Facebook blocks ad for pro-life movie telling the true story about Roe v Wade

The pro-life censorship is going to get worse, before it gets a whole lot worse.

News Abortion, Freedom, Politics - U.S. Mon Jan 14, 2019 - 7:31 pm EST

Facebook blocks ad for pro-life movie telling the true story about Roe v Wade

Doug Mainwaring

January 14, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Facebook has blocked the promotion of a new movie chronicling the true story surrounding the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade , which imposed abortion on demand across the U.S.

A three-minute teaser for the movie, which is still in post-production but is slated for release later this year, will debut at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday.

Producer/Director Nick Loeb posted a link to a Hollywood Reporter article about the movie on Facebook today, but an effort to “boost” the posting in order to promote the movie to more users was flatly rejected by Facebook.

“Your ad isn’t approved because it doesn’t comply with our Advertising Policies,” was the rationale offered by Facebook.

The movie, which had to be shot in secret because of concerns about backlash from abortion activists inside and outside the film industry, boasts an all-star cast . . . .

. . . . Princeton Professor Robert George reacted in a Facebook posting, saying, “Given Facebook’s claims to be a neutral, open forum for the discussion of important issues, I regard this as scandalous and I call on Facebook to cease and desist.” . . .

2 Likes

Facebook specifically states in their advertising policy

“6. We reserve the right to reject, approve or remove any ad for any reason, in our sole discretion, including ads that negatively affect our relationship with our users or that promote content, services, or activities, contrary to our competitive position, interests, or advertising philosophy.” https://m.facebook.com/policies/ads/

I am not a Facebook user, I do not have a Facebook account. But, it seems to me that they would have final say on what advertisements they would allow on their company’s website. If Facebook (a private company) does not want to advertise this movie on their website. Then the producers need to find other companies who are willing to offer them advertising space on their forums. It really is as simple as that. Facebook does not want to offer these people on advertising space…so go find another forum. Likewise, I wouldn’t expect planned parenthood to be allowed to offer advertising here, on Catholic Answers, this website should also have the final say on what advertisements is allowed on their company’s website.

2 Likes

Facebook is currently not that popular, a bit cumbersome to use. Everyone is on twitter. Twitter is vibrant and yes, Twitter is not perfect and has their own faults, suspend people, sometimes rightfully, sometimes, perhaps not.

There’s going to be a lot of people putting this movie down. That’s a given. I’ve seen the trailer. It looks good.

I thought you said you were a pro-lifer. That just doesn’t strike me as empathizing with the pro-life side.

Of course I am a prolifer, what about this makes me prochoice? Can you be specific please

1 Like

Allie1 . . .

If Facebook (a private company) does not want to advertise this movie on their website. Then the producers need to find other companies who are willing to offer them advertising space on their forums. It really is as simple as that.

That is fine if you think that Allie1.

Do you think Facebook should have “corporate welfare” from the tax payers?

If Facebook wants to be political . . . . should it have immunity if law-breaking items find their way onto the Facebook platform? Or should Facebook executives go to jail like others have for possession of illegal electronic activity?

No I do not believe in corporate welfare, for Facebook or any other company. I am not happy in any way for my tax money to go in support of Facebook, in any capacity. If it is found that Facebook executives have possession of illegal materials, then of course I think they should be prosecuted under the law.

Allie1 . . . .

No I do not believe in corporate welfare, for Facebook or any other company. I am not happy in any way for my tax money to go in support of Facebook, in any capacity.

This is excellent Allie1.
We clearly have common ground on this point.

So we both think it is not appropriate for Facebook to TAKE MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS (using Government to FORCE such money re-distribution), including taking money by FORCE from pro-life citizens (in the form of taxes) who do not want to give Facebook their money, and then turn around and tell those same taxpayers that THEY cannot be part of the Facebook discussion.

That . . . is inappropriate.

.

Allie1 . . . .

If it is found that Facebook executives have possession of illegal materials, then of course I think they should be prosecuted under the law.

Sorry Allie1.

I did not make myself clear.

I am not talking about “executives” private possession of illegal material in the sense you think I am talking about.

I am talking about . . . . should they be held RESPONSIBLE if that “bad stuff” makes its way onto their website?

How are these 2 things related?

I believe that Facebook is a private company…I do not believe that it is appropriate for them, or any company to receive corporate welfare, in the form of tax dollars from private citizens. I believe that every company has the right to set standards on what they allow to be advertised on the companys website…whether that company is Facebook or Catholic Answers Forum.

I believe that giving Facebook tax dollars is WRONG. But I do not follow you that they then lose their capacity to decide what advertising they allow on their companies website

Yes I think it is wrong if they do not monitor for illicit material on their website. If they knowlingly keep sexually exploitive material (for example) on their website, and do not report it to the proper authorities, then yes I think there should be legal repercussions for that

Cathoholic . . .

So we both think it is not appropriate for Facebook to TAKE MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS (using Government to FORCE such money re-distribution), including taking money by FORCE from pro-life citizens (in the form of taxes) who do not want to give Facebook their money, and then turn around and tell those same taxpayers that THEY cannot be part of the Facebook discussion.

Allie1 . . . .

How are these 2 things related?

They are related by Facebook lobbying for and taking tax breaks which the rest of the tax-paying community has to make up for thereby subsidizing Facebook.

Does this sentence make sense to you?

In addition to tax money, a BIG source of income for Facebook is through advertisements. Does Facebook suddenly lose their ability to chose what advertisements they promote because of tax dollars? Are they obligated to accept every random Joe’s advertisement because of tax dollars. I dont think so

1 Like

Allie1 . . .

Yes I think it is wrong if they do not monitor for illicit material on their website.

But I am not talking about mere “monitoring” of their site.

I am talking about even having possession of illegal material on their site.

Should they go to jail for that? Even if they get it off right away?

Look, if they knowingly have illegal material on their website then yes I think they need to be punished, under the law. As far as their punishment is concerned, I support whatever punishment a court gives to them

Cathoholic . . . .

They are related by Facebook lobbying for and taking tax breaks which the rest of the tax-paying community has to make up for thereby subsidizing Facebook.

Allie1 . . .

Does this sentence make sense to you?

Yes it does.

Facebook lobbies quite successfully for tax breaks.

That means other tax payers are forced to essentially subsidize Facebook to make up for the lost tax burden.

Taxpayers do not have the luxury of saying “we are not paying into such a system. It’s as simple as that.”

But you said Facebook CAN say that.

And I am saying maybe if Facebook wants to be the private company who wants to play politics, then forget about giving them ANY tax monies/breaks.

Does this sound reasonable?

Allie1 . . .

Look, if they knowingly have illegal material on their website then yes I think they need to be punished, under the law. As far as their punishment is concerned, I support whatever punishment a court gives to them

What if they UNKNOWINGLY have illegal activity on their site?

(Because other people have gone to jail for that. Yet Facebook cites a Federal exemption for such immunity. Do you think that is OK for them to do?)

Yes, I believe corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks is wrong…I believe that corporate lobbying for special favors from Washington is wrong. And needs to end…I do not follow you that they then lose their capacity as a private company, to chose what advertising they promote through their company

I have never heard of this, can you supply a specific example?

Allie1 . . .

I do not follow you that they then lose their capacity as a private company, to chose what advertising they promote through their company

My point is Facebook takes Prolifers tax monies.

But then claims it is a PRIVATE corporation (which it is).

So my point is, either quit taking taxpayer dollars and continue to be political if you want.

Or take the subsidies and be APOLITICAL.

But do not take our money to HURT our pro-lifers being able to get their message out on your platform.

I also think Facebook should have been broken up a long time ago by the Federal Government using anti-trust laws for their monopoly. But that is just my opinion.

I have never heard of this, can you supply a specific example?

I could but I am not going to right now.

But think about it. You’ve seen cases before.

The bad guy has illegal material on his/her computer.

Then claims they did not put it there.

They are still responsible.

They are charged with having this illegal material in (on) their possession. I have read such stories many times.

They frequently end up in jail.

There IS a federal exemption for this though.

And Facebook attempts to use this exemption.

The problem is, if they use that exemption, they MUST REMAIN apolitical by law to be eligible to use it.

THAT is the significance of that issue.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.