Tuesday, June 27, 2017


In light of the New York Times story that came in my newsfeed [“Facebook, Free Expression and the Power of a Leak”], I decided to explore the issue of Facebook little further. The New York Times piqued my interest by adding a link to an article from The Guardian newspaper [Revealed: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence]. Through this article, I was able to find that The Guardian has published the rulebook for determining what constitutes a “credible threat of violence” on Facebook [Facebook's manual on credible threats of violence].

This policy information is important to know because FB is filled with vigilante groups, many of them have been featured on this particular blog over the years, including vigilante biker gangs, online hate groups, and individuals organizing to cause harm to registered citizens. However, it is apparent from the leaked reports that only a small number of individuals are actually protected by Facebook. In fact, only a handful of people are considered “vulnerable persons” that are protected from speech a moderator might consider a “credible threat of violence.”

Vulnerable persons include: heads of state, next in line for head of state, candidates for head of state, specific law enforcement officers, witnesses and informants, people with a history of assassination attempts, people listed as targets on hit lists created by banned dangerous organizations, activists, journalists, homeless people, foreigners, Zionists, and in the Philippines, drug users and dealers.

According to the Facebook manual, posting “someone shoot Trump” should be removed, but telling people to “kick a person with red hair” or “snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat” is completely allowed. Also, based credible threat of violence is expected to include an “achievable time.” Plus, statements that include “next time I see you,” “sooner or later,” or specific time frames should also be removed, but we know that’s rarely the case. In addition, certain groups could be considered vulnerable by region. Facebook warns moderators to also eliminate threats against vulnerable targets, outing affiliation, singling out targets, aggregating targets, and calling for street justice depending on the region. Also, accompanying a threat with a picture of a firearm supposedly violence Facebook policy as well.

Perhaps the most damning evidence of all that Facebook allows vigilante violence to be advocated on their website is in the section of “non-credible threats.” Included in this list of non-credible threats is, “advocating for capital were cruel and unusual punishment for crimes Facebook recognizes.” Next to this statement is a text bubble saying “hang child molesters.” They use another example of non-credible threats of violence on the next page, with another text bubble saying, “Pedophiles are going to experience the electric chair! They deserve it anyway!!”

Since this is directly from Facebook’s hidden policy on removing credible threats of violence, the strong implication here is that Facebook advocates violence against registered citizens because they don’t consider us a vulnerable class of people. To use threats against registered citizens as an example of what is allowed on Facebook shows the indifference that Facebook employees have against many other unpopular groups of people as well. This should be a huge cause of alarm for those of us in the anti-registry movement who rely on Facebook for expressing their First Amendment rights.

I personally believe that the only way this is going to change is through a lawsuit. For far too long, Facebook has been deleting the accounts of registered citizens while allowing hate groups like those profiled on AZUnites to proliferate, recruit, and continue to operate online. There’s no telling how many vigilante attacks have occurred because of this. And, in light of the recent Packingham case, the rights of registered citizens should be taken more seriously by Facebook, who should already have a great responsibility of protecting the rights of all of its users. More and more, news media outlets are turning to Facebook only commenting as the way to share ideas among viewers. Even my recent interview with Ashleigh Banfield was a Facebook only comment section. Thus, like it or not, the ability to respond to, to advocate, or to express a dissenting opinion requires a Facebook account in many instances. And registered citizen should be able to express their viewpoints without fear of reprisal from online vigilante thugs. The question is, who has the resources and is willing to take on this challenge?

If anyone is willing to accept my challenge, I am more than happy to share the information that I have gathered over the years as part of any litigation against Facebook. I have taken it upon myself to collect as much information as possible on numerous vigilante groups across the country. Obviously, much of that information can be found on this blog, but much of it I have not posted publicly because many were direct threats against me. Thus, in the event somebody actually sues Facebook, feel free to contact me at iamthefallen1@yahoo.com.


Anonymous said...

Hey I advocated for the same stuff at one point like executing white collar criminals on Wall Street and calling for Cosby to face summary execution, calling for everybody more specifically the RSO list to be executed and criminals in the Philippines to be executed as a means to end corruption until I got lectured big time on the fallout of Creep Catchers lawsuits and deaths. mainly because I believed in the Same stuff the Conspiracy theories artists advocated until it turned out the victims of vigilante crimes were disabled and the vigilantes had tribal issues as their core. Some of this was hate in their core. I was Edgar Welch but failed one at that.

Anonymous said...

Name one crime with high recidivism rates? I know lots of sources say murder and RSO crimes have low recidivism rates. But I'm not sure with "petty crimes" get high recidivism rates but I know that crimes like theft,vandalism, unlawful assembly and drug addiction do get higher recidivism rates like Patrick Drum was used as an example of how Petty Crimes with the vast majority poor and mentally ill fall into the high rates of recidivism in some states and Jeff Sessions yes the Russian puppet wanted to hold an iron fist on these people though.

Also that Quora question of assaulting a RSO? That guy must fall in the high recidivism category like assault on a another guy. In other word its the deplorables like Creep Catchers the Perve Hunters on the Chicago P.D. Episode have higher rates of recidivism than even murderers and RSO.

Anonymous said...

Well YouTube had a boycott threat because of Alex Jones specifically over the Pizzagate issue and fake news. YouTube sat on the sidelines of the Alex Jones child custody lawsuits and the Edgar Welch Verdicts. YouTube was negotiating with advertisers and activists to determine which content is advertising friendly though.

As far as I am concerned here Facebook is dealing with a similar issue with advertisers when the a killer filmed the murder and aired it on facebook live.
Facebook is dealing with similar issues like YouTube over the definition of free speech.

Anonymous said...


Well here's an update of vigilante deaths in the Philippines.

But back to this article I say the reason facebook allow vigilante rants on RSO's and other criminals mainly because you have victims rights groups, Edgar Welch type vigilantes, Alex Jones allies and politicians like Greg Gianforte putting pressure on Facebook leadership to allow these rants against RSO's in the first place.

It's only collateral damage as Patrick Drum would say.

Anonymous said...

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2017/06/28/public-meeting-address-wilmington-gun-offender-registry-proposal/435192001/. Coming soon states like Delaware will have a gun offender registry.

Anonymous said...