What do you think about freedom of speech on Facebook?

Post Reply New Topic

Facebook fanpage recently closed our Polish independence march fanpage, it’s held annually at 11th November, It was a photo of our Polish football team with the caption in English,
“all different all white” not all Polish are racist!! !

Does they could not simply remove the said photo?!

Posted moreover be some moron who think he is "big patriot" ?
That fanpage had 250 000 flotrowers, and not everybody of then are racist!

I do not like racism, but the removal of the entire fanpagea is overkill

In my opinion, the government of my country Polish, and more specifically the Minister for Communications, put ulimatum to Facebook or restore Fanpage, or get a global ban on Polish IP, and get the f**k out from Poland!

I can do without Facebook, I still have a Google+
(It's G+ is sh***y but FB is not only social media on Internet! )



I do not like racism, but even more do not like censorship, where is pluralism?

This page was home, not only for groups of minority of far-right morons, but also for normal Polish patriots and conservatives

Facebook is a privately-owned site. As such, they have the right to decide what content is permitted on their service. To deny them that would infringe on their freedom of speech by forcing them to give a platform to views they do not wish to, at their expense.

But that social media should not be censored, even by the owners, well, unless it comes to overt neo-Nazi or pedophiles.
If some idiot post something racist, he should be shunned and ignored, by other members of said FB group or fanpage.

Why not? Why shouldn't Facebook have the right to decide what people are allowed to put on their site, that they pay for and manage with their funds. Why should they be forced to provide a platform for a view they do not wish to have on their service?

It would be like saying that you are not allowed to make someone leave your home if they say something offensive.

Voltaire once said
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I did not like racist but why punish everyone for bad behavior of of one idiot?
And you said:

But our government can kick them out from our internet, i'm saying the can kick them out, they think that Global Corpo cannot get kick in A?
They would see how much they are wrong

The thing is, nobody's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Everyone involved is still free to say what they please, but Facebook is not obligated to provide them a place to do so. It can choose to grant the privilege of doing so, and in this case the company decided to revoke that privilege; that is a right for them.

I agree with what you write, but my point is that the government of any State may kick corporations of the country, recently I read that a certain group of people founded the petitions to our Prime Minister, Mrs. Beata Szydlo to blocked facebook in Poland, i did not agree with that, i think it would be overkill.
But what do you think?

While I have no love for Facebook, I think no action needs to be taken by the Polish government. That would be... kind of draconian, really. It's not far off from censorship.

If citizens are concerned by this, they should contact Facebook to express those concerns rather than trying to get legal sanctions imposed.

Facebook need to not get any govt help if it is to be THAT private an enterprise. But we (our current regimes) have let them get away with it since it supported these regimes since its rise up in 2008 (when it became less private than original settings, sold our data and was more intrusive ) It is something that a group of us have petition Trump and Bernie over. Hillary is in a daisy chain with Zuckerberg, Jobs, and Gates. So no help will come from her direction if it is corporate welfare of supporters being infringed.

They pay NO AS IN zero INCOME TAX.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/ ... 6bbf7361c3

And suck off the govt teat:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/2/26 ... er-subsidy

When facebook took money from WE the people? it means it has to serve ALL we the people. It also removes a butt-ton of NON hate speech right sided political pages. twitter does so as well in lesser extent

Seriously it is time for a new facebook or to resurrect myspace. But it was so simple it has had a shift from old folks on AOL to its free easy use ans intrusive data gathering platform. Ugh I guess I shall adapt again and start with google plus, but it spies so heavily I don't want it as my main communication.

You govt is up in arms because it recognizes an endoctrination technique. A blackmail and coercion in a world stage way of making everyone think as Globalists, bow to the superior morals and intelligence of the Elite. And since you have a Nationalist leaning govt right now they are definitely gonna feel this as an affront. FB can start a call for all the kooks to boycott your team as harshly as Russia if it wants to try and embarrass Poland in to not saying the EU sucks.
I would keep FB if I was your govt, but with the thought keep friends close and enemies closer. Until some better more neutral platform comes along.

Facebook supports extremists:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3290595/facebo ... es-matter/

As for the OP question I agree with Facebook having the right to censor, but I don't respect them for it.

Facebook is allowed to censor whatever they want on their own site.

That being said, in my opinion it often goes way too far. There are definitely things that should be censored, like groups advocating illegal behavior or extreme cases like that. But I don't think all racism should be banned, especially when many of the things people now find to be horribly racist are actually pretty mild, or even totally innocuous.

I honestly don't see how such a vague phrase as "ALL DIFFERENT, ALL WHITE" can be considered racist at all. I mean, they are all white. If it was some other picture that said "ALL BLACK", or "ALL FEMALE" people would be raving about how progressive it is. I understand why that makes a bit more sense, but it is still a complete double standard when you get right down to it.

It is these are the double standards, although I personally did not like the behavior of those idiots who put this meme, I think if it were a female football team, and they put text like "ALL FEMALE ALL EQUAL" everyone would praise "their gander pride! And if some African or Asian said "ALL BLACK/ASSIAN ALL EQUAL" everyone would praise "their racial pride!"
In my opinion are obnoxious!
After all, everyone has a talent given by God, he does not see us as Europeans (understood as the white race), Blacks, Asians.
He sees us as His children, no one chooses a color, or religion in which we were born, or cultural background we come from.

I think however that there is nothing wrong in a healthy patriotism, understood as the pride of their country (Poland, Germany, United Kingdom, France, etc,.) there is nothing wrong with that pride to our country, niezeleznie what liberals and globalists talk about it until you do not exceed a certain common sense standards

Facebook is a privately owned, privately operated facility. No one has any "rights" to be on Facebook. Participation in Facebook is according to terms set by the owners and operators. Anyone who is permitted on Facebook is there by permission, not by right.

Right, but you can still disagree with their choices of what they censor. And personally I think censoring stuff like this, which is basically harmless, is complete PC BS.

Agree

By all means, disagree. I just wanted to clarify the issue of "rights" and "permissions". We all have constitutionally guaranteed write to peaceably petition the government for redress of grievance or publish opinions and news in journals to which we have access. By the way, no newspaper is obliged legally to print anyone's opinion. Freedom of the press is extended to publishers, not writers. Writers either have to finance their own publications are secure the co-operation of parties who own a journal or other means of public communication. The main point is that the Government has no right to interfere with speech or publication (provided it is peaceable). The Courts have decided that fomenting a riot, insurrection or lynching party is NOT protected speech. No prior restraint on bad-mouthing or defaming anyone exists, but doing so can open a person to civil suit for libel or slander.