Author Topic: Faith Goldy and other White Supremacists banned from Facebook  (Read 987 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510


She may be hot stuff, but there is no excuse for inciting hatred.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/facebook-faith-goldy-ban-alt-right-1.5088827

If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Boges

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
Here's an article about her by Micheal Coren.

https://nowtoronto.com/news/faith-goldy-mayor-toronto/

I remember seeing her on his CTS show. And as he says, she was certainly not an extremist then. Perhaps she always had these views and just tempered her extremism until she felt there was an audience or she's evolved into this, quite frankly, Neo-Nazi view point organically.

I agree that these views shouldn't be protected by free speech.

Online wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3944
Free speech is free speech but no person or organization is obligated to give anyone a platform or the means to finance that freedom.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline Poonlight Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
Free speech is free speech but no person or organization is obligated to give anyone a platform or the means to finance that freedom.

Exactly.

Neo-nazi activity may constitute hate speech, since they advocate genocide against Jews and killings of other minorities.

I don't think they have hate speech laws in the USA though.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"  - African proverb

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Interesting thoughts about how the far right becomes radicalized:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmgyg3/how-the-far-right-feeds-on-male-insecurity?utm_source=vicefbus
"Kimmel argues a sense of "aggrieved entitlement" and a longing for community are much more integral to radicalization than any particular political issue or stance."

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2604
Free speech is free speech but no person or organization is obligated to give anyone a platform or the means to finance that freedom.
We have allowed private firms to dominate and control the "public square" in today's world. For that reason the "private companies can ban whoever they want" excuse does not apply. Facebook, Google and other near monopoly players have the same moral obligations as governments to protect free speech. They should also be compelled by law as the government is.

While Nazi's and other odious white supremacists groups are hardly sympathetic the warning from Martin Niemöller's poem applies here:

Quote
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

In short, once we accept that simple speech can be limited with no requirement for court review it is just a matter of time before different opinions that each of us thinks are legitimate will be be banned because the censors are accountable to no one. We will gradually turn into a state like China where no dissent from norms is tolerated.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 05:09:19 pm by TimG »

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
We have allowed private firms to dominate and control the "public square" in today's world.

While google and facebook enjoy an ad based revenue advantage, they are only small players in the overall "public square". In fact WordPress is much larger than them in terms of content management services.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2604
While google and facebook enjoy an ad based revenue advantage, they are only small players in the overall "public square". In fact WordPress is much larger than them in terms of content management services.
Fair point. As long as these groups can set up their own websites and not have them blocked by ISPs or other intermediaries like they are talking about doing in the UK then losing access to Facebook is no big deal in my book.  I am still concerned about the number of people cheering this move on without even thinking about the broader implications. For free speech to mean anything people must be free to say obnoxious things. The only limit should be incitement of violence and those determinations should be made by a court - not a random company that happens to control access to the public square whether it is FaceBook or ISPs or whoever.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
not have them blocked by ISPs or other intermediaries
...
people must be free to say obnoxious things.
...
The only limit should be incitement of violence and those determinations should be made by a court

Agreed (pending last one)
...
Agreed
...
Agreed there is a line, and there needs to be a way to determine that line

One of the issues with a court is speed. I am thinking about things like the idiot with the ice pick in Montreal, or the more recent New Zealand massacre. I don't know if they fall within your "incitement of violence" line, but certainly everything should be done as quickly as possible to eliminate their spread.

The other issue with a court is the fact that the Internet is international in scope.

Offline Poonlight Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
We have allowed private firms to dominate and control the "public square" in today's world. For that reason the "private companies can ban whoever they want" excuse does not apply. Facebook, Google and other near monopoly players have the same moral obligations as governments to protect free speech. They should also be compelled by law as the government is.

I disagree.  Private companies can ban whoever they want and enforce whatever speech they want.  Same as MLW can do the same.  It's up to their consumers to tell them whether that's the right decision or not.

Google & Facebook don't have a monopoly.  I don't use google to search most of the time, i don't use gmail etc.  Government enforcing speech has far greater consequences.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"  - African proverb

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2604
One of the issues with a court is speed. I am thinking about things like the idiot with the ice pick in Montreal, or the more recent New Zealand massacre. I don't know if they fall within your "incitement of violence" line, but certainly everything should be done as quickly as possible to eliminate their spread.
When dealing with a company that controls access to the "public square" there has to be an independent tribunal that assesses the facts and applies the law while looking at precedents. There are cases where the judgement of a private company can be used to take content down immediately provided the censored individual has the right to appeal to this tribunal which will make the final determination. This tribunal could be separate from the courts.

The other issue with a court is the fact that the Internet is international in scope.
The recent anti-free speech law passed in the EU is the reason why we need to be proactive about defending ours lest we get stuck with the standards imposed by other countries because the Internet is 'global'. China already pressuring multi-nationals into suppressing speech it does not like outside the borders of China. If we are not vigilant we could lose our free speech because there are so many powerful countries that do not care about that right.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 06:11:42 pm by TimG »
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6825
We have allowed private firms to dominate and control the "public square" in today's world...

Today means since the 17th century?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2515


She may be hot stuff, but there is no excuse for inciting hatred.

or enabling her - yes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-JVPbMj_V4

Offline Poonlight Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
or enabling her - yes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-JVPbMj_V4

To be fair, I believe that's before her coverage of the Charlottesville protest and before she associated herself with the neo-nazi podcast/site that got her fired from The Rebel.  She was mostly just your typical conservative blowhard before that.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 07:08:20 pm by Poonlight Graham »
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"  - African proverb

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2515
To be fair...

to be fair... that video focuses on Scheer touting his non-support for the, "symbolic, non-binding M103 motion"; a motion, not a bill - this motion:


I interpret Scheer's main concern... over this non-binding motion... was a perceived, "potential to infringe upon free-speech"! Ya, ya - Conservatives are such staunch advocates for protecting free-speech - especially allowing haters/nationalists/white-nationalists/white-supremists/etc., to ply their worst best! Strong leadership there weakSauce!