Further evidence of The Rise of Anti-Christian Sentiment in the West

Received today from Professor Augusto Zimmermann in WA.

Dear Friend,

I would like to call your attention to a very serious matter.

As you know, I am organising in Perth a major conference on religious freedom entitled ‘Religious Freedom at the Crossroads – The Rise of Anti-Christian Sentiment in the West’

To be held at Sheridan College between 14-15 June 2019, our list of speakers/moderators includes some our finest legal minds in Australia – Neville Rochow QC, Christopher Brohier, John Gilmour QC, Martyn Isles, and many otherms.

Our keynote speaker is none other than a leading American constitutional lawyer, the Distinguished Emeritus Professor William Wagner of Western Michigan University, Thomas Cooley Law School.

And yet, our historical legal-academic conference on religious freedom has been arbitrarily CENSORED by Facebook.

As seen attached, Facebook arbitrarily refuses to allow us to post any information about the forthcoming religious freedom conference.

Facebook simply claims that our religious freedom conference has VIOLATED COMMUNITY STANDARDS.

This is absolutely appalling and it objectively constitutes an egregious instance of censorship of ideas on social media.

Perhaps the PM’s idea of combating ‘right-wing extremism’ on social media has already started to produce its unintended consequences…

Religious freedom is most definitely at the crossroads and Facebook has just proven the point.

I guess this only reveals a DESPERATE NEED to hold a legal conference of this nature in Australia.

May I please ask you a favour?

Religious freedom is DEFINITELY at stake in Australia. Please consider heavily PROMOTING THIS EVENT and AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

Below are the relevant details about this important conference that has been ARBITRARILY CENSORED BY FACEBOOK.

I am proud to have gathered a ‘dream team’ of leading lawyers and legal academics in the field.

Thank you very much in anticipation for you kind attention.

Warm regards,

Prof Augusto Zimmermann

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Further evidence of The Rise of Anti-Christian Sentiment in the West

  1. stackja

    Perhaps the PM’s idea of combating ‘right-wing extremism’ on social media has already started to produce its unintended consequences…

    It seems Christianity is viewed as ‘right-wing extremism’.

  2. stackja

    I just copied date and place of event to my Facebook page. Will see what happens.

  3. Tim Neilson

    Perhaps the PM’s idea of combating ‘right-wing extremism’ on social media has already started to produce its unintended consequences…

    Unintended by ScoMo perhaps. It would definitely be seen as a feature, not a bug, by most of the cheer squad for ScoMo’s special effort.

  4. LGS

    stackja
    #2982403, posted on April 8, 2019 at 2:18 pm

    Perhaps the PM’s idea of combating ‘right-wing extremism’ on social media has already started to produce its unintended consequences…

    It seems Christianity is viewed as ‘right-wing extremism’.

    Whereas, Islamic extremism (vastly more deadly and insidious) is a “mere irritant” according to one of its local apologists.

  5. Pyrmonter

    Facebook is a private enterprise (as is this blog).

    When and why has it become bound to carry Dr Zimmerman’s advertising? Would he be happy if his or Neville Rochow’s social media were, say, required to carry advertising for, say, the Loyal Orange Institution, or the Book of Mormon, the Musical?

  6. John Brumble

    Pyrmonter,

    Most countries have laws against companies acting in a misleading and/or deceptive manner. If Facebook were honest about why they were censoring this event, then there is no issue. But they aren’t. So there is.

  7. Driftforge

    When and why has it become bound to carry Dr Zimmerman’s advertising? Would he be happy if his or Neville Rochow’s social media were, say, required to carry advertising for, say, the Loyal Orange Institution, or the Book of Mormon, the Musical?

    Since it achieved a technical monopoly and thus becomes a defacto public utility.

  8. Rococo Liberal

    When and why has it become bound to carry Dr Zimmerman’s advertising?

    WHen it offered a service to allow people to post things on the platform, as long as the posters abided by the rules.
    IN this case it would appear that Facebook has breached its contract with a customer.

  9. Tim Neilson

    When and why has it become bound to carry Dr Zimmerman’s advertising?

    Facebook claims immunity from liability for what’s posted on it, on the utterly false grounds that it’s a “common carrier” like a phone company.

    If that’s overtly and unqualifiedly stripped from it, then I’ve got no problems with it then being permitted to choose its customers (though I’d still personally regard its decision in this case as a sign of the moral cesspit in which it operates).

    How can anyone dispute ScoMo’s decision to make the FANGs liable for terrorist pronouncements if they’re allowed to do stuff like this?

    My personal preference would be for the FANGs to start acting like common carriers, but if they don’t they need to be sued out of existence by everyone who gets defamed by their customers, and their execs need to be jailed whenever a terrorist does use their product.

  10. 2dogs

    The Rise of Anti-Christian Sentiment in the West

    Is it time for Christian Separatism?

  11. areff

    Anyone notice this at the foot of Chris Kenny”s column in the oz?

    Footnote: In the column on Monday April 1 Chris Kenny incorrectly claimed that ABC Radio National’s The Bookshelf presenters Kate Evans and Cassie McCullagh joked on air about ‘murdering conservatives’. The comments were in fact directed towards art “conservators”. The Australian apologises for the error.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/abc-causes-twitter-meltdown/news-story/738a4e7dd996658d326969c49e450b70

    Still laughing.

  12. Old Lefty

    There is reporting coming out of the US exposing the Southern Poverty Law Centre as the corrupt totalitarian leftist political racket that it has always been. Don’t expect, of course, to see such reporting on ‘our’ ABC, which treats the SPLC with reverential awe.

  13. 2dogs

    The comments were in fact directed towards art “conservators”.

    That doesn’t make the comments okay.

  14. Chris M

    Facebook is only for boomers and is thankfully dying out with them. And hopefully twitter goes broke soon, get rid of all this trash and put a few more intolerant and censorious lefty juveniles on the dole.

  15. Iampeter

    Further evidence of The Rise of Anti-Christian Sentiment in the West

    Um, the West IS anti-Christian, by definition. That’s the whole point of our civilization. It’s the worlds first secular and rational culture.

    Maybe you cargo cultists should learn the basics before you worry about organizing talks about anything.

  16. Iampeter

    Facebook is a private enterprise (as is this blog).

    You’re wasting your breath here.
    Cat posters don’t even understand the concepts of things like property rights, or free speech and don’t realize they have the same positions as socialists or any other leftist.
    They are the politically illiterate, arm of the left wing.

  17. Rococo Liberal

    You’re wasting your breath here.
    Cat posters don’t even understand the concepts of things like property rights, or free speech and don’t realize they have the same positions as socialists or any other leftist.
    They are the politically illiterate, arm of the left wing.

    This is a question of contract. Facebook are breaching their terms. It is a very right wing idea to uphold the law of contract, which is the bedrock of classical liberalism. Property rights cannnot and should not be asserted against a contract. If a person enters into an agreement, he can’t breach that agreement by asserting his property rights.

  18. CameronH

    Anything that deviates from left wing orthodoxy will be labelled right wing and banned. ScoMo is so ignorant of how the left works. We have examples of far left wing extremism every day with no reaction from the PM at all.

  19. Dr Fred Lenin

    Dont worry about right wingers, when the NBN is a full monopoly the progressive governments will be able to round the dissenters up for re eduction , I tracking their internet useage . And you all though krudd and conway were a pair of tossers ,really cunning plan that NBN was ,worthy of their soviet omrades

  20. dover_beach

    Facebook is a private enterprise (as is this blog).

    Driftforge and RL put forward two very good reasons as to why the above is a clown nose argument.

    BTW, hello IamMengele!

  21. Iampeter

    This is a question of contract. Facebook are breaching their terms.

    Is it contract or Facebooks terms? Because those are two different things.
    Unless there’s a specific contract here, which there isn’t, there’s no contract issue.
    Facebook’s terms on the other hand, can be whatever Facebook wants them to be. You either agree with them unconditionally, or don’t use Facebook. But that does not make it an issue of contract. Like I said, there seems to be total confusion about the absolute basics.

    But worse still, this “professor” is suggesting they are “censoring” him.
    Conservatives are so confused about all the fundamentals that they think they can control the speech of private enterprise otherwise they are being censored. This is beyond parody.

    This guy has no business discussing politics, or the West, or anything relating to these topics.
    But then to be fair, neither does anyone in the conservative movement.

  22. Kneel

    “Um, the West IS anti-Christian, by definition.”

    Wrong.
    “Secular” does NOT mean “anti-Christian”, nor “anti-Muslim”, nor “atheist” – it means “agnostic”. It means that you can worship who-ever, how-ever and when-ever you like (with the usual caveats regarding others freedoms).

  23. Kneel

    “Cat posters don’t even understand the concepts of things like property rights, or free speech and don’t realize they have the same positions as socialists or any other leftist.”

    Meanwhile, Iampeter has no idea of what a “common carrier” is and why, if Facechook claims status as one, they cannot censor anything on their own.
    The point is, if FaceChook say “we didn’t say it, they did!”, then they can’t say “we will censor you”. Alternately, they can censor all they like and be responsible for everything on their site.
    They want the best of both worlds – censoring whatever they dislike and also claiming it’s not their responsibility what is posted.
    Someone will eventually make a legal case about this…

  24. Joshua

    Iampeter, you need to stop. I don’t think you realise just how ridiculous you sound.

  25. dover_beach

    IamMengele is Dunning-Kruger cubed.

  26. rickw

    Christianity stands between The Left and their objectives. It must be destroyed and now it can be destroyed, Christians are now minorities in their own countries.

  27. Tim Neilson

    This is a question of contract. Facebook are breaching their terms.

    Facebook’s terms on the other hand, can be whatever Facebook wants them to be. You either agree with them unconditionally, or don’t use Facebook. But that does not make it an issue of contract. Like I said, there seems to be total confusion about the absolute basics.

    Poor old Iamashiteater. Hopelessly wrong yet again.

    Facebook offers a service on terms.

    The customer accepts.

    That’s a contract, even if there’s no possibility of negotiation.

    And if RL is correct that Facebook are breaching their terms, then Facebook is breaching the contract.

    Stop it now Iamashiteater. There comes a point where your Dunning-Kruger effect megalomaniac conceit, ignorance and wrongology becomes offensive rather than pitiable.

  28. Tel

    Meanwhile, Iampeter has no idea of what a “common carrier” is and why, if Facechook claims status as one, they cannot censor anything on their own.

    There’s no way in the world Facebook can claim common carrier status. It’s about as plausible as your local florist claiming common carrier status because she will fill in the card for you. Actually … less plausible.

  29. Tel

    Is it contract or Facebooks terms? Because those are two different things.

    Go learn something about contract law. The threshold is a “meeting of the minds”, where both parties agree.

    Facebook’s terms on the other hand, can be whatever Facebook wants them to be. You either agree with them unconditionally, or don’t use Facebook. But that does not make it an issue of contract.

    Yes it does.

    https://www.corneyandlind.com.au/resource-centre/commercial/enforceability-of-online-contracts-click-wrap-agreement/

    A click-wrap agreement is an electronic agreement where the terms and conditions of the agreement are located on the same page as the “I agree” button. Consumers are usually required to scroll through all the terms and conditions and then take positive action by clicking “I Agree” before being able to proceed. This form of agreement is highly likely to be enforceable as a contract.

    Facebook has already agreed to the contract simply by posting those terms. The user explicitly agrees.

    Besides that, Facebook is regularly being dishonest about the whole idea of “Community Standards” … it might fall into the category of straight out trading in bad faith. A standard is what it says: standard. If you apply the rules inconsistently then by definition you don’t have a standard.

  30. Pyrmonter

    @ Roccoco Liberal

    A contract trumps proprietary rights? What then of the traditional distinction between a licence to occupy and a lease?

  31. Fess

    Not religious myself but have an old friend who is an Anglican priest. Good guy too – the best. If he wears his clerical collar in public people spit on him and threaten him. Bloody appalling. Imagine the stink if people were spitting on muslim or Buddhist clerics. It seems the old communist war on Christianity is succeeding in the West.

  32. Kneel

    “A contract trumps proprietary rights?”

    No, properties and the rights pertaining to them are defined by contracts – it’s “my” house until we sign a contract and settle, then it’s “yours”. FaceChook makes money from their users, which is why they can offer the service at no charge. But it’s still a service, and FaceChook needs to abide by the terms they themselves wrote. Given the large – almost monopolistic – nature of FaceChook, it would be feasible to prosecute not just a breech of contract, but also an anti-trust case against them based on their failure to meet conditions agreed and their dominance in the market – in my opinion, of course.

  33. Iampeter

    Derp, another thread of imbeciles, posting confused shit, that makes teenage Marxists seem smart.

    Don’t worry guys, you keep fighting the good fight against contracts, free speech and property rights, through sheer ignorance. Someone’s gotta fill that critical gap in our political discourse of socialists and fascists too stupid to realize they are socialists and fascists.

    Hey Steve, feel free to step in at any point. You know, you’ve made threads claiming to be against socialism, feel free to prove that you know what you’re talking about right here.

    This thread is beyond a joke, why don’t you educate your clearly clueless readers? Don’t you know any better? If not, why are you posting on a Libertarian, Centre-Rights blog? Why don’t you go to GetUp where you belong?

  34. dover_beach

    IamMengele, your words are worthless. Begone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.