Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[juliann]

I think we can solve this conspiracy quite quickly if Rob will promise full disclosure from now on. He should pick an unobjectionable FB page and send in complaints, as many as he and his friends can. Then he must report back here as to whether posts from that page were removed because of the complaints.

[HairBear]

HairBear,

Thanks for acknowledging that your suggestion was in fact tongue-in-cheek, as I suggested. But come on...there is nothing implausible or ridiculous about the explanation that one or more Mormons are in some way responsible for the censorship of several ministries known for their theological critiques of Mormonism.

But I grant that you did manage to keep the CIA and ET out of it.

I didn't say in was implausable, I just said that your suggestion and my suggestion on who is flagging your posts are just as plausable as each other. Unless you truly know who is doing it, and what religion they are, it could be anyone doing it.

[Stargazer]

I haven't seen anybody disputing his right to express himself on his own site but rather there is some dispute as to rather he has the right to express himself on another site in violation of that sites rules.

Well, you haven't looked closely enough, then, because there has been a question about his right to express himself on his own site.

And of course he has no right to express himself on someone else's site. Only a privilege, which may be regulated by the owner.

[Stargazer]

To the first statement, irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right kind of thing....or just plain red herring. The topic is what is being said on FB.

To the second, it is all about "taste". The gospel cannot be delivered in ugly, mean rhetoric. Defenders of the church have had to learn not to respond in kind, a lesson still being learned. Apologists have been held up to scorn (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) for the meanness Rob displays in his attack language. Just claiming it is loving or civil is no longer convincing in our culture.

So again, I am seeing a huge, huge....and really disappointing, actually....credibility gap with those that are defending Bowman's provocative attack language while playing along with his whitewash of his own ugly rhetoric. Even FB seems to get it ....but not those who regularly (and rightfully) criticize LDS for exactly what Bowman is doing.

I will not try to defend the substance of Rob's claims vis-a-vis the LDS church, nor will I try to defend the manner in which he chooses to express his claims. But I will defend his right to say what he says and how he says it, on his own dime. As I have indicated, Facebook may regulate their content as they see fit. I see we agree on this.

But if LDS folks are dealing with IRR on Facebook in the same way the anti-Mormons were dealing with the LDS on AOL back in the day (and yes, Juliann, I was there and I saw it myself), then I don't have much sympathy for them. They were dealing with the LDS unfairly and in an unprincipled manner, and I cannot condone the method, even if I allow the motive might have been honorable, by their own lights.

Though, perhaps Rob needs to tone down the rhetoric in his Facebook presence? And keep the hard-hitting stuff on his own site where FB can't touch him.

BTW, Juliann, do you remember Kathryn Kidd? She was somewhat prominent on AOL in the LDS area back in those days. She co-authored one novel with Orson Scott Card.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Stargazer

[juliann]

BTW, Juliann, do you remember Kathryn Kidd? She was somewhat prominent on AOL in the LDS area back in those days. She co-authored one novel with Orson Scott Card.

No, was she posting under a screenname? Remember Ronnie?

(And I am not aware of anyone saying that Rob can't put his meanness on his own site, this has been about FB so I'm unsure why you are bringing that up. My problem with him is that he tries to create this fairy tale about what a loving Christian guy he is when he is just downright nasty in major things like his mission statement. He can put it where ever he can get away with it. It is still talking about other religions in a mean and nasty manner that no one would put up with if it was about Jews, blacks or gays. )

[Stargazer]

No, was she posting under a screenname? Remember Ronnie?

I don't remember, too long ago. Nor does Ronnie ring a bell. I posted under screenname "Freedude". After I left AOL the screenname got taken by someone else, though.

(And I am not aware of anyone saying that Rob can't put his meanness on his own site, this has been about FB so I'm unsure why you are bringing that up. My problem with him is that he tries to create this fairy tale about what a loving Christian guy he is when he is just downright nasty in major things like his mission statement. He can put it where ever he can get away with it. It is still talking about other religions in a mean and nasty manner that no one would put up with if it was about Jews, blacks or gays. )

Someone was saying something that sounded like they didn't feel Rob should be permitted to be mean anywhere. Or maybe I misunderstood him.

As to Rob's meanness, I avoid sites like his like the plague, so I perhaps don't get a reality check about it.

[mathonihah]

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked.

"Change the wording in his mission statement to Jew, Muslim, black, gay....and then go on record saying that the words are not malicious. I'd actually like to see what kind of people we are dealing with on this message board."

There is a difference between attacking Jews, Muslims, Christians, gays etc., and attacking Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, Calvinism etc. on doctrinal or theological grounds; or denouncing homosexual practices on moral grounds. And there is no justification for attacking blacks just because they are black on any grounds. Let's try and keep things in proper perspective.

Edited December 29, 2012 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

What you are not getting is that we do abide by FB rules. They are removing posts that have no objectionable content in them whatsoever and banning us for days without even a semblance of a case that the posts are really objectionable.

I am not familiar with FB as I don't use it much, but don't they have an appeal system in place? I should have thought a large and wealthy site like FB should have one. Their mods shouldn't be able to get away with anything they like. If not, hire a lawyer to make a formal complaint to the site management for improper implementation of their own rules, and that should get somebody's attention.

Edited December 29, 2012 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

What you are not getting is that it is not your call as to what is objectionable, it is FB call to make.

FB have have declared what their policies are in such matters in their published rule book. If he feels that their rules are not being properly implemented by their own staff, he has the right to complain.

Edited December 29, 2012 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

Question for Rob. Why did you think your dispute with FB should be aired on this board?

Why not? It involves Mormonism one way or another.

Edited December 29, 2012 by mathonihah

[Robert F. Smith]

Sky,

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.

This is a very odd and disquieting series of events which may or may not be targeting evangelicals or IRR, and which may or may not be originating with a "Mormon" person or persons. Worse, it seems that the actions of FB are automated and impersonal actions, without adequate human review (if any). Without an internal analysis of the system, I don't see how any concrete conclusions can be reached as to the true nature of the phenomenon, and whether it extends to other groups.

I have never been on FB, but my understanding of social media is that they can be used anonymously to target anyone with any sort of accusation. Indeed, people have committed suicide over some such targeting. Even Wikipedia has had Mormons and anti-Mormons engaged in a kind of editorial warfare which knows no bounds.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mathonihah]

I am re-posting this here since a moderator said it should not have been posted in the Social Hall.

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. We have had content removed from our FB page that cannot by any reasonable standard be considered violations of FB's community standards. The penalties have been getting stiffer even as the censorship of "objectionable content" has gotten more absurd. Here is the most recent post that was removed from the Facebook page of the Institute for Religious Research:

That is the entirety of the post that was removed today, and the only post that was removed. For the above "violation" I have been banned from posting on FB for three days.

Similar attacks have been made against several evangelicals I know involved in other organizations. I and others are under threat of having our accounts permanently disabled.

So much for civil discourse.

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.

I don't agree with it. Censorship is bad, whether it tilts the playing field against the Mormons or against the Evangelicals. I think it is beneficial to the LDS Church that there is a conversation going on on the Internet about Mormonism, even if part of that conversation happens to be critical. The Lord has said, "Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord." (D&C 71:7-8 ) It doesn't say, "Use underhand tactics to censor your enemies." Those who prefer censorship to debate are usually people who do not have the intellectual/spiritual wherewithal to address the criticisms, so they choose censorship as the easier option.

Edited December 29, 2012 by mathonihah

[Lost in Ohio]

I am re-posting this here since a moderator said it should not have been posted in the Social Hall.

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. We have had content removed from our FB page that cannot by any reasonable standard be considered violations of FB's community standards. The penalties have been getting stiffer even as the censorship of "objectionable content" has gotten more absurd. Here is the most recent post that was removed from the Facebook page of the Institute for Religious Research:

That is the entirety of the post that was removed today, and the only post that was removed. For the above "violation" I have been banned from posting on FB for three days.

Similar attacks have been made against several evangelicals I know involved in other organizations. I and others are under threat of having our accounts permanently disabled.

So much for civil discourse.

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.

Just curious, but how do you know Mormons are engaged in this 'campaign'?

Neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a First Amendment right to use Facebook as your personal bully pulpit. Facebook is entitled to control the content of its own service. You agreed to that when you accepted the terms of service and established an account. If you don't like it then move on. There are certainly plenty of places that welcome your sort of 'ministry'. Funny how 'civil discourse' is in the eye of the beholder. I find efforts to shake the faith of people anything but 'civil'.

Therefore, I don't think 'censorship' is an issue here.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Lost in Ohio

[Damien the Leper]

Just curious, but how do you know Mormons are engaged in this 'campaign'?

Neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a First Amendment right to use Facebook as your personal bully pulpit. Facebook is entitled to control the content of its own service. You agreed to that when you accepted the terms of service and established an account. If you don't like it then move on. There are certainly plenty of places that welcome your sort of 'ministry'. Funny how 'civil discourse' is in the eye of the beholder. I find efforts to shake the faith of people anything but 'civil'.

Therefore, I don't think 'censorship' is an issue here.

Hmmm...interesting perspective.

[Saints Alive]

And there we have the crux of the problem.

One man's proselyting is another man's "tearing apart the beliefs of another peaceful religion." You want this regulated by government? If yes, then we might as well take down every single religion's website. Because by arguing FOR one religion we are automatically arguing AGAINST every other.

This is actually satanic, don't you know? Taken to its logical conclusion we may not speak except that which is approved in advance. It's called mind-control. Totalitarianism.

It's bad.

no IRR is completely different. Show me a Church website that focuses on proving the errors in another specific religion. I don't really have a problem with IRRr posting on their own website, just don't expect a right to defame on websites you don't own. Edited December 29, 2012 by Saints Alive

[The Grimace]

Change the wording in his mission statement to Jew, Muslim, black, gay....and then go on record saying that the words are not malicious. I'd actually like to see what kind of people we are dealing with on this message board.

Juliann,

This argument is raised time and again to show that criticism of the LDS Church is akin to anti-semitism, racism, or homophobia. The substitution is not equivalent. Criticizing an organization for spreading a belief or executing a public mandate is not the same as criticizing an individual for holding a belief or living a certain way.

A more appropriate substitution would be 'Mormon Church' for 'Jewish Defence League', or 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' with 'GLAAD'. And, in those cases, I think there is no problem criticizing the mandate of those groups.

Edited December 29, 2012 by The Grimace

[Deborah]

If I had my way I'd ban the entire page from FB because it's sole purpose appears to be to tear down other faiths, particularly the LDS faith. If Rob wanted to go on there to proclaim his own faith no problem but when he deliberately quotes from LDS sources and then misconstrues them that is totally inappropriate.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Deborah

[Saints Alive]

The Grimace:

That is cowardice plain and simple! That is what all critics of the church do, hide behind attacking the church not the believers. In reality you can't separate the two. What's more critics don't attack the church they attack its beliefs, which also happen to be the beliefs of the individuals who belong to the church. If you attack my church's beliefs you attack my beliefs, there is no difference.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Saints Alive

[The Grimace]

The Grimace:

That is cowardice plain and simple! That is what all critics of the church do, hide behind attacking the church not the believers. In reality you can't separate the two. What's more critics don't attack the church they attack its beliefs, which also happen to be the beliefs of the individuals who belong to the church. If you attack my church's beliefs you attack my beliefs, there is no difference.

Let me help you out a bit.

If I write a critical piece about the First Vision and proclaim the First Vision to have never happened the way the Church claims it did, then I am criticizing the Church's position. If you hold the same position, then I am criticizing your position. But, I am not criticizing you.

If I write a piece critical of the Jewish Defence League's position on, say, anti-Israeli rhetoric, I am criticizing the JDL's position. If a Jewish person holds the same position, I am criticizing their position. That does not make me anti-semitic.

So yes, if I criticize the Church's beliefs, and you hold the same beliefs, I am, by extension, criticizing your beliefs. But I am not criticizing your sexual preference, heritage, or skin color.

[The Grimace]

If I had my way I'd ban the entire page from FB because it's sole purpose appears to be to tear down other faiths, particularly the LDS faith. If Rob wanted to go on there to proclaim his own faith no problem but when he deliberately quotes from LDS sources and then misconstrues them that is totally inappropriate.

Do you believe that FB pages that promote the rights of LGBTQ community to marry should be banned? What about those that promote marriage between a man and a woman only?

[mathonihah]

If I had my way I'd ban the entire page from FB because it's sole purpose appears to be to tear down other faiths, particularly the LDS faith. If Rob wanted to go on there to proclaim his own faith no problem but when he deliberately quotes from LDS sources and then misconstrues them that is totally inappropriate.

I would say the answer to that is to create a Facebook page which addresses his criticisms, rather than try to ban him from FB altogether. I would like to be able to criticise Calvinism and Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Do I not have the right to? I think that I do. If you are going to deny him that right, then you would have to deny me that right too; and I think that both would be wrong. Everybody has the right to criticise anybody's belief system whatever that is, be it religious, political, philosophical, or any other.

[Deborah]

I would like to be able to criticise Calvinism and Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Do I not have the right to?

Why would you want to do that? I don't understand those who want to tear down the beliefs of others. If you want to discuss something with an open mind that is one thing but Rob is anything but open-minded.

[KevinG]

It is ridiculous to think anyone has a right to publish anything on Facebook. Remember: If you aren't paying for it, you are the product. If Mark Zuckerberg's employees make a judgement call that content is offensive or objectionable to their customer base they can remove or suspend it.

If Rob's site was pulled by his internet provider that would be a different matter.

Anyone who thinks Facebook or any other social media site is a right is sadly confused about what social media is or perhaps confused about what rights are.

None of us have a right to an unlimited audience paid for by others. Even the missionaries obey the law of the lands they are in and those where they are restricted.

Edited December 29, 2012 by KevinG

[mathonihah]

The Grimace:

That is cowardice plain and simple! That is what all critics of the church do, hide behind attacking the church not the believers. In reality you can't separate the two. What's more critics don't attack the church they attack its beliefs, which also happen to be the beliefs of the individuals who belong to the church. If you attack my church's beliefs you attack my beliefs, there is no difference.

If you disagree with same sex marriage, are you attacking gays? If you disagree with purgatory or infant baptisms are you attacking Catholics? Sure they are not going to like it; but so what? I think I am big enough to be able to bear criticisms of (even attacks on) my belief systems—and smart enough to be able to give them the appropriate reply! So why should I be bothered? Only those who can't do either will be bothered.

[Ron Beron]

Karma is a you know what.

I don't know which aspect Ron is referring to, but FAIR came about because AOL put the anti-Mormons in charge of all of the religion message boards (they also went after JW's , pagans and other undesirables). They didn't have to report us, they could give us TOS violations themselves. Three and you were out when AOL was pretty much the only game in town at the time. I got a violation for calling a virulent anti's post "junk". Meanwhile, they were engaging in a very vile version of anti-Mormonism with no consequences whatsoever. This was in the mid 90s when anti-Mormon ministries were in their hayday.

So cry me a river comes to mind. I don't believe for a second that Rob's open invitation to take down Mormonism results in a civil and cordial discussion on FB by those who like to do that anymore than inviting all comers to go after homosexuality could ever result in cordiality.

I am more interested in the perpetual sense of entitlement evidenced by this boohooing. FB can "censor" all they want...if they didn't there wouldn't be much left of it. Same nonsense with those that think a private message board should let anyone do whatever they want on it.

Exactly. I share with Rob his frustration, but one man's tolerance is another's intolerance.