Tommy Robinson

[spathiphyllum]

Tommy Robinson has had his facebook and instagram account terminated. Facebook says he has continually violated its community standards with hate speech against Muslims.

Is you use social media in ways that violate their policies around organised hate then surely you're a bad person?

[Ellipsis]

Several people asking what is hate speech. Funny, if that had been an OP, it would have been derided as simply Google-able.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_hate_speech

and specifically Facebook:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_hate_speech#Facebook

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, criticism of pretty much anything could be construed as hate speech. I still don't know what he said and, as yet, it seems neither does anyone else.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // Ellipsis, criticism of pretty much anything could be construed as hate speech. I still don't know what he said and, as yet, it seems neither does anyone else. //

I think the powers-that-be at Facebook probably do!

[naomi24]

You 'think' so. As I said, practically anything could be construed as hate speech, but inciting violence? That has to be pretty specific, wouldn't you say?

[naomi24]

^That to andy-hughes.

[Mamyalynne]

I certainly don't know any more than has been reported but will repeat my earlier point, it refers to what was on his page - not all of which was written by him.

//The ban means that Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, will not be allowed to set up an official Facebook page or Instagram profile in future.

According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:

a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"

a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran.

a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims.

multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied.//

[Zacs-Master]

Facebook have obviously decided (hopefully independently) that whatever has been said contained 'content that directly attacks people based on their: race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases'

[naomi24]

Mamyalynne, Surely if that's the case, Facebook should be more concerned about dealing with those people.

[Baldric]

TR has a far better knowledge of what is happening in the Real World than a number of ABers who always appear to be in denial.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // You 'think' so. As I said, practically anything could be construed as hate speech, but inciting violence? That has to be pretty specific, wouldn't you say? //

I would say - and so it seems would Facebook.

As I have already opined, I don't imagine Facebook would undertake dismissing a public figure like 'Tommy Robinson' from its presence, especially when it considers the extremely high profile 'Tommy' enjoys on social media in general, and its own site in particular, coupled with his acknowledged seriously litigious nature, unless it was absolutely sure of its grounds, and willing to defend itself in court, should 'Tommy' decide to take legal action against such a grievous attack on his good character.

[andy-hughes]

Baldric - // TR has a far better knowledge of what is happening in the Real World than a number of ABers who always appear to be in denial. //

I would say that assertion is highly debatable.

But the issue revolves around 'Tommy Robinson's conduct in terms of action on a social media site - not his knowledge of social politics.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //I would say - and so it seems would Facebook. //

But you're not in a position to 'say' be incited violence. You don't know what he said.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // andy-hughes, //I would say - and so it seems would Facebook. //

But you're not in a position to 'say' be incited violence. You don't know what he said. //

I agree - but I have not said that he did incite violence, because I don't know what he said.

I have far better things to do with my time that read 'Tommy Robinson's vacuous nonsense, but I am happy to believe that Facebook have read it, and have acted on the basis of what he has said.

[Zacs-Master]

'You don't know what he said.'

And neither do you, Naomi.

[naomi24]

You're easily pleased when it suits you, andy-hughes.

[naomi24]

zacs, no I don't know what he said. That's why I'm asking those who are delighting in his enforced exit from Facebook.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // You're easily pleased when it suits you, andy-hughes. //

So, I'm sure are you!

Problem?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //So, I'm sure are you! //

You'd be wrong. Disingenuous I am not.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // zacs, no I don't know what he said. That's why I'm asking those who are delighting in his enforced exit from Facebook. //

I really don't care why 'Tommy Robinson' is being denied access to Facebook - and why would I? I don't devote any time to his poisonous ramblings, I am hardly likely to want to spend valuable time in a deep analysis of why he has been switched off.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // Disingenuous I am not. //

You may be able to perceive a link between you not being disingenuous, which is something I have never thought you are, so I am unsure why you brought it up - and me being 'easily pleased when it suits me … ' which I have no problem with being at all … but I can't.