Killerwebs Web Design Studio of Bradford: Do These Vile Facebook Comments Deserve Free Speech Protection?

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

Do These Vile Facebook Comments Deserve Free Speech Protection?

View All Videos

Twitter's New Ad Product and What It Means

Twitter recently rolled out its latest step toward making money called Promoted Tweets to Followers. The new ad venture allows brands to place special announcements, offers, and other content near the top of users' timelines that follow them.

Card Processing Rebate $250.
Bank of America Merchant Services

Buying Domains Then 301 Redirecting for Ranking Boost

By: JBullet

I'm thinking of buying domain names that have decent links to them and then 301 redirecting them to my main domain in order for it's search engine ranking for keywords to be boosted.

The domains I would buy would be relevant to my main domain. I'm assuming that 301 redirecting would transfer the link juice from these other domains to my main one.

Reply to this post...

Do These Vile Facebook Comments Deserve Free Speech Protection?

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Atheists receive death wishes on Fox News Facebook page

Last week, we asked you whether or not social media sites should censor offensive content. The issue that spawned that debate was the possible removal of certain trending topics by the folks at Twitter. After a certain hashtag (#reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend) gained steam two weekends ago, a large group of users demanded that Twitter remove that topic from their trending list.

It's unclear whether Twitter removed the topic or it simply fell off the list naturally (evidence suggests the latter), but the question remained: Should they censor that offensive content?

Your comments last week provided a pretty clear answer to the question: No. Although the distinction was made that social networks like Facebook and Twitter are private companies who aren't compelled to operate under the same free speech allowances as the U.S. Government, a majority said that it would be wrong to remove the offensive content.

This week we ask a similar question, but with raised stakes. What about content that advocates violence? Let us know in the comments.

Let it be known, the following article will contain no religious opinions from yours truly - whether heavy-handed or carefully cloaked. At the heart of this, for me at least, is simply the issue of anonymity online and the tendency for people to say crazy things when staring at a keyboard and a monitor. Oh, and some of these posts are simply epic in their jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

Here's how the story goes:

Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists made an appearance recently on America Live with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel.

The reason that he appeared was to discuss the recent lawsuit filed by the American Atheists group over the cross-shaped steel beams at the World Trade Center site know as the "World Trade Center Cross." The cross would form part of an exhibit at the September 11th Memorial and Museum.

The lawsuit alleges that the cross-shaped steel beam display promotes Christianity over all other religions and it diminishes the civil rights or non-Christians since it is included on public property.

To them, it's a matter of church and state separation. Either that or it's about the singularity of the religious celebration. According to ABC News, the American Atheists said that they "have contacted the 9/11 Memorial and Museum requesting to display their own atheistic memorial next to the steel-shaped cross, possibly in the form of an atom or an American flag, to represent the '500 non-religious Americans' who were "among the victims of the 9/11 attack."

They say that their request was met with silence.

After Mr. Scott's appearance on the show, Facebook users flooded the Fox News Facebook page with comments.

Although the content is no longer available as it has been removed, multiple sources managed to grab screencaps of the comments. Here are the ones culled by American Atheists themselves -

From the mouth of one gentleman, "few groups are filled with more hatred than atheists." Just before that, "can we start killing them now." Isn't it ironic? Dontcha think?

Some bloggers who also screencapped many of the comments blurred out the names of the commenters. Others specifically brought attention to their names. Their argument is that the internet needs accountability. Basically, if you have the balls to say something, you should have the balls to answer for it. Nobody should protect people on the internet who post controversial content for public consumption.

Should it remain as a testament to free expression? Let us know what you think in the comments.