Facebook ‘Supreme Court’ Packed with Anti-Trump, Progressive Figures


I still don’t understand why so many people use Facebook, especially for political conversations. I get wanting to keep in touch with family and friends and see all of their pictures without needing to deal with a bunch of emails and text messages but at this point anybody still posting slightly right views on Facebook is beyond stupid.

Facebook has released a list of the first 20 members of its “Oversight Board,” a semi-independent body the social network is setting up that will have the power to decide whether content banned by Facebook stays banned or is restored on appeal. Members include the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian and a “human rights expert” who is part of George Soros’ Open Society project.

Colloquially known as the “Facebook Supreme Court,” the idea for the body was hatched by Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, a liberal academic and one of the Democrats’ “expert witnesses” during the impeachment hearings. Also involved in the body’s development was a progressive non-profit, BSR.

The 20 members announced by Facebook today include progressive, left-wing, and mainstream media figures who have been highly critical of President Trump.

1 Like

This board has its own foundation and will eventually expand to other internet platforms and eventually it will be elevated by new national and international laws to be the supreme court of content for the entire internet.

Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei - A human rights advocate who works on women’s rights, media freedom and access to information issues across Africa at the Open Society Initiative for West Africa

Evelyn Aswad - A University of Oklahoma College of Law professor who formerly served as a senior State Department lawyer and specializes in the application of international human rights standards to content moderation issues

Endy Bayuni - A journalist who twice served as the editor-in-chief of The Jakarta Post, and helps direct a journalists’ association that promotes excellence in the coverage of religion and spirituality.

Catalina Botero Marino, co-chair - A former U.N. special rapporteur for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States who now serves as dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law.

Katherine Chen - A communications scholar at the National Chengchi University who studies social media, mobile news and privacy, and a former national communications regulator in Taiwan.

Nighat Dad - A digital rights advocate who offers digital security training to women in Pakistan and across South Asia to help them protect themselves against online harassment, campaigns against government restrictions on dissent, and received the Human Rights Tulip Award.

Jamal Greene, co-chair - A Columbia Law professor who focuses on constitutional rights adjudication and the structure of legal and constitutional argument.

Pamela Karlan - A Stanford Law professor and Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and First Amendment cases, and serves as a member of the board of the American Constitution Society.

Tawakkol Karman - A Nobel Peace Prize laureate who used her voice to promote nonviolent change in Yemen during the Arab Spring, and was named as one of ‘History’s Most Rebellious Women’ by Time magazine.

Maina Kiai - A director of Human Rights Watch’s Global Alliances and Partnerships Program and a former U.N. special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association who has decades of experience advocating for human rights in Kenya.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy - A vice chancellor of the National Law School of India University who co-founded an advocacy organization that works to advance constitutional values for everyone, including LGBTQ+ and transgender persons, in India.

Ronaldo Lemos - A technology, intellectual property and media lawyer who co-created a national internet rights law in Brazil, co-founded a nonprofit focused on technology and policy issues, and teaches law at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

Michael McConnell, co-chair - A former U.S. federal circuit judge who is now a constitutional law professor at Stanford, an expert on religious freedom, and a Supreme Court advocate who has represented clients in a wide range of First Amendment cases involving freedom of speech, religion and association.

Julie Owono - A digital rights and anti-censorship advocate who leads Internet Sans Frontières and campaigns against internet censorship in Africa and around the world.

Emi Palmor - A former director general of the Israeli Ministry of Justice who led initiatives to address racial discrimination, advance access to justice via digital services and platforms and promote diversity in the public sector.

Alan Rusbridger - A former editor-in-chief of The Guardian who transformed the newspaper into a global institution and oversaw its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Edward Snowden disclosures.

András Sajó - A former judge and vice president of the European Court of Human Rights who is an expert in free speech and comparative constitutionalism.

John Samples - A public intellectual who writes extensively on social media and speech regulation, advocates against restrictions on online expression, and helps lead a libertarian think tank.

Nicolas Suzor - A Queensland University of Technology Law School professor who focuses on the governance of social networks and the regulation of automated systems, and has published a book on internet governance.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair - A former prime minister of Denmark who repeatedly took stands for free expression while in office and then served as CEO of Save the Children.

1 Like

Zuckerberg already killed free speech on Facebook, and therefore it is a dying platform.


The absolute IRONY here is mind-numbing. A "Supreme Court” for speech, issuing rulings on what kind of posts will be allowed and what should be taken down.

1 Like

So it’s a “Supreme Court” of left-wing socialist activists to ensure your opinion isn’t heard on their platform.

When are all of the legal protections that Facebook enjoys going to be stripped because if they are editing and controlling content then they are not a platform, they are a publisher.

Once again, we have laws on the books for this sort of thing and they are never enforced on the big guys.

1 Like

I didn’t realize that anyone still used Facebook?

This is something that the shareholder of Facebook should be in open revolt about. Mark Zuckerberg seems hell bent on eroding investor confidence and making his annoying website even less user-friendly. The only reason Facebook grew as large as it did to begin with was because it was a place for college kids to link up online. Now, it is nothing more than a safe space for progressives and an advertising platform for the big companies these leftists seem to be in love with.

This is Pamela Karlan. She is Facebook’s new authority on what content is allowed and what is not. She has the power to overrule Mr. Zuckerberg.

She describes herself as a “snarky, bisexual, ■■■■■■ woman.”
The NYT describes her as a “full-throated, unapologetic, liberal torch-bearer.”

She will not let her personal biases (which are small, if they exist at all) get in the way of her duty to freedom of speech on the world’s largest social media platform.

Please welcome her to the Facebook community!

I am glad that Adam Schiff’s star witness found herself a lucrative new job where she will make sure that no jokes are allowed forever.

When Mark Z. started Facebook, it was never intended to have any political bias. It was mainly used to “gather people we know” together, and interact via messenger. At the time, it was only for college kids to interact with their teachers/Professors. As well, as friends and other students. I was on the old platform when it was called “TheFacebook” in 2004. It wasn’t until he decided to go IPO that he started getting political.

Back in 2004, he was trying to shutdown Myspace, Yahoo Chat, Friendster and a few other sites. He succeeded by doing so, by “stealing” some of their ideas. Friendster was similar to Facebook.


Because Diversity™ means everyone MUST think alike about the agenda of ‘diversity™’

Look human I am removing some of my synthetic hair from my scalp, we are the same…you and me…please give me all your data now.


Take their legal immunity protections away. They are not a platform-they are a publisher and have been since they started moderating content.

Orwells 1984 and Farenheit 454 are still among us by those who believe that they must control everyone’s speech amd writing for our " own good" and to protect others from our wrongful ideas.