Obama's "truth squad." They're apparently afraid that if they don't defend the indefensible, somebody somewhere will pull their liberal card. It's just mindless reflexiveness. Instinct.
aboutime
10-31-2012, 01:37 PM
I have a feeling many of you reading this will disagree with me here. And for that. I can say I fully understand. But. We come here to remind others about following our Constitution, and primarily, the First Amendment.
And, based on that alone. I must remind everyone of something that took place back in the Eighties...I believe. When a SCUMBAG named Larry Flynt, sued the U.S. Government who arrested him for being a PORN merchant, and Big Mouthed Swear Word Huckster.
The U.S. Govt. sued him as most of us here would also seemingly like to do, against Facebook, or any Private Entity that attempts, or succeeds at Limiting, or Censoring speech.
But. How many of you are aware?
That man. Larry Flynt. That FILTHY-DISGUSTING, piece of human excrement...WON his case against the Govt.???
This is almost exactly the same kind of case...Only in Reverse.
I feel as angry about this as all of you. But. We cannot become like the Liberals who defend Obama, by ignoring how the FIRST Amendment is, and must be followed. No matter how we disagree, or think it should be.
That is how Obama and company CHOOSE to interpret the Constitution. All of it.
We are not Liberals like Obama.
Anton Chigurh
10-31-2012, 01:48 PM
I feel as angry about this as all of you. I'm not angry about it at all. If facebook wants to draw MORE attention to this stuff by trying to censor it, more power to them. It has the exact opposite effect of their intent.
aboutime
10-31-2012, 01:54 PM
I'm not angry about it at all. If facebook wants to draw MORE attention to this stuff by trying to censor it, more power to them. It has the exact opposite effect of their intent.
Anton. Of course. All we need to do is remember how the Liberal-Hate-Fest against CHICK-FIL-A worked out. I agree. But we cannot lose sight of how the First Amendment, and our Constitution were meant to be interpreted.
If we accuse the Obama followers of being Selective in using, or following the 1st amendment. We too, must guard against looking like the same hypocrites.
As for FACEBOOK. You and I may not be angry because we are both Pragmatic kinds of people. But just listen to the anger from those who are making threats.
Anton Chigurh
10-31-2012, 01:55 PM
Anton. Of course. All we need to do is remember how the Liberal-Hate-Fest against CHICK-FIL-A worked out. I agree. But we cannot lose sight of how the First Amendment, and our Constitution were meant to be interpreted.
If we accuse the Obama followers of being Selective in using, or following the 1st amendment. We too, must guard against looking like the same hypocrites.
As for FACEBOOK. You and I may not be angry because we are both Pragmatic kinds of people. But just listen to the anger from those who are making threats.I have no misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment at all.
aboutime
10-31-2012, 01:56 PM
I have no misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment at all.
Anton. Did I say you did?
Anton Chigurh
10-31-2012, 01:59 PM
Anton. Did I say you did?Umm, no. But just like you, pointing out the obvious.
gabosaurus
10-31-2012, 03:38 PM
All they've really accomplished is further proliferation of this than it already had or was going to have.
Gabby: How exactly was this a violation of FB's ToS? Last time I checked, factual information wasn't against any ToS.
You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.
Abbey Marie
10-31-2012, 03:47 PM
You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.
I'm not seeing the post fitting into any of those categories. :confused:
You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.
Woot!
But Nukemans Facebook makes him look so charming and handsome, grossly misleading! Brb, reporting.
gabosaurus
10-31-2012, 04:10 PM
As a private entity (only the stock is public), Facebook can interpret its rules how it sees fit. Just as DP can do such.
Facebook has been very strict with political ads and such. I don't agree with it. Just as I don't agree with everything that goes on here.
jimnyc
10-31-2012, 04:16 PM
As a private entity (only the stock is public), Facebook can interpret its rules how it sees fit. Just as DP can do such.
Facebook has been very strict with political ads and such. I don't agree with it. Just as I don't agree with everything that goes on here.
Are you insane? I have friends who post about 100 pro-Obama pictures and stories every single day. When I open FB it is literally littered with almost all political stuff. None of it offensive, other than being the opposition of what one may prefer. I've NEVER seen them strict with political stuff before.
gabosaurus
10-31-2012, 04:20 PM
It depends on how offensive they are. And which ones are reported. You can post the most hideous, vile things imaginable, but if no one reports it, nothing is done. Some things are reported and removed.
Abbey Marie
10-31-2012, 04:22 PM
It depends on how offensive they are. And which ones are reported. You can post the most hideous, vile things imaginable, but if no one reports it, nothing is done. Some things are reported and removed.
Which begs the question, are they being removed with a partisan hand?
In any event, there isn't much to be done about it.
jimnyc
10-31-2012, 04:34 PM
It depends on how offensive they are. And which ones are reported. You can post the most hideous, vile things imaginable, but if no one reports it, nothing is done. Some things are reported and removed.
Sure, if someone gets overtly vulgar, or pornographic, I have no issue with that. But your everyday political crap I have no issue with, not even the Obama stuff. Also, keep in mind, everyone will have a different definition of what offensive is. Personally, I would rather they leave it be unless it was pornographic, excessive language or threatening. But hey, it is their site, but if they do remove stuff, I would only hope it would be fair to all posts.
Thunderknuckles
10-31-2012, 04:40 PM
I deactivated my Facebook account a few weeks back so I give this thread a big thumbs sideways :p
jimnyc
10-31-2012, 04:52 PM
Opposite to here!
I suggest you stop trying to start trouble once again. Participate on the subject of the thread, or don't participate. If "here" is not to your liking, then don't come here. Either way, your rants about this place and how it's ran isn't going to be tolerated all around the board.
jimnyc
10-31-2012, 07:43 PM
Good news from Facebook... And I find the picture neither offensive or vulgar, and actually pretty close to the truth
http://i.imgur.com/mrUQm.jpg
Update: Facebook Reverses, Allows SEALs' Post Critical of ObamaUPDATE: Facebook Manager Andrew Noyes emailed the following to Breitbart News this morning: We wanted to follow up on the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) article published on Breitbart.com last night. I assure you that removing the image was not an act of censorship on our part. This was an error and we apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused.
Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.
The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.
I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc -- the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.
Here's what Ward told me:
We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALS the backup they requested.
Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people -- all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate
aboutime
10-31-2012, 07:52 PM
4034
This is how he started...ACORN free.
tailfins
10-31-2012, 08:02 PM
Being far lefties, they feel it is their duty to be part of Obama's "truth squad." They're apparently afraid that if they don't defend the indefensible, somebody somewhere will pull their liberal card. It's just mindless reflexiveness. Instinct.
Of course Zuckerberg owes Obama for not prosecuting him for IPO fraud. Debts have to be repaid after all.
aboutime
10-31-2012, 08:53 PM
Of course Zuckerberg owes Obama for not prosecuting him for IPO fraud. Debts have to be repaid after all.
tailfins. This just happens to be one of those moments in time when the words "FOLLOW THE MONEY" happen to apply, and rightfully so.
SassyLady
11-01-2012, 02:07 AM
Good news from Facebook... And I find the picture neither offensive or vulgar, and actually pretty close to the truth
http://i.imgur.com/mrUQm.jpg
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate
From the article this sentence stood out for me:
In other words, Facebook put the Navy SEALS in timeout in order to shield Obama.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.