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.
True. That's why we have this thing called "defamation" which you can be sued for. However, the First Amendment protects the right of anyone who wants to promote opinions or facts that you don't like (hate) to do so.Fucking moron, free speech does not extend to private businesses.Facebook called Loomer a "dangerous person." That's why they're being sued. Not because they banned her.Loomer also has a right to sue them for defamation when Facebook uses it's arbitrary definition of "hate."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,,,
No she doesn't. Legally, Loomer doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Facebook can make any sort of artbitrary decision they like to ban a person, and they don't have to justify their reasons. It's a private company. They can't ban her on race, religion or nation of origin, but that's about it. The usual "public accommodations" stuff.
Look at it this way. You invite someone to your home for a dinner party. The guests are a diverse group, but one of your guests comes in, and starts calling people racists names, acting like a total asshole, insulting and offending your other guests, and arguments are breaking out.
Are you going to stand there and say "She is just expressing her opinions as is her right under the Constitution", or are you going to say "You can't talk like that to my other guests. Stop it right now or you'll have to leave".
The right to "free speech" in America is not a carte blanche to promote hate and bigotry. The right to "free speech" is extremely limited: You cannot be arrested or prosecuted for criticizing the government. That's it. You cannot enter a private business and start shouting that you hate brown people. They'll throw you out and rightfully so.
Actually, free speech is carte blanche to promote what you call "hate." You should shut the fuck up when it comes to American law, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I generally don't waste my time responding to your posts because all you ever do is troll.More empty banter from the fucking mpron who actually claimed Madison Square Garden is in Wisconsin.Everyone in this forum with a brain knows what a douchebag you are. Personal attacks are about the only thing you do.LOLYou've humiliated yourself multiple times in here. I would think you would quit while you're ahead.LOLYeah, because you have nothing else in your quiver.
Of course I do. That's just one of the funnier ones.
Too bad for you your hollow claims can't be confirmed.
She hasn't, of course. All she has done is criticize Islam.They can call her that if she made any threatening comments on their site.They can't call Loomer a "dangerous person." That's defamation. That's what all you fucking lefteing turds refuse to understand.So what? It's their site. If you don't like it, don't post your hate speech on it."Hate speech" is undefinable, and Facebook defines it to mean "any opinion Mark Zuckerberg doesn't like."She was banned along with others who express hate speech, including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan.they provide a service same difference
doesn't matter what their TOS says if that TOS isnt applied and enforced with out bias or impartiality which they claim it is they are in violation of misrepresenting their service
Based on your defense of the one side you wrongly portrayed as being the only target in this.Oh? I wasn't aware Louis Farrakhan is on your side. Thanks for clarifying that.LOLOLyou said it,,,WHAT THEY CONSIDER,,,
and by their actions its all politically based and not about hate,,,
It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.
as long as they are equally applied,, which they arent,,,its all purely one sided,,,
how would you know what side is mine???
Yeah, your definition said that hate speech is speech that is hateful. And you thought you were so clever!And yet, there is. I already posted what Facebook considers hate speech.So what? It's their site. If you don't like it, don't post your hate speech on it."Hate speech" is undefinable, and Facebook defines it to mean "any opinion Mark Zuckerberg doesn't like."She was banned along with others who express hate speech, including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan.they provide a service same difference
doesn't matter what their TOS says if that TOS isnt applied and enforced with out bias or impartiality which they claim it is they are in violation of misrepresenting their service
no such thing as hate speech,,,
Fucking moron, free speech in the First Amendment doesn't protect anyone in a private business. It only protects you from the government.True. That's why we have this thing called "defamation" which you can be sued for. However, the First Amendment protects the right of anyone who wants to promote opinions or facts that you don't like (hate) to do so.Fucking moron, free speech does not extend to private businesses.Facebook called Loomer a "dangerous person." That's why they're being sued. Not because they banned her.Loomer also has a right to sue them for defamation when Facebook uses it's arbitrary definition of "hate."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.
No she doesn't. Legally, Loomer doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Facebook can make any sort of artbitrary decision they like to ban a person, and they don't have to justify their reasons. It's a private company. They can't ban her on race, religion or nation of origin, but that's about it. The usual "public accommodations" stuff.
Look at it this way. You invite someone to your home for a dinner party. The guests are a diverse group, but one of your guests comes in, and starts calling people racists names, acting like a total asshole, insulting and offending your other guests, and arguments are breaking out.
Are you going to stand there and say "She is just expressing her opinions as is her right under the Constitution", or are you going to say "You can't talk like that to my other guests. Stop it right now or you'll have to leave".
The right to "free speech" in America is not a carte blanche to promote hate and bigotry. The right to "free speech" is extremely limited: You cannot be arrested or prosecuted for criticizing the government. That's it. You cannot enter a private business and start shouting that you hate brown people. They'll throw you out and rightfully so.
Actually, free speech is carte blanche to promote what you call "hate." You should shut the fuck up when it comes to American law, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
No, no, NO. No ma'am. That is NOT how defamation lawsuits work.It’s not defamation if it’s true. And she will have to not only prove that she not a dangerous racist bigot given to hate speech, but that the Facebook banning harmed her in some financial way.
Again, that is NOT how defamation lawsuits work.You can’t win a lawsuit without proving your damages. I can call you anything I want, but if want damages have to prove actual financial harm.
I doubt Loomer lost one thin dime from all this.
I've proven you're a liar and a retard at least 1000 times already.The reason you're wrong has already been explained a couple dozen times in this thread. Pretending to be stupid isn't a good debate strategy.It'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.That doesn't matter for a defamation case.
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.
.
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
But that is your ENTIRE debate strategy. To post stuff that is stupid and demonstrably false. Although in your case you're not pretending.
Fucking moron, you don't know that's all she has done. That's the part which fails to penetrate your armor of ignorance.She hasn't, of course. All she has done is criticize Islam.They can call her that if she made any threatening comments on their site.They can't call Loomer a "dangerous person." That's defamation. That's what all you fucking lefteing turds refuse to understand.So what? It's their site. If you don't like it, don't post your hate speech on it."Hate speech" is undefinable, and Facebook defines it to mean "any opinion Mark Zuckerberg doesn't like."She was banned along with others who express hate speech, including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan.
That isn't what I said, shit for brains. It protects private business from the government.Fucking moron, free speech in the First Amendment doesn't protect anyone in a private business. It only protects you from the government.True. That's why we have this thing called "defamation" which you can be sued for. However, the First Amendment protects the right of anyone who wants to promote opinions or facts that you don't like (hate) to do so.Fucking moron, free speech does not extend to private businesses.Facebook called Loomer a "dangerous person." That's why they're being sued. Not because they banned her.Loomer also has a right to sue them for defamation when Facebook uses it's arbitrary definition of "hate."
No she doesn't. Legally, Loomer doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Facebook can make any sort of artbitrary decision they like to ban a person, and they don't have to justify their reasons. It's a private company. They can't ban her on race, religion or nation of origin, but that's about it. The usual "public accommodations" stuff.
Look at it this way. You invite someone to your home for a dinner party. The guests are a diverse group, but one of your guests comes in, and starts calling people racists names, acting like a total asshole, insulting and offending your other guests, and arguments are breaking out.
Are you going to stand there and say "She is just expressing her opinions as is her right under the Constitution", or are you going to say "You can't talk like that to my other guests. Stop it right now or you'll have to leave".
The right to "free speech" in America is not a carte blanche to promote hate and bigotry. The right to "free speech" is extremely limited: You cannot be arrested or prosecuted for criticizing the government. That's it. You cannot enter a private business and start shouting that you hate brown people. They'll throw you out and rightfully so.
Actually, free speech is carte blanche to promote what you call "hate." You should shut the fuck up when it comes to American law, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
There are limits to what you can put into a terms of service agreement. For instance, they can't have a condition that says they can kill you if you violate their terms of service. Nothing illegal can by put into a TOS agreement.LOLOLAnd yet, there is. I already posted what Facebook considers hate speech.So what? It's their site. If you don't like it, don't post your hate speech on it."Hate speech" is undefinable, and Facebook defines it to mean "any opinion Mark Zuckerberg doesn't like."
no such thing as hate speech,,,
you said it,,,WHAT THEY CONSIDER,,,
and by their actions its all politically based and not about hate,,,
It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.
I was responding to Dragonlady, not you.LOLOLI've proven you're a liar and a retard at least 1000 times already.The reason you're wrong has already been explained a couple dozen times in this thread. Pretending to be stupid isn't a good debate strategy.It'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 impartial
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
But that is your ENTIRE debate strategy. To post stuff that is stupid and demonstrably false. Although in your case you're not pretending.
So still about me and not the thread topic?
Regardless, you have only ever accused me of lying. Whenever challenged to quote a lie, you run.
Fucking moron, Facebook is banning users, not killing them. No one ever suggested they can kill anyone. And they have every right to create their own terms of service and every right to ban users who violate them. Just as USMB has here.There are limits to what you can put into a terms of service agreement. For instance, they can't have a condition that says they can kill you if you violate their terms of service. Nothing illegal can by put into a TOS agreement.LOLOLAnd yet, there is. I already posted what Facebook considers hate speech.So what? It's their site. If you don't like it, don't post your hate speech on it.
no such thing as hate speech,,,
you said it,,,WHAT THEY CONSIDER,,,
and by their actions its all politically based and not about hate,,,
It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.
Do you actually fear me that much?Facebook is going to get $3 billion of truth.The truth hurts.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.
I love it.
The Trump supporting flame throwers spew trheir shit all over the internet & then run crying when the favor is returned.
You asssfucks need to grow the fuck up & try the truth instead of believing the Loomers & Limbaughs.
No wonder you are all dumber than shit.
If I own a newspaper, I don't have to print your shit.
I hope there is a counter suit & the dumb bitch loses everything.
When the lawsuit is thrown out will you leave the board?
Again, you're attacking an argument I never made. And you're responding with the usual inappropriate outrage.Fucking moron, Facebook is banning users, not killing them. No one ever suggested they can kill anyone. And they have every right to create their own terms of service and every right to ban users who violate them. Just as USMB has here.There are limits to what you can put into a terms of service agreement. For instance, they can't have a condition that says they can kill you if you violate their terms of service. Nothing illegal can by put into a TOS agreement.LOLOLAnd yet, there is. I already posted what Facebook considers hate speech.no such thing as hate speech,,,
you said it,,,WHAT THEY CONSIDER,,,
and by their actions its all politically based and not about hate,,,
It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.
ROFL! No, you can't stand to be confronted with facts. That's why you're the kind that defends censorship on Facebook.Do you actually fear me that much?Facebook is going to get $3 billion of truth.The truth hurts.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.
I love it.
The Trump supporting flame throwers spew trheir shit all over the internet & then run crying when the favor is returned.
You asssfucks need to grow the fuck up & try the truth instead of believing the Loomers & Limbaughs.
No wonder you are all dumber than shit.
If I own a newspaper, I don't have to print your shit.
I hope there is a counter suit & the dumb bitch loses everything.
When the lawsuit is thrown out will you leave the board?
No, I want you to face the consequences for believing all the bullshit stories that you do.
Fucking moron, I attacjed your moronic argument that they can't include illegal punishments when they never did. There is nothing illegal in their TOS.Again, you're attacking an argument I never made. And you're responding with the usual inappropriate outrage.Fucking moron, Facebook is banning users, not killing them. No one ever suggested they can kill anyone. And they have every right to create their own terms of service and every right to ban users who violate them. Just as USMB has here.There are limits to what you can put into a terms of service agreement. For instance, they can't have a condition that says they can kill you if you violate their terms of service. Nothing illegal can by put into a TOS agreement.LOLOLAnd yet, there is. I already posted what Facebook considers hate speech.
you said it,,,WHAT THEY CONSIDER,,,
and by their actions its all politically based and not about hate,,,
It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.
And then Facebook's lawyers bring into court all of her disgusting writings to demonstrate why they made that public conclusion. And then everyone goes home. I find it hard to believe any court will set this dangerous precedent.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.
Have you noticed how all these leftwing douchebags defend the Big Brother behavior of Facebook in kneejerk fashion?Based on your defense of the one side you wrongly portrayed as being the only target in this.Oh? I wasn't aware Louis Farrakhan is on your side. Thanks for clarifying that.LOLOL
It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.
as long as they are equally applied,, which they arent,,,its all purely one sided,,,
how would you know what side is mine???
its best not to assume things you dont know about,,,
Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.And then Facebook's lawyers bring into court all of her disgusting writings to demonstrate why they made that public conclusion. And then everyone goes home.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.
