Since the events unfolded in Baltimore on August 1, 2016, regarding 23-year-old Korryn Gaines as police tried to serve her with an arrest warrant.  Gaines resisted and claims were made regarding threats to officers with a shotgun as her 5-year-old son sat in her lap.  Gaines documented the confrontation on her Facebook and Instagram accounts throughout the hours-long confrontation. According to police reports, they felt that users on both platforms were "egging Gaines on to not give in during their negotiations." As a result, they requested that Facebook shut her accounts down.  Subsequently, anyone watching  events on Gaines' Facebook page unfold found themselves' cut off. 

The suspension of Gaines' social media accounts brings forth a number of troubling questions about the relationship of Facebook to the police and with law enforcement in general.  Many telecommunications companies - such as AT& T, Verizon, and various others regularly provide information when requested via subpoena or other court order.  But in this modern age, when social media is used for activism and to potentially document encounters with police, especially when those dealings have a potential to turn contentious, shutting down an account means taking away a person's ability to speak.  They are forcibly taking control of the narrative, potentially affecting the outcome of events and likely in a negative manner. The ramifications of which could potentially mean someone's death or grievous injury. 

Some are defending the actions of Facebook stating that Gaines was looking for an outcome like this.  I find it hard to believe anyone could be "looking for" an outcome where they end up dead in front of their 5-year-old child and leave said child without a mother to care for him. Frankly, I feel the issue is much larger than this one incident with much further reaching ramifications. One needs to look at the bigger implications.  What happens when the government and their entities control the narrative? When they are the ONLY voice in an event?  If the victor writes the history, then that's especially true in this scenario.  For example, what use is a body cam on a police officer in the hands of those that are never going to allow it to see the light of day? If there is no means for you to record or give your version of events in the so-called "justice system," then it becomes your word against the police.  As the police and as officers of the court, their word bears more weight than yours does. At times, even video testimony isn't sufficient evidence either (i.e. Kelly Thomas) but it certainly helps your situation.  

Stop to think how much change has been effectuated because of public outcry.  Things like say the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment were ONLY stopped because of public outcry. If we look at the investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by the Oakland Police Department,  where police officers where having sex with underage girls while at work, the police LIED on the first internal investigation.  The only reason a  second internal investigation was ever conducted was because one of the girls posted about the incidents on Facebook page.  If that outlet is silenced then we foster corruption and allow it at our own peril. 

I may not agree with the message I am hearing but the person speaking has as much right to speak as I have not to listen. The freedom to speak means to defend the right to speak for all people, even ideas that you do not agree with.  Disagreement with someone doesn't mean that person isn't allowed a voice. If it does, then you don't have freedom, you have tyranny in a flavor you prefer. 

When one works within the confines of the legal system  and around attorneys to any degree, you learn very quickly that decisions are made in court based on precedent. They look at past case law  and build upon previous decisions.  It's why it is so vital to look at the broader implications of how such decisions can be used as a stepping stone to a much larger and more heinous practice.  We already know the government controls the media narrative and propaganda fills the public school system. When they own the information, they can bend it any which way they choose.  That's why having a voice to tell the events as they actually occurred, YOUR side is crucial to justice having a prayer of prevailing. 

Some state that this gives people a platform to incite violence.  I ask you, incite violence by WHO'S definition? Being outspoken against the state or any government can be perceived as "inciting violence." It has been in years past in many a tyrannical regime. Many have suffered a great deal or even been killed for being outspoken critics of government policies and agendas. It's a very slippery slope and one that needs not be traveled or to allow the government or it's minions to gain a foothold in because the ramifications are severe.