Showing posts with label name-calling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label name-calling. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Facebook Acknowledges Its Own Censorship on Julio Severo. What Happens Now?


Facebook Acknowledges Its Own Censorship on Julio Severo. What Happens Now?

By Julio Severo
Even though not using the term “censorship” for its censoring act, Facebook recognized it “accidentally removed” an article I had posted on Facebook on June 19.
Facebook said that the removal “was a mistake,” adding: “we sincerely apologize for this error.”
The removal was followed by an unfair action by Facebook — a 30-day ban on my ability to post, like, comment and communicate on my own Facebook profile. Even though the “mistake” has been officially recognized, the ban imposed by Facebook has not been removed and my Facebook account remains blocked for my personal use, in spite of my several complaints to Facebook letting them know that their ban is a complete mistake.
The original post, which was the reason for Facebook to block me, was just the title and link of my article (Brazilian Neighbors Are Ordered to Pay US$4,500 For Calling a Homosexual “Fag” http://bit.ly/2sMZlZg), which, by the way, made it abundantly clear that I oppose name-calling and foul language.
My subsequent article, “Facebook, Censorship, Profanity, Name-Calling and Foul Language,” also confirmed that I oppose name-calling and foul language.
Even so, the censorship, imposed on June 19, continued unabated. Then, on June 23, the California-based Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund sent an official legal letter to Mr. Colin Stretch, Esq., General Counsel at Facebook. Its letter said,
Mr. Stretch,
On Monday, June 19, 2017, a post made to Facebook by user Julio Severo, a Brazilian national, was removed and his account (facebook.com/julio.severo) suspended for 30 days either through the workings of an automated system or by a human curator. We have been asked by Julio to contact you on his behalf to demand the ending of his account suspension and reinstatement of his post as both actions violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, as revised January 30, 2015.
The post linked to an entry from Mr. Severo’s personal blog with a headline reading: “Brazilian Neighbors Are Ordered to Pay US$4,500 For Calling a Homosexual ‘Fag’” Mr. Severo was given no warning and his attempts to communicate with Facebook staff regarding the removal have been met with silence. Mr. Severo assumes it is the presence of the word “fag” that led to the account suspension.
As the title of his post indicates, Mr. Severo was reporting a newsworthy event which occurred in his home country. The word “fag” was properly placed in quotation marks to reflect that it was the criminal defendants, and not Mr. Severo himself, who were responsible for using the epithet. The post was written to criticize his country’s judicial system for what he believes is too severe a punishment, but his post makes clear he does not approve of the language used by defendants. Whether or not Facebook or a subset of its users find the punishment proper, Mr. Severo’s actions did not violate the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, a binding contract. Rather, the removal of the post, and suspension of his account, did violate that contract.
According to the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, part 3 “Safety”, paragraphs 6 and 7, users agree that: “1. You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. 2. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” Similarly, Facebook’s Community Standards, states under the heading “Hate Speech”: “Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their … sexual orientation, sex, gender, or gender identity…”
Mr. Severo’s blog post, including its headline, does not direct an offensive term toward any specific user or use offensive language to describe any person. Reporting the use of the word by others in the context of reporting the outcome of a criminal proceeding does not constitute bullying, intimidation, harassment, or a “direct attack.” Whether Facebook or a subset of its users disagree with Mr. Severo’s political or religious views, or are even subjectively “offended” by them, he did not objectively violate the terms of use of the site nor direct hateful, threatening, or harassing language toward others.
Facebook’s Community Standards also state under “Hate Speech”: “People can use Facebook to challenge ideas, institutions, and practices. Such discussion can promote debate and greater understanding.” Mr. Severo’s post was written with the goal of challenging the legal system and social norms of his home country and thus falls within the scope of allowable content on Facebook.
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017, Mr. Severo submitted an appeal through Facebook’s website explaining how his actions did not violate the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Mr. Severo’s inquiry has so far been ignored, and the restrictions on his account maintained. The continued suspension of Mr. Severo’s account is improper and constitutes breach of contract. Please remove that suspension by June 30, 2017, and reinstate Mr. Severo’s post, in order to avoid legal action.
Sincerely,
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND
Facebook sent me its official answer on July 3, 2017:
A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook. This was a mistake, and we sincerely apologize for this error. We've since restored the content, and you should now be able to see it.
Notwithstanding Facebook’s acknowledgment that my article’s removal, which was followed by an unfair blockage on my account, was an alleged “mistake” made by a member of the Facebook team, as of July 5 my Facebook profile remains blocked.
My Facebook profile remains visible to others, but it is functionally “dead.” I have been blocked from posting, liking, commenting and communicating through my profile since June 19.
Has Facebook been unable to abide by its own rules and its own apology?
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Facebook, Censorship, Profanity, Name-Calling and Foul Language


Facebook, Censorship, Profanity, Name-Calling and Foul Language

By Julio Severo
What is free speech for Facebook? Monday, immediately after I posted the title and link of my latest article (Brazilian Neighbors Are Ordered to Pay US$4,500 For Calling a Homosexual “Fag” http://bit.ly/2sMZlZg), I received a communication from Facebook showing exactly this title and link and saying that my account would be blocked for thirty days, effective June 19, for supposedly violating Facebook guidelines.
Sure enough, since Monday I am unable to post, like, interact and answer contacts in my own Facebook account.
June 20, I sent this message to Facebook:
Based on a report of Globo, which is the biggest news outlet in Brazil, I wrote an article about a homosexual being insulted and the insulters condemned in court. In the text, I made it very clear that I oppose name-calling. Yet, Facebook blocked me for thirty days. This is censorship!
This post was the reason you presented for you to block me: Brazilian Neighbors Are Ordered to Pay US$4,500 For Calling a Homosexual “Fag” http://bit.ly/2sMZlZg
Is this enough reason to block a user?
I have reported some posts from abusive users containing name-calling and foul and aggressive language (because I hate name-calling and foul language), and you answered to me that you cannot remove or block them because this is only an issue of different views.
Why then block me when I did not defend name-calling and foul language? Why block me when I clearly condemned name-calling and foul language? If this is not CENSORSHIP, what is it?
Is there base for you to block me over an article condemning name-calling and foul language?
Please, review your baseless decision!
Homosexualist users, in Brazil and the U.S., express a lot of profanity, name-calling and dirty language against me and other Christians. In fact, few minutes ago, the U.S. homosexual Facebook page “Pride USA” posted: “Creep of the Week: Julio Severo.” (Link: http://archive.is/LEI72) Last week, the U.S. homosexual newspaper Between The Lines, which has a Facebook page, also published, in its printed and online versions, an article titled “Creep of the Week: Julio Severo.” Has Facebook already considered banning their Facebook pages? Has Facebook already considered banning profanity, name-calling and dirty language by homosexual users against Christians?
There is a lot of profanity, name-calling and dirty language in the Facebook universe. If Facebook intends to block them, users should respect such decision but the Facebook staff should be intelligent to understand that in no way my banned post (with my blocked account) endorses profanity, name-calling and dirty language.
So what is Facebook’s intent in blocking Christian user Julio Severo from posting, liking and interacting in his own account for thirty days?
If this is not censorship, what is it?
Recommended Reading:
Recommended Reading on Foul Language:

Monday, January 11, 2016

A Global Inquisition to Put Homosexuals to Death?


A Global Inquisition to Put Homosexuals to Death?

By Julio Severo
According to People for the American Way, in their project Right Wing Watch, Theodore Shoebat posted a video declaring that “sodomite homo Sharia” is being imposed on America by “sodomite bastards” and “faggots” who do nothing but “go around spreading AIDS.”
The Right Wing Watch said, “The only solution, he declared, is the imposition of a global law criminalizing homosexuality that will be enforced by a modern-day Inquisition with the power to put gays to death.” According to this website, Shoebat said, “I believe in Inquisitions, I believe we need to revive the system of the Middle Ages that we had; we had no fag problems.”
“‘It’s homo tyranny and it needs to be destroyed,’ Shoebat continued, ‘Christian world domination needs to be established and homosexuality needs to be deemed as a crime. And the homos need to be told, hey, you gotta stop that and if they don't stop that then, I’m sorry, we have an Inquisition and that Inquisition will enact the death penalty, as Scripture tells us.’”
When Shoebat talks about “Christian world domination,” this does not include Protestants, evangelicals, Pentecostals, charismatics, etc.
Is a “revival” of the Inquisition supported by the Bible? The Church in the New Testament never supported any Inquisition to torture or kill sinners. Her mission was to preach the Gospel of Salvation to them.
The Church outside the New Testament used the Inquisition against sinners and dissenters, whom she called “heretics.” Most of these “heretics” were Protestants who believed in the Bible in a way disapproved by the Catholic Church. Jews loyal to Judaism were also considered “heretic.”
Right Wing Watch, a leftist channel that monitors and smears conservatives, sees no distinction between the Church in the New Testament and the Church outside the New Testament. Actually, it seems that Right Wing Watch intends to use the Shoebat case, which is strictly Catholic, to portray all Christians (Catholics, Protestants and Orthodoxies) as supportive of the Inquisition.
This is not the reality. In fact, Right Wing Watch, which has often attacked me because of my pro-family stance against the gay agenda, should know that I have been criticized in Brazil by allegedly right-wing Catholics who excuse or even advocate the Inquisition.
I do not want a return of the Inquisition. There are better ways to address the problem of homosexualism. George Washington’s conservative America was enough to protect her society from a homosexual ideological mess without exposing Jews and Protestants to the Inquisition’s mortal threat. Washington, who was Protestant, never applied any Catholic Inquisition. Historian Bill Federer said,
As recorded in “The Writings of George Washington” (March 10, 1778, 11:83-84, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), George Washington ordered: “At a General Court Marshall … Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier … and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Liett. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”
Washington, the Father of America, had a soldier expelled for attempting to commit sodomy. In contrast, the Inquisition would have him executed, as Shoebat would prefer.
Yet, if Shoebat has his wish fulfilled, who can hinder the Catholic Inquisition from going after other groups? Jews and Protestants were favorite victims of the original Inquisition.
Shoebat has articles fiercely attacking Islam, and rightly so, because Islam is violent, especially against Christians. He has voiced the idea Catholics should “extirpate the wickedness of Islam.” Presumably, he would approve the Inquisition to extend its force against Islamists. But it is highly doubtful that he would keep the Inquisition limited only to homosexuals and Islamists.
In 2014, Theodore Shoebat wrote an article titled “Islam Is A Form Of Protestantism, That Wants To Destroy The Catholic Church.”
So if Islam is a form of Protestantism, both are equally evil, in his view. If they are evil, why not approve the Inquisition to both of them? If Shoebat can extirpate the wickedness of Islam, why could not he extirpate the “wickedness” of Protestantism? It was attempted, by the original Inquisition centuries ago.
Some Catholics, like Shoebat, wishing a revived Inquisition will not be content to see it moving just against homosexuals. Sooner or later, they will want it to move also against “heretics” who “threaten” the Catholic Church.
A return of the Catholic Inquisition is not what all people, even good Catholics, want. This is the wish of a few extremists like Shoebat.
The Inquisition and other evil acts of the Church outside the New Testament have been used by left-wingers to condemn Christians who live according to the Church in the New Testament.
Franklin Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said about the Inquisition, “Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”
The bottom line is, if you believe in Jesus, you want nothing to do with the Inquisition. If you believe in the Inquisition, you want nothing to do with Jesus.
If People for the American Way were honest, they would let their public know that the Inquisition has been denounced for centuries by Jews, Protestants and most Catholics, who will certainly work to destroy any attempt to revive this macabre machine of torture and death.
Shoebat has criticized Christians who have opposed his pro-Inquisition stances. He has blasted especially Peter LaBarbera, director of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, by calling him a “filthy pig” and a “traitor” because he rejected Shoebat’s pro-Inquisition stance against gays. Name-calling against pro-family leaders is typical behavior from leftists and pro-Inquisition activists.
“Traitor”? To “betray” the Inquisition and its advocates is not to betray the Gospel. In fact, a revived Inquisition would eventually reach LaBarbera, who is a conservative Protestant, and other Christians who love and preach the Gospel to homosexuals and other sinners. If the original Inquisition did not spare Protestants, how would its modern version manage to spare LaBarbera?
In addition, it is no surprise that Shoebat used an abusive language against LaBarbera. A dirty language and demonization precede a wish and intent of destroying its victims. A pro-Inquisition activist eventually reviles pro-family activists and, if given enough political and legal powers, could do much more than just calling names.
Facts Shoebat should know:
A good Catholic does not revile pro-family leaders.
A good Catholic does not call names.
A good Catholic does not defend the Inquisition.
Yet, with his radical views, Shoebat provides ammunition for opportunistic and malicious leftist entities as Right Wing Watch to defame, revile and attack Christians who, like LaBarbera and George Washington, never tortured or killed in the name of a tyrannical government or a counterfeit and violent “christianity.” Actually, according to the original Inquisition, Washington himself was worthy of death, just because he was a Protestant.
The Left feasts on the pro-Inquisition lunacy and uses it to attack pro-family leaders who want nothing to do with the Inquisition. When Shoebat supports the Inquisition and reviles LaBarbera he aids and abets the Left in its attacks against the pro-family movement.
As I see, Shoebat was formerly a Muslim. Later, he became an evangelical and in some point he saw that an evangelical church was not radical enough for him, but it was “heretical” enough. Then apparently he chose a twisted version Catholicism. Yet, why a pro-Inquisition Catholic? Could not he choose to become a good pro-life Catholic, interested in saving innocent babies rather than supporting torture and slaughter of people through a modern Inquisition?
Even though Shoebat considers himself a pro-life Catholic, I would encourage him to read my article: Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?
Portuguese version of this article: Uma Inquisição Mundial para Matar Homossexuais?
Recommended Reading:

Monday, November 24, 2014

Atheist Ed Brayton: Julio Severo is a Brazilian ‘wingnut’


Atheist Ed Brayton: Julio Severo is a Brazilian ‘wingnut’

By Julio Severo
Do homosexuality and population control have something in common? If you believe so, then you are a ‘wingnut’ — a label atheist Ed Brayton used against me, Julio Severo, because I am one of these believers.
Ed Brayton
Yet, I am not the only victim of his attacks. He has also attacked WorldNetDaily, and in a C-SPAN show, he labeled Chuck Norris a ‘moron’ because Norris said that if Obama were elected in 2012, his socialism would lead America to 1,000 years of darkness.
I agree with Norris: America can brace herself for 1,000 years of socialist darkness because of Obama and his party.
Overweight Brayton has a blog entitled “Dispatches from the Culture Wars.” He is also an advocate of evolutionism.
According to Conservapedia, Chuck Norris thinks that most obesity in America is the result of hedonism and that Christians have good reasons to believe that a hedonist lifestyle is a causal factor of atheism. This is another reason overweight Ed Brayton hates Norris.
Brayton has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow was the first openly lesbian anchor to host a major prime-time news program in the United States. He has also been a guest in other liberal shows.
For a lack of arguments and rationality, the only option left for leftist individuals is to resort to name-calling: ‘wingnut,’ ‘moron,’ etc. Also, dirty words are their natural language. How do I know it? The Brazilian secular and Christian Left has used this language when talking about me and my conservative views.
About the American Left, it seems that its adherents are not appreciating the column Matt Barber has given me in his conservative BarbWire.
In his blog, Brayton describes himself, “After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes… and turned to writing… for the voices in his head.”
I have always suspected that socialists have strange voices in their heads — in the Bible’s times, people called this condition ‘demonic possession.’
This time the voices told the clumsy comedian that homosexuality does not reduce birth rates and that, yes, he is an intelligent guy!
His voices have also told him that in the cultural war to spread socialist and homosexualist lies around the world, Julio Severo is another enemy deserving his attacks.
Loathing it or not, at least he is reading my BarbWire column!

Wingnut: The Gay All About Population Control

Julio Severo is a Brazilian wingnut who is now writing for BarbWire, where he makes the incredibly absurd claim that the fight for LGBT equality is really all about reducing the population. Because, silly rabbit, causal connections are for intelligent people, none of which can be found here. Referring to a USAID conference on gay rights around the world last week, he writes:
The conference is bringing together government officials, private funders, business leaders, scholars and homosexual activists from more than 30 countries to increase coordination, cooperation and resources dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda around the world, and to ensure full inclusion of homosexual activists in political power structures.
The conference is focusing on diplomatic and foreign assistance strategies to address homosexual issues around the world. It is also discussing the best ways to engage faith communities to support the homosexual agenda and to integrate it into development programs.
If Sodom gave the world an untrained and unsophisticated homosexual militancy, America can be proud that she has surpassed Sodom, by giving the world an aggressive, trained and sophisticated homosexual militancy.
Will the U.S. government efforts to integrate the gay agenda into development programs and political power structures succeed? I fear so. Forty years ago, NSSM 200, a highly classified U.S. government document, made it clear that the U.N., the World Bank and many other major international organizations should be used to integrate population control into development and healthcare programs. Population control was presented as “family planning,” but its objective was never family well-being. It was population reduction to meet the U.S. ambitions to seize or save natural resources from other nations for current and future American use. Because of the U.S. efforts forty years, today “family planning” is as natural as marriage itself.
Evidently, now the strategy is to make the gay agenda and its fake marriage as natural as “family planning.”
God turned Sodom into ashes. America is distinguishing herself by making Sodom global and refined. She is spreading the Sodom ashes around the world to sow a new, bigger and global Sodom.
Yes, because obviously if we start treating gay people like human beings with equal rights, everyone is going to immediately going to become gay, stop having children and destroy the species. Because The Gay, according to the Christian right, is the single most alluring thing in the history of ever. It’s so overwhelmingly tempting that we must make the lives of gay people miserable in order to keep people becoming gay. This is what these bigots actually believe.
Recommended Reading: