SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Facebook Should Stop Censoring Marijuana Legalization Campaign Ads
Aug 27, 2010
Facebook is facing down another embarrassing episode of censorship this week after refusing to show ads
submitted by the Just Say Now marijuana legalization campaign. The gag
is an important reminder that social networks like Facebook - while
useful, interesting, and pretty - are "walled gardens" with overseers
whose interests can overwrite free speech, open communication, and in
this case, essential political debate. (In this they have something in common with Apple.)
Most recently, Facebook was caught censoring mentions of Power.com,
an online tool designed to help users collect their information from
Facebook to facilitate migration to other social networks. To this day,
users are still blocked from sending messages or posting status updates
containing the word "Power.com," preventing users from spreading the
word about a convenient way to "make the move" to Orkut, or LinkedIn, or
any other social networking service that may crop up to compete. The
block even stopped law professor Eric Goldman from commenting on Facebook's lawsuit against Power.com (Disclosure: EFF filed an amicus brief in support of Power in that case).
Facebook's censorship for anticompetitive reasons is petty and lame
to be sure, but silencing Just Say Now's marijuana legalization ad
campaign is even worse. Voters in various districts nationwide will have
to make important political decisions about marijuana this year (California's Proposition 19
is one example). Facebook's decision, reportedly an attempt to be
consistent with its ad policies restricting smoking and/or
marijuana-related content, is instead primarily silencing an important,
motivated voice in a politically significant debate.
Facebook should lift the ban and show Just Say Now's political ads.
For better or worse, Facebook has become a important means of
communication and organization for candidates and political campaigns.
In this role, Facebook functions best as a neutral platform, hosting the
debate without entering it. Whether or not Facebook wants to restrict
depictions of smoking in commercial ads, it should not prohibit the open
and robust political debate central to the value and promise of the
Internet.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Facebook is facing down another embarrassing episode of censorship this week after refusing to show ads
submitted by the Just Say Now marijuana legalization campaign. The gag
is an important reminder that social networks like Facebook - while
useful, interesting, and pretty - are "walled gardens" with overseers
whose interests can overwrite free speech, open communication, and in
this case, essential political debate. (In this they have something in common with Apple.)
Most recently, Facebook was caught censoring mentions of Power.com,
an online tool designed to help users collect their information from
Facebook to facilitate migration to other social networks. To this day,
users are still blocked from sending messages or posting status updates
containing the word "Power.com," preventing users from spreading the
word about a convenient way to "make the move" to Orkut, or LinkedIn, or
any other social networking service that may crop up to compete. The
block even stopped law professor Eric Goldman from commenting on Facebook's lawsuit against Power.com (Disclosure: EFF filed an amicus brief in support of Power in that case).
Facebook's censorship for anticompetitive reasons is petty and lame
to be sure, but silencing Just Say Now's marijuana legalization ad
campaign is even worse. Voters in various districts nationwide will have
to make important political decisions about marijuana this year (California's Proposition 19
is one example). Facebook's decision, reportedly an attempt to be
consistent with its ad policies restricting smoking and/or
marijuana-related content, is instead primarily silencing an important,
motivated voice in a politically significant debate.
Facebook should lift the ban and show Just Say Now's political ads.
For better or worse, Facebook has become a important means of
communication and organization for candidates and political campaigns.
In this role, Facebook functions best as a neutral platform, hosting the
debate without entering it. Whether or not Facebook wants to restrict
depictions of smoking in commercial ads, it should not prohibit the open
and robust political debate central to the value and promise of the
Internet.
Facebook is facing down another embarrassing episode of censorship this week after refusing to show ads
submitted by the Just Say Now marijuana legalization campaign. The gag
is an important reminder that social networks like Facebook - while
useful, interesting, and pretty - are "walled gardens" with overseers
whose interests can overwrite free speech, open communication, and in
this case, essential political debate. (In this they have something in common with Apple.)
Most recently, Facebook was caught censoring mentions of Power.com,
an online tool designed to help users collect their information from
Facebook to facilitate migration to other social networks. To this day,
users are still blocked from sending messages or posting status updates
containing the word "Power.com," preventing users from spreading the
word about a convenient way to "make the move" to Orkut, or LinkedIn, or
any other social networking service that may crop up to compete. The
block even stopped law professor Eric Goldman from commenting on Facebook's lawsuit against Power.com (Disclosure: EFF filed an amicus brief in support of Power in that case).
Facebook's censorship for anticompetitive reasons is petty and lame
to be sure, but silencing Just Say Now's marijuana legalization ad
campaign is even worse. Voters in various districts nationwide will have
to make important political decisions about marijuana this year (California's Proposition 19
is one example). Facebook's decision, reportedly an attempt to be
consistent with its ad policies restricting smoking and/or
marijuana-related content, is instead primarily silencing an important,
motivated voice in a politically significant debate.
Facebook should lift the ban and show Just Say Now's political ads.
For better or worse, Facebook has become a important means of
communication and organization for candidates and political campaigns.
In this role, Facebook functions best as a neutral platform, hosting the
debate without entering it. Whether or not Facebook wants to restrict
depictions of smoking in commercial ads, it should not prohibit the open
and robust political debate central to the value and promise of the
Internet.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.