Should Facebook Take Down Aurora Shooter's Fanpages?
SodaHead News
2012/07/28 20:30:27
|
|
|||||
|
674 votes
|
|
68% | |||
|
321 votes
|
|
32% | |||
The name James Holmes will forever live in infamy after the accused criminal murdered 12 people with gunfire and wounded many more during a midnight screening of "The Dark Night Rises" in a theater in Aurora, Colorado. Based on various reports following the shootings, it seems as though Holmes planned to become a real life comic book villain. As for other details, those are still scarce and getting inside a psychotic, cold-blooded man's head will be tough for prosecutors.
But getting rid of tasteless content in support of the Colorado shooter; that should be easy for Facebook, right? Not according to a report by CNN.com, which states that there are multiple fanpages for the killer, including one with more than 800 followers [or "likes"]. Facebook isn't like YouTube or message boards, where one can be anonymous. So unless they're using fake aliases and lack profile pictures, Holmes supporters are making themselves known publicly on the fanpage. Maybe they're Internet trolls. They could even be people with the same mental state as Holmes.
Regardless, Facebook won't remove the pages. Company spokesman Fred Wolens explained that the most popular Holmes fanpage "while incredibly distasteful, doesn't violate our terms." In order to be removed, it would have to post credible threats against specific people or intend to incite violence. We agree that free speech should be protected. But this lenient policy seems pretty inconsistent with the numerous stories we've heard over the years of everyday people having photos/content flagged and taken down, at times unfairly.
What do you think SodaHeads? Should Facebook remove the Colorado shooter's fanpages?
Read More: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/tech/social-media/fa...
Top Opinion
-
thomas.fox.54 2012/07/28 21:24:17No
+221st amendment. these people are sick, disgusting animals but they have the right to the 1st amendment. i hate censored websites anyway. people need to realize that they share a country with these people and they need to deal with it not pretend that these sick people dont exist
There is NO protection for libel, slander, plagiarism, or speech inciting the population to riot! In these instances, there is a very definite limit to such speech.
Here's your "lesson plan" for LEARNING the meaning of the First Amendment:
http://www.freedomforum.org/p...
Are "fighting words" protected? No! (see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire)
Is gratuitous obscenity? No! (see Miller v. California, Roth v. United States, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts.)
Now, imagine if you will, that the audience was filled to capacity with ARMED citizens! Would this moron have gotten off more than one shot? I doubt it! I don't even think he would have had the guts to enter a room with an armed population... just like the fear Government feels when facing an armed population. Which is the INTENT of the 2nd amendment! The people should NEVER have to fear the tyranny of Government. That's why the ultimate check on government MUST be an armed population.
http://www.guncite.com/journa...
You are creating constitutional laws that do not exist to fit your own agenda.
So then I now create a law that bans all guns- see how that works!
Here... read it and weep (Supreme Court Decision on District of Columbia v. Heller):
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
ref: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-...
Show me where it says "hateful" speech is illegal or unlawful or admit you make up stuff that is not in the constitution!
The words of the Constitution are more plain and understandable then Obama's 2700 page TaxCare Law.
For instance, did you know that both pro and anti abortion lawmakers can make the claim that ObamaCare either Prohibits or Authorizes federal funds for abortions?
They'd both be right, because the paragraphs of authorization and prohibition are right next to each other, thus:
(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS
PROHIBITED.—The services described in this clause are
abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds
appropriated for the Department of Health and Human
Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning
of the plan year involved.
(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS
ALLOWED.—The services described in this clause are
abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds
appropriated for the Department of Health and Human
Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect
as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning
of the plan year involved.
page 51 of ObamaCare:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
Show us where it says "hateful" language is unlawful in the constitution or admit you lied.
Anyone can copy and past but show us you actually know something about the constitution because so far you are embarrasiing yourself miserably!
And quite frankly, it's not! I'm done with you, sock puppet.
Don't get me wrong this is disgusting, but the fact that something is offensive should not, in itself be the sole reason to remove it. - I might find kittens offensive!
The public's right to safety trumps free speech any time.
Free speech does not inlclude threats to a person. If it puts someone in danger, that person's right to be safe and secure trumps free speech.