Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alex Jones on his last leg - YouTube, Facebook and iTunes drop InfoWars

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sniffit View Post
    He can say what ever he likes in the privacy of his own home, when he does it in public there is a whole slew of regulations that come into effect. Also these companies have no obligation to give him or anyone else space on their platforms.
    If you can only speak freely when no one's listening, it's not free speech.
    That's not how free speech works. Free speech is specifically designed to allow people to speak freely in a public discourse. Otherwise by your standard probably even North Korea has free speech. Your "slew of regulations" can surely hold him accountable for some things he may say, but they can't preemptively cancel his constitutional rights.
    The companies may have no obligations to host him, but their customers/users have IMO a moral obligation and self interest in protesting that decision.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Xaito View Post
      If you can only speak freely when no one's listening, it's not free speech.
      That's not how free speech works. Free speech is specifically designed to allow people to speak freely in a public discourse. Otherwise by your standard probably even North Korea has free speech. Your "slew of regulations" can surely hold him accountable for some things he may say, but they can't preemptively cancel his constitutional rights.
      The companies may have no obligations to host him, but their customers/users have IMO a moral obligation and self interest in protesting that decision.
      That's exactly how free speach works in the real world, sure you can say what ever you want but some things will have consequnces if said in the wrong place. Absolute free speach is a myth.

      Why would you have a moral obligation to do that?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sniffit View Post

        That's exactly how free speach works in the real world, sure you can say what ever you want but some things will have consequnces if said in the wrong place. Absolute free speach is a myth.

        Why would you have a moral obligation to do that?
        Yes it is but not everything should be prosecuted or banned. And regulation already exists to protect people who would find themselves victims of excessive free speech:

        -if the person is repeating an info that was proven false, the courts take over
        -if the person is calling for an act of violence, then the police takes over
        -voluntarily creating direct panic or unrest (yelling fire in a theater or something similar...)

        Providing your opinion, no matter how offensive, repugnant it might be, should remain. because you know where you start when you close certain opinions, but you don´t know where it ends. For the 9/11 truthers are clearly spreading abominable lies, but where does the truther theory start and where does it end? Who takes the decison to say that this is OK, but this not very OK, and this not at all OK? On what grounds?

        Alex Jones is a nut, but he is entitled to make his voice heard, on the issues where he creates unrest, the regular courts are there.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Telmar View Post

          Yes it is but not everything should be prosecuted or banned. And regulation already exists to protect people who would find themselves victims of excessive free speech:

          -if the person is repeating an info that was proven false, the courts take over
          -if the person is calling for an act of violence, then the police takes over
          -voluntarily creating direct panic or unrest (yelling fire in a theater or something similar...)

          Providing your opinion, no matter how offensive, repugnant it might be, should remain. because you know where you start when you close certain opinions, but you don´t know where it ends. For the 9/11 truthers are clearly spreading abominable lies, but where does the truther theory start and where does it end? Who takes the decison to say that this is OK, but this not very OK, and this not at all OK? On what grounds?

          Alex Jones is a nut, but he is entitled to make his voice heard, on the issues where he creates unrest, the regular courts are there.
          I don't disagree with anything in that post.

          Comment


          • #65
            Sorry Sniffit, i misunderstood your position. i thought you were more inclined to control on disruptive speech.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Telmar View Post
              Sorry Sniffit, i misunderstood your position. i thought you were more inclined to control on disruptive speech.
              Not at all, I think that what he does is absolute garbage. But I don't think that the government should stick their noses in it, how ever I fully support the decision taken by private corporations to no longer provide him with a platform. It is how it should work in my opinion, government stays out of what is essential a business deal between two private parties.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sniffit View Post

                Not at all, I think that what he does is absolute garbage. But I don't think that the government should stick their noses in it, how ever I fully support the decision taken by private corporations to no longer provide him with a platform. It is how it should work in my opinion, government stays out of what is essential a business deal between two private parties.
                Except that government has been openly pressuring said businesses for years into censoring "hate speech".
                The way the removal of him was done - a coordinated move by 4 giant internet companies - doesn't look like all decided independently to remove him.
                So IMO the government basically censored the internet by proxy.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Xaito View Post

                  Except that government has been openly pressuring said businesses for years into censoring "hate speech".
                  The way the removal of him was done - a coordinated move by 4 giant internet companies - doesn't look like all decided independently to remove him.
                  So IMO the government basically censored the internet by proxy.
                  That and extra cautious approach not to be sued for gazillions of money by some "citizen organization".

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Telmar View Post

                    That and extra cautious approach not to be sued for gazillions of money by some "citizen organization".
                    In the USA, Facebook, Youtube and such are not liable for the actions of their users.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...ns_Decency_Act

                    But Germany has the netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, which could cause them money.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwe...setzungsgesetz

                    And the EU and USA might follow Germany's suit, if the companys don't up their game.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Piirka View Post
                      Btw. aren't there some actually sane people also under the Infowars umbrella?
                      paul Joseph watson seems to have a brain...

                      also some philosophical thought on this whole deal. this is kind of a razors edge as yeah sure they are private companies but social media is the new public meeting places of today, Carey Wedler has better articulation on this than I do so I'll let her preach it...


                       

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I’m glad Jones’ voice is gone.

                        But sad humans are too stupid to ignore train wrecks.

                        He is like a circus clown at a car crash making people rubber neck even longer at bad news.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I'm not surprised that the well-publicized social media bans aren't harming Alex Jones. The truth is that social media doesn't actually matter all that much for those who already have a strong base of supporters. It's the content that matters much more than the medium.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Xaito View Post
                            If you can only speak freely when no one's listening, it's not free speech.
                            That's not how free speech works. Free speech is specifically designed to allow people to speak freely in a public discourse. Otherwise by your standard probably even North Korea has free speech. Your "slew of regulations" can surely hold him accountable for some things he may say, but they can't preemptively cancel his constitutional rights.
                            The companies may have no obligations to host him, but their customers/users have IMO a moral obligation and self interest in protesting that decision.
                            Not everything falls under free speech.

                            Some of what Alex Jones says could be considered encitement, false accusations... etc. Both of these can be considered crimes outside of free speech, now I'm not an expert on law nor do I know follow Alex Jones but I've seen a thing or two that he has said, and personally the way in which he accuses certain individuals of certain things, if I was such a target I would hire a criminal defence lawyer over false accusations and name smearing.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by thanamestolga View Post

                              Not everything falls under free speech.

                              Some of what Alex Jones says could be considered encitement, false accusations... etc. Both of these can be considered crimes outside of free speech, now I'm not an expert on law nor do I know follow Alex Jones but I've seen a thing or two that he has said, and personally the way in which he accuses certain individuals of certain things, if I was such a target I would hire a criminal defence lawyer over false accusations and name smearing.
                              that's for a court to decide, not google or facebook imo.
                              If someone was damaged by him and wins in court, more power to them.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Xaito View Post

                                that's for a court to decide, not google or facebook imo.
                                If someone was damaged by him and wins in court, more power to them.
                                Well to be fair, it is probably a violation of their user agreements as well. I have serious doubt he read.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X