{"id":104771,"date":"2020-09-06T14:00:48","date_gmt":"2020-09-06T18:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=104771"},"modified":"2020-09-06T13:17:53","modified_gmt":"2020-09-06T17:17:53","slug":"draft-of-copy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=104771","title":{"rendered":"Regarding Censors"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

There are three arguments against Facebook here.\u00a0 They all involve censorship by Facebook, but who is directing the censoring in the first place?<\/p>\n

Here are three examples of what Facebook disapproves of.<\/p>\n

This article from KMBC News shows specifically that\u00a0Facebook removed Rep. Roger Marshall\u2019s post on CDC data post on Covid19 mortality rates. I’m posting the entire Twitter output in this case.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.kmbc.com\/article\/facebook-removes-roger-marshalls-post-on-cdcs-covid-19-death-data\/33865478#<\/a><\/p>\n

SPOKE WITH CONGRESSMAN ROGER MARSHALL ABOUT HIS VACCINE PREDICTIONS. MICHEAL: AT A CAMPAIGN STOP TUESDAY, MARSHALL REPEATED HIS PREDICTION THERE COULD B A COVID-19 VACCINE FOR HIGH RISK PEOPLE BY LATE THIS YEAR. THEN, HE WENT FURTHER. >> WE WILL HAVE A VACCINE AVAILABLE FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE BY THANKSGIVING. A VACCINE FOR WHOEVER WANTS IT BY THE END OF DECEMBER. MICHEAL: THAT\u2019S A VERY OPTIMISTIC PREDICTION. ONE OF THE CO-LEADERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE DRIVE TO GET A VACCINE, MONCEF SLAUOI, TOLD BUSINESS INSIDER MAGAZINE RECENTLY A VACCINE SHOULD BE WIDELY AVAILABLE BY NEXT SPRING. BUT ADDS SOME HIGH RISK GROUPS COULD SEE A VACCINE EARLIER. >> WE ARE WINNING THE WAR ON THIS VIRUS. MICHEAL: MARSHALL IS A DOCTOR, AN OB-GYN. INFECTIOUS DISEASES, HOWEVER, ARE NOT HIS SPECIALTY. HE SAYS AT LEAST 3 FIRMS ARE IN THE CLINICAL TESTING PHASE, OR CLOSE TO IT. HE BELIEVES THEY WILL DEVELOP A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE VACCINE. >> THANKS, GOD, FOR AMERICAN INGENUITY. FOR PRIVATE FIRMS OUT THERE WORKING SO HARD TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. MICHEAL: SO MARSHALL IS GETTING MORE SPECIFIC. AT FIRST, HE WAS SAYING THERE WOULD BE A VACCINE FOR HIGH RISK GROUPS BY THANKSGIVING TIME. NOW IT\u2019S A VACCINE FOR EVERYO<\/p>\n

KANSAS CITY, Mo. \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Facebook post published on Sunday afternoon by U.S. Rep. Roger Marshall, talking about updated COVID-19 death data released by the CDC, was removed Monday night by Facebook without notice or explanation.<\/p>\n

Marshall’s post dealt with the new data published by the CDC showing that only 6% of deaths were due solely to COVID-19, while the remaining 94% of deaths had two or more underlying health conditions.<\/p>\n

“Social media companies should be not allowed to censor science that they disagree with. This is corporate censorship, pure and simple,” Marshall said in a news release. “As a physician, I believe in discussing all data, options, and research with my patients. This was data published by the CDC, but unfortunately did not fit the narrative that the left and the liberal media want us to believe. We cannot allow social media companies to determine what we do and not learn about this virus. Americans deserve to be informed.”<\/p>\n

Marshall’s office provided a screenshot of the Facebook post that was removed.<\/p>\n

Roger Marshall\/Facebook<\/p>\n

\"KMBC-TV\"<\/p>\n

Before being deleted by Facebook, Marshall’s office said the post had almost 80,000 views and had been shared by thousands of followers.<\/p>\n

A second example is Skippy’s attempt to post this meme image on Facebook, after posting something re: the rioters in Wisconsin the day before.\u00a0 Skippy is now in Facebook’s disfavored group, blocked from using it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The third rebuttal to Facebook’s censorship is from the article I posted yesterday, with the twits at a gas station trying to block someone from going to the pumps to refill\u00a0 his gas tank.<\/p>\n

The individual who posted that gas station incident as a video on a channel that he set up on YouTube (NottheBee) did so because he was blocked by Facebook from posting it there, and that was without any explanation on their part.<\/p>\n

\u00a0https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=umfSM-mOdQg<\/a><\/p>\n

The article he wrote is here: https:\/\/notthebee.com\/article\/no-matter-how-many-times-i-watch-this-video-i-still-cant-believe-its-not-satire<\/a><\/p>\n

When he found that he, like Skippy and Rep. Marshall, was not welcome at Facebook, he started his own blog space (notthebee.com, link above) and his own Youtube channel, so that his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech was no longer impaired by the self-appointed censors of 21st century America.<\/p>\n

However, it happens that prior to Skippy’s 2nd post being blocked, Farcebook had earlier published a similar post Skippy had submitted which appeared to support BLM.\u00a0 This needs to be brought to more than just public attention.<\/p>\n

It is apparent, mostly because Facebook’s editorial “staff” seems to forget those annoying old parts about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, that the FB company has been slogging its way into becoming a publishing company that doesn’t want things posted that upset its view of what’s proper \/ improper to publish. Or\u00a0 maybe they reached that point a long time ago and just didn’t say so. They have become self-appointed censors in a publicly-owned company.<\/p>\n

The only reason I bring this up is that Henry Miller’s hardcore porn novels (really, they’re just trash) were only published and sold in Europe after World War I. He spent a good deal of his time in Paris and in Greece from 1928 through the 1930s, and returned to the USA when war broke out again. If you want some brilliant writing, get a copy of ‘Colossus of Maroussi’.\u00a0 I have always thought his non-fiction was far better than his fiction, but that’s just me.<\/p>\n

I have to include D.H. Lawrence, who wrote the infamous “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”.\u00a0 Again, that was deemed unpublishable in the USA , not because it violated anything in the US Constitution or general US laws, but because, as with Henry Miller’s novels such as “Tropic of Cancer”, it was viewed as pornography, and therefore obscene, by the censors of the time, under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

From Wiki:\u00a0\u00a0Lady Chatterley’s Lover<\/em>\u00a0was banned for\u00a0obscenity<\/a>\u00a0in the United States in 1929. In 1930,\u00a0Senator<\/a>\u00a0Bronson Cutting<\/a>\u00a0proposed an amendment to the\u00a0Smoot\u2013Hawley Tariff Act<\/a>, which was then being debated, ending the practice of having United States Customs censor allegedly obscene imported books. Senator\u00a0Reed Smoot<\/a>\u00a0vigorously opposed such an amendment, threatening to publicly read indecent passages of imported books in front of the Senate. Although he never followed through, he included\u00a0Lady Chatterley’s Lover<\/em>\u00a0as an example of an obscene book that must not reach domestic audiences, declaring “I’ve not taken ten minutes on\u00a0Lady Chatterley’s Lover<\/em>, outside of looking at its opening pages. It is most damnable! It is written by a man with a diseased mind and a soul so black that he would obscure even the darkness of hell!”[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

A\u00a01955 French film version<\/a> based on the novel and released by Kingsley Pictures was the subject of attempted censorship in New York in 1959 on the grounds that it promoted adultery. The US Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0held on 29 June 1959 that the law prohibiting its showing was a violation of the\u00a0First Amendment’s<\/a> protection of free speech.<\/p>\n

The ban on\u00a0Lady Chatterley’s Lover<\/em>,\u00a0Tropic of Cancer<\/em><\/a>, and\u00a0Fanny Hill<\/em><\/a>\u00a0was fought and overturned in court with assistance by publisher\u00a0Barney Rosset<\/a>\u00a0and lawyer\u00a0Charles Rembar<\/a>\u00a0in 1959.[23]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0It was then published by Rosset’s\u00a0Grove Press<\/a>, with the complete opinion by United States Court of Appeals Judge\u00a0Frederick van Pelt Bryan<\/a>, which first established the standard of “redeeming social or literary value” as a defence against obscenity charges. Fred Kaplan of\u00a0The New York Times<\/em><\/a>\u00a0stated the overturning of the obscenity laws “set off an explosion of\u00a0free speech<\/a>“.<\/p>\n

Susan Sontag<\/a>, in a 1961 essay in\u00a0The Supplement<\/em>\u00a0to the\u00a0Columbia Spectator<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that was republished in\u00a0Against Interpretation<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1966), dismissed\u00a0Lady Chatterley’s Lover<\/em> as a “sexually reactionary” book, and suggested that the importance given to vindicating it showed that the United States was “plainly at a very elementary stage of sexual maturity.”<\/p>\n

Wiki:\u00a0 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lady_Chatterley_ 27s_Lover#United_States<\/a><\/p>\n

In regard to pornography and its offshoots, no one is forced to read, look at, or own that crap, period.\u00a0 Barring Miller’s novels from being imported from France to the USA was idiotically childish. No one – I repeat: no one – on Earth was forced to buy his trashy porn novels, period.<\/p>\n

You can logically argue that Facebook is not acting as a publisher even while censoring material that it deems a conflict with its personal views and is within its rights to do so. You then realize that the media publishing fake news online about the sitting US President are acting as if they and they alone have the right to say anything at all, and get their undies in a wad when they are repeatedly proven to be lying.<\/p>\n

Lying about someone, concocting incorrect and fictitious news stories that are nothing but badly-written fiction, simply because these unprofessional media wranglers hate him more than they hate themselves — well, this sets them apart from the real reporters, and you may understand why they are not much more mature mentally than 5-year-olds in kindergarten who want to hog all the toys.<\/p>\n

And why are they acting like this? Because they didn’t get what they wanted in 2016. This is how spoiled brats act.<\/p>\n

At this point, Facebook is a publicly-owned company, with shares available for purchase on the stock markets, and does generate income from people and corporations that see it as a place to advertise their products. If shareholders become dissatisfied with the company’s financial performance, they can vote Zuckerberg and his corporate cronies right off the payroll, replacing them with someone else. He does answer to shareholders whether he likes it or not.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, when his communications platform became a publicly-held company in 2012, he began to lose his grip on full control of his company.<\/p>\n

Facebook, Inc. (FB<\/a>) went public with its\u00a0initial public offering<\/a> (IPO) on May 18, 2012.1 The most popular social networking company had one of the largest and most anticipated IPOs in history. The price per share crashed severely shortly after the IPO.<\/p>\n

KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/p>\n