Klacht tegen Facebook bij het Comité van Toezicht
FB heeft mijn pagina vandaag - tijdens een blok van 30 dagen - voor de tweede maal op rij geblokkeerd voor 30 dagen omwille van een oude(re) post waarin ik onder de titel ' Ter verduidelijking : " een getuigenis gepost heb van een vriend en collega van Jurgen Conings waarin hij stelde dat als Jurgen aan zijn deur zou aankloppen, hij hem zou binnen laten en waarom hij dat zou doen. Wat volgt is een beschrijving van Jurgen als vader, als partner, als collega, als mens en een oplijsting van wat hij allemaal voor dit land gedaan heeft, de 11 missies in oorlogsgebied waaraan hij deelgenomen heeft en waar hij altijd klaar stond voor zijn brothers in arms.
Ik heb klacht neergelegd tegen FB en heb eindelijk met een code toegang gekregen tot het Comité van Toezicht waar ik mijn bezwaren nader heb kunnen omschrijven.
Hieronder de tekst van mijn bezwaar. Ik heb het Comité van Toezicht de toelating gegeven om de volledige inhoud te publiceren.
" The details of your appeal
How did Facebook get the decision wrong? I am a lawyer since many years and know very well what I can and cannot publish on social media.
FB has blocked my account for 30 days because I shared a post from a colleague and friend of J. Conings ( a MP military who seems to be suicidal and who left a (private ) farewell letter to his life partner in which he stated that he would take others with him into the grave ). This person is by the main stream media considered as an extreme right and dangerous terrorist. The friend and colleague of J. Conings stated in his post that if he would knock on his door, he would let him in. He described what Jurgen has done for our country during his long career in the army, his kind and soft character as a father, partner and colleague, always ready to help others. The friend showed the good side of this man. My copy paste carries one sentence : " ter verduidelijking ' which means " for a good understanding ". In my opinion it is allowed to share the other side of this man. He ain't all bad. So far J. Conings has not killed any one. He is missing since 3 weeks and nowhere to be found. He has not pronounced a single menace since he disappeared. Most probably he has written his farewell letter in a situation of complete distress and committed suicide shortly after. It is absolutely not okay to speak only in bad terms about this person. He has worked as a corporal in chief (MP ) for about 30 years. He has participated in 11 dangerous missions in Afghanistan an other countries at war in extreme conditions and saved lives of his brothers in arms.
In law matters every accused is entitled to facts pro and contra. The man cannot speak for himself. There's no balance. Only the negative is mentioned in the media.
FB blocks thousands of users for no reason. I have been blocked several times already for simply expressing my opinion on a matter ( evidence based ) or sharing true information. FB applies an extreme form of censureship. There is no freedom of expression.
Why did you post this content? As stated in my previous note, every accused is entitled to a defense. It is a constitutional right. Jurgen Conings can not speak for himself since he is missing and nowhere to be found. There is not a single trace of this man since he disappeared. He's completely disconnected from the world (if still alive). The people only hear the voice of the media.
They picture him in an extreme bad way. He is judged before and without any trial. Since he cannot defend himself his friends and colleagues do so for him by explaining who Jurgen Conings has been over the past 30 years, as a father ( of 2 ), a life partner to his girlfiend ( since 7 years ) and an army fellow. I consider in true faith that it is absolutely not an act of terrorism or an infringement of any other directive FB has put at my charge to share a testimony of this man's past. This post does not call to any violent action. It just puts things in the right perspective about this man. FB must stop acting as a courthouse or a judge. We are not in a courthouse. We are on a social platform. During his hearing before the US senate Marc Z. has stated that FB honors the freedom of expression. Well, it doesn't. At all.
Does this content involve important social issues? In my believe it is important that the public can see both sides of Jurgen Conings and not only the extreme negative and purely sensational side of this man such as drawn by the media. My sole intent was to inform the public about the other (good ) side of this person, by publishing a testimony of one of his friends and army fellow. I would never, ever, participate in, stimulate or promote any violent action or perception of any violent act.
FACTS about a person's past are important in order to put things in the right perspective. If the people only hear one side by the media and the other side is completely banned, the people are not fully informed.
If the man is still alive and caught, he will appear before court for the penal infractions he has committed. It is not up to FB to judge.
.
Provide a summary for your submission This Post Should Be Allowed Under Freedom of Speech For Being A Testimony
Is there anything else you think the board should know?
FB infringes systematically the constitutional right of freedom of speech of its users, mostly without any right to defense. It blocks at random profiles upon complaint of another user without revealing the content of the complaint nor the identity of the plaintiff. It's algorithms are configured in such ways that when certain profiles - such as mine - who inform the people ( always with source and always evidence based ) dare to comment on a news article or the statement of a politician or an expert in corona related matters or any other current matter, these profiles are on purpose shadowed, posts are not showed to followers, pages or posts often simply disappear for some time and cannot be viewed by myself or friends/followers in order to prevent the reading.
However, people have the right to be fully informed and to acknowledge all the opinions, to hear/read all sides so that they can draw their own conclusions.
I have about 25.000 followers on FB. Many of them already have been blocked on several occasions for simply formulating an opinion, a view, a question or a critical thought on an factual and present situation. Since a couple of months the censureship of FB takes extreme forms for the sole purpose of silencing people.
It is clear that FB strives to allow only one side voices.
We live in a democracy. Divergent opinions are enriching. It opens the door to a constructive debate. If FB does not cease and desist on short notice it will be brought before court in Belgium as well ( such as is already the case in the US ). It must stop its extreme censureship and return to what it is supposed to be : a social platform.
What keywords best describe your content? Freedom of ExpressionMarginalized CommunitiesActualiteiten