Facebook suspends Donald Trump for 2 years, then will reassess
San Francisco, Jun 4: Facebook said it will suspend former President Donald Trump's accounts for two years following its finding that he stoked violence ahead of the deadly January 6 insurrection.
At the end of this period, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded. We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest, Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president of global affairs, wrote in a blog post Friday.
Facebook also plans to end a contentious policy championed by CEO Mark Zuckerberg that automatically exempted politicians from rules that banned hate speech and abuse.
The company has said it has never applied this policy to Trump.
The social media giant said on Friday that while it will still apply this newsworthiness" exemption to certain posts it deems to be in the public interest even if they violate Facebook rules, it will no longer treat material posted by politicians any differently from that posted by anyone else.
In addition, Facebook said it will make public whenever it does apply the exemption to a post.
The announcements are in response to recommendations from the company's quasi-independent oversight board.
Last month that panel upheld a decision by Facebook to keep former Trump indefinitely suspended but said the company could not merely suspend him indefinitely and gave it six months to decide what to do with his accounts.
In its decision last month, the board agreed with Facebook that two of Trump's January 6 posts severely violated the content standards of both Facebook and Instagram.
We love you. You're very special, Trump said to the rioters in the first post. In the second, he called them great patriots and told them to remember this day forever.
Those violated Facebook's rules against praising or supporting people engaged in violence, the board said, warranting the suspension.
Specifically, the board cited Facebook's rules against dangerous individuals and organisations, which prohibit anyone who proclaims a violent mission and bans posts that express support or praise of these people or groups.
Facebook has had a general newsworthiness exemption since 2016. But it garnered attention in 2019 when Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs and communications, announced that speech from politicians will be treated as newsworthy content that should, as a general rule, be seen and heard.
The newsworthiness exemption, he explained in a blog post at the time, meant that if someone makes a statement or shares a post which breaks our community standards we will still allow it on our platform if we believe the public interest in seeing it outweighs the risk of harm.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Building castle in the air: SC irked over non-compliance of orders by states in stray dog case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday flagged concern over state governments not complying with its directions to enhance their stray dog sterilisation capacity, saying, "They are all building castles in the air."
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, which commenced hearing states' submissions on compliance of its earlier directions, expressed its unhappiness over the progress and said they were engaged in "storytelling".
Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who has been appointed amicus curiae in the matter, summarised the initiatives taken by different states, while flagging the deficiencies.
He pointed out that some states have taken steps in consonance with the top court's direction, but there was still a long way to go for total compliance.
The governments will have to step up animal birth control (ABC) facilities, ramp up sterilisation of stray dogs, set up dog pounds (animal shelters), fence up institutional areas and remove stray animals from roads and highways, the advocate said.
Pointing to the initiatives taken by the Bihar government, Agrawal said there are 34 ABC Centres where, they say, 20,648 dogs have been sterilised. But they have not specified the daily capacity of sterilisation, and for what period the figure specifies, he said.
"The state should have done a complete audit of ABC centres. If there are more than six lakh dogs in the state, sterilisation of 20,648 dogs is totally insufficient. Ninety-one dogs are presently lodged in the pounds.
"The affidavit does not indicate in how many institutional areas the survey has been done to see if there are fences, boundary walls, etc.," Agarwal submitted.
The bench said, "They are all building castles in the air. None of the states have given data on how many stray dog bites happened, except for Assam."
Advocate Manish Kumar, appearing for the Bihar government, however, said the state was putting things in place, and substantial progress will be made within three months.
The top court also expressed surprise over the data on dog bites in Assam. "Look at the statistics of bites. It is astonishing. In 2024, there were 1.66 lakh bites. And in 2025, only in January, there were 20,900. This is shocking," it observed.
The bench said that states cannot make vague statements, and all vague averments are made on affidavits. "We are going to pass strong strictures against states that make vague averments," Justice Nath said.
The apex court, which also heard the submissions of Goa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Gujarat, observed non-compliance of directions for fencing of institutional areas to prevent ingress of stray animals into schools and hospitals.
"Every public building should be fenced, not only because of stray dogs or other animals but also to protect the property from theft," the bench observed. It said that states have engaged in "storytelling and nothing concrete appears to have been done on the ground".
Agrawal said he will summarise the steps taken by Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Telangana on Thursday.
The top court posted the matters for hearing on Thursday.
On January 20, the top court came down heavily on former Union minister Maneka Gandhi for her remarks criticising apex court orders in the stray dog issue, saying she has committed contempt of court.
The top court was hearing several petitions seeking modification of its November 7, 2025, order directing authorities to remove stray animals from the institutional areas and roads. On January 13, the top court said it would ask states to pay a "heavy compensation" for dog bite incidents and hold dog feeders accountable for such cases.
The court also flagged concerns over the non-implementation of norms on stray animals for the last five years.
Earlier, the apex court said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law and order issue, and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it. It also refused to go into the claims about certain derogatory remarks being made about women on the issue.
Taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog-bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
It had also said stray dogs picked up shall not be released back to their original place. The court had directed authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
