Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avatar4321

Facebook ban a Church webpage on religious liberty

Recommended Posts

Apparently you can appeal.  Did MS?

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW, there's a ton of unreasonable bans on Facebook, running the social-political gamut.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this is a wake up call for all of those supporters of allowing discrimination based on personal beliefs in the marketplace. It is a two edged sword.  While appeals can now be made, what happens if the Supreme Court rules in favor of discrimination based on personal beliefs?  Would that not allow discrimination against religious beliefs that are in conflict with a store owner or social media company personal beliefs?  It seems like it could trigger a uncivil clash of ideologies where everyone looses.

Be careful what you wish for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe this is a wake up call for all of those supporters of allowing discrimination based on personal beliefs in the marketplace. It is a two edged sword.  While appeals can now be made, what happens if the Supreme Court rules in favor of discrimination based on personal beliefs?  Would that not allow discrimination against religious beliefs that are in conflict with a store owner or social media company personal beliefs?  It seems like it could trigger a uncivil clash of ideologies where everyone looses.

Be careful what you wish for.

FB is not discriminating, only listening to its customers, and the customers are still speaking so we'll see if the links are allowed again. But once FB drives the world we live in, be careful what you wish for.

I was on FB for about 5 days when if first came out, and every weirdo I ever knew came out of the woodwork. Tells you lot of about me I guess :)... So I dropped it but my wife let's me log into her account to see the latest grandkid pics.

My question is, are the weirdos successful in driving FB, or to see FB drive the world?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

While the church may appeal, it will take a whole lot of facebookers telling the app that they are nuts to exclude discussion of contitutional liberties as "not meeting community standards" to help facebook know their customers care about such matters and about thought conversation around the subject.   So attempt to send the page link to a friend, and then take the link to where you can say your piece, and make your point. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

...............................

Edit: I actually tried to post the church’s link to the religious freedom page. It was blocked. I now choose to delete Facebook. It’s not what it used to be and I’ve been debating for awhile. Tired of the ads. Tired of them deciding which friends posts I see or not. 

Mark Zuckerberg is a college dropout who never learned the fundamental lessons of the value of an open society and of tolerance.  Plus he is now filthy rich and uncaring about higher societal values.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Leftist control and censorship of social media platforms is a big issue these days. Looks like it is now hitting close to home. 

The key to this issue is to distinguish between a publisher and a platform. A publisher has First Amendment freedom to control what it publishes according to its own whim. A platform, on the other hand, has the duty to serve the public equitably. It’s like a public utility in that respect. 

That means it should not be exercising thought control over users. When it starts blocking content about freedom of religion, content created by the Church of Jesus Christ, it has obviously gone way too far. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

................ Facebook is not a government entity. They cannot fine the church out of existence for daring to advocate for religious freedom.  ..................

Unlike Google, Youtube, Twitter, or other internet browsers and social media companies, Facebook can probably not be defined as part of the public square or public marketplace -- where the First Amendment applies, or should apply, despite the current Wokescold, tech overlords who are censoring public opinion.  There some anti-trust legislation would be in order, or some free speech and free religion lawsuits.

ETA:  I have tried to get my congressman and senators to do something.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/religious-freedom/religious-freedom?lang=eng

Apparently this violates Facebook community standards.

https://www.millennialstar.org/facebook-bans-church-website/

I suspect this won't be the last time something like this happens

What this shows is the complete farce that is social media and "community standards". In my experience and experiments social media sites have default settings - enough reports of a certain type will activate a default. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unlike Google, Youtube, Twitter, or other internet browsers and social media companies, Facebook can probably not be defined as part of the public square or public marketplace -- where the First Amendment applies, or should apply, despite the current Wokescold, tech overlords who are censoring public opinion.  There some anti-trust legislation would be in order, or some free speech and free religion lawsuits.

ETA:  I have tried to get my congressman and senators to do something.

Prager U is suing google and you tube. The case is being heard today. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/federal-court-to-hear-new-prageru-lawsuit-on-youtube-restricting-conservative-videos?espv=1

PragerU’s latest suit argues first that YouTube officials’ own testimony identifying itself as a “public forum” makes it subject to judicial precedent that identifies such a forum’s speech regulation as “state action” subject to First Amendment scrutiny. 

It argues next that Google’s censorship practices render its stated claims to respect “freedom of expression” and practice “neutrality” misrepresentations under the federal Lanham Act, which covers claims of false or misleading advertising.  

“Google/YouTube cannot lawfully market and monetize public speech for profit by inviting the public to upload and view video content on a global public platform expressly dedicated to and designated for ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘viewpoint neutrality,’ and then regulate and restrain the public’s speech without any regard to the legal rules and principles that give rise to, define, protect, and govern ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘viewpoint neutrality’ under the law,” the suit delcares.”

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe this is a wake up call for all of those supporters of allowing discrimination based on personal beliefs in the marketplace. It is a two edged sword.  While appeals can now be made, what happens if the Supreme Court rules in favor of discrimination based on personal beliefs?  Would that not allow discrimination against religious beliefs that are in conflict with a store owner or social media company personal beliefs?  It seems like it could trigger a uncivil clash of ideologies where everyone looses.

Be careful what you wish for.

I recognize Facebook as a company that can do what it wants, including this. However, we need not conflate criticism of what it chooses to do with mandating they don’t do it. Two very separate things, and it’s reasonable to take two (superficially appearing) very different positions on each of those issues.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Judd said:

I recognize Facebook as a company that can do what it wants, including this. However, we need not conflate criticism of what it chooses to do with mandating they don’t do it. Two very separate things, and it’s reasonable to take two (superficially appearing) very different positions on each of those issues.

Yes, I can choose to not use Facebook. I would not attempt to shut Facebook down for not publishing the post. I think the grey area comes with truth in advertising. Is Facebook violating their own published standards and advertised product with discriminatory enforcement? If they say they refuse to post religious content or post religious freedom content, that is their prerogative . Same with posts about politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't understand.  What facebook page got banned?  One in the OP link is here: https://www.facebook.com/SupportReligiousFreedom/?fref=ts  And it works just fine...

The other one is here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/religious-freedom/religious-freedom?lang=eng  And it works just fine  too...

 

(Edit - never mind.  It's a problem when you try to share the link.  And yes, this is happening.)

image.png.5e6249afc20cc399f1dde7907a1af95a.png

Edited by LoudmouthMormon

Share this post


Link to post

You guys are hilarious.  Now all the sudden this company has no right to discriminate against your religious beliefs.  This is the church that issues an amicius brief supporting the cake bakers right to discriminate because of personally held beliefs.  Now a business or it's customers doesn't like what the Church  stands for and blocks it.  

Maybe now some of you will realize that discrimination of any kind in the marketplace should not be allowed.  Everyone is entitled to hold their own personal beliefs.  But a company doing business with the public should accommodate any. customer, even when they don't support that customers personal beliefs.

You don't think the Masterpiece lawsuit applies to this kind of thinking?  Just wait and see what happens if it passes.  Then what leg will you have to stand on  when you face discrimination because of your own personally held beliefs.  And how much sympathy do you think religion will get when it starts to get discriminated against in the public square.  

This is a war where both sides loose.  Too bad we can't respect different points of view and still be able to accommodate all customers.  For me, not discriminating even when you may view the person as a sinner seems more in keeping with the message of the Savior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/religious-freedom/religious-freedom?lang=eng

Apparently this violates Facebook community standards.

https://www.millennialstar.org/facebook-bans-church-website/

I suspect this won't be the last time something like this happens

Sounds like boycott time to me.

Would they do this to Jews?  Can you imagine if "The Book of Mormon" musical was about Judaism?

We are such wimps.

Time for a little turning over the money changer's tables, if you ask me.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe now some of you will realize that discrimination of any kind in the marketplace should not be allowed.  Everyone is entitled to hold their own personal beliefs.  But a company doing business with the public should accommodate any. customer, even when they don't support that customers personal beliefs.

Yeah right.  Let's sell automatic weapons to the KKK.  Sounds like a great idea.  (SARCASM)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

image.png.5e6249afc20cc399f1dde7907a1af95a.png

So let's let them know!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I let them know.  Respectfully.  

Yes, everyone should go to facebook, try to share the link, then click the "let us know" link and let them know.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, california boy said:

But a company doing business with the public should accommodate any. customer, even when they don't support that customers personal beliefs.

I disagree with this completely. It depends on the product. Artistic expression should not be coerced. Lawyers should be able to choose their clients. An accountant should not be forced to do taxes for the KKK. You can boycott Mr Phillips and I can cancel Facebook. You can buy your custom cake elsewhere and I can use other products to connect with my family more or use Marco Polo. I hope someone starts a Facebook type product that prohibits ads and selling things.

*And I’m sure you know Mr. Phillips served everyone that entered his store. He sold anyone and everyone the products on his shelves.

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Everyone is entitled to hold their own personal beliefs.  But a company doing business with the public should accommodate any. customer, even when they don't support that customers personal beliefs.

Almost.  A public platform should accommodate all speech.  Private entities shouldn't have to.

Perhaps a quick video might help:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

You guys are hilarious.  Now all the sudden this company has no right to discriminate against your religious beliefs.  This is the church that issues an amicius brief supporting the cake bakers right to discriminate because of personally held beliefs.  Now a business or it's customers doesn't like what the Church  stands for and blocks it.  

Maybe now some of you will realize that discrimination of any kind in the marketplace should not be allowed.  Everyone is entitled to hold their own personal beliefs.  But a company doing business with the public should accommodate any. customer, even when they don't support that customers personal beliefs.

You don't think the Masterpiece lawsuit applies to this kind of thinking?  Just wait and see what happens if it passes.  Then what leg will you have to stand on  when you face discrimination because of your own personally held beliefs.  And how much sympathy do you think religion will get when it starts to get discriminated against in the public square.  

This is a war where both sides loose.  Too bad we can't respect different points of view and still be able to accommodate all customers.  For me, not discriminating even when you may view the person as a sinner seems more in keeping with the message of the Savior.

The U.S. Supreme Court will sort out the elements of these cases, and then we will know where the lines between religion and business are to be drawn.  The assumption that everything must be this way or that may suit you just fine, while someone else may see other issues.  Instead of mocking one another, we need to patiently work out the legal limits.  The only thing we should be partisan about is the Constitution.  It should protect everyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Almost.  A public platform should accommodate all speech.  Private entities shouldn't have to.

Perhaps a quick video might help:

 

That’s a great explanation of the issues. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The U.S. Supreme Court will sort out the elements of these cases, and then we will know where the lines between religion and business are to be drawn.  The assumption that everything must be this way or that may suit you just fine, while someone else may see other issues.  Instead of mocking one another, we need to patiently work out the legal limits.  The only thing we should be partisan about is the Constitution.  It should protect everyone.

I absolutely agree.  Given the mix of cases the Supreme Court choose to review, I have said in the past, my prediction is that the Supreme Court will rule that a business can not discriminate against a customer based on their personal beliefs, but churches and religious institutions may qualify those that work for them hold the same values.  And of course, will always be free to express their religious beliefs.

Even given the extreme conservative makeup of this court, I don't think they will legalize discrimination in the public market.  The implications of where that might end up is just to unacceptable to the way the Constitution protects minorities and personal civil rights.  This is just one example of what repercussions could happen.  But hey, I might be worng.  I guess we will find out in the not too distant future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...