Facebook bans Gandhi quote re arms ban. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Facebook bans Gandhi quote re arms ban.


paynter2
12-30-2012, 12:11
"Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge Learn more."


Gandhi once wrote about the British stripping the Indian people of arms... Apparently Facebook has taken side in the arms issue.

I have never been a member of Facebook. Now I know I never will...

Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge

http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html#ixzz2GZ17giMj

John Rambo
12-30-2012, 12:14
Theres more to this story. I guarantee it. My facebook page is littered with Pro-2A stuff. I think I've got a picture of a couple of my guns on there. I'm a member of several pro-2A groups. I've never been bothered. Nor has anyone I personally know.

RYT 2BER
12-31-2012, 08:17
Theres more to this story. I guarantee it. My facebook page is littered with Pro-2A stuff. I think I've got a picture of a couple of my guns on there. I'm a member of several pro-2A groups. I've never been bothered. Nor has anyone I personally know.

I agree. I have so much gun stuff on my FB page it's ridiculous.

willie_pete
12-31-2012, 08:39
This is the latest evil gun thing I have posted on my page. Nobody (Facebook) has said anything yet. It doesn't get more evil than Ralphie and his Red Ryder.

WP

OlliesRevenge
12-31-2012, 11:56
This isn't the 1st Facebook censorship story, and won't be the last.

The difference is that the Natural News Facebook page has a large "friend" base, and can be expected to reach alot of people. The only backstory here is that Facebook Corp. can be expected to actively support the current liberal anti gun agenda -- and they apparently thought the pro gun Gandhi quote might actually sway some opinions (can't allow that!).

I have plenty of pro 2A stuff on my Facebook page as well, but I don't have a large enough friend base to warrant their censorship.

It is difficult for many people to wrap their head around a guy like Mike Adams.


Many liberals who are interested in the health freedom part of his business likely will find it difficult to understand his hardcore pro 2A stance, and the fact that he owns Glocks and "assault rifles".
Many conservatives who respect his pro 2A stance will likely be totally lost trying to understand his passion for health freedom, and will be downright offended by the fact that he is unafraid to address some "conspiracy theory" topics.

For those of us who identify with views like his -- we understand that he is a Libertarian.

OlliesRevenge
12-31-2012, 11:58
This is what the fuss is about...http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/Gandhi-Quote-Banned-By-Facebook-600.jpg

Fox
12-31-2012, 12:12
It has not happened to me.

garyjandfamily
12-31-2012, 16:39
Shows up fine on my Facebook page...

OlliesRevenge
01-01-2013, 12:38
Shows up fine on my Facebook page...

There is no conundrum, the linked article explains it all. Adams' FB account was suspended, given a "final warning", and he was forced to provide a color copy of "government issued ID" in order to reinstate the account.

His account is now back up.

Meanwhile, the facebookers who were calling for the murder of NRA members and the NRA president are having no such problems with their accounts.

czsmithGT
01-01-2013, 13:04
I missed the part where people are required to use Facebook, or where Facebook didn't have the right to kick people off for any reason they choose.

.45Super-Man
01-01-2013, 13:21
Facebook is a major conduit of communication and this is just another example of control and monitering. Independant thought will not be tolerated.

FLIPPER 348
01-01-2013, 13:22
I had no trouble posting the link to my FB page.

nursetim
01-01-2013, 13:27
I went to B&N and looked it up in his autobiography. It was on Pg. 446 sure enough and not taken out of context. Liberals can't stand when people they idolize goes against their closely held opinions. Sucks to be them.

ICARRY2
01-01-2013, 13:33
I had no trouble posting the link to my FB page.

Yeah, but now you are on a govt watchlist. :D

gjk5
01-01-2013, 14:19
There is no conundrum, the linked article explains it all. Adams' FB account was suspended, given a "final warning", and he was forced to provide a color copy of "government issued ID" in order to reinstate the account.

His account is now back up.

Meanwhile, the facebookers who were calling for the murder of NRA members and the NRA president are having no such problems with their accounts.

I don't see anything to back any of that up other than the "article".

I didn't see any link to an email FB sent them, a copy of any correspondence saying that is why he was shut down.

And other than a link to "Infowars":upeyes: no documentation of pro-gun sites being shut down.

mj9mm
01-01-2013, 14:45
I missed the part where people are required to use Facebook, or where Facebook didn't have the right to kick people off for any reason they choose.

privatetly run entities can be subject to discrimination laws just as government is. this time FB, maybe next time your cell phone provider, maybe your home owners insurance, maybe your employer. liberals and progressives run many buisinesses in this country, and what may have once been conservative leaning may now be liberal or leftist. the Bill of Rights holds sway over all in this land. if they overlook the first and second Amendments, chances are the rest aren't held anymore sacredly.

NH Trucker
01-01-2013, 14:58
I posted it on mine. No problems yet. With all the pro-second amendment stuff I have on mine, along with pictures of my firearms, and my actively engaging in debates in various pages on there, I've never recieved as much as a warning from Facebook administrators. Maybe the guy just pissed someone off and some whiney asshat reported him?

The Maggy
01-01-2013, 15:03
Theres more to this story. I guarantee it. My facebook page is littered with Pro-2A stuff. I think I've got a picture of a couple of my guns on there. I'm a member of several pro-2A groups. I've never been bothered. Nor has anyone I personally know.

My first and only thought as well.

The whole fax us a color copy of your id thing makes me think that someone got taken for a ride by scammers/ hackers.

czsmithGT
01-01-2013, 15:03
privatetly run entities can be subject to discrimination laws just as government is. this time FB, maybe next time your cell phone provider, maybe your home owners insurance, maybe your employer. liberals and progressives run many buisinesses in this country, and what may have once been conservative leaning may now be liberal or leftist. the Bill of Rights holds sway over all in this land. if they overlook the first and second Amendments, chances are the rest aren't held anymore sacredly.

What discrimination law would Facebook have violated by suspending this guy's account?

mj9mm
01-01-2013, 18:12
What discrimination law would Facebook have violated by suspending this guy's account?
what do their rules say is not allowed, are their adlibbing censorship, they killed his account:dunno:

czsmithGT
01-01-2013, 18:20
what do their rules say is not allowed, are their adlibbing censorship, they killed his account:dunno:

Well you can read their rules if you want, but regardless they have no obligation to allow anyone to remain on their site. Censorship by Facebook isn't illegal nor unconstitutional. Besides, maybe he got banned for something unrelated to what he claimed- who knows.

sheriff733
01-01-2013, 18:20
Well good.

I don't use Facebook, I don't understand why so many people feel the need to stare at it all day long, and I wish it would go away.

This is just another reason I don't want one.

mj9mm
01-01-2013, 19:38
Well good.

I don't use Facebook, I don't understand why so many people feel the need to stare at it all day long, and I wish it would go away.

This is just another reason I don't want one.

i don't like it either, seems foolish to post personal info to the world. my problem with this particular complaint is that people post all kinds of things on "their" accounts, this historical quote relating to a national gun siezure must have touched a nerve to close to marxist nerve. he may have been re-instated after cooler heads prevailed,but i would not give them the satisfaction

certifiedfunds
01-01-2013, 19:43
what do their rules say is not allowed, are their adlibbing censorship, they killed his account:dunno:

You're kidding right? They can censor whatever the hell they want to.

gjk5
01-01-2013, 20:01
i don't like it either, seems foolish to post personal info to the world. my problem with this particular complaint is that people post all kinds of things on "their" accounts, this historical quote relating to a national gun siezure must have touched a nerve to close to marxist nerve. he may have been re-instated after cooler heads prevailed,but i would not give them the satisfaction

allegedly.

as far as I can tell there is nothing but that article and the utter bullcrap spewing geyser that is Infowars to back any of it up.

we don't know that his account ever actually got locked, what it was for, what they required to reinstate, etc.


and let me qualify this with a "so what if they did" if he CAN prove it. there is no 1st amendment right to post on FB.

The Maggy
01-01-2013, 20:16
allegedly.

as far as I can tell there is nothing but that article and the utter bullcrap spewing geyser that is Infowars to back any of it up.

we don't know that his account ever actually got locked, what it was for, what they required to reinstate, etc.


and let me qualify this with a "so what if they did" if he CAN prove it. there is no 1st amendment right to post on FB.

and so far, aside from the article, there is is no other proof. No screen caps of any messages from facebook, no copies of emails or faxes sent... just the article; as paranoid as the infowars crowd is, I smell the normal sensationalism that runs in these circles.

Bren
01-01-2013, 20:16
I missed the part where people are required to use Facebook, or where Facebook didn't have the right to kick people off for any reason they choose.

They have the right, but that is no reason not to point out the lack of ethics and hypocrisy involved, as we do with the press when they, within their rights, filter the news to create false perceptions and support a political agenda.

gjk5
01-01-2013, 20:19
They have the right, but that is no reason not to point out the lack of ethics and hypocrisy involved, as we do with the press when they, within their rights, filter the news to create false perceptions and support a political agenda.

all true. if it actually happened as described.

and you also just described Infowars........

ithaca_deerslayer
01-01-2013, 20:25
Interesting stuff. If true, certainly a form of censorship people should be aware of.

BamaTrooper
01-01-2013, 20:33
I missed the part where people are required to use Facebook, or where Facebook didn't have the right to kick people off for any reason they choose.

Since it isn't the government, it might censor your speech but it can't violate your first amendment rights.

I was hoping GT would block your avatar until the 8th :tongueout:

pizza_pablo
01-01-2013, 20:47
The heck with all the bs and speculation.....
That is an awesome quote to use and I'm gonna use the heck out of it!!!!

98LS-WON
01-02-2013, 02:43
This quote is actually from M.K. Ghandi's Autobigraphy, Chapter 151. "I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems like the government did not trust its people and would not allow them to have weapons. Kind of makes me wonder......

OlliesRevenge
01-02-2013, 13:00
I don't see anything to back any of that up other than the "article".

I didn't see any link to an email FB sent them, a copy of any correspondence saying that is why he was shut down.

And other than a link to "Infowars":upeyes: no documentation of pro-gun sites being shut down.

So the suspicion is that Adams simply made it up? A "Reverse False Flag" of sorts, designed to taint Facebooks' image? I guess I'll stay tuned for the impending libel suit...:upeyes:

On a serious note - What likely happened is that Adams actually posted the Gandhi quote/image, and was actually censored. The censoring is item specific (a message that says "we have deleted the content you posted" replaces your offending post), so Adams would have been reasonably sure what content was causing the problem.

As far as why Facebook would suspend the account and then later reinstate it & allow the Gandi quote to stay -- consider the location -- Whoever is in charge of suspending accounts (ie "censorship") for offending content is likely running a desk in Palo Alto California. Their location and employment allows us to predict who they are with reasonable accuracy -- Left Leaning Corporate Bureaucrat.

So...Left Leaning Corporate Bureaucrat spies the Gandhi quote that burns his feeble little brain, and suspends the account. Once it is determined that the quote is legit and is not even taken out of context, cooler heads prevail and the Adams account is reinstated... with some minor ID inconvenience/harrasment.

Thats my take... no "conspiracy theory" required. :wavey:

What I find offensive though, is that Mr. Left Leaning Corporate Bureaucrat apparently has no problem with content that calls for the murder of NRA members.

gjk5
01-02-2013, 13:42
that's a great little synopsis you just wrote. But again; it's all based on assumption.

I don't know Adams, I DO know Infowars and they are full of crap.

I honestly hate Facebook, but I have heard way too many "Facebook censors this and that" crap posts, I have in fact gone back and put every single one that supposedly was removed by FB ONTO MY PAGE (including this Ghandi one). Guess what: not a single one has ever resulted in a warning, deletion, jack squat.

The only reason I still have a FB page is for business and to keep in touch with people I like and annoy people I don't.