• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Facebook, Apple, YouTube Removes Infowars and Alex Jones

Don231s

Default rank 5000+ posts
I heard it on the X
55   0
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Messages
9,193
Reaction score
15,582
Location
Rome, GA
Controversial Infowars star Alex Jones' removal from Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify over the past 24 hours, prompting even some of the bomb thrower's staunch critics to voice censorship concerns.

Jones is a notorious conspiracy theorist who has been widely criticized for a variety of outlandish and polarizing content including discredited claims about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Fox News Link

Whether you like Jones or not, this is Big Tech possibly violating the 1st Amendment. I don't care for Jones. He made a fool of himself in recent years. But I hope he scores millions in the litigation he'll likely pursue. It's a slippery slope.
 
I don't think you understand how the first amendment works.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

That's it. It makes no mention about private corporations. There are no millions to score as this isn't a first amendment issue.
 
I don't think you understand how the first amendment works.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

That's it. It makes no mention about private corporations. There are no millions to score as this isn't a first amendment issue.

Pretty sure you’re right, he chose to use their platform and they reserve the right to hit him with a ban hammer. It is unsettling that they are going after anything they don’t like but as I said their platform their right
 
5C58408F-1B7D-4C14-A83A-0568742390F7.jpeg


4A295167-7429-4F93-9538-296FBCB7319C.jpeg
 
I don't think you understand how the first amendment works.
Cut and pasting from the Contribution? Cute. You don't understand. Your "private corporation" argument has already been made and shown to not be true in all cases. The internet is the modern public square. Cyberspace can also be described as a modern equivalent of the soapbox on a street corner. See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, Packingham v. North Carolina. Also, the collusion between the internet companies in the context of net neutrality, working together to restrict market access, is being argued to be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. None of these are static issues. They're all being challenged daily around the country. However, just because it's a "private corporation" doesn't mean that it's exempt from serving the public good, which includes access to its platform.

It will be interesting to see how the Jones' situation plays out in court. And again, I hope Jones scores big.
 
Cut and pasting from the Contribution? Cute. You don't understand. Your "private corporation" argument has already been made and shown to not be true in all cases. The internet is the modern public square. Cyberspace can also be described as a modern equivalent of the soapbox on a street corner. See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, Packingham v. North Carolina. Also, the collusion between the internet companies in the context of net neutrality, working together to restrict market access, is being argued to be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. None of these are static issues. They're all being challenged daily around the country. However, just because it's a "private corporation" doesn't mean that it's exempt from serving the public good, which includes access to its platform.

It will be interesting to see how the Jones' situation plays out in court. And again, I hope Jones scores big.

He can litigate all day, but those platforms can argue his removal was due to slander and libel in part for his gross mischaracterization of Sandy Hook parents as crisis actors and the whole thing as being a hoax. He's the real hoax.

Still, if these platforms gave a better reason for his removal, such as slander and libel which has a defined legal context, I wouldn't have a problem with this douchenozzle fraudster being removed. But they chose to use "hate speech" as the reason, which introduces that whole slippery slope concept.
 
I honestly don't see that this is a Constitutional issue.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't already have a website, so it's hard to argue that he's being denied access to 'the new town square'. After all, you have a right to start a newspaper, but no 'right' to publish articles in the Wall Street Journal. He can communicate with anyone who wants to listen without needing to be on Facebook or YouTube.

As private content companies they can do anything they want to curate their content library. In this day and age, where literally anyone can start a website without knowing a lick of HTML, we don't really need aggregators like FB and YT. In fact we'd be a lot better of without them, and with a more distributed infrastructure.
 
He can litigate all day, but those platforms can argue his removal was due to slander and libel in part for his gross mischaracterization of Sandy Hook parents as crisis actors and the whole thing as being a hoax. He's the real hoax.

Still, if these platforms gave a better reason for his removal, such as slander and libel which has a defined legal context, I wouldn't have a problem with this douchenozzle fraudster being removed. But they chose to use "hate speech" as the reason, which introduces that whole slippery slope concept.
Yes, but his litigation, if it happens, might just be the thing that changes this push toward censorship. However, what's interesting is the number of independent journalists and small outlets who have also expressed outrage at his removal. It ties in to the point you're making. Jordan Peterson said, and I'm paraphrasing, that just because you don't like what I'm saying, or if what I'm saying offends you, I still have the right to say it.
 
Back
Top Bottom