“Facebook’s current policy on depictions of graphic violence is unjust. Why? While Facebook will take down pages and block users who expose violence to humans and animals in animal-using industries, they will defend pages and users who glorify and celebrate violence to animals that they deem “socially acceptable.” That’s why I’ve written an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, CEO at Facebook, asking him to update their policy.”
Guess what? We think Facebook made a good decision. We are at least glad that the Stanford grad is hopefully NOT an AR like those at UC Berkeley. And hopefully the ARs won’t gather outside Facebook headquarters and harass employees, hold weekly protests, and throw blood on the sidewalk and people? Or set up tables with graphic pictures?
Apparently May 2011, after getting tired of seeing graphics on slaughter, Facebook CEO allegedly decided to only eat meat if he killed the animal himself. “This year, my personal challenge is around being thankful for the food I have to eat. I think many people forget that a living being has to die for you to eat meat, so my goal revolves around not letting myself forget that and being thankful for what I have. This year I’ve basically become a vegetarian since the only meat I’m eating is from animals I’ve killed myself. So far, this has been a good experience. I’m eating a lot healthier foods and I’ve learned a lot about sustainable farming and raising of animals,” wrote Zuckerberg in a letter to Fortune. Hmm that’s interesting, but how long exactly do we really think a meat eater, is going to not be able to eat meat if he/she doesn’t feel like killing the animal right then? We think not very long. We are not against being a vegetarian. However, the human body is set up to require certain protein, and ARs that have failed to give their own baby sufficient protein in proper form, receive criminal sentences, especially when the kid dies.
We are often asked “why” we don’t use Facebook. While it’s one thing to use the Internet, it has become very apparent that using Facebook has resulted in something far, far more than just keeping up with friends. In fact, the only thing we would use Facebook for, is to get information on people because for some reason, these days there is no privacy and in order to maintain any semblance of privacy at all, simply do not use Facebook. People can now press 3 searches and find out the names of your relatives, what you owe on your house, what car or truck you own, how much income you gained, how much money your business makes (or claims to make), whether you went to jail, etc. In the legal profession we normally pay investigators to perform these tasks and would not be doing such things just to be nosy. However, due to the proliferation of TV and videos where everyone and their mother wants to apparently be the center of the universe, and have no qualms about putting their dirty laundry out for airing, we simply don’t believe that people need to show and tell and continue to parade their personal business out there for the world.
Attorneys are governed by professional responsibility regulations and if convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, must report it to the state bar. Even being sanctioned (in CA) for $1,000 or more must be reported to the bar. Domestic violence, drunk driving, child abuse allegations, spousal abuse, and many other allegations can spell out drastic consequences for those in the legal profession. We have seen attorneys use highly questionable if not unethical conduct over the years. Those are probably the attorneys most likely to use Facebook and social utilites because they are willing to gamble with their conduct. Once personal information is submitted online, essentially it will remain there, possibly almost indefinitely. Even if one takes down the errant personal information divulged on Facebook, it can of course, all be retrieved. Using the Internet, while highly popular and in most cases, can be very useful (such as looking up laws without having to go to a law library), we think that for the most part, Facebook is highly overrated and actually encourages socially bad behavior without appropriate consequences.
While we readily admit that we will certainly voice our opinions on the subjects of others trampling the rights of animal owners and the like, and while we understand that freedom of speech enables most of us to say what we think, social sites which end up having family feuds posted, people getting killed, etc, is just plain ridiculous. And who cares about that nonsense of what you ate, where you went, and your son’s birthday, if the family doesn’t get along? Society has changed for the worse, with people running to find out what the worst is. The Internet has become used as the Worldwide Enquirer (contrast to the National Enquirer..) and unfortunately, it does not encourage responsible use. Many in the legal profession analyze issues arising from Facebook, and there are plenty to analyze. Unfortunately, even Judges have gotten into hot water for using and “liking” sites on Facebook. We view Facebook not as a social entity, but more like children playing without a supervisor. Undoubtedly, criminals and those in trouble often use Facebook and then either live to tell or die and we later find out the Facebook postings said this, that and the other. In that respect, we can see how police and others would use Facebook. Employers use it and even have trouble with it because they cannot keep their employees from getting into trouble at times.
Overall we never recommend Facebook and likely never will. It basically entails many aspects of exactly what the legal profession is not to do. Errant conduct. We have seen it happen. Just look at the horse rescue case coupled with the bank attorney’s conduct. Res ipsa loquitor. Maybe that SHOULD be on Facebook.
Having said all that— we are still willing to say thanks to Facebook for this! :
Aug 19, 2011 – Facebook’s updated spam policy is being used to block articles related toanimal rights from being posted to fan pages and walls throughout …
Aug 17, 2011 – Facebook has labeled animal rights pages as “spam.” LOS ANGELES: In a shocking move, Facebook’s new spam stipulations have thrown …
Animal Rights Activists Charged in Murder Fur Hire Plot
An animal activist planned to pay a hitman $730 to gun down a random person wearing fur outside of a Cleveland library.
A criteria for any gunmen considering the offer was that they do not wear “anything that looks remotely like fur,” according to a police affidavit.
“I would like to create an online community on Facebook which would allow me to find someone who is willing to kill someone who is wearing fur toward the end of October 2011 or early November 2011 or possibly in January 2012 or February 2012 at the latest,” Meredith Lowell allegedly wrote on a Facebook page she had established under the alias Anne Lowery.
Lowell, 27, was arrested Tuesday on one charge of conspiracy to commit murder. According to an affidavit filed by federal authorities, Lowell solicited a hitman to kill the first person he saw outside of a Cleveland Heights library who was wearing fur and “preferably 14 years old or older but should be at least 12 years old.”
The FBI took notice of the posting last November and assigned an undercover employee to correspond with Lowell, pretending to agree to get the job done.
“You need to bring a gun with a silencer on it and that can easily be concealed in your pants pocket or coat. Do not wear anything that looks even remotely like fur,” she wrote to a man she thought was a fellow animal rights activist. “I want the person to be dead in less than 2 minutes (under 2 minutes or 1 minute or less would be better.)”
“I plan on staying after the hit for reasons of benefit to the movement,” she allegedly wrote. “And think being caught would actually benefit me personally.”
A 14-page affidavit that detailed Lowell’s alleged correspondence with her “hitman,” which took place over the course of several months, was filed in U.S. District Court.
After exchanging messages on Facebook, Lowell began to open up to the FBI operative and revealed that Anne Lowery was a pseudonym.
The two moved their correspondence to email since “it is easier for us to communicate,” Lowell wrote.
Lowell sent many of the emails from the Coventry Branch of Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library, where authorities claim she planned to have the murder take place. In those emails, she wrote of her desire to escape a home where her family ate meat, wore wool, and used animal products, the affidavit states.
“So all of the speciest things I have mentioned…make me want to have the hit even sooner so I can get out of my house and hopefully get closer to ending the fur industry which is our goal,” she wrote.
Jennifer Kaden, co-founder of the Cleveland Animal Rights Alliance, said she checked her membership records and found that no one in her organization had ever dealt with Lowell, who she called “misguided” and “dangerous.”
“We’re all about advocating for peace and nonviolence,” she said. “We extend that to humans and animals.”
Lowell remains in federal custody and faces a detention hearing next Tuesday to determine whether she will be offered bail.TUESDAY, 06 MARCH 2012 11:21http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14793:facebook-comments-scupper-animal-rights-protesters-assault-case&catid=23:news&Itemid=46
Judge says Facebook comments akin to writing in a newspaper
A WOMAN who wrote comments on a Facebook page about an alleged assault was told her actions had ‘fatally compromised’ the assault case which was subsequently dismissed.
Judge Mary Devins told last week’s sitting of Ballina District Court that in her view writing messages on Facebook was akin to writing in newspapers.
She made her ruling after hearing evidence from Maureen O’Malley from Westport, who explained that she posted two messages on Facebook about an alleged assault by the CEO of a Ballina laboratory against an animal rights protester.
Leonard Moran of Carrentrila, Ballina, was accused of assaulting Laura Broxon from Dublin. He was accused of punching her in the face while wielding a hammer when she was staging a protest outside the Ovagen and Charles River Laboratories, which are adjacent to Mr Moran’s house.
Mr Moran, who is a Director of Ovagen and who used to own the lab until it was sold to US company, Charles River in 2002, denied he punched her. Ms Broxon, who is the founder of the National Animal Rights Association, claimed that testing of animals takes place in the lab and during the protest accused Mr Moran of having ‘blood on your hands’.
Evidence had previously been heard last last November when Mr Moran admitted there was a ‘robust verbal’ between the two of them and that he put his hand out when she ‘lunged at me’.
During his evidence he mentioned that an account of the incident had been posted on Facebook and Judge Devins adjourned the case for this to be investigated by the Gardaí.
Detective Garda Pat Ruane explained that two comments had been posted by Maureen O’Malley, who admitted posting them.
She told the court last week that she arrived at the scene after the incident had taken place and had spoken to Ms Broxon, who explained what she claimed happened. She said was shocked at what happened and posted the comments when she went home.
In the first comment, she posted that the CEO of Charles River had assaulted a protester, and in the second comment she asked why he would resort to physical violence and what he was capable of doing to ‘defenceless animals in his lab’.
Judge Devins said that even though she wrote the comments with good intentions, writing about something on Facebook can compromise a criminal prosecution. She said it was akin to a local or national newspaper giving their version of events and dismissed the case.