Facebook now prohibits any content that DENIES THE HOLOCAUST

Calling Democrats and Republicans Nazis and Fascists is really making a mockery of it, come to think of it.
 
Understand this....the Tech Overlords are not on your side....they dont believe in your right to your own mind....they demand to control it.
 
Damocles said:
The evidence is not weak, that's just literal and direct denial. My grandfather translated as they got to the camps in Germany (not the worst ones, those were saved for Poland), he was fluent in English (of course), German and Russian and was a Master Sergeant in what was at the time the Army Air Corp....

It is not even close to "weak" evidence, the only thing weak are the people who refuse to see and want so badly to believe that they say dumbass crap like, "The evidence is weak"...
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You call that proof? Your grandfather saw 6 million jooz murdered by the nazis? You are super-moron.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Holocaust deniers are 1 step away from flat-earther faked moon-landing idiots.

My friend's dad "liberated" Dachau. What he actually did there was kill all those running it. Including 3 officers that he had their dried ears on a dogtag chain.
THEN they let the prisoners go. He had 2 Mausers and a Luger and German ammunition, too.
Click to expand...

And how does that prove the nazis killed 6 million jooz??? THINK
 
Flash said:
You are free to challenge it, but you have no right to challenge it on somebody else's platform. Facebook probably wants to avoid being bombarded by the wacky Nazi groups.
Click to expand...

So now you say facebook can ban anyone they want? If they banned faggot or tranny websites you'd be screaming about FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
So now you say facebook can ban anyone they want? If they banned faggot or tranny websites you'd be screaming about FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Click to expand...

Free speech only applies to government. A private business cannot violate your 1st Amendment freedom of speech---unless you want to give the government more power to restrict private enterprise.

If the tranny website is providing false information they should also be restricted according to new Facebook efforts to stop disinformation.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. You call that proof? Your grandfather saw 6 million jooz murdered by the nazis? You are super-moron.
Click to expand...

Um, no... I don't call that "proof" I call it an anecdote. Proof is the millions of photos and records we got from the Nazis even as they attempted to destroy the record. Proof is the shoes luggage, teeth, bones, mass graves, etc. Proof is the eye witness accounts (some I have spoken with personally at the church I was forced to attend as a child), written records (like diaries) from both Jews and Germans who participated. Proof is proof, that you ignore it doesn't change that there is more than enough evidence to prove the institutional government murder of millions of folks who were Jews, Gypsies, gays, and mentally and physically disabled but more specifically government sanctioned murder of specifically Jews as part of the "final solution".
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'm not. They're a bunch of conspiracy theory whack-a-doodles who don't know shit about history. But why let the crazy have free reign? We should have some standards.
Click to expand...

Who sets the standards though ? Take this issue of Holocaust denial, for example. We know- for a fact- that the Nazis murdered approximately six million Jews- the Shoah, as Jews term it. Suppose though that a researcher states that it was closer to five million ? Is that Holocaust denial or more accurate research ?
Now suppose that other researchers discover that the total victims of the Holocaust numbered between sixteen and twenty million, six million of them Jewish- which is indeed the case. Do we allow that to be called ' Holocaust denial ' because some Jews claim that it , somehow, diminishes Jewish suffering ?

If we're going to allow freedom of speech then it has to mean what it says- and it should be permitted to say that were six million Jewish victims ( fact ) along with up to fourteen million other victims ( fact ) or that there were no victims at all ( derisible horseshit ) If we prevent the dumbass author of this thread from speaking freely then where does this censorship end ?
 
moon said:
Who sets the standards though ? Take this issue of Holocaust denial, for example. We know- for a fact- that the Nazis murdered approximately six million Jews- the Shoah, as Jews term it. Suppose though that a researcher states that it was closer to five million ? Is that Holocaust denial or more accurate research ?
Now suppose that other researchers discover that the total victims of the Holocaust numbered between sixteen and twenty million, six million of them Jewish- which is indeed the case. Do we allow that to be called ' Holocaust denial ' because some Jews claim that it , somehow, diminishes Jewish suffering ?

If we're going to allow freedom of speech then it has to mean what it says- and it should be permitted to say that were six million Jewish victims ( fact ) along with up to fourteen million other victims ( fact ) or that there were no victims at all ( derisible horseshit )
Click to expand...

Where it gets to be illegal is when what is said becomes slanderous, libelous, or otherwise criminal. I have no problem with someone claiming it didn't happen, or arguing over the numbers, that sort of thing. None of that rises to being illegal. On the other hand, if you were to say something like, ...the job needs to be finished... that should be banned. You are communicating a threat at that point, as but one example.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Where it gets to be illegal is when what is said becomes slanderous, libelous, or otherwise criminal. I have no problem with someone claiming it didn't happen, or arguing over the numbers, that sort of thing. None of that rises to being illegal. On the other hand, if you were to say something like, ...the job needs to be finished... that should be banned. You are communicating a threat at that point, as but one example.
Click to expand...

Well- slander and libel are prosecuted under civil suits. They're not offenses which warrant arrest- as far as I'm aware. I'd allow challenges to the accepted narrative too. As for threats- we're back to debating where the line is to be drawn. What do you do about a Senator who wants to bomb Russia ? What about JPP scum who call for genocide, killing Palestinians, shooting wet-backs or hanging black folk ? Might they actually attempt to manifest their drivel if we tape their mouths ?
 
moon said:
Well- slander and libel are prosecuted under civil suits. They're not offenses which warrant arrest- as far as I'm aware. I'd allow challenges to the accepted narrative too. As for threats- we're back to debating where the line is to be drawn. What do you do about a Senator who wants to bomb Russia ? What about JPP scum who call for genocide, killing Palestinians, shooting wet-backs or hanging black folk ? Might they actually attempt to manifest their drivel if we tape their mouths ?
Click to expand...

As such, a website could justifiably take those down arguing they don't want the potential lawsuit. That's reasonable. Any post that could be legally actionable by a party reading it could be removed. Removing them wholesale on the other hand, is wrong. Removal should be the exception, not the rule. All of your examples, except the one from the Senator, would be actionable and cause for removal. The Senator's is public speech and war is different from advocating murder or genocide. War is a political thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top