FACEBOOK BANS PULPIT & PEN PUBLISHER
FOR CALLING BRUCE JENNER A MAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Bruce Jenner is a man.
There, I wrote it again. Bruce Jenner is
a man. Facebook
Community guidelines may prohibit my free speech, and as a private
corporation they can certainly be as fascist as they want to be, but
they cannot change biological facts. Facebook Community Standards cannot
make up into down, black into white, or Bruce Jenner into a woman.
Bruce Jenner can’t even turn Bruce Jenner into a woman. Bruce Jenner’s
surgeon can’t turn him into a woman. But in today’s world in which a
growing corporatocracy increases its stranglehold on free expression,
some things just cannot be said.
I was put into Facebook jail for thought-crimes that included daring
to correctly identify someone’s gender. Bruce Jenner lives in an
imaginary world, and I do not play well with others. My fantasies are
crucified by a Biblical worldview, and I refuse to live in the magical
land of makebelieve where a
he can become a
she by a quick application of makeup or a snip of the scissors.
When Facebook notified me of the ban, they provided a screenshot of
the post for which I was exiled away from the community whose standards I
had so grievously violated (below left).
The heading ends, “Everyone knows this, but its not appropriate just to come out and say it.”
Interestingly enough, that article (which you can
find here)
wasn’t meant to trigger Facebook’s Ministry of Truth, but Twitter’s
Thought Crime Department. The article, posted November 29, was designed
specifically as a thumb-in-the-eye to Twitter, which (as the article
explained) banned calling people by their given names, should they
choose to live a lie.
However, in true corporatocracy fashion, one Social Media giant is
now enforcing the rules of another. Twitter made the rule against
correctly identifying the gender of delusional people, and Facebook is
enforcing it.
And again, for the umpteen-hundredth time, Social Media companies can
do whatever they want; they’re private corporations. However, if
Twitter and Facebook are going to decide they are responsible for all
the content posted on their forums, then they are acting like content
publishers. And if they are content publishers, they’re responsible for
everything said on their platform. They should be held legally liable
for every actionable case of slander, libel, abuse and copyright
infringement that takes place on their platform. Let me explain.
A newspaper publisher – or a website publisher, like my role with
Pulpit & Pen – is ultimately responsible for what is published.
Publishers can be sued and held liable for anything said within that
publication. That’s to be expected. After all, we have the power of
editorial review. This is why, for example, a newspaper won’t publish a
housing ad that violates anti-discrimination housing laws. You get the
point.
However, a bulletin board at the grocery store is made available for
anybody, anywhere, to post anything. There’s no expectation that the
grocery store is responsible for what is posted on the bulletin board
because they have no control or oversight and no policies mandating
control of the bulletin board. They aren’t publishers of the bulletin
board’s material, they’re just owners of the real estate. If somebody
posted an ad for “Hispanic Housing Only” the grocery store wouldn’t be
liable for that, even though the landlord might be. Again, I assume
you’re following the logic.
Until recently, Facebook and Twitter acted as a public bulletin
board, rather than as a content publisher. Anyone was free to speak, and
because the corporations didn’t regulate, they had no liability for not
regulating
well enough. If Facebook and Twitter want to act as
publishers – deciding what content is published and what is not – they
should have their pants sued off every time anyone on their platforms
violates the law in any way or if they cause civil damages to any other
person. That’s only fair.
In the meantime, needless to say, I’m in Facebook jail, locked up until at such time I repent of saying true things.
What’s a sadder part of this tail is that it was ostensibly
Christian
followers of a militant, butch, racist woman who reported me to the
Thought Police for crimes against the Neighborhood of Makebelieve.
Jackie Hill Perry, who is an “ex-gay” (still mannish) Social Justice
activist, Critical Race Theorist, and Cultural Marxist, claimed on
Twitter that Christianity was not just the “White Man’s religion” and if
so, they had believed the “White Man’s narrative” and said they should
stop obeying “Massa,” a racist epithet towards Caucasians, implying that
they are all slave-holders or at least would like to be (the equivalent
would be if I called a black woman “Mammie”).
I responded by saying that Christianity is “not the exclusive
property of militant, butch black women” and followed up by asking,
“What is your point?”
Apparently, a woman of a particular skin pigmentation and mannish
qualities can spew subversive sub-Christian ideologies and that’s not a
problem. Asking her question, but in reverse, is somehow a faux pas. So
then, fans of this subversive leftist then began to coalesce – in the
name of Jesus – to get me banned from Facebook. They began to scour my
pages and threads to find something – anything – with which to get me
thrown out of their loving and affirming community.
By the way, the thread that began the whole mess (this tweet was
weeks old) was a follower of Jackie Hill Perry saying in her status, “F
JD Hall.” The “F” did not stand for “Friendship.” And yet, in spite of
this, somehow
I’m the one guilty of so-called hate speech. Hate speech, I guess, is now defined as, “Anything I don’t like hearing.”
Consider this: Much of the outrage is because I pointed out Jackie
Hill Perry is black, which – to me, at least – is not an insult. That
was done in response to her comment about white people. I would hope
anyone will see the point of that. The rest of the outrage is that I
dared to call her “butch,” because she is still mannish. In fact,
preaching to men is one of the most ‘butch’ things any woman can do.
This is the woman who wrote her memoir,
My Life as a Stud. I’m not making that up. Google it (if you dare).
Gross. And
still butch.
Also, I think Jonathan Merritt and Sam Alberry are effeminate. I’m going to
keep saying it because being effeminate (or butch) is a sin (
1 Corinthians 6:9).
Men should act like men. Women should act like women. And when women
preach, they’re acting like men. Add in classical homosexual mannerisms
and cadences with Perry, and flags should be thrown all over the field.
In all of the hoopla and anger directed at me or Pulpit & Pen, Jackie Hill Perry fans
did
successfully get one of my accounts temporarily banned on Facebook
(good luck banning the millions of P&P readers who also post our
articles) because I said Bruce Jenner was a man.
Here’s a question…whose side is Jackie Hill Perry really on? Why does she have so many
clearly lost followers? Why are so many of her followers
still practicing homosexuals? Why are her followers on the side of Bruce Jenner’s alter ego?
And here’s another thing to consider…if your theological tent is big
enough for leftist-progressives and lady preachers spewing the Social
Gospel but not big enough for a curmudgeon fundamentalist preaching the
real Gospel, maybe the problem isn’t us. Maybe the problem is
you.
[Contributed by JD Hall
]
