Facebook shuts down free speech


Disturbing.

Prominent cartoonist Larry Pickering has been banned from Facebook after he posted an offensive nude drawing of Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Pickering, whose drawings have been printed in a number of newspapers, featured a cartoon of a naked Julia Gillard talking about the carbon tax on his blog.

Offensive? To some perhaps, but then free speech should always be… to some… all the time.

The offence?

So it’s a three day ban after shouty moonbats went into overdrive.

Speaking of overdrive, Larry comments in a post entitled: “JULIA IN DEEPER SHIT THAN CRAIG”

Bruce Wilson was an AWU heavy and Gillard’s boyfriend at the time. He had been threatening developers in a thinly disguised, mob-style protection racket: Industrial peace for payment… up to $50,000 at a time.

The payments went straight to accounts Gillard had arranged while she was still working for the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon.

Gillard was into the scam up to her elbows and, as she was screwing Wilson at the time, pillow talk wasn’t confined to her other sexual exploits including married father, and current, Trade Minister Craig Emerson and now Gold Coast spiv Tim Mathieson who departed the Coast leaving multiple unpaid debts.

Her part in the scam was rewarded with $50,000 of renovations to her house and a $25,000 account at a top fashion house (although one could be forgiven for thinking she never used it.)

The story broke and Gillard went into frenzied damage control.

The Hoohah began when that post was posted juxtaposed to that pic.

Gillard? Get that lying shyster out of office already.

H/T Reader Sean of Deer Park

UPDATE

The day Bolta pulled all his posts.

UPDATE

That Glenn Milne column originally linked here.

UPDATE

What is it with the Left and their antipathy to free speech?

  1. Hi,
    What! I hadn’t heard about this, what right has facebook got to ban somebody over a cartoon, I don’t care if it’s 3 days or an hour, what explanation did they give for this ban? What on earth is going on?
    Get this so and so out of office immediately she is very close to treason with her non existent border controls, and cutting back on our defence forces, not to mention her socialist ways, and of course her past which should be really brought out into the open with a Royal Commission looking into it all.

    Thank You for showing us the cartoon, I would never have seen it if you hadn’t of posted it.

    • No worries. Interesting times, isn’t it?

      • More like ridiculous times, just astonishing what is going on.

      • philjourdan
      • June 15th, 2012

      What right? The right that it is their property.

      People have the misconception that since it is “their” facebook page, they somehow own it. IN actual fact, Facebook owns it and can do with it as they please. The only force stopping them is bad PR. But a government can exert a lot of arm twisting to get THEIR way (see Google and China among many examples).

      Zuckerberg long ago stated publically that no one should have any expectation of privacy for what they post on Facebook. People are starting to remember those words, and it is reflected in 2 places. Slowing growth – and the IPO tanking.

      Remember War Games (Cheesy flick from about 25 years ago)? The tag line from that movie still applies today with most internet companies – the only winning solution is to not play the game.

      • Zuckerberg long ago stated publically that no one should have any expectation of privacy for what they post on Facebook. People are starting to remember those words, and it is reflected in 2 places. Slowing growth – and the IPO tanking.

        • Sean of Deer Park
        • June 16th, 2012

        G’day Phil, I read this last night while I was listening to FNPM (and drinking). At first, I agreed with what you said here and accepted your point. All good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to have a go at you. This is something that at some point will need to sorted out legally, I’m sure. Another aspect of the “Free-speech” debate. (And yeah, I was so excited to see War-Games when it was released :lol:)

        This afternoon I logged in to my account and noticed a facebook statement in one of the advertising posts that frequently pops up on my wall. It reads:
        “Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study or live around them. People use facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photo’s, post links and video’s, and blahblahblah…”

        Arguably, we would only endeavour to make “friends” with people, products or places each us is interested in. If we don’t “Like” them we have the ability to “Un-Like” them. This means if a person doesn’t like something or takes offense they are always free to go away. Facebook does not hold a gun to their head and make them accept it.

        This reminded me of what you said above. I decided to have a look at the terms and conditions. I found this statement on the first page:

        “2. Sharing Your Content and Information
        You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings….”

        Perhaps this is why people hold the “misconception” you mention about ownership.

        As you read through the “Safety Terms” there are responsibilities on the user, I could not find anything Larry Pickering had done to break any of the “terms”. Specifically,”6. You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.”

        I don’t think Ms Gillard is a “friend” of Larry Pickering. If so, she does not have to be. Larry’s posts are shared with his “friends”. So how come Gillard’s office can choose to take offense? At something not intended for them and does not seek to enforce it be sent to a specific user, in the first instance.

        Hmmm. The rules can change depending on political perspective or who chooses to be offended? Perhaps.

        But then I read this about Disputes:
        “If anyone brings a claim against us related to your actions, content or information on Facebook, you will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against all damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including reasonable legal fees and costs) related to such claim. Although we provide rules for user conduct, we do not control or direct users’ actions on Facebook and are not responsible for the content or information users transmit or share on Facebook. We are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content or information you may encounter on Facebook. We are not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, or any user of Facebook…”

        So if facebook are not responsible, why are they interfering? Is it because a political group, say, “GETUP” for arguement sake, has made complaints because they chose to be offended? Probably.

        Whatever the reason, it raises more questions for me than reasonable answers.

        If we compare the telephone as an example, I have a Telstra service. If I extend the logic used on Larry Pickering by facebook, does this mean Telstra have the right to cut of my telephone off if they hear I have been saying something to my friends the CEO of Telstra didn’t like?

        What about Microsoft, can they withdraw their product after purchase because they don’t like what an individual is using it for?

        I think if a company is going to provide a platform, they need to be aware it is going to be used in many ways. The job of policing can only be done by the police. In this case, facebook are operating outside of the law regardless of the “Conduct” clause when viewed in conjunction with their “Terms” policy.

        (Sorry for the epic post, Binger’s… Have I destroyed word-press? Are they going to ban you because I have an opinion?)

          • philjourdan
          • June 18th, 2012

          Sean, thanks for the detailed response. I will try to make mine brief.

          First, on your phone, that is a regulated monopoly (or use to be in the colonies – although no longer a monopoly, it is still heavily regulated). So the company does not actually set the rules, the state does. Which means you can bad mouth the CEO all you want. He is not making the decision on whether you have service or not.

          Now for Microsoft. They can indeed pull support for anything at any time. They usually do not because it is bad PR. However, if you have paid for service and they pull it, you do have a legal recourse (breech of contract). But of course that will take time to wend its way through the courts (and you will have no support during that time). Again, Microsoft does not because it is bad PR, and while they are top of the hill in the OS wars, they are not the only game in town, so they try not to shot themselves in the foot too much.

          Which brings us finally to Facebook. They can put anything they want in their TOS (or TOU or AUP or whatever they are calling it – sorry, I do not have a Facebook account). And change it at any moment. You have no recourse if they do. You have paid them nothing, so the courts would toss any suit out since you suffered no monetary damage. They can tell you today that they love and respect your privacy, and tomorrow decide that all data is theirs, and you do not count. Again, you have no contract with them, so you play at their whim.

          And they can shut you down for no reason, for the flimsiest of reasons, or because some mucky-muck scowls at them. That is where my statement of “no expectation of privacy” comes from (along with Zuckerberg’s public statements). And hence why I do not play their game.

          The owner of the blog site where I post infrequently once had a post about “free ice cream”. basically, his statement was – if you pay for it, you can demand chocolate. But if it is free, you have to take what they give you.

          With facebook, you have to take what they give you. If they ever develope a premium service – that you pay for, you will have a recourse for sudden changes to the policies, or if they want to make your pictures available to the world. But as long as you are playing with their equipment and software, and not paying for it, they rule the roost. As a private company, they are not bound to laws such as “freedom of speech” because those laws apply to what the government can do to you, not what a private company can do to you.

          • It was still bad PR for Facebook, not something one would think they’d like to keep up in light of the recent IPO. Granted, much of the world didn’t take notice. This isn’t a widely read blog, and I doubt anyone outside of Australia would know about Larry Pickering. Still, surely they wouldn’t want to do what they did to the “wrong” person. Not that they’ll read this, but if I were them, I’d be very careful about implementing temporary shutdowns of people’s accounts simply because somebody else didn’t like something.

              • philjourdan
              • June 19th, 2012

              In a sane world, what you say would be taken as gospel by these people (indeed, they would probably be saying it themselves). But while Zuckerberg has shown a great knack for technical prowess and marketing expertise, he has bombed in the common sense department.

              I do not expect them to change, until they are the next MySpace.

  2. This is the sort of thing that anti-trust legislation is about. FB is too big to just act on its own. It can effectively control the market of ideas. Alternatives simply do not measure up.

    • Hi. Welcome.

      I generally like Facebook and use it almost every day for mainly the social side of my internet exploits. It’s a great service, but what they did isn’t acceptable.

      BTW, only the first comment is moderated.

    • Merilyn
    • June 19th, 2012

    Well said bing, and everyone else, Now you see why I said ‘all those bank accounts”.

    Julia thinks it is fine for others to be under scrutiny but screams blue murder when it is applied to her. Hypocrite much? There is a lot more to that Bruce Wilson story that should see the light of day.

      • Carpe Jugulum
      • June 19th, 2012

      One day her dealings with the AWU and Town Mode will be exposed – and i will be smiling and giving union organisers double the grief they have given me.

      How sweet it is.

        • Merilyn
        • June 20th, 2012

        Yep Carpe, looking forward to that day, and it will happen, there are people out there who know all the facts and are sitting on them.

          • Carpe Jugulum
          • June 20th, 2012

          Hi Merilyn

          A royal commission into their rorts would be a good start.

            • Merilyn
            • June 20th, 2012

            Agree!

            • Are there even enough qualified people to staff all these Royal Commissions, anymore?

                • Merilyn
                • June 21st, 2012

                Mmmmm, good point bing, they just may have to umm, er, “dig up ” a few dead judges to sit on the bench, [well after all they DO vote].

      • Merilyn
      • June 20th, 2012

      Forgot to make a comment on the cartoon, feel it is in rather poor taste, but it is his opinion and he is entitled to it. In my view it shows in a way just how disliked Julia Gillard is becoming, that he could go that far.

      • It’s in terrible taste (but we can read between the lines, even if, of course, a newspaper doesn’t have that luxury).

        Fit for a newspaper? No.

        On his own blog. Well, of course.

        That facebook is the new judge? No.

        Of Leftist groups including GetUp shutting down free expression on mediums they shouldn’t have the power to do so on?

        A disturbing sign of the times.

        I dunno. It’s all Greek to me.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • June 21st, 2012

    Update: Larry Pickering is working on spilling some more beans. Will he be banned by facebook before he gets a chance? Make his web site a favorite, just incase. The most hilarious thing is his website has doubled its membership since facebook decided to censor him. Gillard doesn’t want anyone talking about the missing $1,000,000 – double the Thomson figure stolen.

    Your days are numbered Gillard. People in-the-know have noticed you and are now out for blood. If people like Gillard try to silence the media, especially people like Pickering, we can be certain there will be time for pay-back. That time is coming.

    For those who don’t know, Pickering is an Australian Icon. He has a history of personally friendships, connections and wealth with media and governments dating back to the 1960’s. I think at some point in time, every single Australian has had a giggle at his famous “naked” cartoons hanging on the back of the dunny door. This is going to be fun!

    Larry Pickering – Thursday 21st June 2012…
    “FACEBOOK ADVISED THAT WE RISKED PERMANENT BANNING IF THIS FOLLOWING STORY WAS NOT REMOVED. IT WAS DULY REMOVED BUT RE-POSTED ON PICKERING’S WEB SITE. WE ARE RISKING RE-POSTING THE ARTICLE HERE NOW (without alteration) BECAUSE FURTHER INFORMATION HAS COME TO LIGHT REGARDING MAJOR MEDIA PHONE HACKING THAT IS APROPOS TO, AND A CONTINUANCE OF, THIS ARTICLE.
    OUR INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING.

    JULIA IN DEEPER SHIT THAN CRAIG:

    Thomson is involved in rorting $500,000 from the HSU.
    Gillard is involved in rorting $1 million from the AWU.

    To date, no attempt has been made by either union to recover one cent.

    As a backbencher, Thomson had no clout with media.
    As Prime Minister, Gillard used her clout to kill the story… and this is how she did it:

    Bruce Wilson was an AWU heavy and Gillard’s boyfriend at the time. He had been threatening developers in a thinly disguised, mob-style protection racket: Industrial peace for payment… up to $50,000 at a time.

    The payments went straight to accounts Gillard had arranged while she was still working for the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon.

    Gillard was into the scam up to her elbows and, as she was screwing Wilson at the time, pillow talk wasn’t confined to her other sexual exploits including married father, and current Trade Minister, Craig Emerson and now Gold Coast spiv Tim Mathieson who departed the Coast leaving multiple unpaid debts.

    Her part in the scam was rewarded with $50,000 of renovations to her house and a $25,000 account at a top fashion house (although one could be forgiven for thinking she never used it.)

    The story broke and Gillard went into frenzied damage control.

    When the dust settled, Gillard was still PM but ground-breaking journalists were sacked, News Ltd CEO, John Hartigan, resigned. Both Fairfax and News Ltd immediately spiked the story and pulled broadcasts, Andrew Bolt threatened to resign, Laurie Oakes was told, “Don’t even think about it!” Blogs disappeared in a cloud of dust. Radio jocks were instructed to drop it.

    ABC and ‘The Australian’ journalist, Glenn Milne, had spent months carefully documenting Gillard’s devastating involvement. His story had been legalled and it ran in ‘The Australian’ on Monday, August 1st 2011. It was immediately pulled after one phone call from Gillard.

    Slavish supporter of Gillard, the ABC, promptly sacked Milne.

    Gillard continued a barrage of phone calls to the then CEO of News Ltd, John Hartigan and there was a meeting arranged at the offices of News Ltd. What exactly was said at that meeting may never be known but it certainly didn’t resemble what Gillard said it was about.

    The Leveson Hacking Inquiry was threatening to engulf Australia’s media and Gillard saw her opportunity. She used Bob Brown as a verbal battering ram to threaten Fairfax and Murdoch with an “inquiry”. Gillard herself publicly entered the fray with her now famous utterance: “There are questions that need to be answered.” That statement was carefully crafted to put the fear of God into the media. After much questioning she has refused to say what those questions might be.

    A Leveson-style inquiry here would mutilate the very core of Australia’s media and their executives as it has, and is still doing, in the UK.

    Fairfax and Murdoch executives, to put it bluntly, were shitting themselves. Their indecent grappling for a piece of an ever-decreasing circulation market-share would have opened an ugly can of worms. A can I will let sit for another time.

    So, this squalid deal was done but the sordid tale still bubbles below the surface. It reaches to the very heart of the Labor movement. We are witnessing only the tip of unions’ mob-like protection rackets and their corrupt manipulation of our Parliaments.

    This shameful story will eventually be told in full colour. It will be a long and agonising read.

    But, in the interim, today’s fetid political power holds sway.

    (TO BE CONTINUED)”

    • Just how “naive” does one need to be to pass law school and hook a plum job at one of Australia’s most prominent law firms?

      • Merilyn
      • June 22nd, 2012

      Thank you for that Sean.

      • He’s good value, isn’t he. I probably don’t pay him enough, and with this tough economy he’s NOT getting a pay rise. But still, yes, good job.

          • Sean of Deer Park
          • June 22nd, 2012

          :lol: “the cheque’s in the mail…”

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • June 21st, 2012

    Some more background reading on the astounding reality of Prime Minister Gillard’s criminal history here:

    http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/08/07/australian-prime-minister-julia-gillards-criminal-history-and-her-hypocris-with-wikileaks-and-julian-assange/

    If you haven’t already, visit this website for more interesting reading and media cover-ups relating to our honourable representatives in parliament. Fascinating stuff. :lol:

    http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/

      • Merilyn
      • June 22nd, 2012

      That is a very good site.

  3. And the killer irony is that if the complainants had kept quiet, the pic would have scored a few laughs and been forgotten*. Now it’s being talked about and distributed widely.
    *Insofar as that image of Gillard can ever be forgotten… anyone got any of that Spleenville eye bleach left?

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • June 23rd, 2012

      Poetic Justice.

      I think Carpe still has the Eye Bleach. :lol:

      • philjourdan
      • June 25th, 2012

      The best way to get anything noticed is to ban it. While the old media seems to be constantly stuck on stupid in that regard (ignoring the new media to their own detriment), I find it ironic that members of the new media can be just as myopic at times.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • June 23rd, 2012

    UPDATE: The plot thickens…

    Larry Pickering – 23rd June 2012

    “Subsequent to re-posting the Gillard/Wilson article we received a further notice today, 23/06/2012, from Facebook (without the threat of permanent banning):

    “We’ve received more reports that the following content you posted [Bruce Wilson/Gillard article shown in full] violates Facebook policies. We have not yet taken any action. Learn more about the Facebook Community Standards here”: http://www.facebook.com/communitystandards

    CONTINUED:

    We rely on the media for our information. When information is suppressed by media itself (Fairfax and News Ltd) to protect their own interests it is not merely a serious matter, it tears at the very fabric of our democracy.

    In this instance, Julia Gillard was able to visit the offices of News Ltd (highly unusual in its self) and suppress certain information damaging to her. Media were demonstrably co-operative and complicit in that suppression.

    There is profound paranoia surrounding this story. This suppression is an indictment on the very media we could once trust to deliver us truth.

    Since the Gillard/Wilson article was resurrected on this page, Senators Brandis and Joyce have demanded answers in the Senate. More importantly sacked Attorney General, Bob McClelland, is stirring the murky pot in the Lower House.

    I have written extensively on the Leveson Inquiry and its findings. I will not publish this because there remain missing pieces to the puzzle.

    What I have reason to strongly suspect in the Gillard/Wilson story I will now explain. It is safer to do that, now it is clear determined attempts are being made to prevent me. (You will need to read the original article first.)

    Phone hacking in Australian media is rife. There is constant contact between journalists in the UK, the US and Australia. Most are friends and are regularly shifted or promoted internationally. To suggest what has occurred in the UK does not apply here is fanciful in the extreme. It does occur here but the genie is not quite out of the bottle. Not yet

    The consequences of a Leveson-style Inquiry here would emulate that in the UK. Papers would close, CEO’s, editors, journalists and politicians would face jail sentences. Gillard was in the process of mapping out the terms of reference of the Finkelstein Inquiry into Australia’s media. She saw no conflict of interest whatsoever.

    I asked an IT associate to hack my phone. With two cell phones, and within five minutes, she had done exactly that. Everything on my phone was hers… ostensibly without my knowledge. With the right equipment, and within 50 metres, everything that is said on any cell phone can be recorded. Competitive news gathering is a high stakes game.

    Gillard used the threat of exposing media phone hacking to blackmail executives into spiking the story.

    Conroy and Brown were champing at the bit to justify controlling the Press. It was potentially fatal for Australian media if they did not comply. With one phone call, News Ltd had Fairfax also capitulating to Gillard’s blackmail. It had little choice. The story was spiked, Hartigan resigned, heads rolled and we know the rest.

    But how could Gillard possibly know about this extensive and illegal phone hacking? It is not a field she could be expected to be familiar with. The answer to that question is found in the close and unhealthy relationship Foreign Affairs Department has with the Australian Federal Police.

    Kevin Rudd could never be trusted to protect Gillard’s back so, enter the malleable Gillard pet, Bob Carr. Carr had much to learn and very quickly. He made many mistakes on the way.

    The AFP uses phone hacking extensively as a tool of trade and works closely with Foreign Affairs particularly in Indonesian matters. Successive Australian Governments have meticulously sought to placate Islamic Indonesia at almost any cost, often at the expense of Australian citizens.

    Whitlam acquiesced, under Indonesian pressure, to cover up the murder of five Australian journalists in Balibo. Gorton gave them our jet fighters. Gillard continues to throw materiel and unaccounted-for millions at them.

    Howard left Corby out to dry by allowing the AFP to suppress evidence supporting her. She may well be guilty, but if so, why did 60 airport CCT tapes supporting her story disappear into thin air? Her baggage was 5 kilo lighter when it was weighed here than when the Indonesians weighed it at Denpasar. The marijuana was burnt before its place of origin could be determined. Other critical evidence was also suppressed… but why the frantic race to destroy evidence? Well, it was never really about Corby, that’s why. It was about the AFP’s own involvement in a baggage handling bombshell.

    It’s quite simple really. The AFP were protecting themselves. They are corrupt. They are party to, and beneficiaries of, the baggage handling operation at Australian airports. The missing CCT airport tapes would have proved that.

    Dozens of Australians were unwitting mules carrying drugs to Indonesia. They arrived at hotels in Bali and, if the drugs had not been intercepted before they were discovered, AFP advice to victims was to destroy the evidence and not risk the death penalty.

    Of course, those drugs were promptly destroyed by innocent Australian carriers, thereby unknowingly risking equally serious charges of interfering with evidence pertaining to narcotics and perverting the course of Indonesian justice.

    All drug “offenders” held in Indonesian jails have been given cell phones. Those cell phones are hacked by the resident AFP to identify any evidentiary threat to them. The AFP can virtually decide who Indonesian Police will charge and who they will not… who will be convicted and who will not. Corby was cannon-fodder and the arc lights were trained on her.

    The AFP is privy to media hacking. It’s their business. They can monitor it at will and won’t expose it for fear of embroiling themselves. If the AFP know all about media phone hacking then Foreign Affairs knows all about it too and therefore, so too does Julia Gillard. They are improper alliances.

    Gillard used that knowledge to blackmail Australia’s media. The Press got their innocuous “Finkelstein Media Report” which proposed merely an extension of its already ineffective Press Council. In return, the Wilson/Gillard story got spiked.

    We were shafted. But all’s apparently well in media land and Gillard’s office… apparently!

    • Juicy stuff!

        • Sean of Deer Park
        • June 23rd, 2012

        Hmmm, might be seeing a bit more on this, eh?
        Perhaps your journalistic talents need to examine this and a new thread be in order.

        Of course, knowing full well AFP will be looking at you kid! :lol:
        (*checks for bugs under the bed*)

        • I think I’ll leave it up to Larry. It’s juicy stuff, but I don’t have the contacts… and am quite happy being a little bit under the radar.

  1. August 8th, 2012

Surely you're thinking something...

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: