Removing a homophobic user review

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 9 months ago
  • Solved
Hi,

I'm trying to report the following review https://www.imdb.com/review/rw5136603/?ref_=tt_urv which I believe violates IMDB's terms & conditions in that the reviewer appears to be making a homophobic statement.

The reviewer states "Unfortunately the liberal left made sure they are shoving sinful homosexual crud at every turn" and "Was a good movie until the LGBTQ agenda surfaced mid movie"
Rather than reviewing the film the reviewer appears to be pushing their anti LGBT views instead.

I have reported the review twice as being inappropriate. However, each time I am told that my contribution has been declined with the response "Reason Unable to verify".

I'm not sure what the moderator is unable to verify?

Thanks,
Gayle

Photo of Gayle Hibbert

Gayle Hibbert

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
  • Annoyed

Posted 9 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
An opinion about a movie is valid no matter how Much we may disagree with it. You have the same right to go review a movie that in "your opinion" had a certain amount of suggested LGBT, but was hiding the actual reality due to producers restraint.

You would be within your right to point that out without some one attaching a derogatory name to your behavior. You have proalterlifestylaphobia. There you have a name for your behavior. You are proalterlifestylaphobic!!!!

Live and let live.

Your complaint was denied with good reason. It's called freedom of speech.


(Edited)
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1687 Posts
  • 2061 Reply Likes
Ed,

This has nothing to do with free speech. IMDb is not part of the government. They can censor anything they want. Free speech only protects an individual from governmental action.

Also, the review specifically violates IMDb policy as it is not a review of the movie but a social rant.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challeng...

In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment

The First Amendment only limits governmental actors—federal, state, and local—but there are good reasons why this should be changed. Certain powerful private entities—particularly social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and others—can limit, control, and censor speech as much or more than governmental entities. A society that cares for the protection of free expression needs to recognize that the time has come to extend the reach of the First Amendment to cover these powerful, private entities that have ushered in a revolution in terms of communication capabilities.

While this article focuses on social media entities, the public/private distinction and the state action doctrine are important beyond cyberspace. The National Football League’s reaction to Colin Kaepernick and other players “taking a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem is a pristine example of private conduct outside the reach of the First Amendment under current doctrine. But the nature of those protests couldn’t seem more public and cries out for a re-evaluation of the state action doctrine and the importance of protecting speech.

Speaking of speech, two key justifications for robust protection of the First Amendment right to freedom of expression are the marketplace of ideas and individual self-fulfillment. These justifications don’t require governmental presence. Powerful private actors can infringe on free expression rights just as much as public actors.

The first justification, the marketplace of ideas, is a pervasive metaphor in First Amendment law that posits the government should not distort the market and engage in content control. It is better for people to appreciate for themselves different ideas and concepts. It is traced back to John Milton’s free speech tract Areopagitica (1644): “Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; whoever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

Individual self-fulfillment, often associated with the liberty theory, posits that people need and crave the ability to express themselves to become fully functioning individuals. Censorship stunts personal growth and individual expansion.

The point here is that when an entity like Facebook engages in censorship, individuals don’t get to participate in the marketplace of ideas and are not allowed the liberty to engage in individual selffulfillment— just like when a governmental entity engages in censorship.

It is true that state action doctrine traditionally limits the application of the First Amendment to private actors. Earlier this year, a federal district court in Texas applied the traditional state action doctrine to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a private individual against Facebook. The court explained that “the First Amendment governs only governmental limitations on speech.” (Nyabwa v. Facebook, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13981, Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-24, *2 (S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 26, 2018).)

After all, for about 140 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the Constitution and the protections it provides— aside from the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery and involuntary servitude— only limit governmental actors. Thus, traditional legal doctrine provides that private actors are not constrained by the Constitution generally. This is called the “state action” doctrine. It purportedly creates a zone of privacy and protects us from excessive governmental interference.

The Court developed the state action doctrine in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883. This case actually consisted of five consolidated cases in which private businesses egregiously excluded African-American plaintiffs from their privately owned facilities opened to the public (such as movie theaters, inns, amusement parks, and trains) on the basis of race. The plaintiffs contended that such exclusions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However,  the U.S. Supreme Court responded somewhat cavalierly “[i]t is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.” (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 (1883).) The Court said that there were no constitutional remedies available to these plaintiffs and that they would need to rely on the common law state protections. Sadly, there were no such state common law protections either. 

Only Justice John Marshall Harlan I, the so-called “Great Dissenter” for his solitary dissent in this case, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and other decisions, recognized that his colleagues were allowing the government a free pass to discriminate against persons of a particular race with regard to the use of public facilities. He wrote that the “discrimination practised by corporations and individuals in the exercise of their public or quasi-public functions is a badge of servitude” that Congress could rectify under its powers under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 43 (1883) (J. Harlan, dissenting).)

But, in 2018, speech takes place online much more so than it does in traditional public forums, such as public parks and streets. People communicate on social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, more than in any offline venues. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this reality last year in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017): “While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, and social media in particular.” (Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017).)

In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy elaborated that the  expansion of social media has contributed to a “revolution of historic proportions.” Id. at 1736. In other words, social media networking sites have become the modern- day equivalent of traditional public forums like public parks and public streets. 

This societal development and change in communications capacities require that the antiquated state action doctrine be modified lest the law become ossified. The time has come to recognize that the reach of the First Amendment be expanded. 



Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1687 Posts
  • 2061 Reply Likes
TL;DR but the opening line is incorrect. There is no reason to force any private entity to give a platform to hate speech or any other type of speech that the private entity finds objectionable. Can I come over to your house, Ed, and engage in speech you find objectionable?
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Especially read part two of this article..........

When a private actor has control over online communications and online forums, these private actors are analogous to a governmental actor.


Human Rights In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment by David L. Hudson, Jr.
Share this:


The First Amendment only limits governmental actors—federal, state, and local—but there are good reasons why this should be changed. Certain powerful private entities—particularly social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and others—can limit, control, and censor speech as much or more than governmental entities. A society that cares for the protection of free expression needs to recognize that the time has come to extend the reach of the First Amendment to cover these powerful, private entities that have ushered in a revolution in terms of communication capabilities.

While this article focuses on social media entities, the public/private distinction and the state action doctrine are important beyond cyberspace. The National Football League’s reaction to Colin Kaepernick and other players “taking a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem is a pristine example of private conduct outside the reach of the First Amendment under current doctrine. But the nature of those protests couldn’t seem more public and cries out for a re-evaluation of the state action doctrine and the importance of protecting speech.

Speaking of speech, two key justifications for robust protection of the First Amendment right to freedom of expression are the marketplace of ideas and individual self-fulfillment. These justifications don’t require governmental presence. Powerful private actors can infringe on free expression rights just as much as public actors.

The first justification, the marketplace of ideas, is a pervasive metaphor in First Amendment law that posits the government should not distort the market and engage in content control. It is better for people to appreciate for themselves different ideas and concepts. It is traced back to John Milton’s free speech tract Areopagitica (1644): “Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; whoever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

Individual self-fulfillment, often associated with the liberty theory, posits that people need and crave the ability to express themselves to become fully functioning individuals. Censorship stunts personal growth and individual expansion.

The point here is that when an entity like Facebook engages in censorship, individuals don’t get to participate in the marketplace of ideas and are not allowed the liberty to engage in individual selffulfillment— just like when a governmental entity engages in censorship.

It is true that state action doctrine traditionally limits the application of the First Amendment to private actors. Earlier this year, a federal district court in Texas applied the traditional state action doctrine to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a private individual against Facebook. The court explained that “the First Amendment governs only governmental limitations on speech.” (Nyabwa v. Facebook, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13981, Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-24, *2 (S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 26, 2018).)

After all, for about 140 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the Constitution and the protections it provides— aside from the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery and involuntary servitude— only limit governmental actors. Thus, traditional legal doctrine provides that private actors are not constrained by the Constitution generally. This is called the “state action” doctrine. It purportedly creates a zone of privacy and protects us from excessive governmental interference.

The Court developed the state action doctrine in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883. This case actually consisted of five consolidated cases in which private businesses egregiously excluded African-American plaintiffs from their privately owned facilities opened to the public (such as movie theaters, inns, amusement parks, and trains) on the basis of race. The plaintiffs contended that such exclusions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However,  the U.S. Supreme Court responded somewhat cavalierly “[i]t is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.” (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 (1883).) The Court said that there were no constitutional remedies available to these plaintiffs and that they would need to rely on the common law state protections. Sadly, there were no such state common law protections either. 

Only Justice John Marshall Harlan I, the so-called “Great Dissenter” for his solitary dissent in this case, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and other decisions, recognized that his colleagues were allowing the government a free pass to discriminate against persons of a particular race with regard to the use of public facilities. He wrote that the “discrimination practised by corporations and individuals in the exercise of their public or quasi-public functions is a badge of servitude” that Congress could rectify under its powers under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 43 (1883) (J. Harlan, dissenting).)

But, in 2018, speech takes place online much more so than it does in traditional public forums, such as public parks and streets. People communicate on social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, more than in any offline venues. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this reality last year in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017): “While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, and social media in particular.” (Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017).)

In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy elaborated that the  expansion of social media has contributed to a “revolution of historic proportions.” Id. at 1736. In other words, social media networking sites have become the modern- day equivalent of traditional public forums like public parks and public streets. 

This societal development and change in communications capacities require that the antiquated state action doctrine be modified lest the law become ossified. The time has come to recognize that the reach of the First Amendment be expanded. 


When a private actor has control over online communications and online forums, these private actors are analogous to a governmental actor.

This is not a novel thesis. Many others have advocated for this approach. Many legal scholars have recognized that when a private actor has control over online communications and online forums, these private actors are analogous to a governmental actor. For example, legal commentator Benjamin F. Jackson cogently explained in a 2014 law review article that “[P]ublic communications by users of social network websites deserve First Amendment protection because they simultaneously invoke three of the interests protected by the First Amendment: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association.” (Benjamin F. Jackson, Censorship and Freedom of Expression in the Age of Facebook, 44 N.M. L. Rev. 121, 134 (2014).)

Decades earlier, the brilliant legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky argued that the state action doctrine should be revisited and abandoned. He wrote that private censorship can be as harmful as governmental censorship. As applied to freedom of speech, he posited: 

Freedom of speech is defended both instrumentally—it helps people make better decisions—and intrinsically—individuals benefit from being able to express their views. The consensus is that the activity of expression is vital and must be protected. Any infringement of freedom of speech, be it by public or private entities, sacrifices these values. In other words, the consensus is not just that the government should not punish expression; rather, it is that speech is valuable and, therefore, any unjustified violation is impermissible. If employers can fire employees and landlords can evict tenants because of their speech, then speech will be chilled and expression lost. Instrumentally, the “marketplace of ideas” is constricted while, intrinsically, individuals are denied the ability to express themselves. Therefore, courts should uphold the social consensus by stopping all impermissible infringements of speech, not just those resulting from state action. (Erwin Chemerinsky, Rethinking State Action, 80 N.W. U. L. Rev. 503, 533–34 (1985).) 

Already, some state high courts interpret free expression provisions in state constitutions to provide protection to individuals involving private actors. For example, a few states apply their free expression protections at privately owned shopping malls. The New Jersey Supreme Court has applied the free expression provision of its state constitution to allow individuals to challenge restrictive bylaw provisions of private homeowner associations. The state high court wrote: “In New Jersey, an individual’s affirmative right to speak freely is protected not only from abridgement by government, but also from unreasonably restrictive and oppressive conduct by private entities in certain situations.” (Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners Association v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482, 493 (2012).)

The U.S. Supreme Court should follow these examples from state supreme courts to relax the state action doctrine. The Court should interpret the First Amendment to limit the “unreasonably restrictive and oppressive conduct” by certain powerful, private entities—such as social media entities—that flagrantly censor freedom of expression. 

David L. Hudson Jr. is a Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He also is a First Amendment Fellow for the Freedom Forum Institute. He is the author, coauthor, or coeditor of more than 40 books, including First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (Sage, 2008), and Let the Students Speak!: A History of the Fight for Freedom of Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011).




Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1687 Posts
  • 2061 Reply Likes
Again, TL;DR, and again you are starting from a false premise. In the age of the Internet, you are welcome to create your own IMDb or any other social media and post all the hate speech you want (until, of course, your underlying service provider decides you aren't worth the boycotts they will suffer). No one owes you a platform to spew hate speech.

Also, instead of copying and pasting huge blocks of other people's opinions, how about sticking to your own opinion.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
In 1776 George Washington, John Adams, ET AL, were engaged in hate speech. Oh yeah. A government was trying to suppress freedom of speech and tried to force it's will on us. With guns. And when these purveyors of hate speech won out and formed a government the very first law was freedom of speech. Not the 5th or 9th amendment. The very first thing. No one has the right to suppress speech. In a modern age we need to reexamine our tolerances.

And that copy and paste is 100% my opinion on the matter. Why type it when it is available for all to read by copy and paste.
It's OK for me to type all that, but not OK to copy and paste. Jeez!!!!!!!!!!
:):)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Adrian, may I suggest you read (Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017).
I wont copy and paste that if you will read it and actually see the parallels here.

Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Eventually the phrase you and everybody seems to embrace "Hate Speech" will be no longer.
Political Correctness is ruining Society. To defend it is utter madness.
(Edited)
Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
Ed Jones (XLIX) --  THANKS for standing up for free speech. God knows on social media anyone can criticize straight, whites, Republicans, conservatives, etc. While I am not crazy about ""Unfortunately the liberal left made sure they are shoving sinful homosexual crud at every turn", the second part, "Was a good movie until the LGBTQ agenda surfaced mid movie" is spot on. But if every television show, made-for-TV movie, or feature film were to be updated accordingly I suspect it would keep IMDb staff busy for the next year or so.  

"Eventually the word you and everybody seems to embrace "Hate Speech" will be no longer. Political Correctness is ruining Society. To defend it is utter madness." -- Absolutely true. The insanity just gets worse every day, and the state of Virginia just fell to those selfsame enemy forces, joining a disturbing large number of others. 
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1687 Posts
  • 2061 Reply Likes
Except for the fact that Ed is doing no such thing. This isn't a free speech issue. Why do "straight, white, republican, conservatives" complain about free speech when they are no longer able to engage in hate speech? Seriously, is that the hill you want to die on?

You guys seem to be suffering from an extreme case of privilege. You will never be discriminate against so you engage in thought exercise of which you will never face the consequences of. Google the paradox of tolerance.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1687 Posts
  • 2061 Reply Likes
This is completely a ToS issue. Please read the review guide:

https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH?ref_=helpart_nav_9#

Specifically:

Reviews that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site.

and

Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review. 
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
And those ToS are at the core of this. Interpretation. Many people may categorize the opinion as a spiteful remark, I and many others believe that a spiteful remark is too vague. Profanity and obscenities are a little more clearer. But a "Spiteful Remark" ???? Really. You may find a definition of it, but can one really define where a line is crossed between spiteful and non spiteful? That is sooooo interpretable as to be unenforceable!

Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
Adrian -- all subjective, first. Second, "Reviews that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site" does not apply because the review was about the movie in question and generalizations are unavoidable. As far as "Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review", I did not note any profanity or obscenities.

"Spiteful remarks", maybe. Too bad. If you don't like it, leave the IMDB community or move to Portland and join Antifa. You can't affect IMDB but you'll probably get away with destroying some computers, although maybe not as many as Hillary Clinton and her aides.   
Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
Adrian :  "Also, instead of copying and pasting huge blocks of other people's opinions, how about sticking to your own opinion." -- Why? You don't get to dictate how others frame their arguments. Maybe you think IMDb is a snarkfest like Wikipedia.

Ed Jones is smart enough to know that his personal opinion is less important by far than the legal and judicial history he elects to use AS the main part of his responses.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Adrian, if I may point out here, you are defending censorship by a public media outlet.
IMDb IS losing users. They don't say anything. They have already left the building so to speak. When the people on one side of an issue force their collective will on the other side of that issue they feel unwanted. Every review that you censor or remove is a lost user.
You are basically advocating for 1/2 of the IMDb users to just go away because they don't agree with those that don't think as they do. That is sad.
Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
Adrian -- The only person I ever heard refer to a hill he chose not to die on was James Comey. Therefore it is a tainted metaphor. 


As far as "hate speech", not only is that protected by the First Amendment, hence the extralegal and paramilitary assaults on anyone whom a group of lunatic resisters, gender anarchist, Antifas, etc disagree with -- but the term itself is largely subjective. Lunatics on college campuses and almost elsewhere else believe that people who claim that there are differences between men and women, or who otherwise oppose gender neutrality are guilty of hate speech and/or "transphobia" or some other recently invented thought-crime to satisfy the goalpost-shifting of militant and violent extremists.  
 
"You guys seem to be suffering from an extreme case of privilege. You will never be discriminate against so you engage in thought exercise of which you will never face the consequences of. Google the paradox of tolerance." -- That is so stupid I do not believe you can seriously mean it. If you don't think that intersectionality does not permanently legally disable and diminish those who don't have enough "minority" status claims, especially in academic, the workplace, Hollywood, etc, then you are an ignoramus and a fool. (How come people of color are still minorities in cities in which whites are clearly in the minority? I guess it's 2+2=5.) 
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Rob, thanks. Yes I'd rather state scholarly facts. Learned, highly educated people who have thought long and hard on an issue and will not be brainwashed by a minority attempting to shape and mold society in an unrealistic conformity. We have had enough. We tolerated that speech and said nothing for decades. That was a mistake. That silence and tolerance has allowed a bombarding indoctrination of bad ideas to be perceived as good ideas. These supposed "Good Ideas" are so bad, that it is a commentary on what our good tolerance has brought forth. We the meek shall inherit..........yada yada. Well the meek is the majority. We would like our Earth back!
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Adrian??????????
You guys seem to be suffering from an extreme case of privilege.
This is a head in the sand statement. You are the privileged! Don't you see that. Your side has anointed themselves that status. I am the Idiot who can't see the forest for the trees according to you. Well.......I can see clearly now, the rain is gone. I can see all obstacles in my way. All of your dark clouds are broken open. We are seeding those clouds with good old Poor Richards Almanicisms.
Common Sense should rule. Not Utopianism/Socialism/Communism.

Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
Gayle Hibbert -- Yeah, yeah. Homophobia -- the unforgivable career-destroying sin, usually found more in the minds of those seeking to be offended and provoked than anything else. (You have to bake me that cake!!!!) 

I am an American so I don't give a crap about the UK or the European Union, but the USA is almost as bad and intolerant. Men and women are different -- that's transphobia. Affirmative action = intersectionality. Etc, etc, etc.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3727 Posts
  • 5163 Reply Likes
In my humble opinion "sinful homosexual crud" is indeed homophobic and should not be protected with freedom of speech. Just because your religion says something about what should you do, it's not a reason to abide to it like national law and condemn everyone like it's Middle Ages...
(Edited)
Photo of Gayle Hibbert

Gayle Hibbert

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
But it isn't an opinion about the movie. There is no "sinful homosexual crud" in the movie so the review is factually incorrect. The reviewer suggests that homosexuality is sinful which under UK and EU law and ethics it is not and under UK and EU law such a statement would be regarded as derogatory.

If I were to say that disabled people should be banned from films because they are sinful crud (which isn't true of course), would you also say I have the right to put that in a review because it is "Freedom of Speech".

I'm not sure which part of the world you come from but I suspect it maybe somewhere where homophobia is accepted?

(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Absolutely irrelevant.
IMDb is based in Washington State, USA.The laws of the state of Washington or the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and (USC) US Code of the United States apply.
Cant help you but no country can enforce their laws internationally. Did they not teach you anything in school?
Photo of Gayle Hibbert

Gayle Hibbert

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
So you're an abusive and homophobic Yank? That is just my opinion which according to you I am entitled to express under Freedom of Speech?
(Edited)
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3727 Posts
  • 5163 Reply Likes
Gayle Hibbert, as far as my knowledge goes Ed is neither, but at times he gets emotional about situations here and IMDb rules. Otherwise he is a very helpful member of this community.   
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
So you're an abusive and homophobic Yank? That is just my opinion which according to you I am entitled to express under Freedom of Speech?
Yes, under our laws, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong you are.
Photo of Gayle Hibbert

Gayle Hibbert

  • 4 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
But my original point still stands. We both agree that the statement made by the reviewer is homophobic and is factually incorrect by modern standards.

IMdb clearly state in their policy that visitors may post reviews, comments, and other content; and submit suggestions, ideas, comments, questions, or other information, so long as the content is not illegal, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable and so on....

Somehow I don't think that IMDb would advocate a policy of "Free speech" which would allow users to include defamatory statements about other elements of society based on their religion, ethnicity, colour or sexuality. 

Yes, freedom of speech is nice but at the same time users have to ensure that their personal prejudices don't effect their contributions. We also have to respect each other, whether we be Muslim, gay, disabled, black.... or all four :-) 

As I said before, the reviewer has clearly let their prejudice influence their review and to make the statement, "Unfortunately the liberal left made sure they are shoving sinful homosexual crud at every turn" is defamatory and incorrect.

Photo of GMJ

GMJ, Champion

  • 3741 Posts
  • 6534 Reply Likes
Gayle,

Please wait for an official response from an IMDb representative on this matter. 
Photo of cinephile

cinephile

  • 1766 Posts
  • 2615 Reply Likes
I agree it is clearly homophobic.
(Edited)
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1693 Posts
  • 2067 Reply Likes
Ed,

The user may be entitled to their opinion but they are not entitled to a platform for their opinion. IMDb is a private company and can remove any speech they see fit.
Photo of cinephile

cinephile

  • 1766 Posts
  • 2615 Reply Likes
Good point, Adrian!
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Adrian,
IMDb is a private company and can remove any speech they see fit.

And just how much longer will this be tolerated? Once the Facebook, YouTube, Twitter problems with their censorship has been addressed with legislation, IMDb will have to comply with the new decisions that will happen. (New Law)\

Look, I do not like what he says either, but IMDb has in place a system that addresses bad reviews. "Helpful and Not Helpful"
I really do not want to read things like that either (your hate speech thingy label) but any form of censorship is an affront to what this country was founded on.
Remember please. I dislike his speech. I dislike even more someone saying he can't say it.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Adrian,
IMDb is a private company and can remove any speech they see fit.

And just how much longer will this be tolerated? Once the Facebook, YouTube, Twitter problems with their censorship has been addressed with legislation, IMDb will have to comply with the new decisions that will happen. (New Law)\

Look, I do not like what he says either, but IMDb has in place a system that addresses bad reviews. "Helpful and Not Helpful"
I really do not want to read things like that either (your hate speech thingy label) but any form of censorship is an affront to what this country was founded on.
Remember please. I dislike his speech. I dislike even more someone saying he can't say it.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
OOps, the dreaded double post!!!!!
Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
Correct, Adrian -- And IMDB can also keep any speech they see fit to. Do you scour the net seeking harsh or unfair or other commentary with which you disagree? If so, you have missed all the leftist offenders who have Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Comcast, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the Democratic Party in their pockets.

I don't know the movie so I don't know if there was any homosexual content but the "Was a good movie until the LGBTQ agenda surfaced mid movie" is almost certainly correct given that public education, social/MSM media, Hollywood, Broadway, public education and academia have all become cauldrons of increasingly Orwellian insanity and intolerance and, most dreadfully, indoctrination. 
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Adrian is unlikely to reply further Rob. King IMDb of America has spoken. Review removed. That means that the matter is settled and he is vindicated. Another lost user more than likely shall result.
The left never wants to hear what the other side has to say. We have not made a dent in anything here.
Sad
Very sad
I will hope that Adrian and all that think as they do now will regret what they have done when history repeats itself right here in the good ole USA Comrade Rob!
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
You know Rob it just occurred to me that the big court case that IMDb fought so hard against just recently and won over the right to "Retain Data" (Date of Birth) over the objections of an actress may come back to haunt them here. That date of birth was deemed objectionable. But the courts disagreed. IMDb won the right to post what another deemed objectionable. Yet this supposed objectionable information (review) is OK to remove only because of ??????What???????? Makes no sense. If IMDb can willfully remove info that people find objectionable, then whats the difference between a date of birth or review that many find objectionable too!?
Hmmmmmm!
(Edited)
Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
You could talk to Col Needham (seems like a nice guy) regarding the "ToS", I guess, which is probably what the decision to remove the review was based on. 
Photo of Rob Sieger

Rob Sieger

  • 382 Posts
  • 232 Reply Likes
Ed Jones (XLIX) -- I think the problem is that you and I are old enough (I may be wrong about you as I don't know how old you are but I think I am right; I am 54), unlike the lunatic millennials, to remember when (even if life was not so great) the world was comprehensible and education was not indoctrination and there were only two recognized genders and women who accomplished everything through their husbands were not considered feminists and the LGBTQ lobby was not the most powerful and influential and affluent on the face of the earth yet still considered the underdog and the perpetual victims and where college students didn't need remedial education, safe spaces, trigger warnings, and hot coffee.  

Now we live in a country where Orwellian dystopia (colored blue) is unfolding. And not just here. I don't think Canada is much better. And EU countries, including the UK (as we see from the comments of Gayle Hibbert, which appear less fanatical than many others in the Loony Left) are no better. 
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
the reviewer has clearly let their prejudice influence their review
That is only a matter of opinion. That reviewer could be gay for all you know. Labeling "Anyone" something based solely on words is prejudicial behavior at it's worst. 
Photo of Elizabeth

Elizabeth, Employee

  • 1168 Posts
  • 1905 Reply Likes
Hi Gayle, thank you for flagging this to us, the review has been removed. 

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.