The Original Tree
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2016
- 41,125
- 17,973
Maxine Waters should have been banned on Social Media a long time ago.
So should Adam Shit Face.
So should Adam Shit Face.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Facebook defines hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what they call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.So when is Twitter and other Social Media outlets going to BAN Ohmar, Talib and AOC?Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.FB to your point is already suffering bad publicity and I had never heard of Laura Loomer. If they ban someone like Ben Shapiro then all Hell will break loose.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Show me where Omar, Tlaib or Cortez expressed such hate speech on Facebook.....
God will judge people on The Left on Judgement Day.I would say not. But for example, just yesterday, one of your fellow loons posted such hate and expressed the eagerness to kill folks on the left because of his beliefs. His posts were removed and was rightfully banned from post. His speech was also dangerous because it became an actual threat to public safety. Facebook has the same right as USMB to protect itself from legal exposure for allowing such speech.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Define “hatred”. I believe that progressive Leftists are loons and are ruining this country. Does that equate to hate speech?
No need for any one to act as God's executioner.
Hell is a real place, and Evil, Liars, Slanderers, The Treasonous, And the Vile Idol Worshipers will all find themselves there.
They hate Jews and Christians and America and so do you.Facebook defines hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what they call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.So when is Twitter and other Social Media outlets going to BAN Ohmar, Talib and AOC?Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.FB to your point is already suffering bad publicity and I had never heard of Laura Loomer. If they ban someone like Ben Shapiro then all Hell will break loose.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Show me where Omar, Tlaib or Cortez expressed such hate speech on Facebook.....
I would say not. But for example, just yesterday, one of your fellow loons posted such hate and expressed the eagerness to kill folks on the left because of his beliefs. His posts were removed and was rightfully banned from post. His speech was also dangerous because it became an actual threat to public safety. Facebook has the same right as USMB to protect itself from legal exposure for allowing such speech.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Define “hatred”. I believe that progressive Leftists are loons and are ruining this country. Does that equate to hate speech?
That makes sense. What did Laura Loomer post to get her banned?
That's a prediction, not a fact claim, moron. Facebook has labeled many others, like Paul Joseph Watson and Gavin McGinnis, to be "dangerous individuals," and I know exactly what they post. They have a well established pattern of banning people for posting facts or opinions that Facebook disagrees with, dumbfuck.Fucking moron, you already declared she's going to prevail when you don't even know what she posted that led to her banishment. You really have shit fer brains.Thanks for stating the obvious, Sherlock.Oh? What are they gonna get? She has to first prevail before she can have a hope of collecting a dime.The tech giants are about to get what they deserve. If they want to behave like publishers, then they can be subject to the same laws that publishers face. For instance, you can't go around labeling people as "haters, dangerous individual and white supremacists" without facing legal consequences.
Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation - Laura Loomer Official
On Tuesday, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.
Facebook defines hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what they call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.So when is Twitter and other Social Media outlets going to BAN Ohmar, Talib and AOC?Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.FB to your point is already suffering bad publicity and I had never heard of Laura Loomer. If they ban someone like Ben Shapiro then all Hell will break loose.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Show me where Omar, Tlaib or Cortez expressed such hate speech on Facebook.....
Nope, it's to prevent exposure to legal liability in cases where the hate speech leads to criminal behavior.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
you mean like the hatred for white people we hear everyday???
thats just speech you hate,,,and also truth if they do hate them,,,
facts dont care about your feelings,,,
this hate speech thing is just to silence opinion,,,
Facts are hate speech, don'tcha know.I would say not. But for example, just yesterday, one of your fellow loons posted such hate and expressed the eagerness to kill folks on the left because of his beliefs. His posts were removed and was rightfully banned from post. His speech was also dangerous because it became an actual threat to public safety. Facebook has the same right as USMB to protect itself from legal exposure for allowing such speech.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Define “hatred”. I believe that progressive Leftists are loons and are ruining this country. Does that equate to hate speech?
That makes sense. What did Laura Loomer post to get her banned?
If I recall, all she did was state a fact,,,
Laughing about Hell does not stop you from being sent there.God will judge people on The Left on Judgement Day.I would say not. But for example, just yesterday, one of your fellow loons posted such hate and expressed the eagerness to kill folks on the left because of his beliefs. His posts were removed and was rightfully banned from post. His speech was also dangerous because it became an actual threat to public safety. Facebook has the same right as USMB to protect itself from legal exposure for allowing such speech.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Define “hatred”. I believe that progressive Leftists are loons and are ruining this country. Does that equate to hate speech?
No need for any one to act as God's executioner.
Hell is a real place, and Evil, Liars, Slanderers, The Treasonous, And the Vile Idol Worshipers will all find themselves there.![]()
Don't be a fucking idiot.Actually, all of Facebook's 2 billion members were informed that she is dangerous.That doesn't matter for a defamation case.She can't be all that abused, I've never even heard of her.
She had100,000 followers who Facebook informed that she was banned for being dangerous. It's pretty clear cut. Only question is how much Facebook will pay.
.
How were all 2 billion informed of this? I never got the message. Never even heard of her before this thread.
Posted above. Links and quotes both.Without knowing what she posted to lead to this, we don't know if she has a case or not.Facebook doesn't produce a product. They provide a platform. You must abide by certain rukes to use their platform. Is you don't, they can remove you.they are if they claim they are which Facebook and many other tech giants have under oath to congressIt's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartialNothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.
these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China
So all Loomer has to do is prove their decision was done with bias that they weren't impartial and not very hard to do with its record
A company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service they cant claim they are unbias that they are impartial and not be just like a manufacturer cant put a made in US tag on products made in China
Its called consumer protection
you against consumer protection? you against consumers not getting what a company claims they are getting?
It's really just that simple. I already provided Facebook's partial list of TOS violations. She has no case.
Nope. It's a derogatory term, and Facebook is subject to a defamation suit as a result.Will a jury find that she is a "dangerous individual" or not?Oh? What are they gonna get? She has to first prevail before she can have a hope of collecting a dime.The tech giants are about to get what they deserve. If they want to behave like publishers, then they can be subject to the same laws that publishers face. For instance, you can't go around labeling people as "haters, dangerous individual and white supremacists" without facing legal consequences.
Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation - Laura Loomer Official
On Tuesday, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.
My guess is NOT, which is defamation.
Facebook tried to get cute by banning opposing views. Now they are gonna pay.
.
Dangerous is a subjective thing, it does not matter if the jury finds her dangerous, only that FB can explain why they think she is.
If someone posts something hateful which could reasonably be construed as a threat or promoting a threat, you can be sure they will receive a visit from the secret service. Just ask whatshername, the comedienne who portrayed a beheading of trump.Nope, it's to prevent exposure to legal liability in cases where the hate speech leads to criminal behavior.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
you mean like the hatred for white people we hear everyday???
thats just speech you hate,,,and also truth if they do hate them,,,
facts dont care about your feelings,,,
this hate speech thing is just to silence opinion,,,
you mean like all the hate aimed at trump that results in attacks on anyone that even wears a hat with his slogan on it???
I don't know as Facebook has not said.I would say not. But for example, just yesterday, one of your fellow loons posted such hate and expressed the eagerness to kill folks on the left because of his beliefs. His posts were removed and was rightfully banned from post. His speech was also dangerous because it became an actual threat to public safety. Facebook has the same right as USMB to protect itself from legal exposure for allowing such speech.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
Define “hatred”. I believe that progressive Leftists are loons and are ruining this country. Does that equate to hate speech?
That makes sense. What did Laura Loomer post to get her banned?
If someone posts something hateful which could reasonably be construed as a threat or promoting a threat, you can be sure they will receive a visit from the secret service. Just ask whatshername, the comedienne who portrayed a beheading of trump.Nope, it's to prevent exposure to legal liability in cases where the hate speech leads to criminal behavior.Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing.theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
you mean like the hatred for white people we hear everyday???
thats just speech you hate,,,and also truth if they do hate them,,,
facts dont care about your feelings,,,
this hate speech thing is just to silence opinion,,,
you mean like all the hate aimed at trump that results in attacks on anyone that even wears a hat with his slogan on it???