Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
nan said:
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
https://www.westernjournal.com/facebook-purge-list-pages-deleted/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=MobileFloatingSharingButtons&utm_content=2018-10-13&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
I really want to know what Extremely Pissed Off Right Wing Voters 2 did to make 200,000 followers take off and form Extremely Pissed Off Right Wing Voters 3.
ridski said:
nan said:I really want to know what Extremely Pissed Off Right Wing Voters 2 did to make 200,000 followers take off and form Extremely Pissed Off Right Wing Voters 3.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
https://www.westernjournal.com/facebook-purge-list-pages-deleted/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=MobileFloatingSharingButtons&utm_content=2018-10-13&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
Good question, but now you will never know.
Julian Assange News!
Julian Assange’s communications partly restored by Ecuadorian government
They were cut in March, denying him access to the internet or phones and limiting visitors to members of his legal team.
excerpt:
WikiLeaks said Mr Assange has not entered into any form of agreement with Ecuador to restrict his speech or other rights.
His lawyers are considering his legal options and will make a statement in due course.
The WikiLeaks statement said the meetings were held in Ecuador between the president and the UN high commissioner for refugees Filippo Grandi and UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression David Kaye.
It said: “Concern over Mr Assange’s situation has also been raised by other UN bodies, as well as Human Rights Watch (who was refused access to him), Amnesty International, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Ecuador’s Permanent Human Rights Commission, and public protests
“Mr Assange was informed of Ecuador’s decision hours after Mr Grandi and Mr Kaye met with President Moreno.”
President Moreno ordered Mr Assange’s “isolation” on March 28 in retaliation for giving “opinions on the politics of friendly nations like Spain or the United States”.
The statement continued: “Mr Assange had critically reported on the Trump administration’s involvement in Yemen and Spanish police brutality. High level representations were made by the Trump administration and the Spanish government over Mr Assange, who was given political refugee status by Ecuador in 2012 over US attempts to prosecute him.
“The Trump administrations stepped up efforts to prosecute Mr Assange after WikiLeaks published the largest leak in the history of the CIA last year.
“The US has announced that it now considers Ecuador a ‘strategic ally’ and helped it secure a billion dollars in previously withheld loans.
“For almost seven months, Ecuador has kept Mr Assange in a regime that has been likened to solitary confinement by Human Rights Watch. Ecuador has prevented Mr Assange from receiving visitors other than his lawyers. It installed three sets of signal jammers in the embassy, to prevent Mr Assange from communicating using mobile phones or internet.
“The extrajudicial seven-month isolation of Mr Assange has interfered with his fundamental rights and the rights of his family. It has also prevented Mr Assange from working and giving public talks.
“Ecuador has also prevented all journalists from speaking to him during this time. Ecuador’s President until last year, Rafael Correa, has denounced Mr Assange’s treatment as ‘torture’ stating ‘the government is basically attacking Julian’s mental health’.
“Ecuador has informed Mr Assange that the government intends to continue Moreno’s policy of restricting him from expressing his opinions under threat of expulsion.”
Oct 15, 2018 at 8:26am Edited
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Packingham defined social media as part of the public square. That language has already been cited ina lawsuit successfully challenging the Facebook page of the Governor of Maryland, and will undoubtedly be cited in any future lawsuits against Facebook itself.
And that's what I meant in my conclusion about Mr. Surovell's post. "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites. I don't think the decision informs us on the question of what the websites themselves are required to do, under the First Amendment or otherwise, to provide access to anyone in particular." We wouldn't be discussing the Packingham decision if Mr. Surovell hadn't brought it up. I guess now we all agree that it doesn't apply to the issue of what Facebook and YouTube can do about allowing or removing content.
It's silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
Yes, Packingham was cited in the complaint filed in the case of Laurenson v. Hogan. I highlighted the words "the Facebook page of the Governor of Maryland" because the legally significant aspect was not "Facebook page", but was "Governor of Maryland". The complaint cites the Packingham case, but not for the principle that any Facebook page (or Facebook itself) is subject to the First Amendment. At paragraph 81 it states: "Speech utilizing Facebook and other social media is subject to the same First Amendment protections as any other speech. Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017)." At paragraph 87 it states: "Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right – the right to speak freely on topics relevant to the government in a government-established forum, and particularly an online social-media-based forum – of which all reasonable government officials should have known, rendering them liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Packingham, supra, at 1735" (Emphasis added) In my words that you quoted, I described the holding in Packingham in a similar fashion: "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites." I wasn't downplaying and I wasn't silly, I was just trying to be accurate.
There was a very recent court decision in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, prohibiting Donald Trump (remember him?) from blocking people from his account on the Twitter. The District Court's analysis discussed the applicability of Packingham. Just for fun, let's take a peek at what that ruling said:
Applying this three-part classification framework to the interactive space, we can first conclude that the interactive space of a tweet sent by @realDonaldTrump is not a traditional public forum. There is no historical practice of the interactive space of a tweet being used for public speech and debate since time immemorial, for there is simply no extended historical practice as to the medium of Twitter. While the Supreme Court has referenced the “vast democratic forums of the Internet,” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), has described the internet (including social media platforms such as Twitter) as one of “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017), and has analogized the internet to the “essential venues for public gatherings” of streets and parks, id., the lack of historical practice is dispositive, see Forbes, 523 U.S. at 678.
So the First Amendment applied because of the governmental nature of the Twitter account in question (not the Twitter in general).
(Note: I didn't quote the entire analysis of the District Court, which probably addresses whatever may be posted arguing against my post.)
nan said:
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here's a story about how the Myanmar military used Facebook as a tool in their effort to rid the world of Rohingya. Another example of how difficult it is to simply declare Facebook the "public square" and allow anyone to post anything.
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:Eliza tells you when to talk?
paulsurovell said:I ran that response through Eliza and she said “We were discussing you, not me.”
ridski said:Not sure. What do you think?
paulsurovell said:Is it a first amendment violation to restrict Facebook access to people 13 years and older?
The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech. The ACLU article cited above also holds Facebook to First Amendment standards, accepting censorship of unlawful speech (e.g., incitement to violence), but not censorship of speech that is "offensive" or unpopular.
Whether speech is unlawful is not usually a black-and-white matter, so "the line" that you are trying to elicit is often quite blurry.
Oh... When to talk?
dave23 said:
Here's a story about how the Myanmar military used Facebook as a tool in their effort to rid the world of Rohingya. Another example of how difficult it is to simply declare Facebook the "public square" and allow anyone to post anything.
Not everything is or has been allowed in the real-world public square.
dave23 said:
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
I agree with this.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Yes, Packingham was cited in the complaint filed in the case of Laurenson v. Hogan. I highlighted the words "the Facebook page of the Governor of Maryland" because the legally significant aspect was not "Facebook page", but was "Governor of Maryland". The complaint cites the Packingham case, but not for the principle that any Facebook page (or Facebook itself) is subject to the First Amendment. At paragraph 81 it states: "Speech utilizing Facebook and other social media is subject to the same First Amendment protections as any other speech. Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017)." At paragraph 87 it states: "Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right – the right to speak freely on topics relevant to the government in a government-established forum, and particularly an online social-media-based forum – of which all reasonable government officials should have known, rendering them liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Packingham, supra, at 1735" (Emphasis added) In my words that you quoted, I described the holding in Packingham in a similar fashion: "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites." I wasn't downplaying and I wasn't silly, I was just trying to be accurate.
nohero said:Packingham defined social media as part of the public square. That language has already been cited ina lawsuit successfully challenging the Facebook page of the Governor of Maryland, and will undoubtedly be cited in any future lawsuits against Facebook itself.
And that's what I meant in my conclusion about Mr. Surovell's post. "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites. I don't think the decision informs us on the question of what the websites themselves are required to do, under the First Amendment or otherwise, to provide access to anyone in particular." We wouldn't be discussing the Packingham decision if Mr. Surovell hadn't brought it up. I guess now we all agree that it doesn't apply to the issue of what Facebook and YouTube can do about allowing or removing content.
It's silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
There was a very recent court decision in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, prohibiting Donald Trump (remember him?) from blocking people from his account on the Twitter. The District Court's analysis discussed the applicability of Packingham. Just for fun, let's take a peek at what that ruling said:
Applying this three-part classification framework to the interactive space, we can first conclude that the interactive space of a tweet sent by @realDonaldTrump is not a traditional public forum. There is no historical practice of the interactive space of a tweet being used for public speech and debate since time immemorial, for there is simply no extended historical practice as to the medium of Twitter. While the Supreme Court has referenced the “vast democratic forums of the Internet,” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), has described the internet (including social media platforms such as Twitter) as one of “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017), and has analogized the internet to the “essential venues for public gatherings” of streets and parks, id., the lack of historical practice is dispositive, see Forbes, 523 U.S. at 678.So the First Amendment applied because of the governmental nature of the Twitter account in question (not the Twitter in general).
(Note: I didn't quote the entire analysis of the District Court, which probably addresses whatever may be posted arguing against my post.)
I didn't disagree with your post, I merely said it was silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:I agree with this.
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
Great. So I guess Nan and you are, indeed, different people since she lamented FB's removal of such groups.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Great. So I guess Nan and you are, indeed, different people since she lamented FB's removal of such groups.
dave23 said:I agree with this.
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
I'm agreeing that any person or group that posts on Facebook should be required to identify themselves in a way that's verifiable. Serious question (I haven't followed this discussion much) -- Is that why those groups were removed?
paulsurovell said:
I'm agreeing that any person or group that posts on Facebook should be required to identify themselves in a way that's verifiable. Serious question (I haven't followed this discussion much) -- Is that why those groups were removed?
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Great. So I guess Nan and you are, indeed, different people since she lamented FB's removal of such groups.
dave23 said:I agree with this.
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
That's what he/she WANTS you to think ...
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I didn't disagree with your post, I merely said it was silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
paulsurovell said:Yes, Packingham was cited in the complaint filed in the case of Laurenson v. Hogan. I highlighted the words "the Facebook page of the Governor of Maryland" because the legally significant aspect was not "Facebook page", but was "Governor of Maryland". The complaint cites the Packingham case, but not for the principle that any Facebook page (or Facebook itself) is subject to the First Amendment. At paragraph 81 it states: "Speech utilizing Facebook and other social media is subject to the same First Amendment protections as any other speech. Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017)." At paragraph 87 it states: "Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right – the right to speak freely on topics relevant to the government in a government-established forum, and particularly an online social-media-based forum – of which all reasonable government officials should have known, rendering them liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Packingham, supra, at 1735" (Emphasis added) In my words that you quoted, I described the holding in Packingham in a similar fashion: "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites." I wasn't downplaying and I wasn't silly, I was just trying to be accurate.
nohero said:Packingham defined social media as part of the public square. That language has already been cited ina lawsuit successfully challenging the Facebook page of the Governor of Maryland, and will undoubtedly be cited in any future lawsuits against Facebook itself.
And that's what I meant in my conclusion about Mr. Surovell's post. "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites. I don't think the decision informs us on the question of what the websites themselves are required to do, under the First Amendment or otherwise, to provide access to anyone in particular." We wouldn't be discussing the Packingham decision if Mr. Surovell hadn't brought it up. I guess now we all agree that it doesn't apply to the issue of what Facebook and YouTube can do about allowing or removing content.
It's silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
There was a very recent court decision in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, prohibiting Donald Trump (remember him?) from blocking people from his account on the Twitter. The District Court's analysis discussed the applicability of Packingham. Just for fun, let's take a peek at what that ruling said:
Applying this three-part classification framework to the interactive space, we can first conclude that the interactive space of a tweet sent by @realDonaldTrump is not a traditional public forum. There is no historical practice of the interactive space of a tweet being used for public speech and debate since time immemorial, for there is simply no extended historical practice as to the medium of Twitter. While the Supreme Court has referenced the “vast democratic forums of the Internet,” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), has described the internet (including social media platforms such as Twitter) as one of “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017), and has analogized the internet to the “essential venues for public gatherings” of streets and parks, id., the lack of historical practice is dispositive, see Forbes, 523 U.S. at 678.So the First Amendment applied because of the governmental nature of the Twitter account in question (not the Twitter in general).
(Note: I didn't quote the entire analysis of the District Court, which probably addresses whatever may be posted arguing against my post.)
Okay, whatever you say.
paulsurovell said:I didn't disagree with your post, I merely said it was silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
It shouldn't take 15 days to "merely" say anything unless you're an Ent.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:It shouldn't take 15 days to "merely" say anything unless you're an Ent.
I didn't disagree with your post, I merely said it was silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
OK, I'll bite. "15 days" is about . . . ?
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:I'm agreeing that any person or group that posts on Facebook should be required to identify themselves in a way that's verifiable. Serious question (I haven't followed this discussion much) -- Is that why those groups were removed?
paulsurovell said:Great. So I guess Nan and you are, indeed, different people since she lamented FB's removal of such groups.
dave23 said:I agree with this.
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
I am mad that Facebook is taking massive amounts of people off without any kind of due process. Also, the groups hired to decide what is acceptable are biased. It looks like it was politically motivated. I think there should be a clear policy on what is not acceptable and some kind of review for those that supposedly don't meet requirement. It should be transparent. Right now, if Facebook or Twitter pulls you, you can't even discuss it or find out any details. People should get something like a trial.
nan said:
paulsurovell said:I am mad that Facebook is taking massive amounts of people off without any kind of due process. Also, the groups hired to decide what is acceptable are biased. It looks like it was politically motivated. I think there should be a clear policy on what is not acceptable and some kind of review for those that supposedly don't meet requirement. It should be transparent. Right now, if Facebook or Twitter pulls you, you can't even discuss it or find out any details. People should get something like a trial.
dave23 said:I'm agreeing that any person or group that posts on Facebook should be required to identify themselves in a way that's verifiable. Serious question (I haven't followed this discussion much) -- Is that why those groups were removed?
paulsurovell said:Great. So I guess Nan and you are, indeed, different people since she lamented FB's removal of such groups.
dave23 said:I agree with this.
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
Do you agree with @dave23 that the reason Facebook is closing accounts is that the owners have refused to provide their true identity?
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:OK, I'll bite. "15 days" is about . . . ?
paulsurovell said:It shouldn't take 15 days to "merely" say anything unless you're an Ent.
I didn't disagree with your post, I merely said it was silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.
Half of a month.
nan said:
paulsurovell said:I am mad that Facebook is taking massive amounts of people off without any kind of due process. Also, the groups hired to decide what is acceptable are biased. It looks like it was politically motivated. I think there should be a clear policy on what is not acceptable and some kind of review for those that supposedly don't meet requirement. It should be transparent. Right now, if Facebook or Twitter pulls you, you can't even discuss it or find out any details. People should get something like a trial.
dave23 said:I'm agreeing that any person or group that posts on Facebook should be required to identify themselves in a way that's verifiable. Serious question (I haven't followed this discussion much) -- Is that why those groups were removed?
paulsurovell said:Great. So I guess Nan and you are, indeed, different people since she lamented FB's removal of such groups.
dave23 said:I agree with this.
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
That’s GD hilarious.
They wound on through the hills for 15 days, suffering every fool that crossed their paths on their way ...
paulsurovell said:
nan said:Do you agree with @dave23 that the reason Facebook is closing accounts is that the owners have refused to provide their true identity?
paulsurovell said:I am mad that Facebook is taking massive amounts of people off without any kind of due process. Also, the groups hired to decide what is acceptable are biased. It looks like it was politically motivated. I think there should be a clear policy on what is not acceptable and some kind of review for those that supposedly don't meet requirement. It should be transparent. Right now, if Facebook or Twitter pulls you, you can't even discuss it or find out any details. People should get something like a trial.
dave23 said:I'm agreeing that any person or group that posts on Facebook should be required to identify themselves in a way that's verifiable. Serious question (I haven't followed this discussion much) -- Is that why those groups were removed?
paulsurovell said:Great. So I guess Nan and you are, indeed, different people since she lamented FB's removal of such groups.
dave23 said:I agree with this.
nan said:Facebook should not be required to host information distributed by groups who are unwilling to be up front about their identities. Quite a few of them are run by networks like Liberty Front Press and are not single, independent entities. These are organizations that try to hide their tracks by using fake addresses, VPNs, etc.
Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800). Facebook refused to release the whole list.
No, that's nuts. And dave23 knows better than to believe that.
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.
dave23 said:
The truth is often less interesting than poorly informed, paranoid conspiracy theories.
So, you assume you have the truth? Based on what?
Here is a Sputnik interview with someone who works for RT who had her page taken down. She has a clearly identified website and says she was told nothing about why her page was taken down. And speaking of "true identity," Facebook appears to be a private company acting as they wish, but they are in fact following the whims of the Atlantic Council and military industrial complex. Also, the Sputnik/RT people talk about working there and press freedom.
Jamie,
Is there a sub-sub-sub forum that you can banish this nonsense to?
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Good. Delete them.