“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” – First Amendment, Constitution for the united States of America.
As self-explanatory as this amendment to our Constitution is, many individuals still have difficulty understanding it, much less trying to apply it. While the federal government may not infringe upon the freedom of speech, etc., State governments can make laws regarding speech constituted as “libel” or “slander.” Just as one cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater and claim “free speech,” individuals cannot issue “threats” to others then claim “free speech.”
Recently, controversy surrounding the social media network giant, Facebook, surfaced when administrators there manipulated trending news items to censor conservative news reports from appearing to members of the site. On the same note, Facebook sanctioned many conservative alternative media writers, in the form of “bans,” because of posts expressing conservative views and/or content found to be “inappropriate” in the eyes of the Facebook administrators. Facebook partnered with the European Union (EU), Microsoft, YouTube, and Twitter to help remove posts regarding the European invasion by Muslims, claiming to be refugees, containing “racist, violent, and illegal content” within 24 hours, if necessary.
Yet, Facebook has allowed a social media site named, “I F*****g Want to Kill Donald Trump,” to remain active for weeks, refusing to remove/delete the site. Several individuals have reported the site to Facebook administrators, who agreed the site was a “credible threat of violence” and would take it down. The site violates the terms of community standards.
The site has now been taken down; however, it was still active on June 1.
This isn’t the story, but a background scenario to compare to the new shooting targets a Florida gun store owner is offering on the internet. Now, all individuals who have issues with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah can purchase a shooting target with their face on it to “take your best shot.”
Andy Hallinan first made headlines when he announced his Florida gun shop a “Muslim-free” zone, saying, “I will not arm and train those who wish to do harm to my fellow patriots.” Now, Hallinan, on a video at the Florida Gun Supply YouTube channel, is offering shooting targets featuring Sanders, Clinton and Hussein Soetoro. At the website, FloridaGunSupply.com, individuals may purchase the unique shooting targets for the low price of $4.99.
The idea started when Mr. Hallinan was at a Second Amendment rally in Massachusetts. He viewed a bumper sticker promoting Bernie Sanders. Believing the car to be “pulling to the left,” he attempted to correct the defect by placing Muslim Free Zones stickers over the Sanders ones. It was raining and the stickers would come off easily; however, the prank went viral. In his own words, Hallinan stated, “I stepped on a Bern nest.”
Because of the “Bern” from his prank resulting in Facebook posts, in addition to his business’s influx of email and phone calls, Facebook banned him for seven days. In the end, Hallinan “apologized” to America by forgetting to offer his newly created Bernie Sanders shooting targets and offering the items on the website BernieTargets.com. In addition to getting “Bernie targets”, Hallinan offered consumers “bonus” targets featuring Hussein Soetoro and the Hildabeast when purchasing the unique “Bernie” when first posted on the site. The site offers other “politically incorrect” items and gear for the First Amendment enthusiast.
Now, while some may claim this is in violation of the First Amendment because it is “threatening” to these political figures, nowhere are threats ever issued and the First Amendment only limits Congress. The targets do not violate any “libel,” “slander,” or “threat of violence” laws States have on their books. The question then arises, “How do the “censors” at Facebook determine Hallinan deserves a ban for seven days, immediately because of Facebook member responses, while allowing the vile site directed at Donald Trump remains active for weeks?”
How does Facebook determine a site featuring an individual wiping their bum with the American flag as appropriate while banning Hallinan for a prank where no property was damaged and no one injured? It was only after the article on the “I F*****g Want to Kill Donald Trump” Facebook site appeared at Infowars.com that the site was removed. Moreover, Facebook has agreed to “censor” material to help the EU with stifling dissent against the Muslim invasion of Europe. Since Hallinan only offers “Muslim Free Zone” stickers, designed as MFZ inside an oval, and used one in a prank video, how can Facebook justify banning Hallinan?
Well, Facebook is a private entity and issues rules for the community regarding posts. If you can access Facebook, one can read their “rules.” Each individual has an opinion regarding what is appropriate and what is not – it’s the same with the Facebook censors. Despite these “rules” being applied inequitably, it is within the purview of Facebook to do so. And, since it is clear the “Berg” and his employees are aligned with “powers” who want to limit criticism, political incorrectness and conservative viewpoints, one can expect Facebook to continue to follow their own rules only when it sees fit.
In a show of support of free speech, Hallinan’s unique targets will certainly find their way onto some backdrop at a range near me. It’s time for new ones and my aim will improve even more with the motivation. Too bad Hallinan is not offering a “Berg” target. Some individuals would pay $5 for one; I know I would.