Bruce Jenner is a man.
There, I wrote it again. Bruce Jenner is a man. Facebook Community guidelines may prohibit my free speech, and as a private corporation they can certainly be as fascist as they want to be, but they cannot change biological facts. Facebook Community Standards cannot make up into down, black into white, or Bruce Jenner into a woman. Bruce Jenner can’t even turn Bruce Jenner into a woman. Bruce Jenner’s surgeon can’t turn him into a woman. But in today’s world in which a growing corporatocracy increases its stranglehold on free expression, some things just cannot be said.
I was put into Facebook jail for thought-crimes that included daring to correctly identify someone’s gender. Bruce Jenner lives in an imaginary world, and I do not play well with others. My fantasies are crucified by a Biblical worldview, and I refuse to live in the magical land of makebelieve where a he can become a she by a quick application of makeup or a snip of the scissors.
When Facebook notified me of the ban, they provided a screenshot of the post for which I was exiled away from the community whose standards I had so grievously violated (below left).
Interestingly enough, that article (which you can find here) wasn’t meant to trigger Facebook’s Ministry of Truth, but Twitter’s Thought Crime Department. The article, posted November 29, was designed specifically as a thumb-in-the-eye to Twitter, which (as the article explained) banned calling people by their given names, should they choose to live a lie.
However, in true corporatocracy fashion, one Social Media giant is now enforcing the rules of another. Twitter made the rule against correctly identifying the gender of delusional people, and Facebook is enforcing it.
And again, for the umpteen-hundredth time, Social Media companies can do whatever they want; they’re private corporations. However, if Twitter and Facebook are going to decide they are responsible for all the content posted on their forums, then they are acting like content publishers. And if they are content publishers, they’re responsible for everything said on their platform. They should be held legally liable for every actionable case of slander, libel, abuse and copyright infringement that takes place on their platform. Let me explain.
A newspaper publisher – or a website publisher, like my role with Pulpit & Pen – is ultimately responsible for what is published. Publishers can be sued and held liable for anything said within that publication. That’s to be expected. After all, we have the power of editorial review. This is why, for example, a newspaper won’t publish a housing ad that violates anti-discrimination housing laws. You get the point.
However, a bulletin board at the grocery store is made available for anybody, anywhere, to post anything. There’s no expectation that the grocery store is responsible for what is posted on the bulletin board because they have no control or oversight and no policies mandating control of the bulletin board. They aren’t publishers of the bulletin board’s material, they’re just owners of the real estate. If somebody posted an ad for “Hispanic Housing Only” the grocery store wouldn’t be liable for that, even though the landlord might be. Again, I assume you’re following the logic.
Until recently, Facebook and Twitter acted as a public bulletin board, rather than as a content publisher. Anyone was free to speak, and because the corporations didn’t regulate, they had no liability for not regulating well enough. If Facebook and Twitter want to act as publishers – deciding what content is published and what is not – they should have their pants sued off every time anyone on their platforms violates the law in any way or if they cause civil damages to any other person. That’s only fair.
In the meantime, needless to say, I’m in Facebook jail, locked up until at such time I repent of saying true things.
What’s a sadder part of this tail is that it was ostensibly Christian followers of a militant, butch, racist woman who reported me to the Thought Police for crimes against the Neighborhood of Makebelieve. Jackie Hill Perry, who is an “ex-gay” (still mannish) Social Justice activist, Critical Race Theorist, and Cultural Marxist, claimed on Twitter that Christianity was not just the “White Man’s religion” and if so, they had believed the “White Man’s narrative” and said they should stop obeying “Massa,” a racist epithet towards Caucasians, implying that they are all slave-holders or at least would like to be (the equivalent would be if I called a black woman “Mammie”).
I responded by saying that Christianity is “not the exclusive property of militant, butch black women” and followed up by asking, “What is your point?”
Apparently, a woman of a particular skin pigmentation and mannish qualities can spew subversive sub-Christian ideologies and that’s not a problem. Asking her question, but in reverse, is somehow a faux pas. So then, fans of this subversive leftist then began to coalesce – in the name of Jesus – to get me banned from Facebook. They began to scour my pages and threads to find something – anything – with which to get me thrown out of their loving and affirming community.
By the way, the thread that began the whole mess (this tweet was weeks old) was a follower of Jackie Hill Perry saying in her status, “F JD Hall.” The “F” did not stand for “Friendship.” And yet, in spite of this, somehow I’m the one guilty of so-called hate speech. Hate speech, I guess, is now defined as, “Anything I don’t like hearing.”
Consider this: Much of the outrage is because I pointed out Jackie Hill Perry is black, which – to me, at least – is not an insult. That was done in response to her comment about white people. I would hope anyone will see the point of that. The rest of the outrage is that I dared to call her “butch,” because she is still mannish. In fact, preaching to men is one of the most ‘butch’ things any woman can do. This is the woman who wrote her memoir, My Life as a Stud. I’m not making that up. Google it (if you dare).
Gross. And still butch.
Also, I think Jonathan Merritt and Sam Alberry are effeminate. I’m going to keep saying it because being effeminate (or butch) is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9). Men should act like men. Women should act like women. And when women preach, they’re acting like men. Add in classical homosexual mannerisms and cadences with Perry, and flags should be thrown all over the field.
In all of the hoopla and anger directed at me or Pulpit & Pen, Jackie Hill Perry fans did successfully get one of my accounts temporarily banned on Facebook (good luck banning the millions of P&P readers who also post our articles) because I said Bruce Jenner was a man.
Here’s a question…whose side is Jackie Hill Perry really on? Why does she have so many clearly lost followers? Why are so many of her followers still practicing homosexuals? Why are her followers on the side of Bruce Jenner’s alter ego?
And here’s another thing to consider…if your theological tent is big enough for leftist-progressives and lady preachers spewing the Social Gospel but not big enough for a curmudgeon fundamentalist preaching the real Gospel, maybe the problem isn’t us. Maybe the problem is you.
[Contributed by JD Hall]