Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[KevinG]

Mathonihah- compare and contrast...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disagree

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

[jwhitlock]

How can you rule out that no Mormons have been involved? You mean that there aren't any dumb Mormons around. I am sure there is more than one!

Please do me a favor and don't misrepresent what I actually posted.

Rob has made an unsubstantiated claim that Mormons were behind the whole thing. He points to one rationalization and refuses to consider any other possibility. What I pointed out was that Rob's attitude in this respect is revealing about how he really views members of the church. If Rob has any hard evidence that members of the church were involved, then he can present it.

But he hasn't presented any. And until then, his accusation has no merit.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Disagreeing is one thing. Being disagreeable is quite another.

[KevinG]

The very idea that people living under the 1st amendment and with access to multiple media forums are subject to censorship because one of those forums disagrees with their usage of said privately owned forum is silly.

For example if Rob refuses to publish my opinions of his "ministry" on the IRR website should I accuse him of censorship? Laughable.

[KevinG]

Eh, did you read the OP? It attacked Mormons. Keep working on justifying bigotry. Even if you can't convince FB of your specialized definitions, you may find a few who will applaud it on a message board.

Really Juliann... attacked?!

They just want to love us to hell for our heretical beliefs.

[juliann]

If he has genuinely broken Facebook rules, and they are treating him accordingly, then I would agree that he has nothing to complain about. But the fact remains that he feels otherwise; and judging by his side of the story it appears that he may be right. If so, then he has the right to have his complaint heard by Facebook, and a satisfactory explanation given. It appears that that has not happened, and therefore he has a legitimate complaint to make about it.

FB has a very clear procedure for complaints. So you are saying Rob has complied with FB's procedures and nothing has happened. Care to share the details? Or are you, too, treating this thread as a legitimate complaint to FB?

[jwhitlock]

So far, Rob has done two things on this thread that are questionable:

- He has accused Mormons of trying to censor him on Facebook, without providing any hard evidence for that accusation.

- He has misled us concerning the posts (plural) that were taken down on FB by only quoting one (or part of one) meant solely to give the impression that he did nothing wrong.

I'll be interested to see if Rob provides any evidence for his accusation, or decides to be more complete in listing the posts that were removed.

[mathonihah]

You will note that it does not say.....as you insist it should,

" we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others, unless they are Mormons, based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition."

I am not familiar with Facebook; but in post #49 Rob posted the following Facebook rules:

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."

Is he correct about these rules? Might he have a legitimate complaint that the rules have not been fairly applied?

FB has an appeals process, perhaps you should address that omission with them. Please let us know how convincing your argument is.

I agree. If FB has an appeals process (which they should, since they are so large and wealthy), then he should appeal and wait for the outcome. I would be interested to know what the outcome of that would be too.

[KevinG]

I encourage Rob to seek redress through the Facebook process. I too would be interested in the outcome. I am not so convinced that Mormons are out to censor his opinions from legitimate expression. I am not convinced that sharing his experiences on MDD will help his Facebook case in any way. I am not sure about his motives about sharing them here other than knowing he has an additional venue to vent or complain with some sympathetic listeners in the audience.

Edited December 29, 2012 by KevinG

[Damien the Leper]

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.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But is a CHOICE to take it so personally.

[mathonihah]

Eh, did you read the OP? It attacked Mormons. Keep working on justifying bigotry. Even if you can't convince FB of your specialized definitions, you may find a few who will applaud it on a message board.

I double checked; there was nothing in the OP to suggest that he had attacked Mormons. He may have done; but there is nothing in the OP to suggest that he did.

[KevinG]

I double checked; there was nothing in the OP to suggest that he had attacked Mormons. He may have done; but there is nothing in the OP to suggest that he did.

In other words you are "unfamiliar with Facebook" and unfamiliar with Rob's position vis-a-vis Mormonism on Facebook yet you feel perfectly comfortable lecturing others on these topics.

Carry on! (lest I be accused of censoring you).

[mathonihah]

Please do me a favor and don't misrepresent what I actually posted.

Rob has made an unsubstantiated claim that Mormons were behind the whole thing. He points to one rationalization and refuses to consider any other possibility. What I pointed out was that Rob's attitude in this respect is revealing about how he really views members of the church. If Rob has any hard evidence that members of the church were involved, then he can present it.

But he hasn't presented any. And until then, his accusation has no merit.

Well, since his site is critical of Mormonism, he is guessing that those who have flagged his page as being objectionable are more likely to have been Mormons (albeit misguided ones); and I think that he is making a good guess.

[mathonihah]

Disagreeing is one thing. Being disagreeable is quite another.

I agree; but people have the right to disagree, even if they are disagreeable in doing so.

[KevinG]

Well, since his site is critical of Mormonism, he is guessing that those who have flagged his page as being objectionable are more likely to have been Mormons (albeit misguided ones); and I think that he is making a good guess.

That is not a safe assumption. My father (a Methodist) has been very active in his defense of my chosen religion. I have written a few times telling him that non-engagement with some critics is the best approach. It could be a sympathetic non-Mormon is trying to support their Mormon friends or family.

Odds are it is someone with some kind of relationship with Mormons but that is as far as I would comfortably bet.

[jwhitlock]

I double checked; there was nothing in the OP to suggest that he had attacked Mormons. He may have done; but there is nothing in the OP to suggest that he did.

Oh, please. I quote from the OP:

"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."

Evidently you think that an unsubstantiated accusation like this is not an attack?

While we're on this, you'll notice that our friend Rob is very, very careful to differentiate between Mormons and "Christians" in the way he phrases things. Rob's a master at attacking in subtle ways to try to leave a certain impression.

[mathonihah]

The very idea that people living under the 1st amendment and with access to multiple media forums are subject to censorship because one of those forums disagrees with their usage of said privately owned forum is silly.

For example if Rob refuses to publish my opinions of his "ministry" on the IRR website should I accuse him of censorship? Laughable.

Missing the point again. The point is that if a large site like FB have rules, it is to be expected of them that the rules will be applied fairly and consistently, not so as to discriminate against one party or another.

[KevinG]

I agree; but people have the right to disagree, even if they are disagreeable in doing so.

That right is not unlimited. Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg's playground (until the shareholders kick him out) and if he want's to ban all pictures with the color purple he may do so.

Rob's complaint is to Facebook and they alone will determine the legitimacy of it. You may not like that but that is the nature of a privately owned media outlet. Like I quoted before "if you aren't paying for it YOU are the product."

[KevinG]

Missing the point again. The point is that if a large site like FB have rules, it is to be expected of them that the rules will be applied fairly and consistently, not so as to discriminate against one party or another.

I would contend that Facebook is probably adhering to a policy of not allowing a particular religious group to be hounded, defamed or critiqued. If you have access to a case where they have handled defamation of any other religious group differently then please provide it.

[mathonihah]

FB has a very clear procedure for complaints.

Good. I am glad they do. It should be taken advantage of by Rob or anyone else who feel they have been unfairly treated.

So you are saying Rob has complied with FB's procedures and nothing has happened.

Judging by his own comments, that appeared to be the case. Perhaps he hasn't given them enough time to hear his complaint.

Care to share the details? Or are you, too, treating this thread as a legitimate complaint to FB?

LOL! None of the above.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree; but people have the right to disagree, even if they are disagreeable in doing so.

I have the right to swing my arm, but that right ends at your nose.

[jwhitlock]

Well, since his site is critical of Mormonism, he is guessing that those who have flagged his page as being objectionable are more likely to have been Mormons (albeit misguided ones); and I think that he is making a good guess.

Rob never "guesses". He states things as fact based on whatever cherry-picked rationalization he wants to use. That's exactly what he did in the OP.

I'm curious as to why you're so keen on defending Rob, even to the point of overlooking his clearly misleading intent. A "good guess" (and the "good" is purely subjective in this case) is an inappropriate basis to make an of accusation of a "campaign by some Mormons" to "interfere" with his Facebook pages. Do you approve of the kind of inflammatory language Rob uses against us? Do you think that some Mormons have actually organized a "campaign" against his Facebook pages? Is there any actual evidence for any of that, as opposed to guesses that just happen to accuse the very people he attacks in what he writes?

A closer review of what Rob posts, as opposed to a shallow reading, raises serious questions about his intent.

[KevinG]

I have the right to swing my arm, but that right ends at your nose.

Flatulence gets into a grey area of that legal school.

[KevinG]

Rob never "guesses". He states things as fact based on whatever cherry-picked rationalization he wants to use. That's exactly what he did in the OP.

I'm curious as to why you're so keen on defending Rob, even to the point of overlooking his clearly misleading intent. A "good guess" (and the "good" is purely subjective in this case) is an inappropriate basis to make an of accusation of a "campaign by some Mormons" to "interfere" with his Facebook pages. Do you approve of the kind of inflammatory language Rob uses against us? Do you think that some Mormons have actually organized a "campaign" against his Facebook pages? Is there any actual evidence for any of that, as opposed to guesses that just happen to accuse the very people he attacks in what he writes?

A closer review of what Rob posts, as opposed to a shallow reading, raises serious questions about his intent.

This is strangely reminiscent of a successful campaign to kill a Prophet over a smashed printing press. (...and before anyone gets their tights in a wad I am referring to the strong defense of calumny as freedom of speech; not accusing anyone of wanting to kill our Church president)

Edited December 29, 2012 by KevinG

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

You wrote:

But ultimately, unless Rob thinks that Mark Zuckerberg lurks here from time to time I don't know why he thinks it is an efficacious thing to bring the matter to this board.

This is a Mormon discussion board, and I thought the topic was an interesting and pertinent one here. I am not expecting the discussion here to resolve the problem. Obviously, I was correct about the topic being interesting: look at the flurry of posts it has generated in a very short time.