News Ticker >
[ October 17, 2017 ]

Closing arguments set in Pamela Geller beheading plot trial

[ October 17, 2017 ]

If everything is generic non-Islamic “terrorism,” how do we talk about violent Islamic jihad?

[ October 17, 2017 ]

Videos and Photos: NY Muslims and Leftists protest Trump’s National Security Travel Ban (not Islamic...

[ October 17, 2017 ]

Great Britain: MI5 Security Chief warns of ‘intense’ terror threat, Islamic ‘terror attacks are hatched...

[ October 17, 2017 ]

Steve Bannon: Pamela Geller “one of the top world experts in radical Islam and Shariah...

[ October 17, 2017 ]

The Duplicity of Moderate Muslims

[ October 17, 2017 ]

“Moderate” Algerian Journalist: ‘Our Dispute With The Jews Is A Religious One’

[ October 17, 2017 ]

GRAPHIC Video: Muslim teen who deliberately mowed down sidewalk pedestrians GUILTY — vehicular jihad in...

[ October 17, 2017 ]

More victimhood propaganda: Muslim claims his wife won’t leave home alone because of “Trump’s anti-Muslim...

[ October 17, 2017 ]

Jihad in Togo: Several dead after imam who called for violence and murder arrested, victims...

Pamela Geller, American Thinker: Leftist Press Lashes Out Against Our Free Speech Lawsuit

35

The Department of Justice responded to our Facebook/social media first amendment lawsuit. The American Thinker has it here.

Leftist Press Lashes Out Against Our Free Speech Lawsuit
By Pamela Geller, The American Thinker, October 10, 2016:

Leftist publications and pundits are rubbing their hooves in glee at the Department of Justice’s response to our recent lawsuit challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

In order for us to sue Facebook (which is our intent), we first need to knock out this federal immunity statute, which prevents us from suing Facebook. Our lawsuit is therefore against the federal government. We knock out the immunity, and then we can sue Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

In response, the Justice Department simply tried to dodge the issue, saying we were suing the wrong entity. Our lawyers are preparing a full-throated response, but meanwhile, the left is crowing: this little hit piece about our case is filled with hyperbole and nonsense. The government filed a very predictable motion that, unsurprisingly, raises two issues: our standing to sue and state action. To have standing to sue, one must show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the action one is challenging, and that can be redressed by the court. The government concedes in its motion that we have shown that.

However, the government is arguing that the injury is from the social media giants and thus not fairly traceable to them, and therefore the injury is also not redressable by the court. But “fairly traceable” does not require a direct injury from the entity one is suing. If the action we are challenging materially increased the probability of injury, we have met that standard. And we clearly have: as everyone knows, the only reason why social media can discriminate against us the way they do is because of the immunity granted by the federal government.

The second argument that the Justice Department makes in its response to us is related in many ways to the first. The DoJ argues that there is no constitutional violation because the harm caused (the censorship) was by a private actor (social media). That is generally true, but the Supreme Court has declared that the government is responsible when it enacts laws that change the legal relationship between two groups, including the selective withdrawal from one group of legal protections against private acts, regardless of whether the private acts can be attributed to the government — and that is precisely the situation here.

In short, do we have responses to the government’s arguments? Absolutely. Can we guarantee that the judge will agree with us? No plaintiff can ever do that, and certainly not in the types of cases we bring. If the district court judge dismisses our case, will we pursue this further, including possibly to the Supreme Court? Yes. This issue is too important. With this power of censorship, social media could seriously influence this presidential campaign, and indeed, is already doing so.

For years I have documented the outrageous bias of Facebook’s speech policies. These are notoriously one-sided — those who oppose jihad terror, support Israel, and stand against the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth (sharia) have been systematically blocked and banned. Just last June, Facebook took down my page and blocked me after a devout Muslim opened fire on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Facebook said they took down my page because of their rule against “hateful, obscene, or threatening” content.

But it is not hateful, obscene, or threatening to oppose jihad terror such as we saw in Orlando and in so many other places. Truth is not hateful or obscene. What is hateful, obscene, and threatening is that Facebook is moving to silence everyone who speaks honestly about the motivating ideology behind such attacks. To get at Facebook and the other social media giants, we have to challenge the government statute first.

The left needs to handicap and shut down the opposition, because its positions do not stand up to refutation and cogent analysis. That’s why the “liberals” are working hard to shut down free speech. Liberal, indeed. But we will continue to fight them every step of the way.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Pamela Geller's shocking new book, "FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA" is now available on Amazon. It's Geller's tell all, her story - and it's every story - it's what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

  • Michael Copeland

    Well done. This is all very valuable work in defence of free speech.

  • libertyluvur

    Go em Pam!!!

  • Soundclick.com/Globalfirm

    Firms not beeing in harmony with the global government Globalfirm, firms violating ethics: human rights & ecology must be seized by the government.
    Facebook, developed with technological progress of many turned against the people that gave rise to it.
    It’s a great basic tool. Time it returns in the hands of a one day no more censored, ethical global government.

    • aebe

      Ethical global government ! You betcha , bub . Honest people are just oozing out the seams of your ‘ethical’ .
      yup

      Validate your 2nd Amendment Rights….. Carry

    • IzlamIsTyranny

      LOL “ethical global government” would that be like the UN?

  • Mark Steiner

    It is no mistake that, in the past eight years, this administration has flooded its US government agency ranks with people of like character, that is, not only those who voted Obama, but who literally hitched their stars to Obama-ism in government service – so-called.

    This writer saw it happen first hand at HHS.
    Administration hacks knew, or at least perceived, that lawsuits against government entities were only a matter of time, so they constructed the fortress in advance of the attack.

    Good ole’ Uncle Joe ruled the Soviet Union for 29 years with virtually no opposition, an army of snoops and a huge enemies list (every Soviet citizen not a Party member or cavalry officer).

    Best wishes and prayers for Ms. Geller, because she is among only a handful of voices speaking out and directing the offensive against those who delight destroying life, liberty and a worship of God.

    • Suresh

      Not really . Its called hypocrisy or double standards.

      And Republicans were too lazy while Dems took over the educational system to produce Leftists/liberal zombies …….. and they took over the media to support their cause.

      And then you have America hating , free cash loving Democrat voting Immigrants of the worst kind flooding the country .

      …….and Hillary , Bush , obama , Dems and many Republicans are on payroll of saudis and OIC to push the Islamic agenda of conquest by immigration and terror http://tinyurl.com/j5yebuj

      The Far Right Republicans can never win an election for presidency ever.
      Trump is Center Right Republican and last chance to win for conservatives. But look AT THE scumbag RINO’s talking about not voting for him !

      • Mark Steiner

        Good summary – better detailed. Going a bit further, the parties you mentioned have abandoned moral absolutes, leading to the current condition of the parties you have identified.

  • Mahou Shoujo

    liberal socialism and islam cannot stand the light of day, they come out looking like the fools they are when they have to explain their asinine ramblings. It is easier to press ad bully than explain and improve. islam and liberalism are catastrophic failures everywhere they have been allowed power.

    • Bill Kay

      And the sooner they are eliminated the better , rid the government of traitors !

      • Platopus

        Do you see a war between Liberals and Islamists?

        • IzlamIsTyranny

          What’s an “islamist”? Is that like a nazist?

  • Mahou Shoujo
  • Dennis

    Whether or not the courts find, or reject Pamela’s group’s standing to sue, the issue seems to me to be much bigger than “free speech.” To me the issue must be examined in light of the fact that the great majority of Americans, in every survey taken, sincerely believe that our government representatives and government employees have failed the American public. As a result approximately 70% of those surveyed have very negative views of our functioning (or should I have said non-functioning) government. With that in mind, I am beginning to wonder whether the only alternative left for us who feel this way should be to vote them all out of office and bring in a clean and new slate to try to change this very negative view that we have of our very own government. The present movers and shakers within our government, elected or appointed, have failed us , and I see that the only answer is to try to do what we can to kick them all out and begin with new, hopefully untainted people. They are so entrenched with their power, that no other choice seems available.

    • Mahou Shoujo

      Change congress out 100% do not re-elect any of those who served in the hussain misadministration of either party. It is time to start fresh with politicians who are not reeking of the decay and corruption of the previous 8 years.

      • Bill Kay

        A new broom sweeps clean KICK their PATATHIC AzzES OUT and prosecute for sedition .

  • DemocracyRules

    WHAT IF TRUMP WINS?
    That’s not easy to answer. It will produce a massive sea change within just a few months.

    After the Obama win, the entire oligarchy that supports the government became authoritarian socialists. Hundreds of billionaires are backing Hillary to the hilt.

    Here’s the short list, from a Wikileaks email:
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2010
    CONTENT WARNING: This email is disgusting.
    Stephen M. Silberstein, a member of George Soros’s far-left Democracy Alliance, sheds light on the extent of Soros’s socialist agenda for America.

    The plan, being crafted in private by a group of about 100 donors that includes billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros and San Francisco venture capitalist Rob McKay, More than 100 billionaires and multi-millionaires belong to this shadowy philanthropic collective that Markos Moulitsas, of the leftist blog Daily Kos, has called “a vast left-wing conspiracy.”

    • DemocracyRules

      The Silberstein e-mail shows why Pamela Geller has such a tough time getting her point across. It shows why the left opposes Trump so much.

      It shows why Hillary is running
      The far-left Democracy Alliance is loaded with billionaires, who together are worth more than $1 trillion. They are backing Hillary because they are naive socialists, and they endorse the “single cause theory” of elections. Viz. The candidate with the most money usually wins. Since they can move such massive moolah, they think they could get a toothbrush elected president.

      Hillary’s character matters zero.

      • DemocracyRules

        Pamela Geller has trouble because Obama likes Muslims, so these rich oligarchs like Muslims. They are rich, but politically naive. If Obama liked orange Popsicles, then the oligarchs would like orange Popsicles too.

        So stopping the flood of Muslims is hard, because $ billions are spent supporting it. A large proportion of the George Soros’s far-left Democracy Alliance are Jewish. Read the e-mail yourself, it’s like a synagogue membership list. Why?

        • DemocracyRules

          Why so many Jews? It’s not hard to figure out, really. Jews tend to be urban, well educated, professional, upwardly mobile, cosmopolitan, and prosperous. These trends are thousands of years old, and they seem to come from (1) Bible writing and reading, and (2) the diaspora. For example, after the Jewish revolts against Rome in c. 50-90 AD, Jews took refuge in places like Spain. They were often scribes and lawyers, because they could read and write (from the Bible study). So they lived in cities.

          Sometimes they had to grab their possessions and get out of town on a moment’s notice. So farming was no good, but jewellery, banking, doctoring, tailoring, were things you can take with you.

          But there is another key thing about urban, well educated, professional, upwardly mobile, cosmopolitan, and prosperous people. They are quick to pick up new trends. Marketers call this demographic “early adopters”.

          • DemocracyRules

            Here’s a picture of early adopters. Over time, more people adopt a new thing, until almost everyone does the new thing. Like TVs, and gas barbecues
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/802b82e41dbd1a3617ac0139aa691c2e9db72ddad5f8a711f1a69fb964834be3.jpg

          • DemocracyRules

            When any new thing comes along, early adopters are the first to try it. From Blue-Ray to Arugula, to Breitbart news. Jews tend to be part of the early adopter demographic, and they are swept along with it.

            So therefore, we now have a bunch of rich Jews (AND gentiles) who think it’s “cool” and new, to fight with Pamela Geller.

            The rich gentiles are just as dumb as the rich Jews. The Jews just stand out because supporting massive Muslim immigration doesn’t seem like a good self-preservation move for Jewish Americans.

          • DemocracyRules

            But wait! What about this graph? Adoption rates of new trends can vary a lot, and one of these lines is the FOREVER TURMPERS. This new trend is about to sweep away millions of Obama-philes. This dramatic change in what is “cool” and new, is causing massive strife in the US, and all the democracies. Suddenly, almost without warning, Obama, and Muslim-o-philia, is no longer cool. He’s history. “Trend Wars.”
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d4906993e9ef7033836db3252c0d385cebe05a5aa81daec28a99338179dc0d07.jpg

          • aebe

            Jews often took up business or banking , as they were not allowed to own real property ( land , buildings) .

          • DemocracyRules

            aebe:
            Yes, that’s true. And thank goodness the Jews of Europe were willing to take up banking. Without Jewish bankers, the Renaissance may never have happened. Venice got rich from the ghetto. Venice traded all the way to China, by land and by sea. Every merchant needs a good banker. It was a Jewish banker who made Columbus’ voyage possible.

  • Tom Validakis

    I closed my Facebook account due to live real-time censorship over and over again. I never incited hate or violence yet when I was threatened to get my head cut off I took screenshots complained to the police and they did nothing.

  • Drew the Infidel

    Those in the media and politics who see fit to criticize Pamela for exercisng her constitutional liberties of freedom of expression need to be reminded that those constitutional liberties that allow her to do so are the very same liberites that allow the media and political discussion to even exist in the first place, “Fakebook” for example.

  • Louise Mitchell

    Pam is you are reading this when I go to share I get this Bad news first: This tab has crashed so I go to the url and copy and paste, then I get to post just thought you should know.

  • llrfu

    Hi Pam. I’m not on Social Media. If you see this, will contact me pls? Here in Canada, we can lay a “private charge”. That’s where any citizen-average, can walk into a courtroom, and request a charge, and act as a prosecutor. Facebook, now has an office in Toronto. Their actions are contrary to our anti-terrorist laws outlawing the promotion of terrorism. If you give me all your evidence – and I’ll get some from Rebel Media staff – I’ll proceed with a charge against them. llrfu@yahoo.ca

    • aebe

      Great idea . try this – Put up your own page denouncing islamitic terrorism , and go from there .

  • So, the leftist press will be the only press allowed to say anything? How Marxist! How Stalinist! But wait until some lefty says something the higher-ups don’t like. Then we’ll see a change in tune.

  • JustThinking

    Thank you Pam for taking on this most important fight. I was completely unaware of this law and its implications. I look forward to updates as the case progresses.

  • DemocracyRules

    “Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.” ~ Winston Churchill, Speech to the House of Commons, October 13, 1943

  • Platopus

    DOJ is rigged and justice is no longer blind sad sad day for America and the world.

  • Sunshine Kid

    Slam the government with the first amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    There is no requirement of “having standing” for any American citizen to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pin It on Pinterest