Comments:Facebook takes down groups supporting Austin crash pilot

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Taxation is theft

The guy calling attacks on public servants extremist, would he be cry if someone murdered mafia accountants? They aren't out killing people, they are probably just guys with familys to feed, but that doesnt change the fact that they are part of the infrastructure of an evil entity and if they are killed for what they do no one crys for them. The same can be said of public servants. The fact that they are paid in tax dollars (stolen money by virtue of being taxes), it means every public servant is paid in blood money. Every public servant knows full well that their paychecks are tax dollars; and all taxation is theft; therefore all public servants are nothing but thieves. They are no different than the minions of any tyrannical state, whether Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, Chavez's Venezuala or Mugabes Zimbabwe.

(Added header for LQT compatibility)—is taxation really theft? Tax money is used to keep the country running. Schools, hospitals, and even businesses would not exist without money, and the only way for a government to get money is through tax. Every government does it out of necessity. Can you think of a better way for them to make money? If so, I'm sure Mr Obama will come knocking on your door any minute with an offer of a six-figure salary. Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't paid your taxes, Obama will also be offering you a six-figure salary. 206.74.5.136 (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to discuss with him, he's an American. They won't only not know the definition of Tyrannical state, but can't even spell Venezuela right nor have any thought on their mind for more than 4 seconds. --190.226.50.130 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is from an Argentine, most of whom support fascist states. 71.107.141.50 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence."

Yeah I'm just a little confused into what realm Facebook believe this guys actions fell into. The closed groups were not furthering violent attacks, and only 1 of them was commending his actions. Of the 3 remaining they seemed to just be applauding or siding with his thinking and reasoning behind his attack, after reading his message I too could sympathise with him and, to a degree, even agree with his thoughts.

Seems like Facebook are jumping the gun on this one in banning the groups.

I believe they are only guidelines, and that groups can be removed at Facebook's discretion. I would say hateful fits the best of the reasons listed above, but some of the groups could also have been construed as threatening.

Hateful, probably. Threatening on a secondary note. Could claim that the groups were sponsoring domestic terrorism or some such non-sense.

Remember, it is at Facebook's discretion. In other words, they have the right to delete anything they feel like, provided they claim they felt it came under these options.

The only guidelines they really need to pay attention to is how the users feel. This seems like something that whips Facebook users into a whiny frenzy. Expect cries of "free speech". Yeah, anyway, Facebook can do whatever it wants... sort of. I just realized that if they deleted groups pertaining to gay rights they might lose a rather hefty lawsuit. So yes, Facebook has the right to do whatever they want on their site, except sometimes that it infringes upon other rights.

So no, they simultaneously don't have the right to do this. The proof lies with whomever wins the biggest lawsuits. I LOVE DEMOCRA - I MEAN LOBBYCRACY

I can think of no obvious reason why anyone could sue Facebook over this. The only right it infringes is free speech, which does not apply on Facebook since they have the right to remove content on their own service.

Technically, you don't even have the "Right" of free speech. By using Facebook, you agree to their T&C's. Freedom of speech and press applies to your own, not via another service. Same as it always has been with newspapers. You can write up a flier and post it saying what ever the hell you please, but if you request a newspaper run it, they can turn you do. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. To try to put it more clearly, I was referring to a double standard in which one can have freedom of speech but at the same time have it prohibited in almost any circumstance. Even calling someone a name could earn you a hefty punishment.

It depends where you do it, I think. If you call somebody a name in real life or over the phone, the worst they can do it hit you. If you post derogatory comments online, where anybody in the world can see them, then a hefty punishment is not only expected, but also—in my opinion—appropriate. If one's comments are warranted (calling Bin Laden "an evil terrorist", for example) or stem from differing viewpoints ("Gordon Brown is a bad prime minister"; "Charles Darwin was wrong about evolution"), then it is not right to punish them for it, but in the case of applauding the actions of this man—who is nothing more than a terrorist, whatever he and his supporters choose to call him—Facebook were certainly right to remove the comments.

Most of the groups did not applaud the actions, they applauded the thoughts. I have no comment on those without reading them carefuly and thinking it over, but it is important not to dismiss his points merely because of the murderous way in which he chose to make them. I often agree with the words of dictators; it does not mean I support them.

Censorship! Hateful? Threatening? That is, if any one person from a group suggests we should start diving planes into buildings, the entire group is taken out? What about all the others who want to voice their opinions? For sure this is not the right forum. For sure traditional media isn't too. I have seen the manifesto on some papers, but allways accompained by the word "Insane". Well there is almost nothing insane in that manifesto at all. Insanity is the censorship, the bias, the sell-out american spirit of today.

Wikinews did not use the word 'insane' and has placed its copy under your nose.

The fascist government needs to get its ass kicked. All politicians should be killed, and efficient and democratic ones not part of either of the two big corrupt parties should be elected.

For some reason I could not post a reply to your statement in the "Proving a point???" thread.

Where do you get the information that he set the house on fire with his wife and kid in the house?

Every news article I read indicated that they pulled up to the scene while the firefighters were already on site. That would preclude them from having been in the burning house.

If you want to vilify him for an act of domestic terrorism, that seems to fit his actions, but the claim of setting the house on fire with occupants inside appears to be false unless you can provide the source for the information.

@ Blood Red Sandman and Eodril,

Joseph Stack circled the IRS building before crashing into it, which gave people a chance to evacuate. One person unfortunately died and the other was Joseph Stack. Does that really seem like a person whose goal was to hurt people? If so, he did a terrible job.

The comment "It is our belief that his intention was not to hurt anyone, but just to prove a point." is unbelievable. Did someone actually write that? About the guy who flew his airplane into an office building during normal business hours??? Didn't intend to hurt anyone? Gosh. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but my bet is that the pilot intended to kill a whole lot more people than he actually did.

Terrorism is evil. Mindless, random killing cannot ever justify any end, however "good".

Don't forget he also set his house alight while his wife and daughter were inside.

It is not at all surprising how quickly this story fell out of the main headlines of the news. The less it is out in the open the fewer people who will start thinking. You can not be overly outspoken about any dissension. Otherwise more people might agree with the 'insane' opinion. Then a great many people might have to get productive lives contributing something tangible to society instead of shuffling papers.

"That so many have already contributed to Facebook page[s] as 'fans' of this terrorist attack on public servants is a truly appalling expression of extremism, which Americans will overwhelmingly reject," Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas told The Politico regarding the creation and subsequent growth of said pages.

Actually that so many have already contributed is a sign of how truly appalled so many people are with the government as it currently stands.

While I don't condone the violence, I can certainly understand why he was driven to that point.

I am currently being told that for the past year, I owe the IRS more in withholding taxes than I even paid out in gross wages. That is an attempt to extort over 400% more than legitimate taxes. The IRS operates in such a manner that they fit every definition of racketeering. But because too many people suckle at the government teat, it is considered fine to take actions which would land an individual or private company in prison.

I provided (until I finally got fed-up with the IRS hassle) one job in this country. I would suggest that if over half of the people in America provided someone else with a job and had to deal with the IRS just for one year, there would be major changes. Due to providing a single person with a job, you can expect to loose over one entire month of your life per year filling out tax forms, expect to see your tax rate jump (even if your income bracket is not changed) from 28% working for someone else to 34% working for yourself only, and to over 48% if you provide a single job.

I would not mind a fee based structure for services one uses. However, that is already in play as well. By the time you add up all of the sales tax and taxes on services and re-occurring taxes such as on your auto and home, the government is getting a better rate of return than Vegas. Then they turn around and manage to have spent more than they took in every year.