Facebook takes down ads run by "NoStimulus.com."
15-second version: Facebook users on the left complained about the ad because they disagreed with it. Facebook responded by taking it down. Pathetic.
When will people learn that free speech means everyone has a right to not only have their opinion, but to publicly advocate it? Moreover, just because you disagree with something or find the idea that someone does not share your point of view offensive, does not make it "hate speech."
Posted by Eric Earling at February 12, 2009 07:26 AM | Email ThisWhat about the biggest Big Brother of them all- Google?
Posted by: swatter on February 12, 2009 07:41 AMI subscribe to the comment of the Rhode Island delegate to the Continental Congress in the stage play "1776". His line is something like, "I ain't never seen, heard, nor smelled an idea that couldn't be talked about."
Shame on you, Facebook.
Posted by: kmort on February 12, 2009 08:09 AMI boycotted those mutts years ago when they failed to recognize memorial day year after year,self censors books critical of Democrats here in the U.S., while kowtowing to the Chinese government imposed censorship.
The left define "hate speech" as anything counter to liberal ideology. See Fascism.
Great how you all were for the free market before you were against it, and against "freedom of speech" before you were for it. Cognitive dissonance... just have to LOVE it. I'm looking forward to your support when I help get a Planned Parenthood ad on Michelle Malkin's website.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 12, 2009 08:54 AMThe reason they hate Bush is he overthrew a dictator who embodied everything they want to become. At least they wet their pants that Fidel still breaths.
So we expect courage from a website? Blah....
They will have homosexual relations, steal elections, hijack nations and use the rules to wipe out opponents and don't think they will stand for being voted out of office in this country. They will riot, kill and threaten all if that happens.
We have two choices and one of them is to not avoid Facebook. Are we going to stand for the principles and values of civilization or are we going to point out there hypocrisy-like that changed anything the last 20 years.
Bottom line we need to stop worrying about what they do and stand up for what should be done and, oh yes, ignore the screams of the demons coming from them.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on February 12, 2009 08:55 AMI think it's finally starting to dawn on people just exactly what sort of people we are playing with.
Eliminating a view they don't like on Facebook is typical of what these people are really all about.
When I've attempted to explain the modern left to people I have been accused of being "paranoid" This includes folks who would probably call themselves "moderate Republicans".
The time appears to have arrived when I can say, "look, I told you so".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 08:59 AMBut to believe that the right-wing doesn't have an equal share of idiocy and hypocrisy in its ranks is sheer folly. I'd call you a coward, hiding behind strong words when you have nothing to back it up, but you're worse... you're completely delusional as to the way the world really works, you're dangerous, and you'd turn this country and this world into a hellhole if other people would let you.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 12, 2009 09:01 AMPretty bad example you picked to support your point. Did you bother reading that article you linked to?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 09:07 AMbut,but..what happened to "hope and change"?
Oh yeah, they won and returned to the old reliable liberal mantra of "fear and loathing".
Facebook is a private business that should be allowed to nix any content it sees fit. I don't know what the big fuss is about.
Disclaimer: I have no idea of what a Facebook is, nor do I particularly care. Oh and btw, you punks get the helloffa my lawn!
Posted by: Smoley on February 12, 2009 09:12 AMOr is it just a "bad example" because you don't agree? Figures...
Posted by: demo_kid on February 12, 2009 09:18 AMBut Facebook, which confirmed that it took "NoStimulus.com" down, told CNSNews.com that it did so because of user complaints--and did not mention any violations of Rules 8 or 9.
There is a distinct difference demokid. The UCC ad would have conflicted with the rule 9 which prohibits "Politically religious agendas", while facebook admits the nostimulus.com ad was simply generated by user complaints, which translates to "liberal fascist supporters of Congresses/Obama's spending bill that want to quell dissent and discussion".
Questions?
Posted by: Rick D. on February 12, 2009 09:29 AMPersonally, I think they made a dumb decision, but if Facebook determines that a particular ad is harmful to their business interest, they are free to remove it. It's not an impingement on free speech. Americans for Properity are free to hold their nutty opinions and there are many venues where they can express them.
Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2009 09:36 AMThat's it. They don't grant freedoms, they restrict the government from infringing on said freedoms.
They do not restrict facebook from taking down an unpopular ad, nor do they restrict people on the left from whining about the ad, nor do they restrict you whining about whiners.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 12, 2009 09:42 AMI also don't see that "Rule 9" is in the U.S. Constitution, nor that the UCC ad was subject to it, since it was aired on a number of other cable channels. So... sorry. You lose. Stop whining and get a life.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 12, 2009 09:52 AMAlso, they could have taken those complaints and registered them and not taken the add down as it did not violate any rules. Take a stand I say. Sorry you don't like it, but it's not against the rules so it stays up. But that takes "balls" but it looks like facebook doesn't have any.
Posted by: Dengle on February 12, 2009 09:54 AMIf they wish to lose bussiness, hey go for it.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 12, 2009 10:00 AMSimply put, the ad was submitted, then approved by Facebook. It was only after "user complaints" that it was removed with no rhyme or reason given for the removal. Sure, they had the right as a private entity, but it showed zero balls by the Company to remove something that first passed their guidelines, then mysteriously didnt, and even less by those "liberal fascists" that submitted 'user complaints'.
No whining here, just pointing out the leftist double standards.
Indeed, Facebook is a private entity that has every right to choose its content.
I think Dengle has a point. Facebook caters to the brainwashed under 40 left. That's why they aren't running the ad.
And note why they aren't running it. Liberals complained because it "offended" them.
Liberals don't simply ignore opinions that they don't agree with. They stomp on them.
Nice folks, aren't they?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 10:07 AMWhat's exceptionally lame is them pulling ads based on pathetic complaints from left-of-center folks, demonstrating their now too often habit of trying to silence ideas with which they disagree. FB enabling that appalling behavior is my real objection.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 12, 2009 10:13 AM@25: Again, cognitive dissonance much? I don't see that you're a remarkable advocate of free speech / toleration of dissent. EVERYTHING that you've laid on liberals can be laid at the feet of conservatives as well.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 12, 2009 10:14 AMBullshit.
For days leading up to the inauguration of Obama, there was nothing BUT ad after ad after ad of Obama on Facebook. Did conservatives whine like little bitches to get them taken down? No.
Face it. You and your ilk are the cowards. Yes. Cowards. You simply cannot stand another viewpoint so you seek every means necessary to have it squelched.
Cowards. Sniveling, whining, little cowards.
Posted by: jimg on February 12, 2009 10:28 AMWhat we are seeing at Facebook is indicative of how a new generation, brainwashed by their teachers, the media, and the entertainment industry deals with ideas they don't feel are "correct".
Any conservative that has attempted to speak on a college campus knows what we are talking about.
This coming Monday there will be a rally in Seattle against the "stimulus" package.
I can tell you from experience that those of us who gather will be civil. I can also tell you from experience that there will be angry leftists giving us the finger and shouting at us.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 10:34 AMThis is not about forcing a private company to do anything. Sheesh!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 10:45 AMAmericans are figuring out just what you people are all about. If I were you I would be worried too.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 10:58 AMWhy am I not surprised to see the Right-Wing nutzos are getting their panties in a bunch over how a private business feels operates and does what it feels is best for it's customers.
It's amusing because I don't see any complaints from the right wing when pro-gay marriage ad's are denied airing on local television stations.
We believe that Luis Moro, one of the administrators for 'End the US Trade Embargo on Cuba' group on Facebook was censored for speaking for allowing travel between the United States and Cuba.
For_Immediate_Release:
United States of America (Press Release) February 10, 2009 -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Release� Feb 10, 2009 � We believe that filmmaker-activist Luis Moro, administrator for End the US Trade Embargo on Cuba was censored by Facebook for giving information out, or supplying information in detail about how people can help to pass the bill To allow travel between the United States and Cuba.
Los Angeles, Feb 10 / Moro Films LLC has released a statement to the press about what Luis Moro believes is a direct infringement in his right to free speech and censorship by Facebook. Luis Moro was networking and socializing on Facebook, abiding by all of their Terms and Conditions. On Feb 09, 2009 at 9:30 pm Luis Moro was on Facebook speaking about the Travel bill, when his account was abruptly deleted with no notice or warning. He was one of the administrators of �End the US Trade Embargo on Cuba� group on Facebook with over 2,800 members.
Luis and his wife, Bobbi Miller-Moro immediately wrote to Facebook at info@Facebook.com and requested an explanation and to return Luis� page immediately. Not only was he using Facebook to network, but to socialize with hundreds of his friends. He had more than 700 �friends� and growing, from fans of his films, and his ex-Rutgers footballer friends and childhood friends.
If he ever met his quota in adding friends in a day, Facebook would send a warning to stop, and he would. Other than that, there was no illegal activity or scandalous behavior that would warrant such actions from Facebook.
Cuban born Luis Moro made a film in Cuba and since then has been a visible outspoken voice against the Embargo on Cuba and has provided detailed information and request a call to action from pro-�free Cuba� supporters in his site www.EverythingCuba.com. Moro is accustomed to this controversy being that his stand against the embargo has been a heated topic for many pro-embargo hardliners.
Facebook has deleted many accounts with no explanation as to why. They monitor how many friends you have and whether they are �real� or not. They left an anti-Islam site up after hundreds of thousands of protests from Facebook users. Luis Moro never once said a hateful remark, but only promotes peace.
�There is no freedom of speech on the Internet so long as the platforms for speech are provided by private companies dancing to the demands of the largest market.� �Jason Lee Miller WebProNews
� Women Without Borders US 2009 All Rights Reserved
# # #
To reach Facebook: info@Facebook.com
www.MoroFilms.com
www.WomenWithoutBorders.us
***UPDATE***
We have been getting some interviews from some 'techie' blogs making fun of us, and mocking us. They obviously haven't done their research. And of course Facebook denies what we are saying, do you think they would admit to it?
What never ceases to amaze me is this: no matter how much you stand for truth and stand for freedom of speech; there are those who need to bash and mock them.
The facts are incorrect and taken out of context for the humor-ment of the authors of those article. ha-ha, funny. I never said Facebook doesn't want people to travel to Cuba. I said that Facebook is under scrutiny from thousands of people for random censorship, including mentioning the Gaza strip, anti-war messages, Islam, Muslem, and a breast feeding photo that got hundreds and thousands of protests from Facebook's users. Don't take my word for it, check it out. Luis was not spamming, but he was talking about the Travel bill for Cuba. And he was deleted. We were not quiet about it-and they reinstated him. And one person does not matter to Facebook.
Posted by: Bobbi Miller-Moro on February 12, 2009 11:18 AMExamples, Cato?
The protest against the porkulus is on for President's Day!
Date: Monday, February 16th
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Where: Westlake Park in downtown Seattle, 401 Pine St., in the open area by the big arch.
The idea is to use what we've learned about dissent over the last eight years. We need loud protests with lots noise and visuals. So, what should you bring?
Bring AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN! Bring your families, your friends, neighbors, bring everyone!
Bring SIGNS!! Get those craft making juices flowing and make signs and banners and pictures and paintings. Just imagine that you are a left-wing college student with nothing else to do and that should help you get started!
Bring something to sit on and appropriate clothing.
Most importantly, JUST BRING IT!!!
Why? Because a private company did not renew his multi-million dollar contract? We're in a recession remember?
I'm not arguing the "free speech" aspect of this Facebook decision, I'm questioning why the Company reviewed and approved the ad according to their own guidelines and then folded like a K-Mart deck chair when thin-skinned pro stimulus whiners complained. It's one thing for a company to have a policy in place and adhere to those policies with respect to their ads, but it's another to discontinue an ad your company had already approved and then simply buckle to pressure from a couple of whiners that didn't like the ads message when it conflicted with their rigid ideological bent.
Very Anti-Democratic actions from "Democrats", but what else is new under the sun.
...Maybe it's time the party rethought its name.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 12, 2009 12:08 PMThere is sometimes a price to pay, as the PI has discovered.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 12, 2009 12:09 PMIn the face of the principle they harp on something to disabuse and distract the principle to the point of perverting the use of the principle and make it look like the principle is the problem but it does not change the principle.
ya gotta see this is not a D or and R thingy.
Bottom line it..Facebook can do and delete whoever in the hell they want to but going forward why care about this kind of constant leftist hypocrisy?? We trap our futures pointing it out and then demanding idiots at Facebook fight the battle they don't want to fight and so what if the ad is restored.
The question is is what is left of civilization going to rebuild on principles that built this civilization or are we going to choose the cold dark path of self 'choices' without consequences to the chooser at the clear cost to our futures?
Posted by: Col. Hogan on February 12, 2009 12:12 PMThere is very little I agree with you on, but I do on this - FB is a private entity, and can run their website any way they want.
So then, believing as you do on this issue, I take it we can count on your support in opposing efforts to reinstitute the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine?
Posted by: ewaggin on February 12, 2009 12:35 PMWhen Obama is Presidet, Dissent is not patriotic?
I despise liberal hypocricy.
Posted by: Mark on February 12, 2009 12:57 PMConsider the cost of not putting a profile up on these idiotic sites. Gosh- it might inhibit your ability to stalk or be stalked by other lemmings.
Would that silence surprise anyone?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 01:42 PMOnly if you'd support kicking Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura off Armed Forces Radio.
@47: And the reverse is OBVIOUSLY true. I mean, everything that conservatives do is AUTOMATICALLY patriotic, even if it destroys the country, kills people, or takes away basic rights.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 12, 2009 03:16 PMI'd concede that AFR should have alternate formats since they're publically funded. Where Mr. Harkin is inconsistent in his message is when he says:
"Liberals, moderates and independents contribute to funding for American Forces Radio through payment of their taxes, just like conservatives do,"and then doesn't include NPR and PBS in his bill. As NPR and PBS are both publically financed (at least in part) entities as well, they too should be "Fair and balanced" rather than preach the leftist mantra as it currently does.
Dealing with leftists is a lot like attempting to reason with a spoiled 13-year old.
Unfortunately we haven't learned yet that the worst thing one can do is let them have their way.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 04:19 PM"(FDR) ordered (J. Edgar) Hoover to wiretap, bug, and physically spy on his anti-interventionist opponents ... Hoover complied with reports on Senator Nye, Senator Wheeler, Colonel Lindbergh, and the America First Committee, among others. In a clear case of harassment, the Internal Revenue Bureau also investigated the finances of America First without giving a reason for the inquiry. ...
"Roosevelt was not content with the FBI reports alone, and soon hired his own personal spy ... (p)aid with 'special emergency' funds (of the State Department) ...
"Roosevelt used taxpayer money and federal bureaucrats to investigate and harass his political enemies. ...
"At the same time the FBI expanded its secret surveillance of dissidents, the Justice Department publicly pursued opponents of war ... In a brazen act of intimidation, the special prosecutor darkly hinted that he might add Senator Burton Wheeler to the list of alleged seditionists."
- From Kathryn S. Olmsted's book, Real Enemies, Oxford University Press, 2009. Olmsted is Professor of History at UC/Davis. Her book is blurbed by hyperliberals Seymur Hersh and Eric Alterman. Wheeler, aka Bolshevik Burt, was the first prominent Democrat to support FDR for president.
Posted by: Water Under the Gate on February 12, 2009 05:03 PMYou know better than this Eric. Sloppy....
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 07:37 PMThat said -- it's sad the add was dropped: could have reached a really wide audience.
Posted by: mark on February 12, 2009 10:23 PMYes it is. That's the correct definition of 'hate speech;' that is, 'speech I hate.'
tehag
Posted by: tehag on February 13, 2009 03:32 AMPathetically sad, but so very, very true...
Posted by: thirteenburn on February 13, 2009 09:02 AMReally, I have such a low opinion of the minority leadership right now that the schadenfreude dominates reason too often.
Something I found really interesting in all of this is the question of whether or not destinations like FaceBook, MySpace, Live, Google, or whateverthenextcoolthingis.com should be held to the same or different standards as broadcast and print news organs? They are definitely part of the commons, yet are privately held and not officially news generators. But they do serve a pretty powerful bunch of communication tools. And, unlike pages here at SP, they are not structured as modest endeavors of personal passion, they are rather quickly becoming institutionally scaled entities like telephone and power companies of 100 years ago. At some point they may become subject to some kind of oversight by the nature of their own success. That could get pretty interesting.
Posted by: Acid Brain on February 13, 2009 11:13 AM"This is one of the last places I'd expect to read anyone hollering about equal time and speech rights."
Nice straw man dude. Unfortunately, I didn't say either of those two things. But by all means, continue making stuff up to fit your argument.
"Really, I have such a low opinion of the minority leadership right now that the schadenfreude dominates reason too often."
Well, it beats the hell out of the "no leadership" majority party we've got at the moment. Democrats lie as often as they breathe only just like breathing,they take it for granted and don't notice when they're doing it.
Some advice for Acid brain: Next time you post, might I suggest you not use the product you drop daily for at least 12 hours beforehand so that you at least sound even the slightest bit lucid.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 13, 2009 12:19 PMActually, the minority party stood up for the future generations that will be saddled with this huge pork filled spending bill to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars (so far). If that is ideological entrenchment, then I'll take that over the Greed-filled,shortsighted scumbags that didn't even take any time to think this bill through...they were given a deadline by King Obama of Presidents day and damnit, that's what it will be- Damn the children and Grandchildren that will have to pay for it, King Obama has spoken.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 13, 2009 04:18 PMOne thing is certain. Acid Brain and his buddies won't be around saying, "gosh, I guess we were wrong".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2009 05:51 PMOne thing we can be certain of. When we say that the left is made up of liars, cheaters, whiners, and socialists we are absolutely right.
We don't have to fabricate lies about the opposition as the left does. They are demonstrating who they really are right before our eyes. Might not end up being the smartest thing they've ever done but boy are these people ever drunk with power right now.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2009 06:21 PM