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

[ch33zw1z]

For Republicans it's called The Bible.

Yup, read it carefully, you'll find Jesus cozying up to the money lenders and chastising the needy because they lost their sandal straps

 

[UberNeuman]

Yup, read it carefully, you'll find Jesus cozying up to the money lenders and chastising the needy because they lost their sandal straps

The Gopsel of Supply Side Jesus.

 

[UglyCasanova]

https://www.cnet.com/news/alex-jone...edin-pinterest-still-up-on-instagram-twitter/

At this point it’s almost comical. LinkedIn and Mail Chimp?

 

[Amused]

https://www.cnet.com/news/alex-jone...edin-pinterest-still-up-on-instagram-twitter/

At this point it’s almost comical. LinkedIn and Mail Chimp?

Good.

 

[theeedude]

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

1A applies to the US Congress.
14A extends protections of "liberty" to the States.
No law gives you freedom of speech on someone else's private property, such as YouTube.

 

[brycejones]

https://www.cnet.com/news/alex-jone...edin-pinterest-still-up-on-instagram-twitter/

At this point it’s almost comical. LinkedIn and Mail Chimp?

Awesome, look at the new additional buainbus opportunities.

 

[zzyzxroad]

https://www.cnet.com/news/alex-jone...edin-pinterest-still-up-on-instagram-twitter/

At this point it’s almost comical. LinkedIn and Mail Chimp?

Plus MySpace and Friendster.

 

[Younigue]

Yup, read it carefully, you'll find Jesus cozying up to the money lenders and chastising the needy because they lost their sandal straps

It's one Hell of a book!

 

[dainthomas]

Plus MySpace and Friendster.

Who's left? AOL?

 

[zzyzxroad]

1A applies to the US Congress.
14A extends protections of "liberty" to the States.
No law gives you freedom of speech on someone else's private property, such as YouTube.

Yes this is a slippery slope. What's next? Am i going to have to let people into my house so they can talk to me about the good book? Should a tagger be allowed to pain shit on my fence?

 

[Incorruptible]

Look how stupid you are.

No. Seriously. Just look at yourself.

This is about the stupidest thing I've seen on AT in quite some time and the right-wing keeps lowering the bar.

Either private property owners have rights, or they do not. Full stop. Any whining after that is just fully retarded sour grapes that your hateful and conspiratard nonsense is not socially acceptable.

So the Christian baker has the right to refuse to bake the cake?

 

[Amused]

So the Christian baker has the right to refuse to bake the cake?

And look how stupid you are. Seriously. Just look how motherfucking mind bendingly stupid you are.

You can't even be bothered to read the thread or even think hard enough to realize that denying service for an inherent trait is not the same for banning someone for being a racist asshole.

 

[brycejones]

And look how stupid you are. Seriously. Just look how motherfucking mind bendingly stupid you are.

You can't even be bothered to read the thread or even think hard enough to realize that denying service for an inherent trait is not the same for banning someone for being a racist asshole.

Incorruptible is proud of his stupidity, he wears it as a badge of honor. He actually makes John Connor look like an Ivy league grad. He is the same ass hat who said the government had no business regulating auto emissions.

 

[Amused]

Incorruptible is proud of his stupidity, he wears it as a badge of honor. He actually makes John Connor look like an Ivy league grad. He is the same ass hat who said the government had no business regulating auto emissions.

But John Conner leads the resistance against Skynet when it becomes self aware 21 years ago!

 

[Jhhnn]

Incorruptible is proud of his stupidity, he wears it as a badge of honor. He actually makes John Connor look like an Ivy league grad. He is the same ass hat who said the government had no business regulating auto emissions.

Oh, shit. You may have summoned that fool by the mere mention of his name.

 

[sandorski]

The Moody Bible Institute refused to put pics of my junk in their Bibles!

#mahSpeachFreedumb!!!

 

[outriding]

The Moody Bible Institute refused to put pics of my junk in their Bibles!

#mahSpeachFreedumb!!!

I would for sure buy a bible if that happened

 

[dyna]

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.

50% of online purchases are from Amazon, however, there are many e-commerce sites. It is a bit mind blowing if you consider how one company has that much control over the flow of goods. Social media is certainly following the same course, you can deny it but it is consolidating. This will certainly end up in the Supreme Court as it is testing the basic fundamentals of the Constitution. At this point, I can't guess how it will end up.

It seems odd that liberals are favoring the suppression of speech regardless of its flavor. It always seemed like a perspective that they once protected.

In my opinion, the right way to handle this is to censor selective offensive content maybe? Rather than pulling the plug?

 

[Vic]

50% of online purchases are from Amazon, however, there are many e-commerce sites. It is a bit mind blowing if you consider how one company has that much control over the flow of goods. Social media is certainly following the same course, you can deny it but it is consolidating. This will certainly end up in the Supreme Court as it is testing the basic fundamentals of the Constitution. At this point, I can't guess how it will end up.

It seems odd that liberals are favoring the suppression of speech regardless of its flavor. It always seemed like a perspective that they once protected.

In my opinion, the right way to handle this is to censor selective offensive content maybe? Rather than pulling the plug?

It seems odd because that isn't what's happening. This isn't suppression of speech or censorship. Jones is as free to speak today as he was yesterday or the day before that. He just needs to find a new publisher, or self-publish.
This particular case will not be heading to the Supreme Court either. Jones' malicious lies and defamations are not protected speech (and never were), and social media platforms are well within their rights to uphold community standards.
Your "right way" was attempted by these social media platforms for some time. Jones refused to comply, thus the plug was pulled.

 

[dyna]

It seems odd because that isn't what's happening. This isn't suppression of speech or censorship. Jones is as free to speak today as he was yesterday or the day before that. He just needs to find a new publisher, or self-publish.
This particular case will not be heading to the Supreme Court either. Jones' malicious lies and defamations are not protected speech (and never were), and social media platforms are well within their rights to uphold community standards.
Your "right way" was attempted by these social media platforms for some time. Jones refused to comply, thus the plug was pulled.

I have never watched a single clip of Alex Jones, I can't even comment on the offensiveness of his content. If EVERY single bit of content he did was hate speech, then quite possibly it should lead to be a ban. But you are incorrect, all these social companies have a set precedent by allowing Alex Jones to be aired under the premise that they were to be platforms for any type of speech aka free speech. This most recent change is NEW and a change in stance. This is a new dilemma for social media and you have your opinion that its not important to the Supreme Court but I think it is as the social media platforms are so big and consolidated that they can control speech very similar to how Amazon.com is controlling the flow purchased online goods. I love Amazon but they are becoming too successful and for the good of all, they might need to be slowed down or we will become the Amazon.com States of America.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The only thing that would better than his ban is if Jones is successfully sued into permanent poverty.

Although this is and will make Jones a "free speech martyr" among the Republicans and the right. As long as he sticks to whining to his followers he can claim anything, and they will suck it right up.

Let's see how long it takes one or more of the Sinclairs, Murdochs, Kochs, or Mercers to set up another platform for Jones and other right wing nut jobs.

 

[Vic]

I have never watched a single clip of Alex Jones, I can't even comment on the offensiveness of his content. If EVERY single bit of content he did was hate speech, then quite possibly it should lead to be a ban. But you are incorrect, all these social companies have a set precedent by allowing Alex Jones to be aired under the premise that they were to be platforms for any type of speech aka free speech. This most recent change is NEW and a change in stance. This is a new dilemma for social media and you have your opinion that its not important to the Supreme Court but I think it is as the social media platforms are so big and consolidated that they can control speech very similar to how Amazon.com is controlling the flow purchased online goods. I love Amazon but they are becoming too successful and for the good of all, they might need to be slowed down or we will become the Amazon.com States of America.

I'm not concerned about Jones' hate speech or offensive speech, nor is that the reason he was banned from those platforms. What Jones did wrong was repeatedly invent and disseminate malicious and defamatory slander and libel against non-public persons. That is not protected free speech, and never has been. Nor is there any reason that all of Jones' speech must be defamatory before he could be banned, just like there isn't any reason that all of anyone's posts here must be kiddie porn before they can be banned for posting kiddie porn.
Since you admittedly don't know much about Jones, allow me to provide some background. Jones is an entertainer who peddles paranoid conspiracy theories, things like chemtrails (a grievous insult to every single person in the aviation industry, but that's another thread), faked moon landing, etc. In 2012, one of his listeners shot up an elementary school, killing 6 adults and 20 children. Jones ongoing response to this incident has been to tell his listeners that the school shooting never happened, that no one was killed, that the entire incident was staged, and that the parents of all those murdered children are 'crisis actors,' and all part of some nebulous conspiracy to rob his listeners of their gun rights. To compound this, Jones has admitted to being an entertainer, just doing it for money, and therefore he must know that his statements are false. This is textbook defamation.
Is that what you want to defend under the banner of free speech?

 

[soundforbjt]

50% of online purchases are from Amazon, however, there are many e-commerce sites. It is a bit mind blowing if you consider how one company has that much control over the flow of goods. Social media is certainly following the same course, you can deny it but it is consolidating. This will certainly end up in the Supreme Court as it is testing the basic fundamentals of the Constitution. At this point, I can't guess how it will end up.

It seems odd that liberals are favoring the suppression of speech regardless of its flavor. It always seemed like a perspective that they once protected.

In my opinion, the right way to handle this is to censor selective offensive content maybe? Rather than pulling the plug?

Since you brought up Amazon, how do you feel about Walmart?

 

[zinfamous]

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.

slippery slope fallacy.

you argue as if these hypothetical issues won't be tried in court and tested against actual law. That they will just "magically happen" somehow, for reasons.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

No, there is no slippery slope. It simply doesn't exist on the sole energy of your desperately wanting it to exist. You are parroting a fundamental and thoroughly recognized fallacy of standard debate. This argument has absolutely no merit.

Simply, you are wrong. One issue tried for its own reasons, in no way, inevitably leads to the similar litigation of other unrelated issues. You are making a 3rd grader's argument, and it would serve you well to abandon it now. You look like a fool.