FREEDOM OF SPEECH may be a hallmark of American civil rights, but on Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook, those rights can be suspended for Jews.
According to Israel HaYom (http://tinyurl.com/y8cjnwob),
- Facebook blocks Yair Netanyahu for 24 hours for post calling social media giant "thought police" • PM's son had blasted social media platform for removing earlier post in which he called for "avenging the deaths" of IDF soldiers killed in Samaria attack.
Facebook users supposedly control content on the “social” media site by complaining about other users’ posts.
If a post is found egregious by a number of users, the post is deleted and, in some cases, the poster has his or her privileges suspended or revoked.
Assuming Israel HaYom’s reporting is accurate, fellow Facebookers took issue with Yair Netanyahu’s post calling for ”avenging the deaths" of two Israeli soldiers killed last week by Palestinian gunmen in Samaria and calling for the expulsion of Palestinians. He shared a screenshot of the earlier post in violation of Facebook's community rules.
I’m not certain if his call for ”avenging the deaths of two Israeli soldiers by Palestinian gunmen” or calling for the expulsion of Palestinians caused the umbrage
- I am not a Facebook subscriber, nor do I subscribe to Twitter or any other “social” media.
From Facebook pull-outs and quotes I have seen on other sites, it appears Facebook followers have a double-standard.
One allows denigration of Jews in general and Israel specifically.
The other restricts similar verbiage from Jews.
It makes me suspicious that not only has the UN raison d’etre been subsumed by a special interest but that Facebook et al also has fallen victim to, as Netanyahu fils contends, “thought police.”
In the United States, non-conforming thoughts, i.e., conservative thoughts, may be shouted down by liberal opponents, albeit this is not a valid response by conservatives when a liberal espouses something.
The liberals are not solely to blame for this condition; the conservatives must share the blame for allowing this to occur.
If my understanding of Facebook, and similar “social” media, is correct, then the conservatives must learn from the liberals and counter liberal “thought control.”
It is one thing to shout FIRE! In a crowed theater or to promote aggression against a person or a people; it is far different to suggest avenging a crime — did Netanyahu suggest killing the “Palestinians” who murdered the Israelis? — a feeling most humans harbor when a crime — especially murder — is committed against them or their fellows.
As far as expulsion, perhaps Netanyahu is taking a page from the United States history. The U.S. government expelled the indigenous population in Georgia when gold was thought to be had from the land. The expulsion led to the Trail of Tears (http://tinyurl.com/yc27bso7). On Dec. 17, 1862, U.S. Grant expelled Jews from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Lincoln revoked the order (http://tinyurl.com/yd6tn65f). These were mass expulsions, not simply an individual or family, but hundreds of people.
The United States was simply following the lead of many European nations who expelled not only Jews but others as well, depending upon political whim (and in some cases, the state of the national treasury).
Perhaps Netanyahu’s call to avenge murders was found offensive to the sensibilities of many Facebook subscribers. Perhaps expelling criminals was the issue. Countries expel criminals — it’s called “deportation.”
I wonder what the reaction would be had Netanyahu dared suggest the criminals be rounded up and forced into ghettos, a la Europe, and prevented from leaving the confined area — call it a “reservation.” Democrat FDR did that to Japanse-Americans and a very few Germans and Italians. “Palestinians” in UN camps are free to leave whenever they wish and a few do leave.
Free speech in the U.S. in 2018 is not free. It must be “politically correct” and not offensive to the liberal, albeit loud, minority.
Free speech and “social” media apparently are mutually exclusive.
Pity.
PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.
No comments:
Post a Comment