Among the reasonable and fairly well-defined criteria Twitter uses to censor content is this more ambiguous criterion: content “that incites fear about a protected group” or that “degrades someone.”

Does Twitter think it’s degrading to say “homosexual acts degrade persons”? What if homosexual acts do degrade persons? What words constitute an incitement to fear? Does it incite “fear about a protected group” to say that allowing biological males in women’s private spaces is an assault on decency and puts at risk the safety of girls and women? Does Twitter think saying “polyamory is wrong, and its normalization harms society” would incite fear about polyamorists?

Similarly, Facebook includes this expansive and ambiguous definition of banned “hate speech”:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability….We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech. (emphasis added)

Like obscenity (which Justice Potter believed he could recognize, but “progressives” clearly can’t), the powers-that-be at Facebook will apparently know dehumanizing speech when they see it.

This may explain why IFI has had so much trouble getting many of our articles boosted on Facebook. “Boosting” is, in effect, advertising. IFI pays Facebook to create an ad which is then shown to our target audience. The most recent article about which we have been battling Facebook is titled “Will ‘Progressives’ Affirm the Identity of Christ-Followers?”

We requested a boosted ad for this article and were declined. We appealed that decision, were approved for a few hours, and then our ad was taken down. We appealed that decision, were approved for a few more hours, and then the ad was taken down again. We appealed a third time, and moments before this writing, after a week and three appeals, it was approved. We wait with bated breath to see if this one sticks.

The criteria used by Twitter and Facebook to justify ideological-screening remind me of the criteria high school English teachers use to do the same. The text-selection criteria exploited by “progressive” change-agents in public high school English departments around the country are so flexible, so malleable, so protean as to justify including any resource that affirms, espouses, or embodies their biases and exclude any resource that dissents from their biases.

The Left is fond of declaiming that Twitter and Facebook are private companies that have the right to establish whatever criteria they deem fit for censoring content. True, but such a declamation ignores the monopolistic nature of these two social media behemoths.

Facebook has claimed to be a neutral social media platform that merely enables or facilitates “communication and distribution of information.” Because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, if Facebook were a neutral platform, it would not be liable for content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is “US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites.”

But both in court and before Congress, Facebook has acknowledged it is a publisher and “responsible for content.” In conjunction with its shutting down accounts and censoring posts for what appear to be ideological reasons, Facebook may have lost its legal immunity. And maybe that’s just the slap upside Zuckerberg’s pecuniary noggin that’s needed to restore his commitment to a neutral platform and to protect the First Amendment rights of conservatives that are eroding right before our gullible, obsequious eyes.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Facebook-Censoring-Say-It-Aint-So.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Pro-life movie, October Baby is opening in theaters around the country this weekend.  October Baby tells the story of Hannah, a young woman who learns that her life is much different than what she’s known up until now.  After learning she was actually adopted after a failed abortion attempt, Hannah embarks on an incredible journey to discover her hidden past and find hope for her unknown future.  Click HERE to watch the trailer of this powerful movie. 

The producers of October Baby recently told a story of how the movie is already impacting lives.  Three Pregnancy Resource Centers have received an incredible gift from an anonymous donor who purchased showings of October Baby in their towns.  Each of the three centers received 250 tickets that they are reselling to donors.  That means even before it officially opened today, October Baby is helping save lives!  

Ten percent of the profit of every ticket purchased for October Baby will be donated to the Every Life is Beautiful Fund, which will distribute funds to frontline organizations helping women facing crisis pregnancies, life-affirming adoption agencies, and those caring for orphans.  Help support life by supporting October Baby this weekend!  Click HERE to find the closest theater playing October Baby. 

For films like October Baby to continue to be produced, audiences need to be willing to see them in theaters.  Movie industry success is based on how well a movie does on its opening weekend.  For October Baby, that means what happens Friday through Sunday, March 23-25, will determine if the movie has an extended run in the theaters where it’s opening and if it will expand to other theaters around the country. 

Your support of October Baby is imperative.  Bring a group of friends with you and introduce them to October Baby.  They’ll be glad you did … and so will you.

Throughout civilization, there have been those who have attempted to find humor at the expense of others. This has been the case in American history as well. People who are different because of their social class, skin color, ethnic or religious backgrounds have often been the butt of the most vile so-called humor.

However, supposedly, we now live in a time of tolerance. Yet it is clear there are certain groups who apparently are fair game to be the recipients of mean-spirited attacks which have little to do with levity.

Recently, an episode of South Park — a cartoon which airs on the Comedy Channel–fanned the flames of controversy by insulting those who practice the Islamic faith. The same episode insulted Christianity by presenting an image of Jesus Christ which also was defamatory in nature.

It has often been said it is a losing proposition to take on contentious issues which result from cartoons or comic strips. But though it may not be politically prudent to question the appropriate nature of such satirical venues, the First Amendment provides the right to do so.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the Creators of South Park, have made a living off of their irreverence with the series. Christianity has often been their target. Of course, Stone and Parker will deny this fact. They will say South Park is only satire, not meant to demean or be hurtful to anyone.

Unfortunately, American society has bought into this notion in recent decades. Jokes that were once told in backrooms are now appropriate in public venues, depending on who or what the subject is. It is obvious Christianity does not fall within the boundaries protected by political correctness or tolerance.

To say South Park has been the only source to assail those of the Christian faith through the so-called use of humor would be unfair and inaccurate. But Stone and Parker were only criticized for their irreverence by the mainstream media for the episode which depicted Muhammad in a bear costume which is contrary to Islamic doctrine that the prophet never be drawn. However, Stone and Parker needed attention due to the fact that in today’s culture conflict results in controversy, and controversy leads to fame.

The problem is those on the far left–which dominate the mainstream media–either do not understand or do not care whether what they do is hurtful. This mindset hardly follows the definition of tolerance. According to Webster’s Dictionary, tolerance is defined as “a tolerating or being tolerant, esp. of views, beliefs, practices, etc. of others that differ from one’s own”. The term is not selective. The meaning of the words is not subject to political correctness or the fad and fashions of the times.

When Stone and Parker depict Jesus Christ in an unflattering way, a vast majority of Americans take offense. They do so because they believe Christ is their Savior who suffered the most grievous of pain, before being hung on a cross to die for the sins of mankind. Is it possible the creators of South Park do not truly understand the tenets of Christianity and Christ’s sacrifice? To the contrary, the opposite is most likely the case. Stone and Parker fully understand because irreverence has been a means to their success.

Perhaps South Park and its creators don’t deserve all the blame for their irreverence. Our society has given them the license to be hurtful.

But there are dangers we should take from history which result from this lack of sensitivity. In Nazi Germany, propaganda films depicted the Jews as rats which infested the Third Reich. These images did not suddenly appear. They began incrementally with baby steps which led to the creation of the final solution to the “Jewish problem”.

South Park is an infantile, poorly illustrated cartoon which carries an inordinate amount of social significance. The program truly reflects the intolerance of our times which stems from an underlying motive, some self-serving, some sinister.

There is good advice that comes from the left regarding such so-called artistic expression. Americans can change the channel. They can also send letters to sponsors who pay the bills which allow cartoons like South Park to remain on the air. Perhaps those who are offended most can take equal blame by staying silent and doing nothing–while their faith or culture is insulted.