by 
Jim Kouri
Examiner
The social media giant, Facebook, is currently censoring certain postings and comments by members in countries that object to certain content, the latest being Turkey. A Turkish high court ruled that members’ posts and comments on insult the Prophet Muhammad and are offensive to followers of Islam, according to news reports on Monday.
The Turkish court ruled that the owners and administers of Facebook and its advertisers must conduct their social media website in compliance with the court’s determination or Facebook will be banned in Turkey as it already is in other Muslim nations such as Pakistan. The Turkish court announced its decision on Sunday night, said the reports. “A person with knowledge of the matter confirmed that Facebook blocked content in Turkey following a valid legal request. That content remains visible, however, outside the country,” according to the New York Times.
Facebook claims that it already removed 1,893 Facebook entries in Turkey. According to the company’s spokesperson, the majority of complaints about unlawful content comes from Turkish law enforcement and the so-called Information and Communications Technologies Department. They said Turkish law covers a wide range of illegal activity including defamation of the country’s president. While civil rights and human rights groups are calling on Facebook executives to fight back against this obvious government repression on free speech and expression, the social media website appears to be following Turkey’s Internet regulations.
Last year, the Turkish government had blocked Google DNS and other DNS servers, which were being used by residents of Turkey to bypass the nation’s ban on another widely used social media giant, Twitter. In a statement by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an during an election rally last year in Bursa which was held just prior to the Twitter ban, he said, “Twitter and so on, we will root them out. The international community can say this or that – I don’t care. They will see the power of the Turkish Republic.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation scolded Facebook executives saying their “compliance with content restriction” in places like Turkey and Pakistan amounted to the company being complicit in political censorship. “As governments grow aware of the fact that stifling speech is as easy as submitting an order to a corporation, the number of those orders will drastically increase,” the group wrote.
Facebook is managed by Zuckerberg who allegedly stole the idea from his Harvard classmates and he is connected to the Rothschild Zionists. See following:
Did Mark Zuckerberg Steal the Facebook Idea from the Winklevoss Twin Brothers? Winklevoss twins must accept Facebook deal – court By Dan Levine SAN FRANCISCO | Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41pm EDT SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Mark Zuckerberg won a legal battle against former Harvard classmates who accuse him of stealing their idea for Facebook, but the feud made famous on the silver screen is not over yet. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss must accept a cash and stock settlement with Facebook that had been valued at $65 million, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday. Meanwhile, a New York man filed an amended lawsuit against Zuckerberg on Monday, citing a 2003 email in which Zuckerberg discusses an urgent need to launch his site before “a couple of upperclassmen” could launch theirs, an apparent reference to the Winklevoss twins. The Winklevoss brothers argued their settlement with Facebook was unfair because the company hid information from them during talks. But the twins were sophisticated negotiators aided by a team of lawyers, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. “At some point, litigation must come to an end,” Kozinski wrote. “That point has now been reached.” An attorney for the brothers, Jerome Falk Jr., said on Monday his clients would seek a rehearing before a larger, “en banc” group of 9th Circuit judges. That larger group can overrule a three-judge panel, although only a fraction of cases undergo such a review. Should the 9th Circuit refuse to rehear the case, the last option would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Falk said he “respectfully” disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s conclusions. The 6-foot, 5-inch (1.96-meter) Winklevoss brothers are Olympic rowers who participated in the 2008 games in Beijing, and their saga with Zuckerberg was dramatized in the film “The Social Network.” In the movie, actor Armie Hammer played both identical twins. Zuckerberg’s character snidely called them on-screen the “Winklevi.” FACT AND FICTION The twins, along with Divya Narendra, started a company called ConnectU while at Harvard. They say Zuckerberg stole their idea. Facebook denies these claims. Facebook took in $1.2 billion of revenue in 2010’s first nine months, according to documents that Goldman Sachs provided to clients to entice investors in a special fund set up to invest in the giant social networking firm. The company was valued at $50 billion as part of that transaction. The company said on Monday it is evaluating the Internet market in China, but a source indicated it has not yet signed a business deal with any companies there. The Winklevoss twins and Narendra agreed to a settlement that had been valued at $65 million. But they argue that, based on an internal valuation that Facebook did not reveal, they should have received more Facebook shares as part of the deal. A lower court had granted Facebook’s request to enforce the settlement with the Winklevoss twins and Narendra. The 9th Circuit agreed on Monday. “The Winklevosses are not the first parties bested by a competitor who then seek to gain through litigation what they were unable to achieve in the marketplace,” Kozinski wrote. Facebook deputy general counsel Colin Stretch said the company appreciated the court’s careful consideration of the case and was “pleased” it ruled in their favor. The case is not the only ownership dispute Zuckerberg must fend off. A New York businessman, Paul Ceglia, claims a contract with Zuckerberg to develop and design a website entitled him to an 84 percent stake in the privately held social networking site. In a new twist to the long-running case, Ceglia filed an amended lawsuit on Monday, in which he outlined an 2003 email from Zuckerberg that suggested the Facebook founder stalled “a couple of upperclassmen here” from launching their competing website. The lawsuit does not specifically name the Winklevoss twins. “If we don’t make a move soon, I think we will lose the advantage we would have if we release before them,” the lawsuit claims Zuckerberg wrote in an email. Ceglia claims Zuckerberg pleaded with him for money to finance the social network’s set-up with the intention of getting it live before the other site. Facebook has repeatedly said it believes the lawsuit is fraudulent. Orin Snyder, a lawyer for the company, said Facebook looks forward to defending the case in court and on Monday characterized Ceglia’s claims as “ridiculous.” The case involving the Winklevosses in the 9th Circuit is The Facebook Inc v. ConnectU Inc. 08-16745. (Reporting by Dan Levine; editing by Gerald E. McCormick) |
Instead of using Censorship prone Facebook why not use privacy concerned minds.com who will not be censoring political views like Facebook and reporting you to the police?
Here’s How Facebook Gives You Up To The Police
If you’re ever involved in a serious crime, you can expect the police to subpoena your Facebook account. Here’s what Facebook sends them.
posted on Apr. 6, 2012, at 3:08 p.m.
The Boston Phoenix has a fascinating story up about the unusually tech-centric hunt for Craigslist Killer. In the course of reporting, the paper’s reporters came across something they, and the general public, had never seen before: The full results of a Facebook subpoena.
This is what Facebook sends to the police when they (or rather, a judge) asks nicely enough (view the entire file here):
2. A lot of paper
Three months of Facebook data, in this case, adds up to 71 printed pages
3. All your wall posts and shares
This is obvious, since these are more or less public anyway. Also, the subpoena was executed before Facebook Timeline and News Feed came out. A file compiled today would probably be a lot longer (and harder to read).
4. All your friends (and enemies)
The file contains a list of the friends you still have as well as the ones you’ve deleted. Facebook, like a lot of web services, has a full memory of all your actions — the friends, the unfriends, the likes, the shares. Facebook is a million little bells that you can’t unring, at least as far as police investigations go.
6. Your entire Facebook browsing history
When you click on someone’s profile, it’s logged. Other Facebook users don’t know you’re looking at their profiles, but Facebook itself most assuredly does. Or rather can, if the police come asking.
This is far from the first subpoena Facebook has cooperated with, just the first we’ve been able to look at. Here’s what the site says about its policies for cooperating with law enforcement:
We work with law enforcement where appropriate and to the extent required by law to ensure the safety of the people who use Facebook. We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests (including criminal and civil matters) if we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law. This may include respecting requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States where we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law under the local laws in that jurisdiction, apply to users from that jurisdiction, and are consistent with generally accepted international standards.
View the entire file at the Boston Phoenix’s website.
Hell you might as well login to the Police Dept. and forward all of your data yourself! Go to minds.com! Now!
