Facebook’s Oversight Board has Upheld its Ban of Donald Trump

A Facebook-appointed panel of journalists, activists and lawyers ruled on Wednesday to uphold the social network’s ban of former President Donald Trump, ending any immediate return by Trump to mainstream social media and renewing a debate about tech power over online speech.

Facebook’s Oversight Board, which acts as a quasi-court over the company’s content decisions, said the social network was right to bar Trump after he used the site to foment an insurrection in Washington in January. The panel said the ongoing risk of violence “justified” the suspension.

But the board also said that an indefinite suspension was “not appropriate,” and that the company should apply a “defined penalty.” The board gave Facebook six months to make its final decision on Trump’s account status.

“Our sole job is to hold this extremely powerful organization, Facebook, to be held accountable,” Michael McConnell, co-chair of the Oversight Board, said on a call with reporters. The ban on Trump “did not meet these standards,” he said.

The decision adds difficulties to Trump rejoining mainstream social media, which he had used during his White House years to cajole, set policy, criticize opponents and rile up his tens of millions of followers. Twitter and YouTube had also cut off Trump in January after the insurrection at the Capitol building, saying the risk of harm and the potential for violence that he created were too great.

But while Trump’s Facebook account remains suspended for now, he may still be able to return to the social network once the company reviews its action. On Tuesday, Trump unveiled a new site, “From the desk of Donald J. Trump,” to communicate with his supporters. It looked much like a Twitter feed, complete with posts written by Trump that could be shared on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Representatives for Trump did not immediately return requests for comment.

Trump’s continued Facebook suspension gave conservatives, who have long accused the social media companies of suppressing right-wing voices, new fuel against the platforms. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, has testified in Congress several times in recent years about whether the social network has shown bias against conservative political views. He has denied it.

In a tweet, the Republican members of the House judiciary committee said of the board’s decision, “Pathetic.”

Democrats took aim at how Facebook can be used to spread lies. Frank Pallone, the chairman of the House energy and commerce committee, tweeted, “Donald Trump has played a big role in helping Facebook spread disinformation, but whether he’s on the platform or not, Facebook and other social media platforms with the same business model will find ways to highlight divisive content to drive advertising revenues.”

The decision underlined the power of tech companies in determining who gets to say what online. While Zuckerberg has said that he does not wish his company to be “the arbiter of truth” in social discourse, Facebook has become increasingly active about the kinds of content it allows. To prevent the spread of misinformation, the company has cracked down on QAnon conspiracy theory groups, election falsehoods and anti-vaccination content in recent months, before culminating in the blocking of Trump in January.

“This case has dramatic implications for the future of speech online because the public and other platforms are looking at how the oversight board will handle what is a difficult controversy that will arise again around the world,” said Nate Persily, a professor at Stanford University’s law school.

He added, “President Trump has pushed the envelope about what is permissible speech on these platforms and he has set the outer limits such that if you are unwilling to go after him, you are allowing a large amount of incitement and hate speech and disinformation online that others are going to propagate.”

In a statement, Facebook said it was “pleased” that the board recognized that its barring of Trump in January was justified. The company added that it would consider the ruling and “determine an action that is clear and proportionate.”

Trump’s case is the most prominent that the Facebook Oversight Board, which was conceived in 2018, has handled. The board, which is made up of 20 journalists, activists and former politicians, reviews and adjudicates the company’s most contested content moderation decisions. Zuckerberg has repeatedly referred to it as the “Facebook Supreme Court.”

But while the panel is positioned as independent, it was founded and funded by Facebook and has no legal or enforcement authority. Critics have been skeptical of the board’s autonomy and have said it gives Facebook the ability to punt on difficult decisions.

Each of its cases is decided by a five-person panel selected from among the board’s 20 members, one of whom must be from the country in which the case originated. The panel reviews the comments on the case and makes recommendations to the full board, which decides through a majority vote. After a ruling, Facebook has seven days to act on the board’s decision.

Since the board began issuing rulings in January, it has overturned Facebook’s decisions in four out of the five cases it has reviewed. In one case, the board asked Facebook to restore a post that used Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, to make a point about the Trump presidency. Facebook had earlier removed the post because it “promoted dangerous individuals,” but complied with the board’s decision.

In another case, the board ruled that Facebook had overreached by taking down a French user’s post that erroneously suggested the drug hydroxychloroquine could be used to cure Covid-19. Facebook restored the post but also said it would keep removing the false information following guidance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

In Trump’s case, Facebook also asked the board to make recommendations on how to handle the accounts of political leaders. On Wednesday, the board suggested the company should publicly explain when it was applying special rules to influential figures, though it should impose definite time limits when doing so. The board also said Facebook should more clearly explain its strikes and penalties process, and develop and publish a policy that governs responses to crises or novel situations where its regular processes would not prevent imminent harm.

“Facebook has been clearly abused by influential users,” said Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a co-chair of the Oversight Board.

Facebook does not have to adopt these recommendations but said it “will carefully review” them.

For Trump, Facebook was long a place to rally his digital base and support other Republicans. More than 32 million people followed him on Facebook, though that was far fewer than the more than 88 million followers he had on Twitter.

Over the years, Trump and Zuckerberg also shared a testy relationship. Trump regularly assailed Silicon Valley executives for what he perceived to be their suppression of conservative speech. He also threatened to revoke Section 230, a legal shield that protects companies like Facebook from liability for what users post.

Zuckerberg occasionally criticized some of Trump’s policies, including the handling of the pandemic and immigration. But as calls from lawmakers, civil rights leaders and even Facebook’s own employees grew to rein in Trump on social media, Zuckerberg declined to act. He said speech by political leaders—even if they spread lies—was newsworthy and in the public interest.

The two men also appeared cordial during occasional meetings in Washington. Zuckerberg visited the White House more than once, dining privately with Trump.

The politeness ended on Jan. 6. Hours before his supporters stormed the Capitol, Trump used Facebook and other social media to try to cast doubt on the results of the presidential election, which he had lost to Joe Biden. Trump wrote on Facebook, “Our Country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”

Less than 24 hours later, Trump was barred from the platform indefinitely. While his Facebook page has remained up, it has been dormant. His last Facebook post, on Jan. 6, read, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!”

Copyright 2021 The New York Times Company

19 Comments

  1. Its so funny how you so called liberals stand up and cheer censorship and debase yourself prostrate at the feet of your billionaire overlords, especially Gates and Zuckerberg.

    Goodness I thought the boomers were sellouts.

  2. “A Facebook-appointed panel of journalists, activists and lawyers…” — Mike Isaac

    Rephrased: a panel of disgraced liars, crazed liars, and professional liars. American society, led by the born liars who call themselves politicians, is now as corrupt as any on earth, small wonder they support censorship.

    The collective inability of these scoundrels to understand why free speech is essential is itself evidence of its essentiality, for the Founders understood free speech to be as unnatural to mankind as it was essential to the artificial environment created by the Constitution. They understood that this new nation, with a revolutionary goal, required protection from the usual suspects: scheming despots (e.g. Biden’s puppeteers), fashionable idiocies (e.g. the idiot-savants at Facebook, Google, etc.), and the easily corralled herd (e.g. liberal arts students).

    The discomfort, anger, and disgust we experience when exposed to offensive speech/material is a response selected by nature to promote tribal unity, a tried-and-true natural form of censorship. And had the Founders intended for this nation to be like all others speech would have remained subject to control. But because they wanted something more for America, because they desired to protect its people from the worst of their natural inclinations, they constructed a document designed to counter those evils and free the people to create a more perfect society (one that became the envy of the world by freeing its people to capitalize on their natural gifts, including their Bright Privilege).

    That censoring a person, group, or belief can feel righteous is hardly surprising, but that doesn’t make it noble or any less destructive when done for nefarious purposes. We are quite capable of keeping society safe via the promotion of decency and shared values, the use of persona and public shaming, and, for those who turn their free speech into lawbreaking, incarceration. This truth exposes the true goal of the pro-censorship movement not as societal betterment but as the acquisition of unbridled power, which takes us right back to what the Founders had hoped to leave behind in England.

    Question: How long before that dweeb Zuckerberg starts referring to Facebook members at his serfs?

  3. SJ KULAK you wrote:

    “Its so funny how you so called liberals stand up and cheer censorship and debase yourself prostrate at the feet of your billionaire overlords, especially Gates and Zuckerberg.”

    REMEMBER FACEBOOK IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS, IT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. THEY SIMPLY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR PRODUCT VALUE. This is not a liberal government conspiracy. If you want FACEBOOK to be under the requirement of FIRST AMENDMENT, you are going to have to assume it under ENAMATE DOMAIN and pay the price for it. You of all people argue for “Property Rights” and in effect INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY rights are the one case where they are ABSOULUTE, not like land.

    Phu Tan Elli wrote:

    “Rephrased: a panel of disgraced liars, crazed liars, and professional liars. American society, led by the born liars who call themselves politicians, is now as corrupt as any on earth, small wonder they support censorship.”

    Well that makes your opinion clear but you went on to say:

    “The discomfort, anger, and disgust we experience when exposed to offensive speech/material is a response selected by nature to promote tribal unity, a tried-and-true natural form of censorship. And had the Founders intended for this nation to be like all others speech would have remained subject to control. But because they wanted something more for America, because they desired to protect its people from the worst of their natural inclinations, they constructed a document designed to counter those evils and free the people to create a more perfect society (one that became the envy of the world by freeing its people to capitalize on their natural gifts, including their Bright Privilege).”

    OK then lets look at what you write to compare it:

    “The killer was identified (elsewhere!) as Smut’s boyfriend, a man who prior to the murder was presumably part of the “queer family and friends,” thus counterfeiting the organization’s depiction of the crime as having been against the transgender community. The organization’s eagerness to distort and exploit a domestic violence tragedy for its own hateful, finger-pointing purposes, a distortion that disrespects the victim’s right to a truthful remembrance, is a testament to its indefatigable deceit and endemic narcissism.”

    And:

    “In response to my comment, in which I described the crime as a “domestic violence tragedy,” Steven Goldstein offered this:

    — Really? As far as the law goes, you cannot beat or rape or murder your wife, girlfriend, or partner, that is the definition of Domestic Violence, and “gender” or “sexual orientation” has nothing to do with it. —

    Are you having trouble with your meds or just your reading comprehension? Your comment was idiotic and annoying. You want so much to seem smart and insightful that you guzzle your way through the comments, seldom pausing long enough to digest anything and then, predictably, you vomit all over the page.”

    And:

    “I challenge you to explain how your pompous response to my comment made sense. In what world does describing something as a “domestic violence tragedy,” which is how I depicted the victim’s murder, somehow fail to “Really?” define it as domestic violence (as you alleged)?

    I resort to name-calling because your brand of imperious asininity demands it.

    As for what most reasonable people might think, my recommendation is that you steer clear of any collection of reasonable people, especially if they have emergency commitment powers.”

    You try to portray yourself as a victim, but over and over again you a abusing others online and at the same time trying to inspire violence and intolerance to anyone you deem not worthy or respect or dignity. This is the best demonstration of hypocrisy.

    I am in favor of a new policy where ANYONE at ANYTIME writing anything like this on either side must be held criminally or civilly accountable. And if ANY ISP or any other platform service providers interferes with it, they MUST be held accountable too. Thus, I am for the elimination of section 230, as long as the PRIVATE entities are preventing accountability. Thus, anonymous posters like yourself and HB, SJ Kulak, John Galt and so on will not be protected from accountability of your conduct. Anyone can get a subpoena to disclose who you are, and bring you to court.
    That censoring a person, group, or belief can feel righteous is hardly surprising, but that doesn’t make it noble or any less destructive when done for nefarious purposes. We are quite capable of keeping society safe via the promotion of decency and shared values, the use of persona and public shaming, and, for those who turn their free speech into lawbreaking, incarceration. This truth exposes the true goal of the pro-censorship movement not as societal betterment but as the acquisition of unbridled power, which takes us right back to what the Founders had hoped to leave behind in England.

  4. Campus PC fascism with liberal hatred and intolerance for dissent or rejection, spread elsewhere, now with woke “cancellation” and “erasure” to add to its mentality and totalitarianism, upholds itself (again). It’s software, so there are no statues (or caps, etc.) being removed in this instance, too so far as we know.

  5. Along with the college totalitarianism elsewhere, we’re seeing mention here again by a liberal of wanting to sue writers of comments that liberal doesn’t like. Classic, with the question being one of warped and diseased ideology as with many others on the Left, or just being an opportunistic grifter if the legal system could be milked.

  6. While they are not a government agency, they are protected by Section 230. If you pick and choose who and what you are going to post, then you become a publisher and should be liable for what you say and do.

  7. HB you are one to claim to be a reasonable person, but then you did this:

    HB you wrote:

    “Here is a little data that supports the idea that at least half of the trans people are killed by their queer partners. Another huge risk factor about trans women is if they engage in street prostitution. A number of other articles suggest that the victims were engaged in prostitution.”

    And it was the legal discrimination of trans people that FORCED them to do that kind of work. They weren’t allowed to do any other work except “stage” performers or worse “circus freaks” Only in the last 2 years has there been a legal recognition FEDERALLY that trans people are prevented from doing the “kind” of work you would not question. And in fact, the same story was for homosexuals too. If you think you can just say, “oh, they are criminals they get what they deserve” than this is the reason why you and your friends never self-disclose who you are.

    It can take as much as 20 years for when a group is declared protected from discrimination, to where it even comes close to where they can have an equal chance to live with the assumption that those rights are theirs. As I said, HB if you had your way, you would force it so the only work that TRANS people could do is criminal work, thus fulfilling your claim that TRANS people are not worthy of being given respect. Which is EXACTLY what has happened in this country ever since the “RED SCARE” days, that the LGBTQ people are “SECURITY” risks and are not trustworthy to do any work by anyone.

    You cannot deny that is what people who “HATE” the LGBTQ community all strive to prove to the “REST” of us.

    I shall wait for the conclusion of the investigation, but there is a lot of proof that Trans people are targeted for violence. There are good Federal Crime statistics along with state ones. With some very glaring stories like the Brandon Teena story. But you can go ahead and ride the Nile (ride Denial) for as far as you want.

    Also :

    HB,

    You never addressed my point, like you always do when confronted with a valid argument that makes your comments invalid: You simply try to play “Whack a Mole” and change the subject.

    What we have with HB, SJ Kulak and Phu Tan Ellie is the problem with the internet called circular validation via anonymous unauthenticated information. Which are the evidentiary failures that those like yourself support regarding the “QANON” movement.

    The fact that so many actually believe “QANON” information is amazing.

    Once anyone gets provided any reliable information that contradicts them, the personally attack over and over again. HB, have you any evidentiary justification for the comments you wrote regarding this topic?

  8. “You try to portray yourself as a victim, but over and over again you a abusing others online and at the same time trying to inspire violence and intolerance to anyone you deem not worthy or respect or dignity.” — Steven Goldstein

    No sane person who reads my comments, and certainly no one who has known me at any time in my life, would allege that I’ve tried, or desired, to portray myself as a victim (although I do admit to occasionally feeling tortured by the tiresome lunacy of your rantings). Bottom line, you’re off the mark once again.

    Your outrage over the use of pseudonyms by those who disagree with you suggests you have a burning desire to see them punished, criminally and/or civilly, despite their having directed nothing towards you other than words (which have left you neither broken, bleeding, or in danger). Is it free speech that offends you, or having your opinion challenged, or is it just a love of authority? Are you saddled with a grudge or is your apparent fragility a side effect of your undeserved conceit? I’ll be the first to admit that the desire to punish one’s every detractor is a trait common to some of history’s most accomplished men, Robespierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao coming to mind. Is it your desire to join their ranks, or just help some other American obtain such power?

  9. Some of you might have wondered why Steven Goldstein continues to (mis) post a comment I made in an unrelated column. If you have read any of his ramblings, you know that he cannot stay on topic (as a general rule) and he is often obstreperous and obtuse. In addition to using way too many capital letters (shouting), he is always a “know-it-all” and tolerates no deviation from what he views as his personal brand of Marxist orthodoxy. He really likes the sound of his own voice. In times gone by, he would be classified as a bore. His word salads are nothing more that excessive “copy and paste” jobs.

    He doesn’t respond in the normal sense, he is the type of person that is ready to argue with you before you can even make your point. He will argue with you even if he agrees with you. He just has to make everything about himself. He is a classic example of why one should never confuse education with intelligence, particularly emotional intelligence.

    The discussion that people were having in the other article was about the slant of the article. It seemed to some people that are calling the epidemic of trans deaths “anti-trans violence” did not properly define why trans people were being killed. The tenor of the article, according to some, was that the trans community was being attacked because they were trans (the implication was that straight people were causing the deaths). And, more specifically, Natalie’s death was not cause by “anti-trans violence,” but rather, it was committed (allegedly) by her boyfriend. If true, it would be an act of domestic violence. Clearly, if it is true that her boyfriend killed her, then it was an act of violence committed by one member of the LGBTQ community against another LGBTQ person. In other words, her murder would not fit the commonly perceived view (pushed by a number of LGBT groups that the violence is coming from outside the LGBTQ community) of “violence against trans women of color” – “anti-trans violence.

    Steven has not post my full comments nor has he posted them in context. Here is the full comment that I posted in the other article:

    “HB Apr 26, 2021 @ 1:09 pm
    Here is a little data that supports the idea that at least half of the trans people are killed by their queer partners. Another huge risk factor about trans women is if they engage in street prostitution. A number of other articles suggest that the victims were engaged in prostitution.
    Very hard to get good stats but it would appear that the queer community is the biggest part of the problem.”

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-womans-murder-underscores-problem-partner-violence-plaguing/story?id=65203137

    End quote.

    As anyone who reads the ABC article (link) would conclude, LGBTQ violence against LGBTQ (particularly trans women) is a major part of the problem. ABC states that and quotes sources.

    As you can see, Steven Goldstein does not include the link to an ABC news article (which was included in my post and was the source of my comments) in his screeds.

    Most ideologs are dishonest and will do anything to hurt other people that do not agree with them. Clearly that is his motive here. Here is what he subsequently posted:

    “HB,
    Yuo just cannot understand, that you are a constant cheater. I will forever remind the readers of your conduct here in EVERY other discussion moving forward.
    It is not a threat or harrassment, it is just history, YOUR history.” From Steven Goldstein
    One of the things that I have discovered over the years is that when someone says that his comments are not meant to threaten you or harass you, he is going to do just that. Why bring it up other than an attempt to CYA?

    And, BTW Steven, I am not “name calling,” it’s just history – your history ;-).

    In conclusion, the death of anyone is tragic, particularly when it is a homicide. But if the trans community wants to reduce the number of trans deaths caused by violence, it is important to have a factual conversation about who is committing the violence. Once we know the scope of the problem and who is committing the violence, perhaps some better measures can be applied to ameliorate the problem. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of one Steven Goldstein.

  10. HB,

    That was a DIRECT QUOTE, if you think it was a missquote, that was your failure to write yourself accurately.

    No one likes to smell their own “contribution” when it stinks. All I am doing is insuring the readers here understand what kind of person you are. They can read the original postings themselves, and prove you wrong.

    Unless you go on the record to RETRACT what you said, it remains there, and you are ACCOUNTABLE to your CONDUCT.

    Too bad you felt you were never going to be ACCOUNTABLE, like so many times Donald Trump said he was going to provide things to his customers or the people in “Two Weeks” but never disclosed the promised goods.

    When we readers expect you to provide more than just these comments, you give us nothing.

    I AM FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF SECTION 230, AND TO FORCE ANYONE MAKING COMMENTS OTHER THAN CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSTATION ACCOUNTABLE.

  11. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Your outrage over the use of pseudonyms by those who disagree with you suggests you have a burning desire to see them punished, criminally and/or civilly, despite their having directed nothing towards you other than words (which have left you neither broken, bleeding, or in danger).”

    The REALITY is that WORDS like this can and do result in harm to those you direct them to. And since I am not anonymous, I am particularly vulnerable to possible harm. You just are trying to make an excuse for your lake of constructive conversation, you just want to inflame and cause more problems. You wrote:

    “Is it free speech that offends you, or having your opinion challenged, or is it just a love of authority?”

    FREE SPEECH does not mean that you can say ANYTHING and not be accountable? Even the U.S. Supreme Court does not allow FREE SPEECH to justify any increased risk of harm to any group or person. Basically you want to use FREE SPEECH as a defense for any harm that occurs from your actions. You wrote:

    “Are you saddled with a grudge or is your apparent fragility a side effect of your undeserved conceit? I’ll be the first to admit that the desire to punish one’s every detractor is a trait common to some of history’s most accomplished men, Robespierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao coming to mind. Is it your desire to join their ranks, or just help some other American obtain such power?”

    Same applies to Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, and every other so called “Free market advocate” that says if you are not with us, you are against us. THe bottom line is that if anything you are the same as Robespierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao, because you want your “authority” to dictate the same power.

  12. TRy Logic,

    Mankind is doomed actulally. By the year 2100 the CO2 level will be at 5000 PPM which will render mankind extinct or living in Domed cities.

    THe CO2 is already at 420 PPM and the Carbonic Acid in the seas and in the freash water is starting to kill off the rest of the plantsand the coral in the ocean to process CO2 inot H2O and O2.

    THe line has already been crossed, thats why Buisness and Governments are not even trying to pay off debt anymore. Come 25 years from now, when it becomes to obvious, the businesses and the governments will collapse. THere will be no Rapture or any other thing, we will just tear mankind apart.

    And there is no GOD to save us.

  13. of course im not going to read the incredibly clueless apologist comments, as if legality was a measure for whats right. It is laughable you tools can cheer this on, what a bunch of non principled sellouts. I guess thats how we have tenants stealing rent by gaming a moratorium designed to help poor people and low life landlords min maxing loopholes. No moral restraint means no freedom in the limit, and moral restraint comes from belief in God.

  14. HB,

    The reason why I don’t is that the SJSpotlight website can take days for links to be approved by the moderators. But lets go into what that report said:

    “Tracy Williams, a 22-year-old transgender woman from Houston, had a creative mind and was always smiling and dancing. People who knew her said she had a star quality and seemed destined to become a performer.
    But like a number of other transgender women, Williams appears to have fallen victim to violence at the hands of an intimate partner — an issue that while not particular to the transgender community, has had a profound effect on it.”

    This report is not talking about Natalie here, but another completely different case. Also:

    “Police charged her boyfriend, 25-year-old Joshua Bourgeois, with her murder in late August. It’s unclear what may have led him to allegedly kill the young woman, but her friends said she tried to break up with him just before her death.
    Bourgeois was being held on a $195,000 bond on charges of murder and burglary as of Wednesday. He is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 29. His court-appointed attorney, Feroz Farook Merchant, did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.”

    So it is not yet been determind a domestic violence case, AND YOU KNEW IT. It goes on to say:

    “A 2015 study by UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law found that between 31% and 50% of transgender people have experienced dating violence at some point in their lives, compared to between 28% and 33% of the general population.”

    And :

    “”Trans women of color have the combination of being discriminated against because of race and gender identity, and oftentimes, they end up leaving high school without a diploma,” she said. “They’re hard to employ anywhere, so they’re often on the street, trying to make a living through the underground economy. And that just opens us up to lots of risks.”
    Monica Roberts, a Houston-area transgender rights advocate, called Williams’ murder a reminder of the work that needs to be done when it comes to gender equality.”

    And:

    “She said many deaths involve “excessive levels of violence” that should be classified as hate crimes. Roberts pointed to fatal domestic violence cases like the one involving 33-year-old Yazmin Payne, a transgender woman who was stabbed to death by her boyfriend in the Los Angeles apartment they shared in 2015. Ezekiel Jamal Dear was found guilty of stabbing her multiple times and setting the apartment on fire.
    He was acquitted of the more serious charge of murder and found guilty of one count each of voluntary manslaughter and unlawfully causing a fire. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison in October 2017, angering transgender rights advocates who had called for much harsher penalties. According to the California Department of Corrections website, he is eligible for parole in March 2025.”

    And:

    “”I think it’s worse for trans people and, to some degree, LGBT people, because when we’re young, we’re often told that we’ll be alone the rest of our lives,” Loree Cook-Daniels said. “So there’s a there’s a sense of ‘I gotta find somebody because it’s going to be really hard. And then once I’ve found somebody, I better hold on to them.’ So, even if the relationship turns violent, people may stay in the relationship because they’d rather be with a violent partner then no partner at all.”
    She said the death of Williams, and so many other slain trans women, is further proof that America needs to do more to show that transgender lives matter.
    Roberts echoed her sentiment.
    “We have the Republican Party demonizing the trans community along with the Roman Catholic Church and conservative pastors,” Roberts said. “When you throw that negativity out in the atmosphere and demonize a group, it’s not long before people absorb it and start aiming violence at those groups.”

    So please stop trying to mislead the people here. This is the TEXT from that report you linked to here (https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-womans-murder-underscores-problem-partner-violence-plaguing/story?id=65203137)

    And your own typing in effect reinforced the message here. Your writing is nothing but attacks on others while providibg no constructive solutions to the problems, like so many others that I have had to correct because if I didn’t the misinformation would be accepted by the readers from your “circle of authority of anonymous posters”

  15. Some of you might have wondered why Steven Goldstein continues to (mis) post a comment I made in an unrelated column. If you have read any of his ramblings, you know that he cannot stay on topic (as a general rule) and he is often obstreperous and obtuse. In addition to using way too many capital letters (shouting), he is always a “know-it-all” and tolerates no deviation from what he views as his personal brand of Marxist orthodoxy. He really likes the sound of his own voice. In times gone by, he would be classified as a bore. His word salads are nothing more that excessive “copy and paste” jobs.

    He doesn’t respond in the normal sense, he is the type of person that is ready to argue with you before you can even make your point. He will argue with you even if he agrees with you. He just has to make everything about himself. He is a classic example of why one should never confuse education with intelligence, particularly emotional intelligence.

    The discussion that people were having in the other article was about the slant of the article. It seemed to some people that are calling the epidemic of trans deaths “anti-trans violence” did not properly define why trans people were being killed. The tenor of the article, according to some, was that the trans community was being attacked because they were trans (the implication was that straight people were causing the deaths). And, more specifically, Natalie’s death was not cause by “anti-trans violence,” but rather, it was committed (allegedly) by her boyfriend. If true, it would be an act of domestic violence. Clearly, if it is true that her boyfriend killed her, then it was an act of violence committed by one member of the LGBTQ community against another LGBTQ person. In other words, her murder would not fit the commonly perceived view (pushed by a number of LGBT groups that the violence is coming from outside the LGBTQ community) of “violence against trans women of color” – “anti-trans violence.

    Steven has not (in the past) posted my full comments nor has he posted them in context. Here is the full comment that I posted in the other article:

    “HB Apr 26, 2021 @ 1:09 pm
    Here is a little data that supports the idea that at least half of the trans people are killed by their queer partners. Another huge risk factor about trans women is if they engage in street prostitution. A number of other articles suggest that the victims were engaged in prostitution.
    Very hard to get good stats but it would appear that the queer community is the biggest part of the problem.”

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-womans-murder-underscores-problem-partner-violence-plaguing/story?id=65203137
    End quote.

    As anyone who reads the ABC article (link) would conclude, LGBTQ violence against other LGBTQ people (particularly trans women) is a major part of the problem. ABC states that and quotes sources.

    As you can see, Steven Goldstein has finally include the link to an ABC news article (which was included in my post and was the source of my comments) in his screeds. He also doesn’t, not unsurprisingly, provide a link to my actual comments so the readers can see his false statements:

    Here is the article with my posting in the comments section:

    https://staging.sanjoseinside.com/news/supporters-gather-for-murdered-san-jose-transgender-woman/

    You will notice that Steven leaves out a line or two and never provides the link that I used to support my position.

    Most ideologs are dishonest and will do anything to hurt other people that do not agree with them. Clearly that is his motive here. Here is what he subsequently posted:

    “HB,
    Yuo just cannot understand, that you are a constant cheater. I will forever remind the readers of your conduct here in EVERY other discussion moving forward.
    It is not a threat or harrassment, it is just history, YOUR history.” From Steven Goldstein
    One of the things that I have discovered over the years is that when someone says that his comments are not meant to threaten you or harass you, he is going to do just that. Why bring it up other than an attempt to CYA?

    And, BTW Steven, I am not “name calling,” it’s just history – your history ;-).

    In conclusion, the death of anyone is tragic, particularly when it is a homicide. But if the trans community wants to reduce the number of trans deaths caused by violence, it is important to have a factual conversation about who is committing the violence. Once we know the scope of the problem and who is committing the violence, perhaps some better measures can be applied to ameliorate the problem. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of one Steven Goldstein.

  16. HB you constantly want to rewrite your history when caught being nothing but a instigator of more hostility and perhaps violence, Theis is what you wrote again”

    ““Here is a little data that supports the idea that at least half of the trans people are killed by their queer partners. Another huge risk factor about trans women is if they engage in street prostitution. A number of other articles suggest that the victims were engaged in prostitution.

    Very hard to get good stats but it would appear that the queer community is the biggest part of the problem.” (From the SJ Inside Article Supporters Gather for Murdered San Jose Transgender Woman By Bay City News/ April 26, 2021)

    Then LATER you write:

    “To her friends and family: I am very sorry for your loss.” (From the SJ Inside Article A Quest for Love: Natalia Smut’s Death Highlights Trans Struggles By Katie Lauer/ April 28, 2021)

    Which I responded:

    “WAIT A SEC? You first degrade Natalia in the previouse story found here (From the SJ Inside Article Supporters Gather for Murdered San Jose Transgender Woman By Bay City News/ April 26, 2021)

    Then now you just say I am sorry for your loss?

    OMG this is the best example of how many have conducted themselves, coming to conclusions about people, openly criticizing them, and then say “SORRY”?”

    You responded :

    “TO: Steven:

    Your comments posted under this article are in extremely poor taste (actually, disgusting). I commented in a different news article that was discussing, in addition to the loss of Natalia, the problem of violence against trans people (which should never happen — and, of course, the same is true for Cis people).”

    But you said that Trans people being hurt or killed were “Prostitutes” Right? You can’t just make this kind off statement and then try to claim the high ground on different stories, and topics. The fact is you just can’t stay on message.

    The fact is you SELECTIVELY perceive the messages you WANT to hear. And draw inaccurate conclusions from other stories claiming to be accurate only because you provided “THE LINK” to the story. Deception by omission is deception.

    In the end the last paragraph from the ABCNews report “Transgender woman’s murder underscores problem of partner violence plaguing community, advocates say Many transgender people killed this year were targeted by their partners. ByKarma Allen September 13, 2019, 1:15 AM describes you to a T regarding this topic even though you are trying to say you didn’t say it:

    “”We have the REPUBLICAN PARTY demonizing the trans community along with the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and CONSERVATIVE PASTORS,” Roberts said. “When you THROW THAT NEGATIVITY OUT IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND DEMONIZE A GROUP, it’s not long BEFORE PEOPLE ABSORB IT AND START AIMING VIOLENCE AT THOSE GROUPS.”

    What we have here is people trying to on one hand clearly promote hostility to anyone they want, and on the other hand try to claim they are RIGHTEOUS and want the AUTHORITY to dictate how everyone must live for THEIR OWN BENEFIT

  17. And as Paul Harvey would say HERE IS THE REST OF THE STORY FROM ABCNEWS HB, but you tried to cover it up by only saying what you said and omitting the rest here

    Lets go into what that report said:

    “Tracy Williams, a 22-year-old transgender woman from Houston, had a creative mind and was always smiling and dancing. People who knew her said she had a star quality and seemed destined to become a performer.

    But like a number of other transgender women, Williams appears to have fallen victim to violence at the hands of an intimate partner — an issue that while not particular to the transgender community, has had a profound effect on it.”

    This report is not talking about Natalie here, but another completely different case. Also:

    “Police charged her boyfriend, 25-year-old Joshua Bourgeois, with her murder in late August. It’s unclear what may have led him to allegedly kill the young woman, BUT HER FRIENDS SAID SHE TRIED TO BREAK UP WITH HIM JUST BEFORE HER DEATH.

    Bourgeois was being held on a $195,000 bond on charges of murder and burglary as of Wednesday. He is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 29. His court-appointed attorney, Feroz Farook Merchant, did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.”

    So it is not yet been determined a domestic violence case, AND YOU KNEW IT. It goes on to say:

    “A 2015 study by UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law found that between 31% and 50% of transgender people have experienced dating violence at some point in their lives, compared to between 28% and 33% of the general population.”

    And :

    “”Trans women of color have the combination of being discriminated against because of race and gender identity, and oftentimes, they end up leaving high school without a diploma,” she said. “They’re hard to employ anywhere, so they’re often on the street, trying to make a living through the underground economy. And that just opens us up to lots of risks.”

    Monica Roberts, a Houston-area transgender rights advocate, called Williams’ murder a reminder of the work that needs to be done when it comes to gender equality.”

    And:

    “She said many deaths involve “excessive levels of violence” that should be classified as hate crimes. Roberts pointed to fatal domestic violence cases like the one involving 33-year-old Yazmin Payne, a transgender woman who was stabbed to death by her boyfriend in the Los Angeles apartment they shared in 2015. Ezekiel Jamal Dear was found guilty of stabbing her multiple times and setting the apartment on fire.

    He was acquitted of the more serious charge of murder and found guilty of one count each of voluntary manslaughter and unlawfully causing a fire. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison in October 2017, angering transgender rights advocates who had called for much harsher penalties. According to the California Department of Corrections website, he is eligible for parole in March 2025.”

    And:

    “”I think it’s worse for trans people and, to some degree, LGBT people, because when we’re young, we’re often told that we’ll be alone the rest of our lives,” Loree Cook-Daniels said. “So there’s a there’s a sense of ‘I gotta find somebody because it’s going to be really hard. And then once I’ve found somebody, I better hold on to them.’ So, even if the relationship turns violent, people may stay in the relationship because they’d rather be with a violent partner then no partner at all.”

    She said the death of Williams, and so many other slain trans women, is further proof that America needs to do more to show that transgender lives matter.

    Roberts echoed her sentiment.

    “We have the REPUBLICAN PARTY demonizing the trans community along with the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and CONSERVATIVE PASTORS,” Roberts said. “When you throw that negativity out in the atmosphere and demonize a group, it’s not long before people absorb it and start aiming violence at those groups.”

    So please stop trying to mislead the people here. This is the TEXT from that report you linked to here (https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-womans-murder-underscores-problem-partner-violence-plaguing/story?id=65203137)

    And your own typing in effect reinforced the message here. Your writing is nothing but attacks on others while providing no constructive solutions to the problems, like so many others that I have had to correct because if I didn’t the misinformation would be accepted by the readers from your “circle of authority of anonymous posters”

    You recently said you were in a constructive conversation, BUT you did not actually suggest any solutions. IS THAT A CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION?

  18. SJ KULAK you wrote:

    “of course im not going to read the incredibly clueless apologist comments, as if legality was a measure for whats right. It is laughable you tools can cheer this on, what a bunch of non principled sellouts.”

    And like the Catholic Church coverup of sex crimes is a principled group? How abut the “Boy Scouts” too. Weren’t both of these groups supervised by a Religious order? This really shows that GOD does not exists, it was a creation and still now with all the science to prove the tomes of religion are wrong, so many a living with the delusion of a God of some kind. You wrote:

    “I guess thats how we have tenants stealing rent by gaming a moratorium designed to help poor people and low life landlords min maxing loopholes.”

    Well if Newsom has his way there is a big Rental assistance project that will begin soon. Did you see the article “Newsom promises additional $600 stimulus checks and $5 billion toward rental assistance” in the LA Times.? Again no landlord is going without unless they REFUSE to accept the assistance provided. You are not making any sense there. You wrote:

    “No moral restraint means no freedom in the limit, and moral restraint comes from belief in God.”

    WRONG moral restraint occurs from the rules of ETHICS. NOT RELIGION. You and your friends never can understand that. And given that The Catholic Church has violated MORAL RESTRAINT is so many ways in history, proves that point. The REALITY is that any organization given as much authority as churches eventually become corrupt organizations just like any other group. And the Catholic Sex Abuse saga is the best example of it

    GOD can not enforce MORAL RESTRAINT on anyone because it does not exist. It is a construct created by man to attempt to “guide” ethical action. Lets just look at the Catholic Church and its parishioners.

    But the fact that Anti-Abortionists KILL violates the 6th Commandment. “You shall not murder.”

    So many CATHOLICS wind up divorcing due to Adultery, which is a violation of the 7th Commandment. “You shall not commit adultery.”

    Your use of GOD in this forum is a violation of 3rd Commandment. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. “

    Any dishonesty of any kind anywhere is a violation of the 9th Commandment. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

    The use of religion and the attempts to seek out money is a violation of the 10th Commandment. “You shall not covet.” In this case Money.

    The current trend to IDOLIZE Donald Trump is a violation of the 2nd Commandment. “You shall make no idols.”

    SJ Kulak, it would appear GOD is not doing its job, because it does not exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *