Okay, I'll start with the "who": Pamela Geller is a right wing political activist. So, now you don't have to ask "who?" instead of Googling it.

Here's the "what": She's suing Facebook because, according to her, Facebook is violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution by censoring people (according to her).

Now, if anyone is wondering why I'm posting this here instead of in Politics, well, it's because of what the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Since Facebook isn't part of Congress, or any branch of the government, it isn't violating the First Amendment. So, this thread isn't about politics. It's about an oversensitive idiot trying to make a statement that simply isn't there.

I mean, Facebook is shit and isn't perfect, yeah, but they aren't violating anyone's rights by doing this. Maybe some of their privacy stuff goes too far, but not this.

At 7/14/16 12:15 AM, Ishmaelist wrote: Seems pretty fucking dumb. She'd need to come up with a good argument to win.

I do wish Facebook would stop censoring shit though.

Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook should absolutely stop censoring people as well. However, this person here is taking it to a stupid extreme that's not going to work.

People do seem to get pissy when they don't get to say offensive shit.

At 7/14/16 03:46 AM, Sekhem wrote:

Sounds like you're the one with the extreme persecution complex here. Especially if you want people dead because you don't agree with their politics.

To be honest, people like you are what's wrong with the world. You want people dead instead of formulating a better argument to prove them wrong. To be honest, that also makes you a walking piece of shit.

At 7/15/16 12:03 AM, vannila-guerilla wrote:

At 7/14/16 03:46 AM, Sekhem wrote:

To be honest, people like you are what's wrong with the world. You want people dead instead of formulating a better argument to prove them wrong. To be honest, that also makes you a walking piece of shit.

I don't think Sekhem cares.
Sekhem is just busy being Sekhem.

At 7/15/16 12:14 AM, Viper wrote:
I don't think Sekhem cares.
Sekhem is just busy being Sekhem.

He's just busy being an insecure prick is what he's doing.

basically this is another drama attempt by idiots hungry for drama,
nothing new.

firstly, fuck facebook and how it acts. second, this woman is an idiot.

At 7/15/16 09:56 PM, KhanKhendo wrote:

At 7/15/16 04:44 PM, ihaveacrushonalphys wrote: basically this is another drama attempt by idiots hungry for drama,
nothing new.

Clearly we didn't read the same article.

Duck you

At 7/15/16 12:26 AM, KhanKhendo wrote: Freedom of speech means you can't be arrested for saying something the government doesn't want you saying.
If Facebook were run by the government, then this would work.
Since Facebook is not run by the government, this won't work.
Unless Cuckerberg is getting a government paycheck, this won't work.
Maybe it could work if she claimed it their censorship is a violation of freedom of the press and therefore, Facebook is infringing on that right.
Odds are not in her favor however.

You know what? You make a brilliant proposal. I'd actually be in favor of the US government taking over Facebook. It would be an improvement. They already have their hands all in it as well as all the data anyway and Facebook is already far too pervasive in everyone's lives. We can't trust a private company with that kind of power. We can't really trust the government either, but we don't really have a choice, and since the government gets their hands all in everything anyway, the lesser of two evils says government control of Facebook is better than leaving it in Zuckerberg's hands.

Then instead of a site that violates privacy rights by selling personal info to advertisers, it would just be a site run by the government, and no ads. The government would still have all your info anyway (but they already do, so that's no difference), except now it no longer goes to all the greedy 3rd parties and who knows who else Facebook sells stuff to.

The one caveat would be it must always remain an optional service. It should never be mandatory to create a Facebook account or to use or tie it to anything else.

For all the "imminent domain" theft the government pulls on the common citizens over the years, how about the government actually do something for the people for once and apply some of that "imminent domain" to something which actually does benefit majority of people, with the only detriment against the obscenely rich who only profited from the exploitation of the masses anyway?

@DJ-Ri thoughts on this proposal? Not that it'd happen, but still, good idea? Granted that we can't exactly turn back time so we're really looking at lesser of two evils scenarios here.

At 7/17/16 08:45 AM, KhanKhendo wrote: Facebook is international. I doubt any one government is going to take it over without another wanting it as well

Other countries can want it but like it or not the US tends to get what it wants even when other countries don't.

The Internet is supposed to be international yet the US still controls the majority of the backbone and could in theory rip that out and disrupt a majority of the Internet just like that. They don't do this only because it isn't beneficial to US interests but the possibility is there.

Do you know of any other country with as many military bases stationed in foreign countries as the US? I don't. Do you think those countries actually want the foreign (to them) US presence there or do you think it's more they don't have much choice in the matter?

Like it or not the United States of America is, at present, the most important and powerful country on the planet.

Control is everything and the US government controls everything. All it needs do is ask.

She's a cute MILF, if only her cheekbones weren't so weird looking.
Anyways I guess nothing good will come out of it, it's not like facebook has to abide by the rules, but it's really telling that right wing opinions get censored so much while the ones on the extreme left generally aren't, or if they are it takes a long fucking time.
Just in late 2015 during government elections in my country I saw dozens of left-wingers threaten to literally shoot and physically assault anyone they suspected of voting for central-right and right parties, then even after reporting their statuses it took weeks to get any of them removed, a few of them still have their profiles and everything.

At 7/17/16 07:42 AM, NeonSpider wrote: @DJ-Ri thoughts on this proposal? Not that it'd happen, but still, good idea? Granted that we can't exactly turn back time so we're really looking at lesser of two evils scenarios here.

My thought is that Facebook is evil and should be completely destroyed.

At 7/18/16 12:10 AM, DJ-Ri wrote:

At 7/17/16 07:42 AM, NeonSpider wrote: @DJ-Ri thoughts on this proposal? Not that it'd happen, but still, good idea? Granted that we can't exactly turn back time so we're really looking at lesser of two evils scenarios here.

My thought is that Facebook is evil and should be completely destroyed.

Yes and I would legitimately prefer if we were all still hunter-gatherers but we can't really go turning back the clock. It's a sort of Pandora's box. And I can't really go to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle if majority of people aren't on board with it as well. Uneven playing field. And as for Facebook, I choose not to use it and you choose not to use it, but you do have to admit the pressure to use it is strong. As if friends and acquaintances constantly bugging you to use it weren't enough, it's on plenty of food packaging these days and on just about every website, including Newgrounds, which features a "login with Facebook" option as well as Facebook "like" buttons, and it is by no means unusual in doing so.

Granted that Facebook is evil and granted the government already has tentacles dug all the way in, it's at least the less-bad alternative since it would (hopefully) restrict legitimate Facebook use to solely the users themselves and the government vs. the way it is now -- the users, government, tons of corporations and 3rd parties, anyone who asks, etc... Not that people can't find ways to abuse such a system anyway, but they're already abusing it so that's no different.

At 7/18/16 12:29 AM, NeonSpider wrote: And as for Facebook, I choose not to use it and you choose not to use it, but you do have to admit the pressure to use it is strong.

I will never use it, and the notion of it being destroyed is not that far-fetched. A large enough botnet or group of botnets could take the servers down. Security vulnerabilities can be exploited to root the servers and wipe them. Physical action can be taken to destroy the backups or take down the servers once they're restored. The destruction of Facebook is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Note: I am not necessarily condoning that anyone attempt any of these things as it would be certainly illegal, but if it were to happen, I wouldn't complain, either.

Isn't Facebook a private company? I think they could censor as they choose. Of course, if they go to far, sooner or later user count will decline and there is possibility a new competitor could appear to provide an alternative.

Anyway, Pamela Geller is not a good example to use against Facebook. She is one of those "All Muslims are terrorists" type of extremists and someone who seems to be one of those people you think of on Infowars.

This feels like a Politics forum matter...and yes, I am aware of Trump with Alex Jones...

That's stupid