Social media gun ban censorship advertising
Bigstock
Previous Post
Next Post

Armslist LLC and owner Jonathan Gibbon recently filed a lawsuit against Facebook and Instagram over the social media giants’ decision to suspend Gibbon’s personal and business accounts in January, 2020.

According to the lawsuit, Gibbon and Armslist Marketing Director, Andrew Varney III, were “targeted” because of “their conservative and libertarian political views,” Trib Live reported.

The website, which serves as a go-between between buyers and sellers, frequently posts pro-Second Amendment content on their social media platforms as a way of driving traffic to their website. The company doesn’t post ads for firearms or parts on their social media accounts, which would be a violation of Facebook and Instagram’s terms of service agreement.

“Armslist frequently posted commentary supportive of Second Amendment rights and critical of certain proposed gun control measures and the political figures supporting these measures,” the lawsuit states, according to Armed American News. “In addition, many Armslist posts called attention to the use of firearms in stopping and preventing crime, the significance of firearms in American history and culture and the Constitutional protections relating to firearm ownership.”

The website believes their accounts were shut down because of the political pressure the Big Tech giants are facing. Gun control groups and individual members of Congress want Facebook and Instagram to be held responsible “for gun violence and illegal gun sales” that take place on their platforms. The pressure has resulted in Facebook cracking down on the sales of firearms and firearm accessory sales.

Armslist is similar to Craigslist and is utilized as an online classifieds section where users can post firearms, ammunition, and related accessories for sale. Even though the platform is online, users are still required to follow all local, state, and federal firearms laws. That means when a person lists a gun for sale on the website and finds a buyer, both have to abide by the law. In some states, like California, both the buyer and seller would have to go to an FFL to complete the transaction.

This lawsuit will be one to watch. It could have a dramatic impact on the firearms industry as a whole, especially as tech giants zero in on anything even remotely tied to the gun industry. Holster companies and even crafters on Etsy have had content pulled from various platforms simply because their products are associated with firearms.

Previous Post
Next Post

23 COMMENTS

    • It will never happen until the internet is regulated as a public utility. I believe Facebook and instagram are wrong, but their actions didn’t violate anything.(yet)
      The same thing happened to Alex Jones, and he isn’t the only one. To an extent it happened to Trump. If we regulate the internet like a public utility, large media tech companies won’t be able to do this to people. Untill then, there is nothing to find them guilty of.

      • When the next tornado occurs, go out in it and whistle………..tell me how many people heard you. Or you could just go out into the desert and discus your viewpoint. Get it? no one in authority cares.

    • Right. How much pressure does a marxist have to put on a socialist to get them to do some communist $hit ?

  1. When will they shut down the TTAG Facebook page? (I don’t Facebook, so they may have done that already for all I know.)

    • “(I don’t Facebook, so they may have done that already for all I know.)”

      I don’t know either, not being an F-book’er.

      But this could be the start of something good, if they lose. This could lead eventually lead to a SCotUS decision declaring the internet is a ‘Public Square’, and speech there is protected…

        • Not happening. That would constitute a “taking” which we are supposed to be against.

        • No, it wouldn’t be a taking. They’d operate just like all the Ma Bell successors used to. The company still has its assets and does business…it just has to follow more rules, and isn’t allowed to kick people off the platform or censor anyone.

          It may not be the best way to fix the problem, but it’d be better than what we’ve got now.

  2. I’m no lawyer but I dont see how they can win the lawsuit.
    Dont know how facebook works , if they paid money and the contract ran out and facebook dont want your buisness no more yur S O L.
    If you didn’t pay then it seems facebook can throw you out for any old reason they want to anytime they want to.
    Besides that, how much would you really have to sue Zuckerberg for and hurt him?
    Gunms cant gunm on my social media platform. $5 million, So what.

    • “I’m no lawyer but I dont see how they can win the lawsuit.”

      If it eventually leads to the Supreme Court, the court could declare a website is the modern equivalent of a public square, and free speech there is protected and immune from actions like what F-Book just did.

      The good news for us is, Justice Thomas has made noises recently he’s inclined to be sympathetic to hearing such a case…

      • But I “own” the square. Get off my lawn.
        the supreme court( and I take offense to that, nothing on this earth is supreme ) isnt going to waste time with a bullshit I got sht on case.
        The only hope would be an FFC violation, Zuckerberg has more money then 12 FFC violations.
        The Supreme Court, ha ha, would they Supreme do their do its for minimum wage. No because they’re just like all the rest,- Me first country last or somewhere in between, dont matter, keep me in the money.
        From the words of a chicken sht boss I used to work for.
        ” Fckem I’ve gotta maintain my lifestyle. “

  3. As has already been mentioned, good luck with all that. FB throws away more money in waste paper everyday than Armslist is worth. It’s their bat and their ball. They can pick it up and go home anytime they want to. For the life of me I cannot understand why the gun and ammo industry does create their own social/hosting platform.

    • What? Like potg.gun?

      Its a fun idea to play with. But without some real money to back it, its just an idea. There are reasons why it all exists the way it does to begin with. It wasn’t all that long ago that New York politicians wanted to use Facebook as a tie-in for background checks on firearm purchases. As completely absurd as that is, it is a very slippery slope. If they had actually succeeded then it would give Facebook the ability to abolish the 2A.

      Facebook is going to be a problem as long as democrats (or politicians in general) make it tool. Its the same thing with Twitter. The people running these things are liberals first.

  4. They lost traffic because they decided to stop being a free service and charge both sellers and buyers to use their product. It’s not worth it to pay to ask a seller a question only to realize it’s a scam or the item isn’t as described, or they are unwilling to negotiate their $1000 dollar price on a used Glock 19. So now there aren’t any buyers, which makes it not worth it to post anything as a seller. Armslist isn’t having troubles because of the mean social media platforms, they are failing because they provide a consistently worsening service that people barely wanted to use for free and will absolutely not pay for…

  5. Pointless lawsuit designed primarily to generate traffic to their website. While I would like to applaud their efforts, as I said, it’s pointless. FB and Twit are privately held companies. The lawsuit will be dismissed on those grounds alone.

  6. Never had a farcebook page, so don’t have that concern. Something I wonder at though. Isn’t Facebook as well as a couple of the other supposedly open to the general public web host/social media companies publicly traded in the stock market? And isn’t there some anti discriminatory clause that can be used against publicly traded companies? Don’t feel like doing the research at this time, but am asking if anyone might know about such things.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here