SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the Guardian
A civil court in Rome has ruled that Facebook must immediately reactivate the account of the Italian neo-fascist party CasaPound and pay the group €800 (£675) for each day the account has been closed, according to local media.
Facebook shut the party's account, which had 240,000 followers, along with its Instagram page in early September. A Facebook spokesperson told the Ansa news agency at the time: "Persons or organisations that spread hatred or attack others on the basis of who they are will not have a place on Facebook and Instagram. The accounts we removed today violate this policy and will no longer be present on Facebook or Instagram."
According to an earlier article:
CasaPound was founded in the late 1990s as a pro-Mussolini drinking club. Named after the 20th-century American poet Ezra Pound, who was known for his fascist sympathies and antisemitism, it claims to support a democratic variant of fascism but it is accused of encouraging violence and racism.
In a 2011 interview with the Guardian, the party's secretary, Simone Di Stefano, described Mussolini's brand of fascism as "our point of reference, a vision of the state and the economy, and the concept of sacrifice". Di Stefano ran for prime minister in the last general election.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday December 17 2019, @06:15PM (5 children)
I hate overt fascists, but I hate online crypto-governments that decide who gets to have a voice without the due process of law even more.
The best option of course would be that an Italian court forced Facebook to shut down Casapound's account. But Facebook shouldn't have a the right to decide who says what. And yes, I know it's their network and they get to decide what goes and what doesn't on it. But the truth is, given the lack of alternative to expose a public discourse when you're not on Facebook, FB should lose the right to axe an account, because their platform has become pretty much the only go-to place to have a meaningful say online these days.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @07:57PM
I don't accept this public square argument. This is just an excuse for groveling slaves to be ruled by their benevolent masters. Go somewhere else unless you're a stupid fucking slave and or a whiney whore.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:08PM (3 children)
If you really want that, expropriate the owner (with just compensation) and run it under a public governance of sorts.
'Cause you either place the concept of private property above public property or you don't, there's no middle ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:25PM (2 children)
We understood common carrier provisions 20 years ago, what changed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @11:21PM (1 child)
Including why the common carrier statute was defined?
And how the "blindness" to the "nature of carried goods" is an essential requirement for the statute?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @02:01AM
No [wikipedia.org]