My Local Domestic Violence Shelter, Quanada, Has Blocked Me on Facebook

Featured

I’m not sure exactly what I did to warrant it, though I’m certain I’ve never ‘harassed’ anyone on their site. My local Domestic Violence shelter is pretty selective about which women’s opinions it wants on its site.  The most I’ve ever done was constructively criticize their position on how they portray Domestic Violence. Often it’s females as victims and males as perpetrators. I’ve been vocal of the way they’ve stereotype and attached gender to Domestic Violence roles. So I do like to occasionally go to their Facebook page and read some of their content to comment. However, the other day was different.

I noticed, initially when I had attempted to comment on one of their articles, and I had no option to reply. It had been months since I had even visited the site. So why had I even been blocked? I haven’t done anything to them, anything that is, except being an open critic of the facility. Even then, it had been over five months since I had even engaged or mentioned their name. So they either targeted me and did it without me knowing, or I’ve been blocked for awhile.

Quanada 2

When I checked to see if I sent them any emails, I found that my outbox was completely empty. I had not sent them anything directly to warrant a block. A matter of fact, I hadn’t sent them anything on their inbox an ALL.

QuanadaInbox

 

 

I wanted to make certain that I was blocked. So I looked through my boyfriend’s account, he was allowed to reply and comment. It seemed that I really was put in a situation where I was targeted and silenced.

The point is, this facility receives public funding and is a non-profit, taxpayer funded organization. Is it even allowed to block one of its critics if they’re not harassing them? If they did not block me for criticizing them, are they allowed to block me for no reason at all? I would say NOT. I know for a fact that part of my own taxes go to this group and I should not be silenced for doing NOTHING wrong.

Whatever I allegedly did, I didn’t even receive a Facebook ban for, that’s how pitiful it probably was.

Advertisements

Americans are Slowly Losing Their Freedom of Speech

Featured

The constitution lists out the Rights that every American citizen has. Citizen is a key word in this language of law, because persons do not inherit these rights. This is one of the key arguments for the legality of abortion, since the unborn do not have social security numbers they are considered ‘persons’ and do not have any rights. However, even citizens are losing these supposed ‘rights’ little by little. Many don’t even realize they’re pushing Legislation that may seem like ‘good intent’. Yet, is really a step forward when it comes infringing on their own rights.

One of the most ‘sacred’ of our Amendments, it is pushed back every single day. Free speech is ‘free’ so long as no one is injured physically as a result of it. On our college campuses, a place where free speech is supposed to reign supreme, is being silenced. Obama policies such as the 2011, 2010 Dear Colleague Letters and everything dealing with Title IX has largely had a negative effect. A specific line in the 2010 Dear Colleague letter states

Harassment does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents

So basically, any speech that is interpreted as offensive can be classified as ‘hate speech’. All it has to do is be within earshot of a person who found it offensive. Also, unlike legal harassment, which is a repeated unwanted act; a person does not have to inform the individual that they find something offensive and request they stop beforehand. This creates the perfect environment to violate both the second Amendment and due process. A person not having to prove they were offended by something, puts the accused in a position of guilty unless proven innocent. Clearly NOT what the creators of this country wanted.

It’s not just on college campuses, it’s in State Legislation now too. Massachusetts is attempting to pass legislation that fines you if you use the word ‘Bitch’ in a “derogatory manner”.

This reduces the status on whether you’re guilty or not to your accuser’s opinion. It’s the perfect opportunity for false accusers to create allegations on people they don’t like. The law violates the first amendment and should be knocked down. It’s still only in its ‘hearing’ phase but the fact it’s even gotten this far shows how much feminism has become a tool to oppress others. Its intent is to discourage the use of a name commonly given to women, and in this push is shutting down people’s freedom to express themselves. Yet, why not ‘dick’, ‘asshole’, or ‘douche-bag’, because this law was designed to push an ideological agenda to benefit women.

Large media platforms are flagging more and more content as being ‘hateful’. It has been shown that even if content did NOT violate Facebook’s community standards, some were censored anyways. Many have used the excuse that since they are a private publishing company they have the right to censor whomever they want. However, this is no better than what the Nazis did. Now getting a 30 day ban on Facebook is considered a ‘badge of honor’.

On one positive note, Facebook cannot insist they are a publishing company, which allows them to censor whoever they wish, but keep the protection of not being regulated. This is a privilege reserved for a public platform. So either they give up their right to censor and dodge regulation; or they face being regulated, but gain the power to censor. This applies to every form of social media.

A study found that some are calling to reform the First Amendment to ‘reflect cultural norms’. If this were to have been petitioned and enforced earlier in Americas history, there wouldn’t have been a civil rights movement at all. The reality is, when free speech is gone, a culture doesn’t evolve at all. There would be no such thing as a new ‘cultural norm’ because as a person you’d have no right to speak out against current norms. It would create a rise in mob mentality, as it would allow the majority to control whatever happened to the minority. Being that hate speech is based on perception, the ones who define what speech is hateful are the ones to silence the rest.

This is precisely why the Second Amendment was put in place, to protect the first Amendment. A nation is as good as dead when their citizens are no longer truly free to speak.

Twitter Bans Alex Jones, A Few Questions For Them

Twitter has, as we all knew they would eventually do, suspended Alex Jones’ account and banned him from Twitter.

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1037806327584776193

What was the reason for this banning? Apparently, Twitter accused Alex Jones of violating their “abusive behavior policy”.

This is the foundation of the policy that Twitter claims Alex Jones violated.

Basic POlicy

However, the left views “abuse” differently than what is realistic. Realistically abuse is being targeted by someone, involuntarily having to submit to them in some way, and having an inability to fight back.

On Twitter, onlookers voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones and viewed his content. They also had just as much freedom to block him as soon as they made an account. Realistically if the left had a distaste for his content they would have taken the two seconds it took out of their day to simply block him and never heard from him again. If a person voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones with full knowledge that he has had signs of what Twitter calls “abusive behavior” in the past, are they not consenting to the possibility of their engagement also being hostile? Not saying that he WAS hostile, many who reported him were just as hostile as they accused him of being. So the reality is, they weren’t mad at his content being offensive, so much as they were angry at him having a voice at all. They were angry that he had a right to speak his mind!

Can we really say anyone is abusive if the party in question is being voluntarily approached by their opponents? Is the approach of a person’s platform or reply to their tweet not technically consent to their alleged ‘hate speech’ (I do not believe in the left’s version of hate speech)?

However Twitter seems to think, like many leftists, that a person doesn’t need to be the target of the content for the speaker to be considered abusive.

screenshot-help.twitter.com-2018.09.06-22-01-31

In Twitter’s own words, as long as there is a possibility you’ve offended someone, there is a possibility your account is getting suspended. Depending on the demand, Twitter will ban you based on the amount of people who deem your content as hateful.

And Twitter is filled with little cupcakes waiting to press that ‘Report’ button.

This leads me to question, does Twitter have the right to even make this standard on their platform since twitter considers itself a platform and NOT a media? Yes, they’re a private company, but there are laws when it comes to platforms. They claim not to be a media simply because they don’t produce content. However, if they regulate the content that IS produced, can they not be established AS a publishing platform regardless of owning the actual creators who are producing the content? And if they are truly a free speech platform, do they have a right to regulate content like this at all within the sovereignty of the United States? In either direction, did they have a right to rip the rug out from under Alex Jones’ feet over unfounded claims he violated their policy? Does he not have the right to see the evidence, a right to dispute the claims?

When it comes to their platform, they’re either one or the other. It is a slippery slope and they cannot crawl their way out of the rabbit hole they, and other social media platforms, have created for themselves.

 

Social Media Has No Business Parenting US: Back OFF!

Featured

There was a point in time when you hit the age of eighteen, you were on your own. It’s funny how our lives are mere pawns to be used in war at eighteen, yet you need to use your parent’s information for financial aid all the way up until you’re twenty-five unless you divorce them. I had to wait until I was twenty five years old to go to college, I couldn’t receive the financial aid that I needed and I didn’t know that something as absurd as divorcing your parents even existed. I have been on my own since I was eighteen and I have received next to zero help from either of my parents.

People make conscious choices to do things, this isn’t just a matter of free speech, it’s also a freedom to choose what I listen to. Sorry, but the last person who tried to control everything in my life ended up not seeing me again. I firmly believe in the freedom of choice, even if it means hearing things I don’t necessarily agree with. By deeming certain content as “hateful”, they are becoming the parent I didn’t ask for. The parent that I don’t want, need, and quite frankly am insulted to be given. I am not a child to shepherded around.

Banning Alex Jones is like placing parental content filters on America’s computers as though he’s rated ‘R’. It’s insulting to think that you supposedly know what’s best for me to see. You see it as ‘hateful’, yet you don’t seem to have a problem with the Facebook page Death To America consisting of 1,347 people when I last counted it, Twitter having countless accounts registered under Death To America, they’re shaddowbanning conservative accounts.

screenshot-twitter.com-2018-08-10-23-38-17

However, this doesn’t seem to disturb these social media billionaires, they’re just practicing their right to religious practice. Thankfully, twitter hasn’t completely gone off the deep end and is one of the few social medias that hasn’t botted Alex Jones off yet.

Youtube doesn’t seem to mind not listing videos according to what’s popular now either. According to Mark Dice, new algorithms now make sure that what they think comes before what you’re looking for, even if the title is written word for word:

This one reveals YouTube puts mainstream media first instead of by who gets the most views (whom they just recently banned anyways and haven’t changed the algorithms)

This one reveals how YouTube intentionally scrambles your search results try to get you think like you do.

Here’s an example of how this works, there’s also another algorithm that’s gone up. If you search a controversial subject, it will post a link with mainstream beliefs linked to them to try to ‘unbrainwash’ you.

Social media is a platform to voice all opinions. If it were a place for kids to simply play on it, you wouldn’t have to verity you were a certain age. Since when was it legal to shut down another person’s right to publish and distribute to his/her audience? When did corporations have the right to take my chosen media source away from me as though I were some child that had to be moderated? It’s funny how you have to be 18 to hold a youtube account (13 with a parent’s permission), but can still be parented like you’re some little kid that can’t take a few shots of reality.

Alex Jones, though I don’t agree with him and do take him for a nut job at times, should have his accounts reinstated. He hasn’t hurt anyone, hasn’t incited violence of any kind, if the most he has done is presented conspiracy theories then do nothing more than voice your opinion as to why they are conspiracy theories. You do nothing more than bring validity to his claims by cutting off his voice. If  social media is not in fact social then I will treat you like any other controlling parent, divorce you. These are class action lawsuits waiting to happen, people don’t like having their voices cut off, or the content they love taken away from them by force.