Britain First banned by Facebook

[melthebell 863]

seems 3 more far right "activists" preaching hate, have been barred entry to the UK

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035

[Dimple 10]

seems 3 more far right "activists" preaching hate, have been barred entry to the UK

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035

 

That's some sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet trolling there Mel. You get 3/10.

[Naive 10]

That's some sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet trolling there Mel. You get 3/10.

 

Indeed.

 

Mel, you need to study Dimple more closely. Hone your technique.

 

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/?utm_term=.8375a930712f

[The Joker 10]

seems 3 more far right "activists" preaching hate, have been barred entry to the UK

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035

 

how deliciously ironic.

 

The right-whingers have been demanding we “Secure Our Borders” to peddlers of Hate, and to those who are not conducive to the public good for many years now.

 

Looks like the government are finally paying attention

[Cyclone 10]

Fair enough banning BF.

 

Now on to Black Lives Matter and every other hate speech page.

 

Oh wait, minority groups spewing hatred and lies is perfectly fine.......

 

You'll have examples of the lies and the hate speech of course?

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2018 at 07:01 ----------

 

I very much doubt any of them give two hoots about being banned from fakebook.

If anything it will just increase traffic to there main platform !

 

Facebook and social media was by far the greatest platform for spreading their misinformation to an uncritical audience.

[Halibut 12]

Here you go.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xet3BnwLtek

 

Spewing hatred? No, expressing righteous anger at a great injustice.

[Cyclone 10]

Whilst I do not have any strong views on (we assume) Britain First (even though I can actually spell it) or any other political movement I do have strong objections to anyone that believes they have the right to stop others expressing their opinions. As has been said by better regarded people than myself throughout history.

 

In the past marches or demonstrations by people accused of having nationalistic views have often resulted in violent outbreaks when they were confronted by those that would oppose their views deliberately gathering in the same places at the same time just to provoke disorderly behaviour and even conflict in order to discredit. I recall reading that Hitler's Brown shirts conducted themselves in a similar fashion with those that would have opposed them during their rise to power.

 

You seem to invite comment and yet it is clear from the way in which you have so poorly expressed your somewhat narrow minded views on this topic that expressing one's view to you if it is different from your own will fall on deaf ears.

 

I have little time for anyone that would refer to a fellow human as "filth". Your, apparently uneducated, views would potentially carry far more weight if presented in a constructive and less antisocial manner.

 

As for your comment in reference about people with physical challenges that have difficulty breathing solely through their nostrils .. to be frank anyone that picks on the disabled or disadvantaged is not a person whose presence or opinions benefit society in general. Perhaps you could try to not impose either on others in future.

 

As for facebook I can not help but believe that their motivation for their actions is purely them conceding to the wishes of the majority of those that have expressed an ill-considered opinion in order to better retain their subscriptions. I consider they have done so without proper regard for all potential outcomes.

 

In fairness all social media providers perhaps ought to remove any and all politically motivated rhetoric, parties and or organisations from their sites.

 

I'm struggling to find a point here, most of it seems to be an unwarranted attack on the OP and the way they've expressed their own opinion.

Ironic that you seem to be arguing that even hate filled bile should be allowed a voice, whilst apparently telling the OP that his opinion doesn't count because he's not clever enough and used a few mild insults aimed at the Britain First (which both you and the OP can spell, it's in the title).

We already have laws against hate speech though and libel and other forms of speech. 'Free speech' has long been within limits, and we've seen the damaging effects of fake news recently, it seems reasonable to have social media made responsible for restricting the spread of such misinformation, which Britain First are well documented as creating and spreading.

[alchresearch 215]

Not the first time they've been banned from Social Media. In December:

 

Britain First signs up to fringe social media site after Twitter ban

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/britain-first-gab-social-media-twitter-ban

[spilldig 189]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43398417

 

Facebook has decided that BF is a hate group, and therefore is banned.

 

I've seen arguments that it's the right thing to do, as they are clearly inciting racial hatred, but also contrary arguments that they're just exercising freedom of speech.

 

I'm personally on the former view. I think they're filth, desperate to cause hatred amongst their ranks of mouth breathers.

 

Any views on this?

I have never seen anything they have posted on Facebook, but I think there must be a difference in expressing an opinion or inciting people to violence. If it is the latter, then so be it.

[melthebell 863]

I have never seen anything they have posted on Facebook, but I think there must be a difference in expressing an opinion or inciting people to violence. If it is the latter, then so be it.

what about posting lies? or posting videos when they are meant to be about one thing but are actually mistitled deliberately?

 

Is this opinion or to steer people into hatred and maybe more?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

On the one hand, its brilliant. I hate seeing people recirculate their posts as truth.

 

But on the other, does it force them underground

 

The far right used to exist as a physical force phenomenon, marching, selling newspapers, physically attacking people for their race or sexuality and sustained harassment like putting dog faeces through the letterboxes of Asian shopkeepers. If you look at their recent activity (the last decade or so) they have found it increasingly difficult to mobilise more than a handful of badly dressed, sad looking sociopaths to any of their public events. This is largely down to the explosion in social media.

 

The only part of the far right which has had any sustained success at getting people out on the streets is the EDL and that is because they are organised along the lines of football hooliganism and their demos are very much sold as social events rather than political actions. But even they have relied almost exclusively on social media (mainly Facebook) for their mobilisation.

 

So yes, on the balance of things it is probably better that these idiots are not allowed access to facebook.

 

Given their reliance on it to recruit and mobilise, repeatedly breaking facebook rules is a particularly dumb way to behave when they have no obvious plan B.

[Cyclone 10]

I have never seen anything they have posted on Facebook, but I think there must be a difference in expressing an opinion or inciting people to violence. If it is the latter, then so be it.

 

I've seen the occasional image that someone has shared, they're often badly photoshopped to show something other than what really happened.