Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[MorningStar]

Do you pay for the page you made on Facebook? If it's free, I imagine they are entitled to host anything they want.

[Rob Bowman]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

I don't see how any groups who's soul goal is to tear apart the beliefs of another peaceful religion has any place anywhere on the Internet.

Perhaps someone else feels the same as you and has taken it upon himself to try to censor us where he can. You have just confirmed that there are Mormons with such a perspective.

For what it's worth -- not that you will acknowledge the point -- your description does not apply to IRR. It is not our sole purpose to tear apart the beliefs of another religion.

[DavidB]

Apparently Rob, you have no friends here that would blink an eye at your downfall. But at least you now have a standard by which you can use to comment on conduct others. That standard is that since a punishment was dealt against you, then your guilt is certain.

Edited December 29, 2012 by DavidB

[Saints Alive]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

Perhaps someone else feels the same as you and has taken it upon himself to try to censor us where he can. You have just confirmed that there are Mormons with such a perspective.

For what it's worth -- not that you will acknowledge the point -- your description does not apply to IRR. It is not our sole purpose to tear apart the beliefs of another religion.

I haven't advocated censoring anything. As far as IRR goes we both know you would prefere a world without Mormons.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

So if you owned a business, you would allow anyone to come in and denounce blacks and Jews? Graffitti the walls with hatespeech?

This isn't comparable to what we are doing in the slightest.

You wrote:

Well let's see the whole correspondence. No censoring it.

It cannot be called "censoring" for me to quote something that was sent privately to me. However, here is the entire text of the FB page informing me that FB was removing a post for supposedly being objectionable in content:

We removed content you posted

We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:

Comment

That last post was from me, Rob Bowman, by the way.

That's the full text of the entire page.

You wrote:

Still waiting for documentation that Mormons are controlling FB.

You're still trying to divert attention from the issue by misrepresenting what I said.

[juliann]

I and several others have complained to FB about this practice repeatedly. The company has so far not responded. Perhaps we need to send them certified letters, maybe from an attorney, to get their attention. I don't know. But the matter is cut and dry; none of the posts that were removed contained anything that could reasonably be considered violations of the FB community standards.

Good idea, maybe those Mormons should get an attorney to make you put up defamatory information about your religion on your website.

[Rob Bowman]

DavidB,

You wrote:

Apparently Rob, you have no friends here, that would blink and eye at your downfall. But at least you now a standard by which comment on conduct...that standard is since a punishment was dealt guilt is a certainty. So take that for what it is worth.

You have already edited the above statement at least once; you might want to try again. It is at present incoherent.

[Rob Bowman]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

As far as IRR goes we both know you would prefere a world without Mormons.

This is a meaningless statement, designed only to inflame. IRR is not about attacking Mormons. It is about helping Mormons who are open to rethinking what they have been taught by the LDS Church. We have Mormons who seek us out and are grateful for our help. We also have close Mormon friends who even after years of discussion remain faithful Mormons but also know that we love them.

[Sky]

For what it's worth -- not that you will acknowledge the point -- your description does not apply to IRR. It is not our sole purpose to tear apart the beliefs of another religion.

I just looked up your organization's mission on your Facebook page. This about sums it all up, doesn't it?

From IRR:

Our mission to develop and disseminate resources is four-fold:

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

- Defend and explain biblical Christianity

- Mentor people to relationship with Jesus, spiritual maturity and assimilation into an evangelical church

- Educate and equip churches worldwide enabling them for a discerning response to groups like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses

[juliann]

You're still trying to divert attention from the issue by misrepresenting what I said.

This is a direct quote of what you said. I have misrepresented nothing, now you are dodging. Again, provide evidence that "some Mormons" are doing this.

I thought some of you might be interested to know that there is evidently some sort of campaign by some Mormons to interfere with the Facebook pages of Christians engaged in what Mormons call "anti-Mormon" ministry.

[blackstrap]

So some unknown people are reporting your posts to FB, and FB ,without any investigation or even a sincere viewing of the alleged unsatisfactory posts, are ,in a knee-jerk reaction, removing your posts.These unknown reporters have self identified as Mormons have they? And apparently they have sufficient leverage at FB to accomplish this. I guess it's not paranoia if people really are out to get you.

Edited December 29, 2012 by blackstrap

[Rob Bowman]

Sky,

Thanks for providing that quotation. It proves my point: IRR's purpose is not limited to critiquing Mormonism.

I just looked up your organization's mission on your Facebook page. This about sums it all up, doesn't it?

From IRR:

Our mission to develop and disseminate resources is four-fold:

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

- Defend and explain biblical Christianity

- Mentor people to relationship with Jesus, spiritual maturity and assimilation into an evangelical church

- Educate and equip churches worldwide enabling them for a discerning response to groups like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

This is a direct quote of what you said. I have misrepresented nothing, now you are dodging.

No. You claimed, falsely, that I said Mormons controlled Facebook. You are the one who is dodging.

You wrote:

Again, provide evidence that "some Mormons" are doing this.

I have already answered this demand. Posts from IRR's FB page and that of several other evangelical ministries specializing in Mormonism have been removed, supposedly for objectionable content. The only plausible explanation is that one or more Mormons are responsible. The removal of the posts is itself the evidence.

[juliann]

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

And this invites cordiality and civility...on what planet? Is it any wonder that I little confidence in your representations of what is happening on FB?

We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:

Well, seems pretty straight forward to me. Let's take a look at their Statement. I've highlighted your first problem in red. They have provided resources (see last sentence) to assist you in understanding. I have not found anything in this document that says they have turned over their enforcement to "some Mormons".

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ("Statement," "Terms," or "SRR") derives from the Facebook Principles, and is our terms of service that governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement, as updated from time to time in accordance with Section 14 below. Additionally, you will find resources at the end of this document that help you understand how Facebook works.

[ERayR]

juliann,

I asked you if you would care to explain what was "bullying" or "hate speech" about the post that was removed from IRR's FB page. You wrote:

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. I gave you the example that just happened today. It clearly has nothing objectionable in it, as you obviously recognize.

Probably today's action was a culmination of prior actions and warnings.

[ERayR]

Sky,

You wrote:

I agree; there is nothing objectionable about that post. There have been other similarly benign posts that were removed. FB gave no reason other than that the post was supposedly a violation of its community standards. It did not specify which standard was violated. This has been the consistent pattern in all of these incidents. The communication from FB is a boiler-plate form page with no specific information other than reproducing without comment the post that was deemed objectionable.

I and several others have complained to FB about this practice repeatedly. The company has so far not responded. Perhaps we need to send them certified letters, maybe from an attorney, to get their attention. I don't know. But the matter is cut and dry; none of the posts that were removed contained anything that could reasonably be considered violations of the FB community standards.

Pardon me if I don't accept your definition of benign.

[juliann]

No. You claimed, falsely, that I said Mormons controlled Facebook. You are the one who is dodging.

Again, who do you think you are kidding? Let me walk you through it. You have maliciously claimed that "some Mormons" are responsible for the removal of your cordial and civil posts dedicated to revealing how Mormons deny, distort and misuse. You even said,

Instead, someone is using FB's complaint system to sabotage our free expression.

And you can deny....with a straight face...that is not claiming FB is being controlled....especially after you stated with certainty that nothing was objectionable according to FB itself? As in, had FB not under sway of "some Mormons" they would have left you alone. May I refer you to a dictionary?

To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.

Authority or ability to manage or direct:

[ERayR]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

This is a meaningless statement, designed only to inflame. IRR is not about attacking Mormons. It is about helping Mormons who are open to rethinking what they have been taught by the LDS Church. We have Mormons who seek us out and are grateful for our help. We also have close Mormon friends who even after years of discussion remain faithful Mormons but also know that we love them.

Now I am starting to get all warm and fuzzy.

[TAO]

Guys, while it's a shame that they censored a post that simple, I'd really rather hesitate to comment. This should be between Rob and Facebook.

[juliann]

Seriously, folks. The church has come under deserved criticism for the anti-gay and anti-black language its language enabled. Those of you who express outrage at that and yet come here and sympathize with the same kind of vilifying and provocative language this guy uses while putting love in the same sentence have lost credibility....and my respect.

[ERayR]

Guys, while it's a shame that they censored a post that simple, I'd really rather hesitate to comment. This should be between Rob and Facebook.

Rob brought it here. If it is between him and Face Book and he wants to keep it that way he should not have brought it here.

[juliann]

I'd like to see some comments from Mormons here either denouncing such censorship or defending it. The "Community Standards" of FB clearly state that merely finding something with which one personally disagrees on someone's page is not a violation of their standards. Our page is characterized by extremely cordial discussion in which Mormons and non-Mormons participate with no problems. No one has ever posted a complaint or sent our organization a complaint about our FB page. Instead, someone is using FB's complaint system to sabotage our free expression.

This mean spirited and malicious speech is what needs to be denounced,

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

You cannot use this demeaning vocabulary and still claim you are interested in anything but doing exactly what you say you are doing. And that is not cordial nor is it civil. It is just as much a sabotage of free expression as whatever you accusing Mormons of.

[Stargazer]

I can't stand censorship of any kind, even if it's "protecting" people from ideas I disagree with. ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", etc..) This kind of pettiness on anyone's part is ridiculous; I hope things get cleared up soon, Rob.

Censorship is not, contrary to your apparent understanding of it, a private company regulating content that appears on a medium that they own. I have a fanboard for a series of science-fiction novels. I pay for the site. If somebody posts something I don't like, I take it down. This is not the censorship of which you speak. The censorship you should be opposing is the kind of censorship where the power of government is broought in to suppress free expression of ideas.

If Rob Bowman's IRR is being suppressed by Facebook, that is Facebook's right. IRR can (and does) pay for bandwidth to get out their message, and THAT is their right, and for all that I disagree with their message, THAT is the right that I would fight to defend.

Not whether IRR is violating Facebook's policies. I will let Facebook regulate it's own affairs. They're paying for it, after all.

On the other hand, this "pettiness" that you are complaining about is also a right, of sorts. Facebook permits its users to moan and complain about other users. It then takes action (or not) based on those complaints. You might dislike the outcome, but that again is within the right of Facebook to regulate, and they should be permitted to exercise it.

I will agree that being banned for the little statement Rob made is really unreasonable, but then again, THAT IS FACEBOOK's RIGHT.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Stargazer

[Rob Bowman]

All,

Consider the following statements from FB's "Community Standards" page:

"Facebook does not tolerate bullying or harassment. We allow users to speak freely on matters and people of public interest, but take action on all reports of abusive behavior directed at private individuals. Repeatedly targeting other users with unwanted friend requests or messages is a form of harassment."

"Facebook does not permit hate speech, but distinguishes between serious and humorous speech. While we encourage you to challenge ideas, institutions, events, and practices, we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition."

(Note that challenging an institution and its ideas is acceptable, while attacking others based on religion is not. IRR does the former, not the latter.)

"Because of the diversity of our community, it's possible that something could be disagreeable or disturbing to you without meeting the criteria for being removed or blocked. For this reason, we also offer personal controls over what you see, such as the ability to hide or quietly cut ties with people, Pages, or applications that offend you."

[TAO]

Rob brought it here. If it is between him and Face Book and he wants to keep it that way he should not have brought it here.

That is true. I don't think Rob should have broughten it here, to be honest. It doesn't have much to do with us so much as it has to do with Facebook's policies. Stargazer's post pretty much hit it on the nail.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TAO