Leftists Want To Ban Speech...

[rogue06]

I'll extend an olive branch and say that those things aren't good. Still, I don't think Alex Jones is in the same league as simply a conservative reporter. I mean would you have a person be immune from any form of take down, if they're a conservative? While we haven't been told the specific reasons he was taken down, its pretty clear that he was outside of their policy for youtube content.

The problem, for me, is that there are still hundreds of alt-right channels like that as well. Some of them more heinous. So like I said I think its mostly being done from a money stand point.

I think Jones is a complete idiot and more but I suspect this might be a test to see what sort of reaction they get and whether they should proceed further

[Leonhard]

I want it to be made clear that I'm against Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, etc... taking down media just merely based on the political content. I believe Alex Jones should have been free to be a Coast to Coast AM-like channel, talking about 9/11 and the Illuminati.

But I don't condone his slander, his personal attacks, which he never stopped doing even after several lawsuits, and I don't think he should be given a pass just because he thinks JFK wasn't shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Same goes for Sargon of Akkad, I don't mind that he's critical of feminists, but that he then doxes feminists and has his fans harass that woman and send death threats, with him later pleading ignorance. I don't think that flies. That's not in the same category. I believe we can talk about politics without that stuff. I don't think its essential to be a conservative that you condone, enable or encourage things like that.

Social Media is a private platform, which means they get to set the rules. In this case I think taking down Alex Jones is fair game.

[seer]

I think Jones is a complete idiot and more but I suspect this might be a test to see what sort of reaction they get and whether they should proceed further

Right, Jones, who is easy to dislike, is simply the carnay in the coal mine.

Senate Democrats Are Circulating Plans for Government Takeover of the Internet: Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/d...y-plans-leaked

[firstfloor]

We would certainly be better off without Alex Jones and InfoWars. This is a war, and the 'right' are on the wrong side, as usual.

[rogue06]

We would certainly be better off without Alex Jones and InfoWars. This is a war, and the 'right' are on the wrong side, as usual.

At least your are honest enough to admit this has nothing to do with Jones but is a naked power play to suppress conservative speech

[Terraceth]

I think Jones is a complete idiot and more but I suspect this might be a test to see what sort of reaction they get and whether they should proceed further

I sometimes wonder if he's actually that dumb. I've seen some people who have met him say they don't think he actually buys into most of what he says, but it makes him money so he keeps it up.

[carpedm9587]

Alex Jones is a pox on humanity. His bizarre vitriol and absurd conspiracy theories do nothing to further humanity, or bring light to the world. He is the voice of darkness. But we also live in America. Jones has a right to speak - even if I despise almost everything he has to say. At the same time, any media outlet is a business, and has a right to decide if they are going to sponsor his vitriol as part of their programming. If they decide they do not want to be the platform for his crap, they have a right to say "not here." Jones will have to move on and find another platform, until (hopefully), no one is willing to sponsor his trash. Hopefully, he will then be reduced to being a small, weak voice from some obscure corner of this planet.

Unfortunately, people like Jones will always find a way to reach their core adherents - and spew their poison. In this age of social networking, there is essentially no way to deny him a podium.

[RumTumTugger]

Alex Jones is a pox on humanity. His bizarre vitriol and absurd conspiracy theories do nothing to further humanity, or bring light to the world. He is the voice of darkness. But we also live in America. Jones has a right to speak - even if I despise almost everything he has to say. At the same time, any media outlet is a business, and has a right to decide if they are going to sponsor his vitriol as part of their programming. If they decide they do not want to be the platform for his crap, they have a right to say "not here." Jones will have to move on and find another platform, until (hopefully), no one is willing to sponsor his trash. Hopefully, he will then be reduced to being a small, weak voice from some obscure corner of this planet.

Unfortunately, people like Jones will always find a way to reach their core adherents - and spew their poison. In this age of social networking, there is essentially no way to deny him a podium.

be careful of trying ot take free speech from those who's views you dislike.

First they came for the Jews.......

[carpedm9587]

be careful of trying ot take free speech from those who's views you dislike.

First they came for the Jews.......

"Free Speech" is a concept associated with the Constitution, and describes what the government can and cannot do. The government cannot silence Alex Jones, nor should it. If it tried, I would be standing defending Alex Jones' right to speak. But decent people can refuse to listen. The constitution does not require all of humanity to listen to Alex Jones' speech. When a man is as vile as Jones, out for his own profit, and willing to say anything to enrich himself, decent people will stand up and say, "what you are doing and saying is not right, and we will not listen."

That is not an assault on free speech. Mr. Jones can say whatever he wishes. It is a refusal to participate in the hatred and misinformation he spews. We should not tolerate a government that silences views it does not agree with. We should also not tolerate views that are destructive to the fabric of our society. Mr. Jones is a hate monger in every sense of the word. None of us are obligated to listen - and we should not.

[RumTumTugger]

"Free Speech" is a concept associated with the Constitution, and describes what the government can and cannot do. The government cannot silence Alex Jones, nor should it. If it tried, I would be standing defending Alex Jones' right to speak. But decent people can refuse to listen. The constitution does not require all of humanity to listen to Alex Jones' speech. When a man is as vile as Jones, out for his own profit, and willing to say anything to enrich himself, decent people will stand up and say, "what you are doing and saying is not right, and we will not listen."

That is not an assault on free speech. Mr. Jones can say whatever he wishes. It is a refusal to participate in the hatred and misinformation he spews. We should not tolerate a government that silences views it does not agree with. We should also not tolerate views that are destructive to the fabric of our society. Mr. Jones is a hate monger in every sense of the word. None of us are obligated to listen - and we should not.

if a government official talks about pressuring those provet companies to de platform those views he doesn't like i'd say there has been a line crossed.

[carpedm9587]

if a government official talks about pressuring those provet companies to de platform those views he doesn't like i'd say there has been a line crossed.

Here I have mixed views. A "government official" is still also a citizen. If they are speaking officially, in their capacity as a government official, then they should be bound by the limitations on government. However, if they are speaking as a citizen of this nation, the same is not true. That opens all sorts of philosophical issues. Can a government official EVER speak as an independent citizen?

I really don't know the answer to that. However, if you are going to hold the position that they cannot, you will have to explain why it is OK for the top law enforcement officer in this country (i.e., the president) is then justified in calling for the incarceration of individuals that have not yet had the benefit of due process. After all, if Mr. Murphy cannot speak as a private citizen because he holds public office, then it would seem to follow that Mr. Trump cannot either, given that he holds the highest office in this country.

So which is it....?

[firstfloor]

At least your are honest enough to admit this has nothing to do with Jones but is a naked power play to suppress conservative speech

Many countries do not allow freedom of hate speech. It is true that conservatives are haters by nature and they lean towards fascism. POTUS is an example. We hope to defeat fascism without resort to armed conflict - not avoided only two generations ago.

[Cow Poke]

Many countries do not allow freedom of hate speech.

And "hate speech" is not uniformly defined.

It is true that conservatives are haters by nature and they lean towards fascism.

Classic leftist balderdash unsupported pinko commie false statement.

POTUS is an example.

POTUS is not an example - he's his own "thing".

We hope to defeat fascism without resort to armed conflict - not avoided only two generations ago.

Bless your heart.

[Cow Poke]

Here I have mixed views. A "government official" is still also a citizen. If they are speaking officially, in their capacity as a government official, then they should be bound by the limitations on government. However, if they are speaking as a citizen of this nation, the same is not true. That opens all sorts of philosophical issues. Can a government official EVER speak as an independent citizen?

I really don't know the answer to that. However, if you are going to hold the position that they cannot, you will have to explain why it is OK for the top law enforcement officer in this country (i.e., the president) is then justified in calling for the incarceration of individuals that have not yet had the benefit of due process. After all, if Mr. Murphy cannot speak as a private citizen because he holds public office, then it would seem to follow that Mr. Trump cannot either, given that he holds the highest office in this country.

So which is it....?

It is no more proper for Trump to call for the incarceration of individuals not having received due process than it was for Obama to weigh in on matters of law enforcement not yet resolved.

That kind of crap should be left to people like the internet trolls on Tweb who declare "they should be in jail right now", without the "they" having even been indicted.

On the issue of government officials speaking "as a private citizen" while in government office -- I think the classier ones generally don't.

[Leonhard]

internet trolls on Tweb who declare "they should be in jail right now", without the "they" having even been indicted.

You mean the ones here talking about Hillary?