Facebook Or Hate Book?
Facebook, the six-year old social networking site that helps more than 350 million friends, families, colleagues, and companies keep in touch, is fast becoming the online home to another type of social network: anti-gay hate groups.
Fast-forming, often created by people who post false profiles just to gain the ability to create their hate group, anti-gay hate groups on Facebook are filled with claims of religiosity, or just plain unadulterated ignorance, bigotry, and hate. Facebook management has been criticized for their slow response and poor monitoring of new groups and content, despite the fact that these groups violate Facebook’s “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,” its Terms of Service (TOS) which states,
“You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”
and,
“You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.”
And yet, despite many, many attempts to report these groups, they still exist. Facebook, it seems, all but refuses to remove them.
Eighteenth century Parisian writer and philosopher Voltaire is (mistakenly) credited to have said,
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.â€
Those days are long gone. The rest of Western Society has evolved. In 2008, the New York Times ran an article titled, “Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.”
In O’Reilly, a well-respected tech blog, discussing Facebook’s “Holocaust denial and racist ‘white pride’ groups,” Caitlyn Martin writes,
“The Facebook pages in question do appear to violate the laws of at least 15 nations and the European Union as a whole. Despite clear prohibitions against hate and illegal, misleading or discriminatory activity Facebook continues to allow and indeed defend pages that violate it’s own terms.”
But here in the U.S., surprisingly, “free speech,” codified in our Bill Of Rights as part of the First Amendment to the Constitution, is not especially well-understood. For example, former-Governor Sarah Palin, famous for so many misstatements, exhibited her ignorance during the 2008 presidential campaign, stating,
“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
Glenn Greenwald reminded Palin, and us, what our “First Amendment rights” are:
“The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether you’re free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don’t like what you’ve said.
“If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.”
But when someone claims they can write or post whatever they want, on Facebook, Twitter, or a blog, they may be unaware that there actually are limits. And those limits can be dictated by the platform or website’s owners, like Facebook. Once an organization adopts service rules, it becomes their responsibility to administer them fairly and evenly and consistently. And Facebook has neglected to do so, despite numerous reports and requests.
In a litigious society such as ours, where libel and slander cases are often merely opportunities for financial gain, it’s amazing Facebook executives, who employ more than one thousand people and had revenue in excess of $300 million in 2008, have been so slow to react.
There are dozens, at least, of active anti-gay hate groups. Some have just a few members, some have a few hundred. Some, thousands.
Some, like “WE DONT WANT TO LEARN ABOUT NO LESBIAN’S OR GAYS AT SCHOOL!!!” offer this as their official description:
“beeing gay is an sickness, the goverment should use time to show them the right path, instead of just accepting it!!
give a lesbian girl some time with an boy,let her get to know him,let her use some time with him,sexually and the same thing with the boy and SEE THE DIFFERENCE!!
beeing gay, is just an confusion that has been created in the mind of the human, because HUMANS are afraid of the unknown!”
That’s verbatim, spelling errors and stupidity unedited.
Then there’s “Death Note,” a group with 575 members. It’s purpose?
“if you want 2 kill s 1 join this group
y3ni if u hate gays ; boyaas or anything like that just come here and write his/her name on the post and with 40 seconds the person will die of a heartattacku can change the time and type of death as you like”
I started to make a list of the anti-gay hate groups, but realized that there were just too many. “HELP US REPORT HOMOPHOBIC HATE GROUPS ON FACEBOOK” has an excellent list, most of which are still active, which means Facebook isn’t doing much, if anything, to shut these groups down, again, despite that these groups violate Facebook’s own TOS.
Here’s a partial list — only a small spattering — of anti-gay hate groups:
I’m against gay marriage, and I will not keep quiet about it!
I Bet I Can Find 1,000,000 People Who Are Anti Gay Rights
STOP AIDS!!!!! KILL GAYS AN NIGGERS!!!!!!!!!
GAY ? news flash : we fuckin’ hate you !!
You may choose to dismiss these as tiny, or inconsequential, but I would disagree. Despite their obvious stupidity, inability to gather a large base, or spell, they empower their members to feel comfortable with their hate. And that’s dangerous, because hate breeds more hate. It multiplies, exponentially.
Facebook anti-gay hate groups simply embolden their readers and members to “come out” from any societal suggestions that hate is wrong. Even prominent members of mainstream groups like the GOP, and right-wing bloggers have taken to likening “political correctness” to “a war on Judeo-Christianty” and “Shariah law.” Shorter version: It’s OK to publicly spew your hate.
Because the net effect of their actions breeds acceptability of hatred toward the LGBTQ community, I believe groups like the National Organization for Marriage can be labeled hate groups. I believe working to ban same-sex marriage is a hate crime.
Also dangerous is a group like “Ban Same-Sex Marriage.” I first came upon it and for a split-second wondered if it were fair to include it here. I mean, I spend my days, and nights, working to advance civil rights and marriage equality, so of course a group like, “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” is anathema to my work and my life. But can you call it a “hate group” on the same plane as, for example, “Kill All Gays” if they are (“merely”) advocating banning same-sex marriage? Well, yes, you can.
But the group “Ban Same-Sex Marriage” is even worse. They pretend to be a Christian forum for discussing banning same-sex marriage:
“Well, being a Christian, I believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a wife, as described in the Bible. Therefore, same-sex marriage is an affront to the Bible and Godly standing, and therefore should not be allowed to stand.”
Blah, blah, blah, heard it a million times before.
But then, in their rules, they include this:
“This group only refers to the United States. Not the world, not foreign countries, not anywhere else. We as Americans cannot pass foreign laws on other nations and impose our will on them. However, in this nation, we can stop homosexuality right now. All framers of debate should keep this in mind when posting. We may make arguments about homsexuality [sic] as it applies to the world, but as for banning same-sex marriage, we are only talking about the U.S.A.”
Catch that?
“we can stop homosexuality right now.”
Wow.
So, this group, shrouded in the bible, well-written, and well-populated (1786 members as of this writing) wants to “stop homosexuality right now.” Not just “Ban Same-Sex Marriage,” but “stop homosexuality right now.”
What to do?
Well, first, visit all these sites, and the ones on “Get these anti-gay groups off facebook!” and click the link in the bottom left-hand corner that says, “Report Group.”
Second, tell all your friends, your neighbors, your family. Share this post with them. Repost it on Facebook, Twitter, email it, etc.
Third, join the following Facebook groups, and ask your friends and family to also. There is strength in numbers.
Petition to Remove All Anti-Gay Groups
Stop gay hate speech on facebook
Get these anti-gay groups off facebook! (Great site!)
And finally, take solace knowing that over 20,000 have joined the group, “Ban the “GAY EXTERMINATORS” from Facebook.”
EDITORIAL NOTE:
Success! Facebook shut down most of these anti-gay hate groups just hours after this post was published! Read, “Facebook Or Hate Book? Facebook Shuts Down Anti-Gay Hate Groups!“
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
