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

[toabb]

Ben Shapiro is my favorite Jewish man since Rod Carew.

Bit OT, but Rod Carew ins’t jewish. Married a jewish women and raised his kids jewish.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

What?!? Alright, he’s off my list. Hank Greenberg it is.

 

[YADA]

I think Candace Owen’s was very animated and emotional in the post about George Floyd. She is a passionate speaker. And she sometimes has a combative style. She said multiple times that Mr Floyd was murdered and that was wrong and the murderer should be punished. She stated Floyd and family deserved justice,

She also said she did not think he should be martyred and portrayed as a hero. In her experience and thought - she feels that this is a problem in the African American community. She does not believe that this is helpful or good for her community. A person can disagree with her, but she is entitled to her feelings and opinion.

I would also bet that if George Floyd had been a white person and all of the remaining facts were the same - the same video, same timing of the knee on neck, same counterfeit bill, same criminal history, same drugs in his pockets and in his blood stream, the same story of turning his life around - literally no one would be lifting him up as a paragon of virtue.

Which I think was what she was talking about … that victims like David Dorn - whose life was taken in the rioting and who lived 77 years giving back to his community, worked hard, was obviously good at his work and who was a strong family man and friend … Crickets …

But she supports the President, escaped “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” [phrase credit - Star Parker a good read by the way] and has been misquoted as supporting by Representative Ted Lieu in congressional testimony … so she has learned to be combative because she feels she has to be.

And today, it seems people/businesses are being pressured to sensor and shut down all opposing views that are not of the progressive bent … look at the Mayor of Minneapolis … he does not support de-funding the police and they ran him off. Tom Cotton wrote an editorial and said in all else fails, the military should be called to restore order and an editor losses his job. It is really sad … no dialogue, no debate … that is where labeling people as racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc is used to shut down discourse

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Tom Cotton wrote an editorial and said in all else fails, the military should be called to restore order and an editor losses his job. It is really sad … no dialogue

There was dialog in the form of the subscribers and employees of the NYT expressing objection and disappointment both in text and by unsubscribing and a text response from the NYT )where one spends their money is considered speech). If so.eone does something objectionable nolonger directing money their way is one way to object.

Ex: Netflix added a show by Michelle Wolf that had some jokes about abortion. Understandable there were people (including some here on CAF) that reported sharing their feelings with Netflix and cancelling their service.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, he was a victim of violence, and Dykes admits he didn’t deserve to die, but that in no way means we need to deify him, i.e., he was no saint.

 

[YADA]

I do not disagree about a person making a decision to not support a company, I have done that myself. However, that is a far cry from actually eliminating a person’s right to express their views - which is what an editorial section of a news organization is for. I dont ask for people to be fired merely because I dont like their message. I can decide which newspapers to subscribe to or not.

When a person can state that an injustice was done - he did state that what happened to George Floyd was awful and decry the riots and looting and interruption to his business - also true … and have his business attacked - it weird and totally unjust … that is the same thing Candace Owens stated.

It is troubling that this “safe space” and “Cancel culture” has taken such a hold in the country. This is a form of thought policing that has reached epidemic proportions in the country. There is no longer free speech in America. We are no longer a free people and our freedom to worship and associate is eroding. Not sure about you - but I find this appalling.

I found what happened to George Floyd appalling … I can also find what happened during the riots appalling, I find the murder of David Dorn appalling and the now over a dozen other deaths during the riots appalling and totally unjustified and unhelpful. Police brutality is awful and needs to be prosecuted - however that is not the biggest issue plaguing the African American community - in my opinion. … So now the PC police can get me fired for holding that opinion and call me a racist in America today

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However, that is a far cry from actually eliminating a person’s right to express their views

People can still express their views. Generally speaking others are not obligated to assist in sharing and hosting those views.

It is troubling that this “safe space” and “Cancel culture” has taken such a hold in the country.

It’s kind of an old thing with a new name. Going after the economic interest of those with which there is disagreement has happened since before the creation of the USA.

There is no longer free speech in America.

“Free Speech” in the USA Constitutional sense of the phrase only prohibits the government from taking action against someone’s speech. It does not guarantee someone protections from the reactions of private citizens and private entities.

Also, we have never had absolute free speech.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

What GoFundMe did is all well and good; as a private company they can do that.

But … like Twitter, they should now lose their section 230 exemption as they, like Twitter, have taken on the role of an editor.

The progressives braying for “cancel” culture ought to watch out that they aren’t the first ones lined up to be “canceled” themselves in the subsequent Reign of Terror-like frenzy.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But … like Twitter, they should now lose their section 230 exemption as they, like Twitter, have taken on the role of an editor.

I keep hearing that argument raised, and things like this have come up in court arguments. As recent as a few weeks ago the courts have ruled otherwise. That stance is also contrary to the stated purpose of Section 230 immunity. It was created to facilitate private entities and their users removing content that they find objectionable. Prior to 1996, the stance that you are describing would have been applicable. Since then there has been plenty of case law reaffirming the boundaries. Under that stance, if CAF ever removed anyone’s post then CAF would be liable for every posts that any user here makes.

See Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co.

Immunity on an item isn’t applicable to any content for which the host has had some involvement in authoring. There was a website named Back Page on which people offered questionable and at times illegal services. Back Page tried to use section 230 immunity when the authorities were looking into the content. But since they had actually provided assistance to some of the people that were advertising illegal services by telling them what they could do to increase their hit rates Back Page was considered in part an author of the posts and thus immunity did not apply to those posts in question.

A similar concept would be a book store, which is not generally liable for the content of the books that they sell. However, if a book store discovered that a book has content that they find objectionable that store is free to stop selling that book. But not selling that book does not result in them being liable for the content in all the other books that they sell.

Now if they decided to edit the content of a book then they would find themselves in a different situation of being considered one of the authors of the content.

 

[tomarin]

Who is her intended audience? Just curious.

 

[YADA]

I would imagine she speaks to anyone who will listen … I have observed that she speaks to people who are interested in causes she champions and or opposes and who she feels is being hurt and helped in the areas of her interest … I also believe she want people to do better in their lives and opportunities.

 

[josie_L]

Her message is more or less directed at Blacks and getting them to vote conservative (red-pilled).

 

[silentwitness]

Yes, he was a victim of violence, and Dykes admits he didn’t deserve to die, but that in no way means we need to deify him, i.e., he was no saint.

Yes i think Candace’s point is that she doesn’t like the media encouraging the black community to rally around people like George Floyd because he (at least in the past) was a violent criminal and part time porn star.

I think many people rallying though are less interested in the individual personhood of George than as him being a symbol of police racism.

Candace of course doesn’t like white liberal philosophy regarding black people and how she believes they manipulate people of her race.

I do think she is an important part of the discussion.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I agree.There is no way to condone the actions of those police involved in GF death. However,to overlook the fact that he was arrested because he had attempted to commit an unlawful act,is disingenuous it’s not as though he was pulled off the street arbitrarily for no reason. Much of this outrage is emotion based knee jerk per usual.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

However,to overlook the fact that he was arrested

This looks like a deflection from the grievance of his case.

The primary objection is in the treatment after he was detained. What justification is there for the weight of a man to be put on his neck? Especially past the point of him becoming unresponsive. Do you think the response would be the same if he were detained and placed in the back of a police car without injury or death?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Reread my post.I clearly stated there was no excuse for what these police did.