YouTube, Apple and Facebook remove content from InfoWars and Alex Jones

[Hatuey]

Great harm???

Here's an idea...if he bothers you so much...DON'T WATCH!
And how do you think he's caused great harm anyway?
Great harm to who? Himself? Come on man. The guy's ranting and raving is maybe entertaining, but let's face it.
Alex Jones is an entertainer...not a news journalist.
He's a windbag.

Sure, some of the things he says ring true to me...but then he wonders off into the wild blue yonder and...ruins any credibility he ever had.
People who are fans of his are likely very lonely or very very bored.

So I'm curious..."great harm"? To who? Lonely bored people?

Nobody is obligated to host your web content and give you money for being popular.

Alex Jones is no exception. If he doesn't like it, he can pay for his own web hosting service and lie about children being shot over there.

:shrug:

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Ikari]

There is a certain irony with social media sites using their first amendment right to deny someone else their first amendment rights.

The ideological divide in America continues to grow in unhealthy ways.

They used their property rights to control content on their servers. They didn't infringe upon the 1st amendment rights of those they banned.

 

[trixare4kids]

Great harm???

Here's an idea...if he bothers you so much...DON'T WATCH!
And how do you think he's caused great harm anyway?
Great harm to who? Himself? Come on man. The guy's ranting and raving is maybe entertaining, but let's face it.
Alex Jones is an entertainer...not a news journalist.
He's a windbag.

Sure, some of the things he says ring true to me...but then he wonders off into the wild blue yonder and...ruins any credibility he ever had.
People who are fans of his are likely very lonely or very very bored.

So I'm curious..."great harm"? To who? Lonely bored people?

It will be interesting to see what happens in the lawsuit against him by the parents of Sandy Hook victims. Emotionally, I liken Alex Jones to someone like Westboro Church, creepy to the nth, but the law does not and should never rule by emotion.

The lawsuits filed in April by Leonard Pozner, Veronique De La Rosa and Neil Heslin seek at least $1m in damages. Each claims Jones repeatedly asserted the Sandy Hook shootings were staged and that the parents were liars and frauds who helped in a cover up, according to court documents.

Jones will seek to have the lawsuit dismissed under a Texas law designed to protect free speech rights against unwarranted attacks, court papers showed.

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones seeks to dismiss Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit

 

[JANFU]

Oh the Butthurt over poor Alex. Is there anyone here that believes his crap on 911 or Sandy Hook
So before you reply answers to the above required.
There is no one, Govt, Business or otherwise, including the so called Secret interfering with him.
No doubt his losing the add revenue from FB, YT will put a dent in his rich life.
And I truly wonder who would advertise on his website. Do you?

 

[marke]

So, you're saying the water really is turning the friggin frogs gay?

Don't believe everything you read.

 

[Ikari]

No different than book burning really.

Actually, it's no different than someone here being banned for breaking forum rules.

 

[MTAtech]

Also, if you think free speech doesn't apply to private corporations engaging in censorship, please look up Marsh v Alabama.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) was a case that ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. That case is not similar to the fact pattern of this the topic at hand. Private corporations, including employers, can regulate the speech under their roofs. The First Amendment is a control on government censorship.

The Marsh case was decided the way it was because a company town more closely resembles a political subdivision and instead of a corporate facility.

 

[marke]

"Forced to meet the political biases of the owners" doesn't make any sense. They own the company. The company is doing what they want it to do. Facebook isn't being forced to dump Alex Jones, this is what Facebook chose to do.

Are you demanding the government step in and force a private business to host any and all content against their will?

I tend to favor allowing Facebook to censor truth or whatever just like cake makers should be allowed to make cakes or not make cakes as they please. However, I am not in favor of government forcing leftist bias on the whole nation. The US government is not to be used as a political tool of the left for the purpose of promoting and supporting their wicked agendas or schemes and oppressing opposing views, ideals, laws, morals, values and historical truths.

 

[Moon]

The topic is Alex Jones being removed from Facebook, yes? I mentioned him. You seem to be demanding Facebook host Alex Jones' content despite violation of their terms of service. Does this only apply to Alex Jones? Why doesn't it apply to porn?

Please show where I'm "demanding" a damn thing.

 

[trixare4kids]

I think private companies have a right to do business with whomever. They have a right to set TOS and user agreements for those who use their sites just like DP does. They have a right to kick Alex Jones to the curb.

I worry though on the rules being applied fairly and equitably, and without bias for all users, and the precedence an unfair application of TOS and violation of user agreements might set down the road.

 

[RAMOSS]

Being sued is a completely different issue. There may be grounds for lawsuits, and it's a risk he's going to run for the sake of his craft.

Well, don't you think that Facebook, twitter and youtube can take steps so THEY don't get sued?

 

[MTAtech]

I tend to favor allowing Facebook to censor truth or whatever just like cake makers should be allowed to make cakes or not make cakes as they please. However, I am not in favor of government forcing leftist bias on the whole nation. The US government is not to be used as a political tool of the left for the purpose of promoting and supporting their wicked agendas or schemes and oppressing opposing views, ideals, laws, morals, values and historical truths.

First, this government is controlled by conservatives.
Second, this is a private matter, not a government action.
Third, you don't favor a government forcing leftist bias. Do you favor a government forcing right-wing bias on the whole nation?

 

[MTAtech]

Well, don't you think that Facebook, twitter and youtube can take steps so THEY don't get sued?

One can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn't mean the plaintiff will prevail. All of those companies have well-funded legal teams and aren't afraid of litigation.

I can't think of a valid argument Mr. Jones could make in court. It's no different from a theatre banning a patron who is known to be a disturbance.

 

[Ikari]

Well, don't you think that Facebook, twitter and youtube can take steps so THEY don't get sued?

Not sure.i said anything along those lines. Of course they can, I never said otherwise.

 

[Phys251]

i know what you said, and it is to use the power of law to shut down any speech your deem offensive to your position, while claiming the 1st is freedom.

news for you and some others here:

freedom of speech is speech you disagree with, if we all agreed on what each one of us says, we would not need freedom of speech!

Congratulations, you've proven that you can survive the first week of a high school civics course.

And I am still waiting on you to tell me what my position is. I have yet to hear it from you.

 

[Phys251]

Almost everything comes down to some form of propaganda or another.

That is one hell of a large paintbrush you have there.

I don't think we can legally "silence" propaganda. What we need, instead of big brother watching over everything we say, determining if it is "propaganda" or not, and shutting it down accordingly, is to be able, as a people, to act rationally and intelligently. Reason and intelligence are necessary for keeping a Democratic Republic. You cannot shut down everything, instead we need to, we have the duty to, consume and digest information with enough skepticism, reason, and logic to enable ourselves to interact intelligently within the system.

If we cannot do that, then no amount of law will preserve the Republic.

In theory you are correct. However, as has been pointed out multiple times, private corporations and organizations have every right to censor speech under their domain. For example, if YouTube wanted to ban all cat videos, they would be within their legal right to do it.

What it comes down to is that people who play the free speech card all too often are using "free speech" as a smokescreen.

https://news.ku.edu/2017/05/01/rese...le-often-underpins-free-speech-defense-racist

 

[TobyOne]

Which is why trying to regulate it (or worse, legislate against it - F you, Canada) is nonsense

Good points. Hate is a very subjective term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TobyOne]

This would be fine if they applied their TOS consistently.

Yeah, well it's the call of those platforms as to whether Jones has a soapbox, not you.

Facebook, YT, Twitter, all have community guidelines that are almost impossible to break. They are very tolerant of all points of view, even when they are being accused by the very users who are openly breaking the rules of "censoring" them.

I know Jones has been warned by YT about videos that promote harassment and strongly imply violence, but he continued to do it anyways, so they finally had enough and kicked him out.

 

[Saladin4]

Alex Jones=Pudgy Loud mouth Asshole con man

 

[Middle_Ground]

Hilarious?

No. This is blatant censorship by multiple private entities working in concert to erase someone from the internet. You should be alarmed.

Tell me, what would you say if, instead of Infowars, it was HuffPo...or the WSJ...or Wapo...or a Democratic President...Democratic Congressmen...that was removed from all of those sites? Would you accept that?

Yes I would accept it because they are private companies if I didn't like it then I would try to get groups together to boycott them. Put pressure on them.
If this is such a problem for you or anyone else do something about it.
That's what liberals do.

 

[Middle_Ground]

you riding in on a white horse will not save her

legal means law, and she was clear she's wants legal ability to shut speech down, and then preach law of the 1st to say we have free speech.......better go and feed your horse

That's not the way I read it. But maybe instead of getting angry, just ask?

I read in a legal way not legal as in making laws to ban anything.

 

[apdst]

I don't visit Infowars and don't care for Alex Jones, but it's always disturbing when sites are silenced due to their ideology. It may not be the government doing it, but it's still censorship.

It's the only way the Left can stay alive: silence dissent.

They're going after so-called "climate deniers", next.

 

[Rogue Valley]

If Jones violated the TOS on these platforms, then that's on him.

Follow the rules or suffer the consequences.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes I would accept it because they are private companies if I didn't like it then I would try to get groups together to boycott them. Put pressure on them.
If this is such a problem for you or anyone else do something about it.
That's what liberals do.

No...that's not what liberals do. You are unusual. Liberals would scream, cry...the media would lead it all. It would be an outrage.

 

[Fishking]

Private companies not carrying bull**** from Inforwars is not "silencing" him. He is free to keep his whacko webpage up all he wants. Do you complain about Hannity not giving far right liberals air time to explain their beliefs? Are you upset that Hannity is censoring liberals?

Because Facebook, Google, and YouTube are such bastions of truth and purity. Go Google blue waffles.