Greta Thunberg, the diminutive eco-fascist, is bent. Facebook won’t censor people who disagree with her on their platform. These expressions are – in her opinion – and this will sound familiar, hate speech.
“The constant lies and conspiracy theories about me and countless others, of course, result in hate, death threats and ultimately violence. This could easily be stopped if Facebook wanted to. I find the lack of taking responsibility very disturbing,” she added.
This from a young lady who has become famous for advocating what may turn out to be the most prominent fraud/conspiracy theory in scientific history. The idea that man’s emissions of CO2 will destroy the planet (insert date ten years from today – or is it 6-months?) and massive socialist expansions of government are the only cure.
Happily, disagreeing as a matter of opinion or fact is not Facebook’s concern. And in a welcome about-face, Mr. Zuckerberg recently made it clear (and the Schmidt’s and Rung’s won’t care for this) that he’s not getting involved.
We recently clarified our policies to ensure people can see primary source speech from political figures that shapes civic discourse. Political advertising is more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else — we keep all political and issue ads in an archive so everyone can scrutinize them, and no TV or print does that. We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise conflict with many of our standards.
I know many people disagree, but, in general, I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy.
As for whatever it is Greta call threats, this isn’t Europe, but anything you think rises to that level should be reported to authorities. Real threats should not be investigated. Otherwise, we have the First Amendment. If you step into the public political eye, you’re asking for attention. People will remark, and not all of them will be kind. Being a snowflake about it doesn’t change that.
If you don’t like it, leave.
But if you stay you should run for office in New Hampshire. They could use your ‘expertise.’
Francesca Diggs, Janice Schmidt, Debra Altschiller, Sherry Frost, Nancy Murphy, and Wendy Thomas have a legislative Service Request (LSR). The LSR Title is “relative to cyberbullying and cyberstalking of a public servant.”
These vanguards of Granite State speech policing clearly lack the constitution for a republic that allows people to post their voting records or screen grabs of their outrageous tweets and Facebook updates.
The proposed title of their speech silencing legislation suggests that legislators can use the force of government to keep people from engaging them on their official public pages in any manner that displeases them. All they need to do is call it something other than free speech. Like, cyberstalking or bullying.
Good luck. and I mean that. But I feel obligated to tell you that you are why we have a First Amendment.
So is Greta, who will find plenty of support for her beef among the left, but if she wants to get any traction on that point, she’s got as much hope as Francesca Diggs, Janice Schmidt, Debra Altschiller, Sherry Frost, Nancy Murphy, and Wendy Thomas.
Which is to say none. But we encourage them to keep trying, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss it. As often as