GoFundMe shut down Candace Owens' account for attacking George Floyd's Character

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThinkingSapien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ThinkingSapien

Guest
www.businessinsider.com

GoFundMe shut down Candace Owens' account for attacking George Floyd's character, saying she spread 'falsehoods against the black community'

It came after Owens raised more than $200,000 for an Alabama bar whose co-owner called Floyd a "thug."
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
  • GoFundMe on Sunday suspended the conservative commentator Candace Owens from its platform.
  • Owens’ account was suspended after raising more than $200,000 for an Alabama bar whose co-owner called George Floyd a “thug.”
  • In a statement, GoFundMe said Owens “spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community.”
  • Last Friday, Owens also told the conservative radio host Glenn Beck: “The fact that he has been held up as a martyr sickens me.”
GoFundMe suspended the conservative activist Candace Owens from its platform on Sunday after she raised more than $200,000 for an Alabama business whose co-owner called George Floyd a “thug.”

In a statement on Sunday, GoFundMe accused Owens of making “falsehoods against the black community,” according to The Daily Beast.

The more than $200,000 that was raised for the Parkside Cafe in Birmingham, Alabama, will still be transferred to the bar, however.

“GoFundMe has suspended the account associated with Candace Owens and the GoFundMe campaign has been removed because of a repeated pattern of inflammatory statements that spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community at a time of profound national crisis,” the company said in a statement. “These actions violate our terms of service.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1269611223135465475

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Owens, who is black, responded to the campaign being canceled in a tweet, writing that she was “angry that such a blatant form of discrimination is acceptable by GoFundMe.”

“There was NOTHING intolerant or violent about raising funds to help a conservative business owner,” Owens wrote.

The Parkside Cafe became the center of controversy last week when an employee shared a text sent by a co-owner, Michael Dykes, in which he threatened to hike up prices as part of a “protest tax,” according to AL.com.

“We should go up one or two dollars on everything until June 10th. Call it a protest tax because all the idiots that went to the protests are responsible for us not being able to open normal hours,” Dykes wrote.

“Any employees that went or are going should resign. Mr. Floyd was a thug, didn’t deserve to die but honoring a thug is irresponsible.”

Dykes later apologized for his comments in an interview with AL.com, saying he “let everybody down” and “never intended any harm.”

[…]
 
Many things to consider here. One is censorship: is it ever permissible? I am generally opposed to censorship (of books, films, online statements, whatever); but how about when statements have an adverse effect on the country or on individuals, such as a “suicide instructional kit” or a plan to assassinate the POTUS? Would most of us want an online company to censor these items? I would think so. Now, does what Candace Owens did rise to this level of threat or danger to people or society? Probably not, but some may disagree. If you do, please tell us why.

Another issue: to what extent does a private company have the right to include or ban material on its own website? Those of you who say no, think back to what you may have said about store owners who have every right not to sell “gay wedding cakes” because doing so would violate their religious convictions. Perhaps in the current case, posting such material violates the religious (or moral) conscience of the owners of the website. Is there a difference here? If so, please point out the difference.

Those are a couple of thoughts that come to mind. I am sure others will have more to say about this.
 
Last edited:
Go fund me takes a percentage of what they raise, so if they didn’t want a proceeds from a fundraiser that called Floyd Martin a thug, they were in their right.

I am pretty sure there a number of disclaimers how the site can be used.

One thing I don’t understand how conservative values include calling the victim of violence a “thug”.
 
Is the black community actually making him a hero? I haven’t gotten that sense from them…more that he’s another example of police brutality.

Judge not, lest ye be judged?
 
So you believe her views and actions should be censored?
 
GoFundMe is a private entity and as such it has the right to create its own terms of service. Owens has the right to spew all kinds of garbage. She doesn’t have the right to do so on forums that won’t have it. Sort of like CAF…
 
My opinion (though no one asked me) is that she has every right to have her views. She has every right to post them on her blog or whenever she’s asked about them. Businesses also have the right to control users and can have limits on what they tolerate on their own sites.

I realize that this is censorship but companies…not the government…have the right to censor their content. We approve or disapprove of the businesses actions with our usage of their product. What President Trump issued an Executive Order regarding Twitter will be interesting to see played out. When 220 came about was due to companies being sued for content from their customers. It was a protection for the business that didn’t create those comments…they just provided a platform for comments. Businesses were to decide the limits of the comments they would allow or not. According to that law, Trumps comment was not censored, it was just tagged as challenging Twitters policy. He didn’t like it. For someone that feels that government shouldn’t be so restrictive on businesses, that seems to only be true if they don’t restrict him. I think the EO will be thrown out.

Candice Owens seems to have violated a terms of service for GFM. They have the right to stop the campaign and she didn’t like it, either. She is perfectly free to start her own Fund Me type campaign on her own.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
So you believe her views and actions should be censored?
Click to expand...
A private company is not forced to provide a platform for extremist views, such as for the Holocaust deniers. Free speech involves freedom from government intervention.

If a corporation censors speech (or access to communication tools) it should be criticized by those who object to the corporation’s actions. Illegal discrimination does not include discriminatory acts based on a person’s political persuasion or political views.
 
GoFundMe is a relatively modern convention, relative to other web concepts like google, Wikipedia, AltaVista (kidding). I don’t like these websites that appear to be selective in their offenses and censorship, especially since it generally seems one-sided, but in reality, it can’t be that hard to raise money for a cause without GoFundMe.com.
 
I prefer Brandon Tatum to Candace Owens, but I think bucking a decades old trend and trying to get people of color to see politics through a different lens is not a bad thing, do you?

My boy:
 
Last edited:
Dr_Meinheimer said:
I prefer Brandon Tatum to Candace Owens, but I think bucking a decades old trend and trying to get people of color to see politics through a different lens is not a bad thing, do you?

My boy:
Click to expand...
It’s not a bad thing in and of itself. But I’d put Owens in the same group as Ben Shapiro, and that’s just one step shy of Alex Jones. They troll in unfounded conspiracy theories and pollute the national consciousness.
 
I disagree, but thanks for explaining. Ben Shapiro is my favorite Jewish man since Rod Carew.
 
I may not agree with Candace but seeing a company banning her for her political view (interpreted as hate speech by a certain political ideology) will tell me to stay away from GoFundMe.

One danger in us all cancelling and boycotting each other is living in increasingly fragmented societies.

Different papers, internet sites, banks, transport systems, gyms, laundaries and funding services etc.

I guess that will be the ultimate victory of diversity.
 
Last edited:
Cite a case that Ben Shaprio trolls in unfounded conspiracy theories.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
One is censorship: is it ever permissible?
Click to expand...
By default I think it is (in the USA) provided it isn’t the government doing it. The exception being communications over public airways.
meltzerboy2 said:
or a plan to assassinate the POTUS?
Click to expand...
That might be treated as a conspiracy in the criminal sense of the word.
meltzerboy2 said:
Another issue: to what extent does a private company have the right to include or ban material on its own website?
Click to expand...
Their latitude to do this will be generally wide. If the user has laid for services then there may be restrictions from explicit and implied contracts. In either case though it would be a good idea to check out the ToS before clicking on the “I Agree” button.
 
silentwitness said:
I may not agree with Candace but seeing a company banning her for her political view (interpreted as hate speech by a certain political ideology) will tell me to stay away from GoFundMe.
Click to expand...
I might agree with you if GoFundMe were a media platform for political debates. But when I think of GoFundMe, I think of charitable fundraisers, not political campaigns. I don’t know if Democratic candidates use GoFundMe to fund their campaigns or not, but if they do, I would oppose that too. GoFundMe should be for victims of cancer, struggling new businesses, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top