Apple, Facebook and Spotify remove 'The Alex Jones Show,' Infowars over hate speech

[Vic]

This was a business decision for these companies, not a bandwagon PR move. Jones is almost certain to lose the defamation cases against him, as he acted with actual malice by knowingly telling harmful lies against those parents. His defense will be that the parents are limited purpose public figures, but that will fail because the parents did not voluntarily become public figures. As the liability gets debated, those who enabled the spread of Jones' defamations will be at risk.

To be clear:
- this is not a 1a issue. There has never been a 1a right to knowingly spread defamatory and harmful lies against persons who did not volunteer to become public figures.
- this is not a monopoly issue. None of these companies have an actual monopoly, nor do they control the interwebs in the US (that would be Verizon and Comcast).
- it's not a 2a issue either. Quite the opposite, 2a supporters erred by aligning themselves with a POS like Jones in 1st place.

 

[SNC]

Sounds like someone is ok with monopolies dictating what people can and cannot see. I guess comrade Amused must control the flow of information in the name of privatization. I guess the government should subcontract all activities out to private companies so the Constitution doesn't apply because it would be a private companies controlling everything. If you think it's a good idea for companies to censor the flow of information because they have some ownership stake in the infrastructure, we a going down a slippery slope. I've pointed out before that Google and other similar companies own large distributions of fiber optic networks that they lease out excess capacity for the interwebs. What is to stop them from demand that only approved traffic can move over their networks? Research how much of the internet is dependent on AWS. Should Amazon demand to "see" all bits of data and inspect them for approved content? See where this is going?

IF, IF, IF the government told facebook to remove the content then you have a point, but they did not. IF, IF, IF the government told level3 to not allow his content across their routers then you would have a point, but neither of those things happened, so what exactly are you bothered by? What you are saying is that you would be OK with a candidate you do not support placing his campaign sign next to the one you put in your yard from a candidate you do support, because well, you permitted one guys sign - why not the other? THIS is what facebook did, they said this is our property and we do not want your dog shitting on it.

 

[dphantom]

One major concern is where this will stop if at all. Yes, these are businesses who can choose to place content or not. And there are alternatives avenues to get ones content out. Infowars for example now has one of the most popular downloads in the Apple Store.

So who is next? Will it be Antifa or Farrakhan, both who espouse anti-Semitic and/or hateful speech? Will it be libertarians or Marxists?

This is a very slippery slope to have someone decide what is "good" speech and what is "bad" speech.

 

[SNC]

One major concern is where this will stop if at all. Yes, these are businesses who can choose to place content or not. And there are alternatives avenues to get ones content out. Infowars for example now has one of the most popular downloads in the Apple Store.

So who is next? Will it be Antifa or Farrakhan, both who espouse anti-Semitic and/or hateful speech? Will it be libertarians or Marxists?

This is a very slippery slope to have someone decide what is "good" speech and what is "bad" speech.

Your missing the point. No one is stopping you from hearing it, no one is stopping them from saying it, it is a couple businesses deciding that they don't want it on their site. Why is it people have such a hard time with this?

 

[dphantom]

Your missing the point. No one is stopping you from hearing it, no one is stopping them from saying it, it is a couple businesses deciding that they don't want it on their site. Why is it people have such a hard time with this?

Um...that is what I said above.

 

[Vic]

Your missing the point. No one is stopping you from hearing it, no one is stopping them from saying it, it is a couple businesses deciding that they don't want it on their site. Why is it people have such a hard time with this?

Because they are conflating the right to free speech with a "right" to be published for free.

 

[Vic]

Um...that is what I said above.

Except that there is no slippery slope nor any genuine need to be concerned about who might be next.
Youtube, Facebook, etc have been more than happy to publish Jones' bullshit for years, even though it went against their political views. What changed was that Jones has become a potential liability.

 

[dphantom]

Because they are conflating the right to free speech with a "right" to be published for free.

No. But I suppose you didn't bother to read what I actually posted. SNC seems to have a comprehension problem too.

 

[dphantom]

Except that there is no slippery slope nor any genuine need to be concerned about who might be next.

Yes, there is.

 

[HomerJS]

One major concern is where this will stop if at all. Yes, these are businesses who can choose to place content or not. And there are alternatives avenues to get ones content out. Infowars for example now has one of the most popular downloads in the Apple Store.

So who is next? Will it be Antifa or Farrakhan, both who espouse anti-Semitic and/or hateful speech? Will it be libertarians or Marxists?

This is a very slippery slope to have someone decide what is "good" speech and what is "bad" speech.

Hmmm. Wonder if you had this much concern when Kathy Griffin lost her jobs for posing with bloody head Trump?

But take heart, David Duke still has his page

 

[SNC]

Yes, there is.

For the love of all things holy stay on one side of the fence or the other!

 

[Vic]

No. But I suppose you didn't bother to read what I actually posted. SNC seems to have a comprehension problem too.

I read and comprehend just fine.
Publishers have always had the right to decide what they choose to publish or not publish based upon its content.

 

[dphantom]

Hmmm. Wonder if you had this much concern when Kathy Griffin lost her jobs for posing with bloody head Trump?

But take heart, David Duke still has his page

I don't think she should have, nor do I think Rosanne Barr should have been fired either but again, those are business decisions made by the company.

All I am saying is we should think carefully about these types of actions as it can get to be a very slippery slope deciding what is the "correct" type of speech, opinions to hold or facts to use in support of an argument being made.

 

[SNC]

I don't think she should have, nor do I think Rosanne Barr should have been fired either but again, those are business decisions made by the company.

All I am saying is we should think carefully about these types of actions as it can get to be a very slippery slope deciding what is the "correct" type of speech, opinions to hold or facts to use in support of an argument being made.

Again, you are conflating what a private business does and what the government should not do. There is no "slippery slope" of censorship when you are talking about a private business. Do you feel that Kmart should be forced to sell marijuana in places its legal to sell? Or to carry Playboy, or other adult merchandise? I would not think so. You are failing to apply different standards to Facebook and 1400 Penn ave. What you are saying is that "someone" should force Facebook to carry content they do not agree with, or punish them for not. Who exactly is that someone? Should anyone be then permitted to place whatever content they like on any platform, or would there be a government official limiting what is placed. Stop with the SS argument, there's not even an ant hill as far as the eyes can see.

 

[brycejones]

I don't think she should have, nor do I think Rosanne Barr should have been fired either but again, those are business decisions made by the company.

All I am saying is we should think carefully about these types of actions as it can get to be a very slippery slope deciding what is the "correct" type of speech, opinions to hold or facts to use in support of an argument being made.

Why is it no Conservative who is so concerned about this will step up and start their own social media company with the explicit policy to publish all viewpoints regardless of content? From all the hand wringing it seems like there should be a massive market just waiting to be taken advantage of.

 

[sactoking]

This is just the free market at work, folks. Government intervention will not make it better. Regulations are the enemy of the people.

 

[Vic]

Why is it no Conservative who is so concerned about this will step up and start their own social media company with the explicit policy to publish all viewpoints regardless of content? From all the hand wringing it seems like there should be a massive market just waiting to be taken advantage of.

Because nothing could possibly be more contrary to right wing ideology than equality for all.
The last thing these right wing "free speech" warriors want is free speech for all. What they really want is for their speech to be published for free and without consequence or criticism.

 

[mikeymikec]

This is just the free market at work, folks. Government intervention will not make it better. Regulations are the enemy of the people.

Deserves a 'like' if anything for being a typical conservative viewpoint versus another typical conservative point of view

 

[Amused]

Sounds like someone is ok with monopolies dictating what people can and cannot see. I guess comrade Amused must control the flow of information in the name of privatization. I guess the government should subcontract all activities out to private companies so the Constitution doesn't apply because it would be a private companies controlling everything. If you think it's a good idea for companies to censor the flow of information because they have some ownership stake in the infrastructure, we a going down a slippery slope. I've pointed out before that Google and other similar companies own large distributions of fiber optic networks that they lease out excess capacity for the interwebs. What is to stop them from demand that only approved traffic can move over their networks? Research how much of the internet is dependent on AWS. Should Amazon demand to "see" all bits of data and inspect them for approved content? See where this is going?

You start off with a fallacy right out of the gate. No social media company is a monopoly. There is not one. There are many.

The rest after that is irrelevant. The internet has no monopolies. It merely has most popular sites. Being popular in a sea of clones is not a monopoly any more than McDonalds is a monopoly.

But I know, you want and need these people to be forced to carry your racism and hate. Guess what? The vast majority of their customers don't want to see it. The vast, vast majority of their sponsors don't want to be associated with it. You do not have the right to be an asshole on someone else's property. You do not have the right to be on someone else's private property if they don't want you there.

In the end, you lose your integrity and values when you seek force private property owners against their will.

What is happening now is what happened to media in the past. Slander and libel laws cleaned this shit out of pre-internet media over the years. And now that Jones is about to lose everything to the Sandy Hook parents, that sets a precedent and sets the tone for ALL social media sites who, if they carry that message, can be sued as well. We are well past the wild west stage of the internet where people will now be held accountable for what they say, and platforms will be held accountable for what they carry.

There is no "slippery slope" here (that's a logical fallacy anyhow). What you're seeing is called "personal responsibility." One by one, assholes on the internet will be called out and held responsible. Media sites that carry their message will be held responsible.

Remember revenge porn? The wild west of the internet is coming to an end. It has reached peak incivility and the public at large has had enough of it.

 

[TheVrolok]

lol. "Conservatives." Fucking absurd.

 

[dainthomas]

Yes, there is.

1a does not equal the right to sic your deranged followers on the parents of murdered children.

 

[outriding]

So it is ok to deny a cake to gay people but it is not ok to deny a platform for borderline hate speech and lies is not ok.

Is there a book on who u can deny services to?

 

[Younigue]

So it is ok to deny a cake to gay people but it is not ok to deny a platform for borderline hate speech and lies is not ok.

Is there a book on who u can deny services to?

"Republicans", they don't want to be denied anything but they sure do like to deny average Americans that don't look like them or believe as they do what ever strikes their fancy.

 

[UberNeuman]

So it is ok to deny a cake to gay people but it is not ok to deny a platform for borderline hate speech and lies is not ok.

Is there a book on who u can deny services to?

For Republicans it's called The Bible.

 

[Younigue]

For Republicans it's called The Bible.

This made me chuckle.