Fascists are walking all over our 1st amendment rights.

Today, my facebook account was suspended for 24 hours, my offence is a truly heinous crime of course, like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, I call a spade a spade unless it’s a Nazi in the form of a feminist or a stinking goat humping Muslim. Yesterday, I replied to a comment posted on Facebook. The comment clearly stated that the fall of Western judeo/Christian civilisation to the all conquering force of Islam is inevitable. I replied thus…..

The fall of our civilisation need not be inevitable, all we need is a few good men with a full set of balls to stand up and slaughter the Muslim scum without mercy. If our countries and freedoms had not already fallen to feminism, wherein almost every minister of war/defence in Europe is someone who sits down for a piss, then perhaps today we would have those few good men to do some freedom fighting and uphold the rights of western democracies. Stop feminising your men and accepting the inevitable and start killing fucking Muslims.

Now you may conclude that my language is a little off side for a priest and to some extent, you may be right, but I was a career soldier before I entered the priesthood and there is still a soldier inside me, ready and willing to fight and defend to the death, our right to freedom of speech.

Supreme court ruling.

The First Amendment protects our right to use social networks like Facebook and Twitter, the Supreme Court declared last week. That decision, which overturned a North Carolina law barring sex offenders from social networks, called social media “the modern public square” and “one of the most important places” for the exchange of views. The holding is a reminder of the enormous role such networks play in our speech, our access to information and, consequently, our democracy. But while the government cannot block people from social media, these private platforms can.

In some ways, online platforms can be thought of as the new speech governors: They shape and allow participation in our new digital and democratic culture in ways that we typically associate with governments. Even Facebook’s recently updated mission statement acknowledges this important role, with its vow to give “people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” But social media sites are not bound by the First Amendment to protect user speech. Facebook’s mission statement says as much, with its commitment to “remove bad actors and their content quickly to keep a positive and safe environment.”


Until recently, the details of the types of posts Facebook prohibited were a mystery. That changed on May 21 when The Guardian released over 100 pages of leaked documents revealing Facebook’s internal rules. This newfound transparency could mean Facebook will be held accountable to the public when it comes to its decisions about user speech.

Facebook has often been pressured to explain or alter its approach to moderating users’ speech, in cases involving topics like breast feedingfeeding  pictures, Donald Trump’s posts about banning Muslims from entering the United States and the video of a Cleveland murder. But before this leak, nobody outside the company could say exactly how it made decisions — and it was under no legal obligation to share.

This leak provides some answers: Facebook’s content policies resemble United States law. But they also have important differences.

For example, Facebook generally allows the sharing of animal abuse, a category of speech the Supreme Court deemed protected in 2010. But diverging from First Amendment law, Facebook will remove that same imagery if a user shows sadism, defined as the “enjoyment of suffering.”

Similarly, Facebook’s manual on credible threats of violence echoes First Amendment law on incitement and true threats by focusing on the imminence of violence, the likelihood that it will actually occur, and an intent to credibly threaten a particular living victim.

But there are also crucial distinctions. Where First Amendment law protects speech about public figures more than speech about private individuals, Facebook does the opposite. If a user calls for violence, however generic, against a head of state, Facebook deems that a credible threat against a “vulnerable person.” It’s fine to say, “I hope someone kills you.” It is not fine to say, “Somebody shoot Trump.” While the government cannot arrest you for saying it, Facebook will remove the post.

I now want to focus on this statement.

Similarly, Facebook’s manual on credible threats of violence echoes First Amendment law on incitement and true threats by focusing on the imminence of violence, the likelihood that it will actually occur, and an intent to credibly threaten a particular living victim.

What we must all recognise here is the difference between a serious threat of physical harm and the fire in the belly of all patriots who choose to defend their country, borders and nation from an invasion force bent on murder and conquest.

Facebook have decided that for me to criticise the feminists and harbour a wish to dissolve all Muslims in a vat of acid is over the top and I must be silenced.

I don’t think I would mind it all so much, if the supreme court hadn’t defended the rights of a paedophile and yet allowed facebook to kick my rights to freedom of speech into the long grass.

The truth is, my speech may be colourful and my anger at Feminism and European Islamisation may overflow, but in the final analysis, all I have spoken is the truth and above all other speech, truth must me protected though the heavens fall.

Social media giants, such as facebook have abandoned the moral high ground, when fake news, political deceit, protection of evil and assimilation with the purveyors of every form of debauchery, have become standard operating procedure. It has been said so many times, but the age old adage is nonetheless absolutely true, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing”. This is especially true today, when social media platforms take a stance for the bad guys and the patronage of lies.

Facebook once did this to Pamela Geller, they were swamped with protest from the social media public all over the world. Will you protest my suspension, or will you wait until it is your rights which are being trampled under a Nazi jackboot before you realise that platforms like Twitter, google+ and Facebook, are the as much the new breed of fascist as they are the modern public town square?

I now call upon the President of the United States, to hold mark Zuckerberg and all chief executives accountable under law, for the denial of the constitutional right to freely express an opinion now matter how unpalatable it may be to the scum of Islam and the Femnazis. My opinion is what gives me the right to choose freely, my religion, my politics and my course through life, Zuckerberg and his cronies are taking those rights away from me and others like me and unlike Zuckerberg, who has served himself all his life, I earned my right to freely express my opinion on a battle field and by the way, whilst I was earning it for myself, I was earning it for you too. Every reader here,  including our duly elected POTUS should contact facebook now and demand my reinstatement, arrest Zuckerberg and his henchmen of  the new age Nazism and make them dance on the end of a judicial rope. Too many good and faithful servants of the United States have died on the field of honour for our freedom of speech, Zuckerberg must not be allowed to remove it with a pen.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s