Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

from the [makes-popcorn-but-not-a-whole-lot-of-it] dept

Having failed to convince a federal court that multiple social media services are engaged in a First Amendment-thwarting conspiracy against far right sideshows like Laura Loomer, Larry Klayman is back with another federal lawsuit featuring his new favorite plaintiff. It's a defamation lawsuit that attempts to portray moderation explanations by Facebook as malicious statements meant to destroy Loomer's reputation.

Perhaps the best way to explain this lawsuit is to let Larry Klayman explain it in his own words:

Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a "dangerous individual" and a domestic Jewish terrorist.

Seems pretty straightforward, although it's difficult to see anything anyone says about Laura Loomer damaging her reputation. Klayman's press release says he's demanding 5% of Facebook's net worth for his client -- bringing the theoretical payday to over $3 billion. Saying this is "standard" for calculating punitive damages doesn't make this a standard damages request.

But there's more. Klayman is not content to let the facts do the talking. His press release offers plenty of speculation as well. And it's not just regular speculation. It's speculation riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Never write angry, folks.

Loomer has been a strong advocate not just for conservative causes, but also to stem the growing anti-Semitism in Congress and threat of Islamic terrorism. In this regard, she was banned by Facebook and Instagram by simply revealing the truth. Facebook and its CEO and founder Jeff Zuckerberg is a self-hating leftist Jew sympathetic of Islamic extremism. Klayman sued Zuckerberg and Facebook years ago for allegedly furthering a Palestinian Infitada calling for and which resulted in the death of Jews.

Have fun with that paragraph, commenters. It has since been corrected on Klayman's site, but those errors will live on forever at every website that publishes unaltered press releases as "news."

Anyway, the lawsuit is standard Klayman stuff, complete with an unsympathetic plaintiff. Unsympathetic plaintiffs need their rights defended and their grievances addressed, but it's tough to claim reputational damage when you're a self-sabotaging font of ignorance and bigotry.

The filing [PDF] claims Facebook defamed Loomer when it banned her from the platform. The initial statement by Facebook isn't defamatory and is merely an expression of its opinion of her dubious contributions to the public discourse.

In a statement released and published widely to the public in this district, nationally and internationally, Defendant Facebook explained their purported and false justification behind Ms. Loomer's ban:

We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.

In other words, Facebook moderators believe Laura Loomer is a promoter or perpetrator of violence and/or hate and had violated Facebook's rules once too often. Therefore, her accounts were banned. This is a statement of opinion that Klayman is attempting to portray as an unjustified and deliberate misrepresentation of Loomer and her posts.

In issuing the ban against Ms. Loomer, Defendant Facebook and its sister publication Instagram publicly designated her as “dangerous,” which publication was widely disseminated in this district, nationally and internationally.

Facebook offered more clarification on this moderation decision, which is also presented as defamatory, even though it isn't.

A spokesperson for Defendant Facebook represented and published that:

… such factors [for designating an individual as “dangerous”] include whether the person or organization has ever called for violence against individuals based on race, ethnicity, or national origin; whether the person has been identified with a hateful ideology; whether they use hate speech or slurs in their about section on their social media profiles; and whether they have had pages or groups removed from Facebook for violating hate speech rules.

While this statement appears pretty straightforward, Klayman clouds the issue by digging into Facebook's Community Standards. In doing so, Klayman attempts to put words into Facebook's mouth.

According to Defendant Facebook’s own posted Community Standards, “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” are defined as “organizations or individuals involved in the following: Terrorist activity, Organized hate, Mass or serial murder, Human trafficking, [or] Organized violence or criminal activity.”

Ms. Loomer does not fall, or come close to falling, within any of the defined groups set forth by Defendant Facebook.

Facebook did not say Loomer was a dangerous individual as defined by the Community Standards. It only stated why it had banned her from the platform, and gave its reasons for doing so -- none of which included portraying Loomer as a violent criminal.

In defense of Loomer and to counter Facebook's appraisal of Loomer, Klayman mysteriously offers up a random tweet by his client.

In fact, Ms. Loomer uses social media to call out anti-Semitism, Islamic terrorism, political violence, and violence against homosexuals, as just one example once having tweeted:

Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro- FGM Under Sharia homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish.

Ok then. Because of this assessment and banning, Facebook has apparently done $3 billion in damage to Loomer's otherwise unsullied reputation.

Plaintiff Loomer has been severely harmed and damaged by these and other false and misleading statements by Defendant Facebook, because they subjected her to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace, and the threat of severe bodily injury or death by those who are now lead to believe that she is dangerous and a domestic terrorist against Muslims in particular. Muslims and other extremists thus are now prone to retaliate against her and her life is in mortal danger.

Plaintiff Loomer has been severely damaged by these false and misleading statements because they damaged Plaintiff Loomer’s reputation and good will and severely harmed financially in her profession and business as a conservative investigative journalist, as well as personally.

While I don't doubt that Loomer being banned from Facebook and Instagram had a negative effect on Loomer's various schemes and self-promotion, it's a stretch to say it caused $3 billion in damage to her reputation and her livelihood. The lawsuit says Loomer's been subjected to "hatred, distrust, ridicule, content, and disgrace" since Facebook booted her, but come on: Loomer was being "subjected" to all of that long before Facebook pulled the plug.

Facebook is free to make whatever moderation decisions it wants. At least that's not what's being sued over this time. But trying to construe statements accompanying moderation decisions as defamation is going to be a tough sell. It needs a good salesperson to pitch it to federal judges. Unfortunately, Larry Klayman is the kind of salesperson who tends to get uninvited long before the product demonstration can even begin.

Filed Under: content moderation, defamation, jeff zuckerberg, larry klayman, laura loomer, mark zuckerberg, section 230
Companies: facebook


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 1:56pm

    Ma’am are you saying that Facebook is responsible for you getting fallout 76ed....
    Or that your website was of low quality and could not go one without it?😎

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Gary (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:00pm

    TOS Violations are real

    Without a TOS, Facebook wouldn't have a viable service. Anyone who thinks they can do it better is welcome to try.

    If the service was over run by nazi's and asshats, people wouldn't use it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:01pm

    The funny thing is, Klayman’s characterization of Zuckerberg looks more like a defamatory statement than anything Facebook said about Loomer ever will.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:02pm

    Well, people who don’t want to deal with Nazis, assholes, and spam everywhere, anyway.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:05pm

    if plaintiff-lawyer teamups can win cases like this, it's win-win-win for them, but if they lose, it's just win-win, unless they throw too much money at it. the ban and statement, and the complaint, only increase her rep with her target audience. she may even win over a few who weren't too interested or unaware previously. as for anyone who might not be on board with her schtick, her rep is already negative with them, and can hardly be "damaged". for anyone else, they probably wouldn't know or care unless she Streisands this out her little park.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:07pm

    Does anyone remember when lawyers were afraid of the bar imposing sanctions for stupid shit??? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    Thad (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    Lawyers like Klayman have never been afraid of sanctions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:11pm

    Re:

    Has that ever been a real threat? Based upon numerous lawyers stories on TD alone it seems lawyers can get away with just about anything and have to really go off the deep end before the bar gives a damn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm sure there's a bar, somewhere that gives a damn... but they probably serve alcohol

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:13pm

    Re:

    Gotta love the classic hypocritical bully behavior of 'You can't say that about me/my client, that's defamation! What I said doesn't count though because I'm just telling the truth(according to my opinion)!'

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I laughed at that, though it really shouldn't have been funny. The thought that bars that serve alcohol have higher standards for acceptable behavior than bars that (theoretically) keep watch over people that can cause significant damage in the courts is funny, but at the same time all sorts of messed up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    Thad (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:22pm

    Re: Re:

    Klayman's been sanctioned. Multiple times, in multiple ways, for 25 years. He doesn't care. He's not in the business of winning suits, he's in the business of generating publicity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 3:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    'Not the wrist slap, anything but the wrist slap that I can use for publicity that will vastly outweigh the pittance that you supposedly punished me with!'

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 4:07pm

    The reasoning behind the award seem to be pretty standard fare these days. To wit:

    1) [Insert internet megagiant here] has a [lot of/all of the] money.
    2) They should give it to [me/us]...
    3) ...because [Insert lame/feeble/flimsy/transparent/implausible/unlikely/pathetic/half-baked excuse here].

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 4:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think they are more about protecting their own until the climate or someone powerful enough demands an "example" be made.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 6:29pm

    Re: TOS Violations are real

    Unironically Mastodon. Which I think is superior to Facebook and Twitter.
    Unfortunately it's having a problem of its own (which isn't really a problem, but people construe it as being one), but it still has one of the most brilliant takes on filtering out riffraff on the internet.

    The problem is that Mastodon isn't Facebook and can't eat millions in marketing expenses just to get people using it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 6:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    There's a bar, it's just really, really low.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. icon
    Calvin (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 7:04pm

    I need to watch more TV

    I think I must be one of the few people who have never heard of this person.
    I think I need to dust off the TV and start watching it again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Jul 2019 @ 9:37pm

    And speaking of Mastodon…

    Noted right-wing shitpit Gab recently switched to the Mastodon protocol. The response from the Fediverse? Numerous Mastodon instances preëmptively blocked Gab from federation with said instances (Gab announced the switchover ahead of the actual date). A number of apps used to access Mastodon instances blocked out Gab by making sure a user couldn’t log in to a Gab-based instance. A few instances even took the step of defederating from any instances willing to tolerate (or even promote) federation with Gab instances.

    The assholes at Gab can broadcast their signal all they want. But that doesn’t mean other instances must accept it. As it turns out, a decentralized social media network largely built and inhabited by furries and queer people (among other groups) does a damn good job of making sure Nazis don’t get a foothold in the whole network.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2019 @ 9:38pm

    alt right nut vs. DevilCorp

    Classic motherfucker vs. cocksucker.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    John Snape (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 1:16am

    That's laughable

    "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology."

    Like Antifa:

    https://www.facebook.com/Los-Angeles-Antifa-698064250400658/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups /PortlandAntifa/

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. icon
    PaulT (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 3:38am

    Re:

    And good on them for it

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2019 @ 7:53am

    Re: That's laughable

    Most people stop worrying about the bogeyman by this age.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2019 @ 8:11am

    Re: That's laughable

    Can you point to any specific posts made by those groups that cross the line and violate Facebook's ToS? Or do you think they should be banned because you don't like them?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. icon
    John Snape (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 9:00am

    Are you serious?

    "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUu46J_OHQ4

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. icon
    Koby (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 11:12am

    Re: TOS Violations are real

    Interestingly, social media originally gained popularity by allowing anything and everything to be posted on their sites. Now that they have gained market dominance, they are going back on their original model.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2019 @ 11:26am

    Re: Are you serious?

    That video clip proves nothing in the context of your original comment (what is the connection between the people in the footage to the Facebook groups you linked to), but a nice goal post move.

    Now why don't you show me a Facebook post that shows that they are "... individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence..." that are from the specific groups that you pointed to earlier??

    If you cannot show me a post from either of those two facebook groups that violate the facebook ToS, then what is your argument?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 5:43pm

    What proof can you offer that the specific antifascist groups linked in your original post have promoted or committed acts of violence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 13 Jul 2019 @ 7:10pm

    Re:

    The pink elephants told him so, and elephants wouldn't lie, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2019 @ 7:28pm

    Re: Are you serious?

    So that’s a no then. Thank for playing bro.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2019 @ 7:43pm

    Re: That's laughable but not in the way you think

    Oh, you’re the idiot who doesn’t know the difference between public and private. How unsurprising you also make sad assed Antifa strawmen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 14 Jul 2019 @ 5:40am

    Filing a defamation suit based solely on false claims made by the plaintiff?

    That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. icon
    John Snape (profile), 14 Jul 2019 @ 6:03am

    Re: Re: Are you serious?

    Now why don't you show me a Facebook post that shows that they are "... individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence..." that are from the specific groups that you pointed to earlier??

    I linked to Portland Antifa, who are in the video explicitly saying they use violence as a means to an end.

    https://youtu.be/kUu46J_OHQ4?t=86

    By any means necessary includes violence and murder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Jul 2019 @ 6:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?

    possibly. But since we all know that filters are never 100% accurate, and you decided to whine here rather than report it to YouTube a single example is pretty meaningless.

    I’ll just pose the question I usually pose - since there’s nothing stopping you whiny bitches from setting up your own platform rather than whine about how the popular platforms don’t accept you, why are you not doing that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2019 @ 8:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?

    You keep posting a link to a YouTube video. What the fuck all does that have to do with Facebook?

    Why can't you just answer the simple question that has been asked so that you can prove your point. Where are the Facebook posts that show them being a violent group and violating the Facebook ToS?

    Let me break it down for you. You linked to two Facebook groups that you state are "... individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence..." but have yet to show us a single post made by either of those two groups that would back-up your claim about them promoting or engaging in violence.

    Instead, you keep linking to a YouTube video, where yes, they talk about violence, in that one instance, in that one video, from that one group of people who claim to be Portland Antifa, but so what? Is that from where you are basing your argument? It's a damn CNN news clip, so even then it doesn't show them "... promoting or engaging in violence ..." Yes, they may talk about it, but again, it's a fucking news clip. You have yet to show us the smoking gun.

    Why is it so fucking hard for you to show us a concrete example of one of the two groups you have linked to posting things on Facebook that is against their ToS and is promoting or engaging in violence. If it's so prevalent, then it should be something easily done, so where is your proof?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. icon
    John Snape (profile), 14 Jul 2019 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?

    Why is it so fucking hard for you to show us a concrete example of one of the two groups you have linked to posting things on Facebook that is against their ToS and is promoting or engaging in violence.

    Where in the following statement does it say the promotion of violence has to be posted to Facebook?

    "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 12:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?

    Where in the following statement does it say the promotion of violence has to be posted to Facebook?

    "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today."

    Where in that statement does it say they look outside of their own platform when making those decisions?

    The only proof that you have is some hyperbolic rhetoric found in a CNN news clip. Is that really from where you're basing your entire argument as to why those two facebook groups should be banned and haven't?

    If you think that those two groups should be banned from Facebook, then maybe you should report them and send in that Youtube link as evidence and see how far you get with that.

    Sometimes you need to just put down that shovel.....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 5:09am

    Re: TOS Violations are real

    Except that everyone's a Nazi these days. Remember the "Punch a Nazi" stuff? When it was directed at regular people who happened to be Trump supporters?

    Oh wait, I'm betting most of you think that Trump supporters are Nazis as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 5:10am

    Re:

    The only shitpit I see is the crap that came out of your keyboard to be plastered all over this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 5:12am

    Re: That's laughable

    Dunno why people flagged your comment.

    Then again, truth isn't popular around here these days.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 5:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?

    You know that Facebook bans people for what they do OFF-SITE as well, right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 5:14am

    Re:

    Besides being Antifa?

    Besides Antifa attacking Andy Ngo?

    Unless you're one of those who goes "well, he should have known better" when it came to the Antifa violence against that journalist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. icon
    Gary (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re:

    The only shitpit I see

    Oh - please tell us more about your love of the Nazi party?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 10:12am

    I’m sorry, did I insult Gab too much for your liking? Too bad so sad buh-bye.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 10:15am

    Given how Trump stands a few steps away from becoming a full-bore military dictator, and how he and the GOP have enabled fascistic governmental behavior up to (and coming damn close to) ignoring Supreme Court rulings, and how hardcore Trump supporters take no issue with anything he does (especially to non-White immigrants)? I mean, if the SS armband fits…

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 10:17am

    Antifascist groups are not a monolith. The actions of one antifa group do not represent the actions of all antifa groups.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. icon
    Gary (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 10:31am

    Re:

    Armbands? Red Hats.
    Concentration Camps? #Trumpcamps

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?

    He's just reeeee-ing about the boogeyman as a distraction because his hero just got more sentencing today.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    John Snape (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 4:26pm

    Re:

    Yes, Trump is such a brutal, fascist dictator that you now have to worry about being snatched in the dead of night at any moment and whisked away to the firing squad in the town square for your insolence.

    Oh, wait, no you don't. The fiction you've built up in your mind is false.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    John Snape (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 4:27pm

    Re: Re: That's laughable

    What do you think they'll do when Trump is out of office and they don't have their boogeyman anymore?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2019 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re:

    have to worry about being snatched in the dead of night at any moment and whisked away

    ICE raids?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 10:36pm

    Simultaneously criticize whoever’s in charge and hope they’re a better president (and person) than Trump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. icon
    PaulT (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 10:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: That's laughable

    Hopefully repair the massive damage the man has done to your country both home and abroad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 Jul 2019 @ 10:58pm

    Oh, Trump isn’t that far gone. (Yet.) But considering how his administration is putting “undesirables” (read: asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants) in concentration camps and Trump himself is doing everything he can to dehumanize those Repugnant Cultural Others so fewer people will care about those Others dying…well, it doesn’t take a genius to see where that shit is headed. And that destination won’t make America great again.

    Also: You can stop claiming what my beliefs are for the sake of making a weak-ass retort. Your fiction is not fact.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. icon
    John Snape (profile), 16 Jul 2019 @ 3:52am

    Re:

    I haven't won the lottery. (Yet.) But any day now I'm guaranteed to win the jackpot! Can't you see it?!?!?!?! It's gonna happen!!!!!!!

    Your hyperbolic scaremongering is the same as Alex Jones' 'FEMA camps' ridiculousness. Congratulations! You've earned the same dismissive mockery and derision typically reserved for buffoons like Jones.

    And how is it dehumanizing to uphold the law?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. icon
    Gary (profile), 16 Jul 2019 @ 5:19am

    Re: Re:

    Your hyperbolic scaremongering is the same as Alex Jones' 'FEMA camps' ridiculousness.

    This is demonstrably false. Unless you are saying the camps themselves are actually a fiction made up by the mainstream press?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. icon
    Gary (profile), 16 Jul 2019 @ 5:37am

    Re:

    Antifascist groups are not a monolith. The actions of one antifa group do not represent the actions of all antifa groups.

    White Power groups however are heavily cross-linked, often supported by the local police, and 100% behind Trump. Hmmm.

    The only requirement to be Antifa "Hate Fascists." So I have zero problem with that.

    A right-wing reporter got shoved by an Antifa - how many times have the Police beaten the press and I still don't see an outcry from the right to ban the police.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Jul 2019 @ 5:40am

    People — and yes, they are people — have died in the government-run concentration camps. (More people will likely die there in the future, too.) Trump began his campaign for the 2016 election by likening Mexicans to rapists and thugs. And damn near every action taken by the Trump administration works toward a goal of cruelty towards anyone who isn’t a (White Christian male) Trump voter. You can miss me with the idea that I’m “hyperbolic” when I talk about the Trump administration.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. icon
    John Snape (profile), 16 Jul 2019 @ 8:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    They're not death camps. That's just stupid.

    You and Stephen T. Stone seem to be roaming these comment sections tag-teaming to spread false information.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2019 @ 11:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They're not death camps. That's just stupid.

    Just because they don't gas the people (and other atrocities), that does not mean in the slightest that they are not concentration camps:

    concentration camp
    n.

    1. A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable.
    2. A place or situation in which extremely harsh conditions are imposed by those in authority.

    Source: American Heritage Dictionary

    Unless you feel that you are above the American Heritage Dictionary, then I think I can safely say that it is more than appropriate to call them concentration camps!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2019 @ 12:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "They're not death camps"

    Neither was Auschwitz, originally.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. icon
    PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2019 @ 12:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Just because they don't gas the people (and other atrocities), that does not mean in the slightest that they are not concentration camps"

    Exactly. The Nazis might have used them as extermination camps at the end of their reign, but they didn't start out like that. The corruption of the original term does not mean they're not applicable here.

    But, it's nice to see that in the discussion of real human suffering and barbaric treatment of people, sometimes for no crime, the real issue in these peoples' minds is which particular word is used to describe them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.