Censored: Educational Page ‘Unpublished’ For This Lame Reason

Published on July 20, 2017

Social Media — one of its greatest assets is the ‘Democratization’ of information. So can you guess why was THIS page suppressed?

Somebody, somewhere, has been applying pressure to suppress social media pages that ‘offend’ them. And it must be working since they managed to get them ‘unpublished’.

For example, there is a site that is informational in nature and describes exactly the thing that Canada’s Ontario Provincial government discovered when they reconsidered allowing Sharia Law to be enforced in their Province.

There were specific aspects of Sharia that were deemed unacceptable even to that very Liberal government and were considered incompatible with a modern and free society.

A website that discussed Sharia law in such a context has been pulled from social media.

Here is a message from that site’s admin:

The Counter Jihad Coalition Facebook page was put together to inform and educate people on the threat posed by Islamists and their goal of implementing Sharia. We would also report on public outreach events we hold at different venues, again reporting about the threat to our national security. Short videos were posted showing debates we have with all people. Pictures of our booth at events would be posted to show people how easy it is to start up a CJC in their city. Articles and pictures of people persecuted by Jihad, which includes Muslims, would also be posted.

Then on Tuesday July 11, 2017, Facebook unpublished our page. When I went to log on, I received a message that they were blocking posts for 24 hours due to a violation of their public policy. My emails inquiring into what we did wrong have gone unanswered. Now almost a week later we are still banned when they said it was a 24 hour ban. And I still do not know the specific reason we were banned.

We ask everyone to click on the blue question (“?”) on the top-right corner of their Facebook Homepage. Then select Report a Problem at the very bottom of the box and go to the General Feedback section and write in to request that the CJC page, which is a freedom-supporting and human-rights page, to be put back up. Read More

It is difficult to reconcile that with what has been reported by Reuters:

Facebook meets Pakistan government after blasphemy death sentence

A senior Facebook official met with Pakistan’s interior minister on Friday to discuss a demand the company prevent blasphemous content or be blocked.

The meeting comes after a Pakistani counter-terrorism court sentenced a 30-year-old man to death for making blasphemous comments on Facebook, part of a wider crack-down.

Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice president of public policy, met Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, who offered to approve a Facebook office in Pakistan, which has 33 million users of the network.

Khan said Pakistan believes in freedom of expression, but that does not include insulting Islam or stoking religious tensions.

“We cannot allow anyone to misuse social media for hurting religious sentiments,” Khan said.

Facebook called the meeting “constructive”. —Read More

Or this recent news story.

In a move that has been widely criticised by rights activists worried about an increase in violent vigilantism, the Pakistani government has been sending people messages warning them against sharing insulting content online.

Local authorities have even asked Twitter and Facebook to assist them in identifying social media users who share blasphemous material. –The Sun

The page about Sharia discusses EXACTLY this sort of topic.

If you think nobody should be killed for ‘blasphemy’ (which has a really broad definition, just ask the duly-elected official imprisoned because he said it’s ok for a Muslim to vote for a Christian in an election) then you can see the value of the unpublished site.

It is our hope that the Social Media giants will realize that every private idea of what constitutes ‘inappropriate’ speech would remove the very thing that makes free speech so valuable and important an agent in non-violent reforms.

Or do we want to be following the example of China, which is outlawing Winnie the Pooh, because it doesn’t approve of political dissent?

The blocking of Winnie the Pooh might seem like a bizarre move by the Chinese authorities but it is part of a struggle to restrict clever bloggers from getting around their country’s censorship.
When is a set of wrist watches not just a set of wrist watches? When is a river crab not just a river crab? Inside the Great Firewall of China of course.
Winnie the Pooh has joined a line of crazy, funny internet references to China’s top leaders. –Read More

Or do we NEED broad powers of speech — even ‘uncomfortable’ speech — so that we can always ‘speak truth to power’, on whatever issue becomes important to speak about. (Not just the politically correct ones.)

Share if you think that ‘Free Speech’ means that speech shouldn’t be restricted