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

[Jhhnn]

I have never watched a single clip of Alex Jones, I can't even comment on the offensiveness of his content.

Yes, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[zinfamous]

Plus MySpace and Friendster.

obligatory: "Myspace is still around?"

Heh, Myspace probably lost 70% of their clicks now, seeing that the "grumpy old coot" demographic will no longer be getting their daily dose of brain tonic.

 

[zinfamous]

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?

Hey man....that's exactly what is happening here.

 

[Amused]

Hey, someone made a greatest hits of Alex Jones.

I always bring you the very best Batshit.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155712330011167

 

[Amused]

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?

Myspace was the "it" social media. Remember that? Again, in a sea of clones with countless options, being the most popular doesn't make one a monopoly.

Since there is no suppression of freedom of speech, I see no reason to address that. I will, however, point out the glaring hypocrisy over conservatives forgetting their ideology and values when it comes to private property rights. Just as the government cannot limit speech, it also can;t tell private property owners who they must, and must not host outside of the protected, innate trait classes.

In your attempt to make an argument all you did was, yet again, expose the glaring hypocrisy of the right-wing who forget their values of individual freedom and seek to force others to give up their private property rights.

 

[brycejones]

I have never watched a single clip of Alex Jones, I can't even comment on the offensiveness of his content.

What is it with conservatives and their desire to chime in from positions of utter ignorance? Seriously, is it too much to ask for you to educate yourself at least a bit?

 

[dyna]

What is it with conservatives and their desire to chime in from positions of utter ignorance? Seriously, is it too much to ask for you to educate yourself at least a bit?

It probably has something to do with my age. I used to watch trash talk shows when I was younger because it was disturbingly entertaining. I have zero interest now. Even with all the talk about it, I have little interest to "educate" myself on Alex Jones. It is not ignorance to discuss the impacts of freedom of speech in regards to social media even if I know little about him.

 

[Amused]

It probably has something to do with my age. I used to watch trash talk shows when I was younger because it was disturbingly entertaining. I have zero interest now. Even with all the talk about it, I have little interest to "educate" myself on Alex Jones. It is not ignorance to discuss the impacts of freedom of speech in regards to social media even if I know little about him.

When private property owners kick you off their property and out of their venues, your freedom of speech has not been violated. Their right to private property has been protected.

And newsflash: I'm conservative. Real conservative. Not batshit insane conspiratard conservative.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Free speech still alive, Jones is welcome to stand on a corner with a sign and yell his hateful, scaredy cat rhetoric to his heart's content.

 

[Commodus]

It probably has something to do with my age. I used to watch trash talk shows when I was younger because it was disturbingly entertaining. I have zero interest now. Even with all the talk about it, I have little interest to "educate" myself on Alex Jones. It is not ignorance to discuss the impacts of freedom of speech in regards to social media even if I know little about him.

Only it's actually quite important here.

The problem is that Alex Jones isn't just presenting opinions that people disagree with. It's that he's knowingly, explicitly stoking bigotry and disseminating objectively false conspiracies. This isn't about silencing dissenting views; it's about preventing people from issuing death threats (which has been directly linked to Jones' videos) and otherwise using Jones' lies as an excuse to engage in harassment and violence.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So what’s y’alls opinions on the apparent collusion of them? Facebook and Google taking him down at the same time isn’t just coincidence, should that be worrisome?

 

[ch33zw1z]

So what’s y’alls opinions on the apparent collusion of them? Facebook and Google taking him down at the same time isn’t just coincidence, should that be worrisome?

Collusions not a crime, amirite?

Still not a first amendment issue, coincidnece or not.

 

[Amused]

So what’s y’alls opinions on the apparent collusion of them? Facebook and Google taking him down at the same time isn’t just coincidence, should that be worrisome?

Nope. They are reacting to public outcry and the civil suit against him. They are realizing that they are just as actionable as he is for providing a platform for his message of hate, libel and slander.

Just like revenge porn went down all over the web at the same time. Or was that "collusion" too?

Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with the first amendment. A private property owner choosing to not carry your message is not a violation of your speech.

 

[Vic]

So what’s y’alls opinions on the apparent collusion of them? Facebook and Google taking him down at the same time isn’t just coincidence, should that be worrisome?

Both platforms have similar rules and Jones posts nearly identical content to each. So it's neither coincidence nor worrisome.
Shouldn't we be concerned that you continue to support a known liar under the false guise of free speech?

 

[Amused]

Why is this so difficult?

Freedom of speech does NOT mean the freedom to force others to publish, broadcast, host or convey your speech.

Nor does it mean the freedom to be free of consequence or social backlash.

Nor does it mean the freedom to force others to listen.

It means one thing only: The government cannot stop or limit your speech with threat of legal punishment or restriction.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Both platforms have similar rules and Jones posts nearly identical content to each. So it's neither coincidence nor worrisome.
Shouldn't we be concerned that you continue to support a known liar under the false guise of free speech?

Well I don’t think someone should be silenced because they lie, and it’s interesting you’re reading into my posts as being an Alex Jones supporter which I’m not.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well I don’t think someone should be silenced because they lie, and it’s interesting you’re reading into my posts as being an Alex Jones supporter which I’m not.

He's not silenced, so reel the red herring back in.

 

[Vic]

Well I don’t think someone should be silenced because they lie, and it’s interesting you’re reading into my posts as being an Alex Jones supporter which I’m not.

He hasn't been silenced. That lie is getting tiresome. And the fact that it is such an obvious lie naturally leads me (or anyone) to believe that your ongoing use of it makes you a supporter.

 

[Amused]

Well I don’t think someone should be silenced because they lie, and it’s interesting you’re reading into my posts as being an Alex Jones supporter which I’m not.

Did you ACTUALLY say silenced? Because this could be Alex right now:

It's like you're a ready made cartoon of yourself.

 

[Vic]

Why is this so difficult?

Freedom of speech does NOT mean the freedom to force others to publish, broadcast, host or convey your speech.

Nor does it mean the freedom to be free of consequence or social backlash.

Nor does it mean the freedom to force others to listen.

It means one thing only: The government cannot stop or limit your speech with threat of legal punishment or restriction.

The freedom of speech guarantee in the Oregon State Constitution, unchanged since statehood in 1859, is widely considered by legal experts to be the broadest such guarantee in the country. It says:

"Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."

 

[Amused]

The freedom of speech guarantee in the Oregon State Constitution, unchanged since statehood in 1859, is widely considered by legal experts to be the broadest such guarantee in the country. It says:

"Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."

Ya know, I think our Founding Fathers figured responsibility was implied. There is a reason the 1st amendment only puts restriction on the government, not the people.

 

[jackstar7]

So what’s y’alls opinions on the apparent collusion of them? Facebook and Google taking him down at the same time isn’t just coincidence, should that be worrisome?

"...should that be worrisome?"
This is you in a single phrase.

You can't even decide if you should be concerned. You need others to confirm if your gnawing fears are at all justified.

You are a coward and you are feckless.

Get a spine and some brains.

 

[zinfamous]

So what’s y’alls opinions on the apparent collusion of them? Facebook and Google taking him down at the same time isn’t just coincidence, should that be worrisome?

was there some sort of price-fixing going on between Google and Facebook here? No? Hell, how would that even work and be relevant here?

lol. what are you even trying to suggest here as some sort of non-existent law that you seem to believe they have violated?

 

[Younigue]

It probably has something to do with my age. I used to watch trash talk shows when I was younger because it was disturbingly entertaining. I have zero interest now. Even with all the talk about it, I have little interest to "educate" myself on Alex Jones. It is not ignorance to discuss the impacts of freedom of speech in regards to social media even if I know little about him.

Even if you know little about it? Fu*k come onnn! Then call it what it is, it's your feelings... Not an informed opinion.

 

[dyna]

When private property owners kick you off their property and out of their venues, your freedom of speech has not been violated. Their right to private property has been protected.

And newsflash: I'm conservative. Real conservative. Not batshit insane conspiratard conservative.

I don't disagree about the private property argument.

This link https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html actually summarizes out all the common use cases and there legality. It does confirm the stance on social media however she adds a comment at the end which is more or less the argument I was trying to make about it. (See bold below).

You are banned from a social media platform.

This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.
This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. "So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," Nott says. "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court."
However, while it's not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech.

This article goes into some legal ramifications of the Jones case. https://www.wired.com/story/alex-jones-lawsuit-will-help-redefine-free-speech/

In summary, it states that the first amendment hasn't evolved to support the digital environment. The Jones scenario may challenge the first amendment and force it to evolve for the digital environment.

For the most part, this push and pull between internet and legal norms is a good thing—as long as it continues to evolve. “We adjusted the law to deal with the mass market media era of television and newspapers,” Richards says. “It’s clear that First Amendment doctrine needs to evolve, not to undo freedom of speech, but to ensure the values of public debate and of democratic self-government continue in a digital environment.”

That might mean adjusting what it means to be a public figure, so victims of tragedy don’t feel unable to express their feelings on social media. It might mean recalibrating what counts as “reckless,” when lies on the internet can mobilize genuine real world threats. Or, it might mean doubling down on protections for the kind of wild, fringe speech Jones engages in. What's important is we learn to negotiate the balance between speaking safely, and freely, on the web.