‘The entire ordeal was surreal and, frankly, disturbing’

Bob Unruh
WND News Center

A columnist has reported at the Washington Times that Facebook called “Jesus” hate speech and said it was censoring the reference.

The stunning report comes from Billy Hallowell, an interviewer for Faithwire and CBN News and a co-host of “Quick Start Podcast.”

He writes at the Times that he was taken aback recently when Facebook sent him a notice that, “Your post goes against our Community Standards on hate speech.”

He doubled-checked the social media giant’s wild claim and found it was referring to his explanation of the Christian message of salvation documented by the story of the Resurrection.

What he said his offending post was, “Jesus died so you could live.”

“It was a message I recalled posting early last month in an effort to summarize the central message of the Gospel: Jesus’ sacrificial death for mankind and his ushering in of hope and salvation. The message is essentially New Testament 101,” he wrote.

“Though some might disagree with the proclamation, there’s certainly nothing about the wording that any rational person would call ‘hate speech,'” he said.

Then, he said, Facebook doubled down.

“Facebook proceeded to declare that its ‘community standards’ are meant to ensure everyone feels ‘safe, respected and welcome,’ though, in those moments of confusion over the hate speech flag, I didn’t feel any of those sentiments,” he wrote. “An ominous line about future infractions was included in the warning. It read, ‘If your content goes against our Community Standards again, your account may be restricted or disabled.'”

Ultimately, Facebook sent a follow-up that confirmed, “We have removed your post from Facebook” because the post was in violation.

Hallowell wrote, “The entire ordeal was surreal and, frankly, disturbing. I’m not at all interested in purporting to be a victim, but as an advocate of free speech and religious freedom, the idea that a message as innocuous as ‘Jesus died so you could live’ would be censored or banned is patently bizarre.”

And he noted Facebook has refused to respond to further inquiries.

It might have been an error, he confirmed.

“Of course, if this wasn’t an error, there’s a much bigger problem brewing at Facebook. It’s worth noting that the original post from April 2 was still up and active even after the warning and claim of removal, adding even more questions into the mix.”