Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WRONG.Which is precisely what i described. They removed her due to their policies, subject to their interpretation of them. They merely have to show a reasonable opinion why this is so, in that context. It doesn't have to be completely, objectively, perfectly true, in everyone's opinion. You are very confused about who carries the burden, here.Only evidence that is relevant to the defamatory accusation can be presented in court
That's a shameless lie. I never stated or implied that.No, you said that anything she posted that someone might object to can be used as evidence.
What the fuck are you talking about?100% wrong. For instance, a case that she was incorrectly labeled a terrorist by a nefarious actor in our government, limiting her actions to which she has a right, would be a much different case.Her right to post on Facebook is irrelevant.
No they don't. What an absurd pile of madeup crap.They have to prove their affirmative defense that the statements were true, that she is a terrorist, murderer or person inciting violence.
She is probably really bitchy and hard to live with.She seems very much like the person that has been married 6 times...but it is always the ex’s fault.
Have you noticed how all these leftwing douchebags defend the Big Brother behavior of Facebook in kneejerk fashion?Based on your defense of the one side you wrongly portrayed as being the only target in this.Oh? I wasn't aware Louis Farrakhan is on your side. Thanks for clarifying that.as long as they are equally applied,, which they arent,,,its all purely one sided,,,
how would you know what side is mine???
its best not to assume things you dont know about,,,
Yes, that was precisely my point, coupled with the idea of her rights being harmed. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. That would be a very different situation, contrasted to the idea that she has no right to post on facebook.She has not sued a government entity.
And yet, there is. I already posted what Facebook considers hate speech.So what? It's their site. If you don't like it, don't post your hate speech on it."Hate speech" is undefinable, and Facebook defines it to mean "any opinion Mark Zuckerberg doesn't like."She was banned along with others who express hate speech, including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan.
no such thing as hate speech,,,
you said it,,,WHAT THEY CONSIDER,,,
and by their actions its all politically based and not about hate,,,
She's not suing because they banned her. She's suing because they labeled her "dangerous."Loomer also has a right to sue them for defamation when Facebook uses it's arbitrary definition of "hate."Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.
theres no such thing as hate speech,,,
No she doesn't. Legally, Loomer doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Facebook can make any sort of artbitrary decision they like to ban a person, and they don't have to justify their reasons. It's a private company. They can't ban her on race, religion or nation of origin, but that's about it. The usual "public accommodations" stuff.
Look at it this way. You invite someone to your home for a dinner party. The guests are a diverse group, but one of your guests comes in, and starts calling people racists names, acting like a total asshole, insulting and offending your other guests, and arguments are breaking out.
Are you going to stand there and say "She is just expressing her opinions as is her right under the Constitution", or are you going to say "You can't talk like that to my other guests. Stop it right now or you'll have to leave".
The right to "free speech" in America is not a carte blanche to promote hate and bigotry. The right to "free speech" is extremely limited: You cannot be arrested or prosecuted for criticizing the government. That's it. You cannot enter a private business and start shouting that you hate brown people. They'll throw you out and rightfully so.
That's a shameless lie. I never stated or implied that.No, you said that anything she posted that someone might object to can be used as evidence.
She purportedly called on "patriots" to "rise up against" Omar, who receives death threats. Rising up against Omar is not something which can be done through legislation, ya fucking moron.Show where she put anything in the context of calling for people to be assaulted.Great, show where she put that in context of legislation..."Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.And then Facebook's lawyers bring into court all of her disgusting writings to demonstrate why they made that public conclusion. And then everyone goes home.
Here's the rule:Have you noticed how all these leftwing douchebags defend the Big Brother behavior of Facebook in kneejerk fashion?Based on your defense of the one side you wrongly portrayed as being the only target in this.Oh? I wasn't aware Louis Farrakhan is on your side. Thanks for clarifying that.
how would you know what side is mine???
its best not to assume things you dont know about,,,
its par for the course for them,,,
Yeah, because you have nothing else in your quiver.It never gets old.Same old trick.Sure, fucking moron. And Madison Square Garden is in Wisconsin according to you.Facebook is going to get $3 billion of truth.The truth hurts.
I love it.
The Trump supporting flame throwers spew trheir shit all over the internet & then run crying when the favor is returned.
You asssfucks need to grow the fuck up & try the truth instead of believing the Loomers & Limbaughs.
No wonder you are all dumber than shit.
If I own a newspaper, I don't have to print your shit.
I hope there is a counter suit & the dumb bitch loses everything.
She purportedly called on "patriots" to "rise up against" Omar, who receives death threats. Rising up against Omar is not something which can be done through legislation, ya fucking moron.Show where she put anything in the context of calling for people to be assaulted.Great, show where she put that in context of legislation..."Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.
She purportedly called on "patriots" to "rise up against" Omar, who receives death threats. Rising up against Omar is not something which can be done through legislation, ya fucking moron.Show where she put anything in the context of calling for people to be assaulted.Great, show where she put that in context of legislation..."Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.
You can gloat when the lawsuits are settled. Not until then.Yeah, because you have nothing else in your quiver.It never gets old.Same old trick.Sure, fucking moron. And Madison Square Garden is in Wisconsin according to you.Facebook is going to get $3 billion of truth.
When you're dealing with someone who isn't very bright, you really don't need to change your tactics. You just go with what works. In your case,one is all she needs.
Speaking of frivlous lawsuits you've promoted. How much money did Nick Sandmann get? Motions for Dismissal have been filed by both CNN and WAPO. These Motions indicate that neither company offered him so much a one red nickle.
Remember when you told us this kid was going to get millions for slander. And we said "Good luck with that bullshit".
Faux is a "she?" That's interesting.Yeah, because you have nothing else in your quiver.It never gets old.Same old trick.Sure, fucking moron. And Madison Square Garden is in Wisconsin according to you.Facebook is going to get $3 billion of truth.
When you're dealing with someone who isn't very bright, you really don't need to change your tactics. You just go with what works. In your case,one is all she needs.
Speaking of frivlous lawsuits you've promoted. How much money did Nick Sandmann get? Motions for Dismissal have been filed by both CNN and WAPO. These Motions indicate that neither company offered him so much a one red nickle.
Remember when you told us this kid was going to get millions for slander. And we said "Good luck with that bullshit".
WRONG.Which is precisely what i described. They removed her due to their policies, subject to their interpretation of them. They merely have to show a reasonable opinion why this is so, in that context. It doesn't have to be completely, objectively, perfectly true, in everyone's opinion. You are very confused about who carries the burden, here.Only evidence that is relevant to the defamatory accusation can be presented in court
They have to prove their affirmative defense that the statements were true, that she is a terrorist, murderer or person inciting violence. That's how they defined "dangerous individual" and they can't backtrack on that shit. In fact, because they failed to specify what she did to warrant the "dangerous individual" label, they actually must prove all 3, which the cannot.
Facebook needs to just get out that checkbook. It's over.
.
That quip is not in isolation. It was purportedly made in context to Omar and her belief that Omar is a terrorist trying to destroy Anerica from within.She purportedly called on "patriots" to "rise up against" Omar, who receives death threats. Rising up against Omar is not something which can be done through legislation, ya fucking moron.Show where she put anything in the context of calling for people to be assaulted.Great, show where she put that in context of legislation..."Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.
Nope:
“We need some patriots to rise up and protect our Constitution so we can prevent the establishment of a caliphate,”
She didn't say what you claim. I wouldn't describe that as a call to commit violence. She also said it on instagram, not Facebook.
but it can be done at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion,,,She purportedly called on "patriots" to "rise up against" Omar, who receives death threats. Rising up against Omar is not something which can be done through legislation, ya fucking moron.Show where she put anything in the context of calling for people to be assaulted.Great, show where she put that in context of legislation..."Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.
