Alex Jones banned from Facebook, Apple, Spotify, and Youtube.

Notanumber · Sep 8, 2018

This says it all.

Who will be next? I don’t know, but I don’t plan to find myself in the position in which Martin Niemöller found himself in Nazi Germany. He’s most famous for this prescient quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

First, they came for Alex Jones … - WND

Stevicus · Sep 8, 2018

Shadow Wolf said:
RF, Facebook, Amazon, Sony, AT&T, they all have similar elements that they own it all, and the service agreement can be changed and/or terminated at any time, for any reason, without notification. Microsoft and Sony, it violates the agreed terms of use to not update them "as soon as reasonably possible," and altering the software/OS in any way, for a number of devices, also violates the TOS. The bigger ones like John Deere (yes, that John Deere) have it worded so they can--and they have--take legal action against you for violating it. And it takes them forever and a day to write it all out to discourage us from reading it because no one would reasonably agree to such terms.

I think a lot of it is probably designed so that these companies can protect themselves in the event of some legal action against them. They're in business to make money, so they're ostensibly acting in their own business interests by choosing to terminate or ban someone's account. But if they enforced their TOS rigidly or too strictly, then they might find that they'll have very few customers left.

Stevicus · Sep 8, 2018

Notanumber said:
This says it all.

Who will be next? I don’t know, but I don’t plan to find myself in the position in which Martin Niemöller found himself in Nazi Germany. He’s most famous for this prescient quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

First, they came for Alex Jones … - WND

In the link you posted, an interesting point was raised by the writer:

Maybe you say, “Well, Farah, don’t these corporations have the absolute right to approve and disapprove of the viewpoints they carry – just like you do?” The answer may be surprising: No, they don’t. None of these conglomerates are publishers, content producers, part of the “press.” They are more akin to “utilities” – like the telephone companies of old or the electricity producers who have a public obligation to be fair and neutral in offering the services they provide to all, without regard to race, religion and ideology. They don’t have to like Alex Jones. They don’t have to listen to Alex Jones. But if they are going to have privileged positions making money distributing all manner of content, data, information, they dare not think of themselves as “gatekeepers” against offensive political speech. And they better not designate the partisan hacks of the SPLC as their content cops, which is what they have done – all of them!

So, I guess the real question here is: Are these companies actually utilities? Or are they publishers?

Or is it the difference between a publisher and a printer? A publisher may exercise editorial control, but a printer is someone just doing a job of printing what someone else pays him/her to print. It's not their place to question it, any more than a baker has a right to question the sexual orientation of a couple requesting a wedding cake. If they're in the business of public accommodation, then they should either provide it or get out of the business. No one is forcing YouTube, Facebook, et al. in those business, but if they choose to be in that business, then they are required to serve their customers, whoever they may be.

Notanumber · Sep 8, 2018

Stevicus said:
In the link you posted, an interesting point was raised by the writer:

So, I guess the real question here is: Are these companies actually utilities? Or are they publishers?

Or is it the difference between a publisher and a printer? A publisher may exercise editorial control, but a printer is someone just doing a job of printing what someone else pays him/her to print. It's not their place to question it, any more than a baker has a right to question the sexual orientation of a couple requesting a wedding cake. If they're in the business of public accommodation, then they should either provide it or get out of the business. No one is forcing YouTube, Facebook, et al. in those business, but if they choose to be in that business, then they are required to serve their customers, whoever they may be.

They must not class themselves as editors or the likes of the SPLC will then be able to apply pressure when it suits them.

Stevicus · Sep 8, 2018

Notanumber said:
They must not class themselves as editors or the likes of the SPLC will then be able to apply pressure when it suits them.

Well, anyone can apply pressure whenever they want for whatever reason. That, too, is protected by the First Amendment, but the same protections also mean that no one has any legal obligation to knuckle under or give in to such pressure.

In some cases, they might be in trouble if they do. If the SPLC pressures all the medical providers in the area and says "No matter what happens, don't give Alex Jones any medical treatment if he needs it," would that be allowed? If they pressure the food stores in his area and tell them not to sell him any food so that he starves to death, would that be allowed?

Fortunately, the government doesn't have that option, since they have to safeguard people's rights. The private sector has no such obligation, which means that they should have no such power either.

It just goes to show that the government must always hold the upper hand over the private sector. The government is committed to freedom. The private sector is not.

Notanumber · Sep 9, 2018

It seems that Amazon is another organisation that relies on the Southern Poverty Law Center to tell it who to ban.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/03...donations-program-because-of-splcs-hate-list/

Mr Spinkles · Sep 12, 2018

Notanumber said:
This says it all.

Actually, what you quoted does not say it all. It leaves out something very important: what, exactly, did Alex Jones say to get kicked off these platforms?

He said grab your battle rifles, he made a “gun” gesture with his fingers while saying “you’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, **tch”, threatening a federal official. Which is a crime, not even protected free speech.

He encouraged people to go to a pizza place where there is satanic art, children are sex slaves by Hillary Clinton ... and shortly thereafter a gunman did just that and the innocent shop owner received death threats.

This isn’t about political speech, this is about incitement to violence and defamation. It really has nothing to do with his political leanings.

Sha'irullah · Sep 13, 2018

I am definitely a hard right conservative but I enjoy Alex Jones for unpolitical reasons. InfoWars provides great comedy for depressed folk like me, it is satisfying to know that people can use their insanity for the comedic interest of others.

Gods bless Alex Jones, truly a jester for the world.

Notanumber · Sep 13, 2018

Mr Spinkles said:
Actually, what you quoted does not say it all. It leaves out something very important: what, exactly, did Alex Jones say to get kicked off these platforms?

He said grab your battle rifles, he made a “gun” gesture with his fingers while saying “you’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying, **tch”, threatening a federal official. Which is a crime, not even protected free speech.

He encouraged people to go to a pizza place where there is satanic art, children are sex slaves by Hillary Clinton ... and shortly thereafter a gunman did just that and the innocent shop owner received death threats.

This isn’t about political speech, this is about incitement to violence and defamation. It really has nothing to do with his political leanings.

Has he been arrested for these crimes?

Has a jury of his peers convicted him?

Justice must be done and be seen to be done.

This is how our legal system works in the UK.

Notanumber · Sep 15, 2018

Nigel is right again.

Notanumber · Sep 16, 2018

Another one bites the dust.

Or does she?

I had never heard of Gab before seeing this video.

icehorse · Sep 16, 2018

fantome profane said:
And before anyone gets confused, Facebook, Apple, Spotify and YouTube are not part of the government.

To me this is the crux of the issue. Have FB, Twitter, YouTube and the like become defacto "commons" in our society? I think they have. I think they are near enough to monopolies that we need to categorize them differently.

As it stands now, a few individuals like Zuckerberg can (and are), acting as our society's censors.

fantome profane · Sep 16, 2018

icehorse said:
To me this is the crux of the issue. Have FB, Twitter, YouTube and the like become defacto "commons" in our society? I think they have. I think they are near enough to monopolies that we need to categorize them differently.

As it stands now, a few individuals like Zuckerberg can (and are), acting as our society's censors.

Keep in mind that people have always been shut out of the public square for bad behaviour and violation of established rules and norms. By comparison these companies are much more tolerant that any historical comparison you could make.

columbus · Sep 16, 2018

Is it just me, or are the same people insisting that Jones has a right to speak on some private entity's platform, regardless of management's opinion, not also slamming Kaepernick for speaking on some private entity's platform, regardless of the management's opinion?

The hypocrisy here is pretty intense.
Tom

icehorse · Sep 16, 2018

fantome profane said:
Keep in mind that people have always been shut out of the public square for bad behaviour and violation of established rules and norms. By comparison these companies are much more tolerant that any historical comparison you could make.

Most of history has been pretty grim. I'd prefer to compare the situation to the best examples of free speech societies.

fantome profane · Sep 16, 2018

icehorse said:
Most of history has been pretty grim. I'd prefer to compare the situation to the best examples of free speech societies.

Yes, but I am honestly not sure what actions would lead to an improvement. I certainly don’t like the idea of completely discarding all terms of use.

Mr Spinkles · Sep 17, 2018

Notanumber said:
Has he been arrested for these crimes?

Has a jury of his peers convicted him?

Justice must be done and be seen to be done.

This is how our legal system works in the UK.

The answer to your questions is no.

You don't need to be arrested for a crime to be kicked out of a place of business for threatening behavior. If you are inciting violence, you can be kicked out of many places well before it rises to the point of being arrested or convicted of a crime. If the police had to arrest everyone who got kicked out of a bar for threatening others with violence, they would never have time to address more serious crime.

I answered your questions, will you answer mine?

1. Do you acknowledge that Alex Jones made a gun symbol with his fingers, and said "you're going to get it, ***ch" towards Robert Mueller?

2. Do you acknowledge that is a threat of violence?

3. Do you believe that such threats of violence are indistinguishable from political speech, and should be equally protected as political speech?

Thank you.

Mr Spinkles · Sep 17, 2018

icehorse said:
To me this is the crux of the issue. Have FB, Twitter, YouTube and the like become defacto "commons" in our society? I think they have. I think they are near enough to monopolies that we need to categorize them differently.

As it stands now, a few individuals like Zuckerberg can (and are), acting as our society's censors.

I think that is a fair point, but Alex Jones is not a great example because he was not banned for having conservative views. He was banned because he cannot seem to express his views without encouraging people to pick up their "battle rifles" etc.

If we think that kind of talk should be allowed then this has less to do with social media per se, and more to do with how we think about protected speech. Even on a street corner, is inciting a riot or threatening an individual with assassination "protected speech"? An interesting question ... and a very different one than what Alex Jones' defenders would prefer to focus on.

Shadow Wolf · Sep 17, 2018

Sha'irullah said:
Gods bless Alex Jones, truly a jester for the world.

I guess that's one way of looking at it, because it's obvious that he doesn't even like some of those food and drink products he sells.

Notanumber · Sep 18, 2018

Mr Spinkles said:
The answer to your questions is no.

You don't need to be arrested for a crime to be kicked out of a place of business for threatening behavior. If you are inciting violence, you can be kicked out of many places well before it rises to the point of being arrested or convicted of a crime. If the police had to arrest everyone who got kicked out of a bar for threatening others with violence, they would never have time to address more serious crime.

I answered your questions, will you answer mine?

1. Do you acknowledge that Alex Jones made a gun symbol with his fingers, and said "you're going to get it, ***ch" towards Robert Mueller?

2. Do you acknowledge that is a threat of violence?

3. Do you believe that such threats of violence are indistinguishable from political speech, and should be equally protected as political speech?

Thank you.

We have severe laws in the UK and the EU regarding such matters. It may be different in the USA because they value free speech more than most countries.

If he has committed a crime, let the courts deal with it. That is what we did with this criminal.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary to be released next month despite still being 'genuinely dangerous'

Over 20 terrorists linked to Anjem Choudary walking Britain's streets

UK: Jihad preacher Anjem Choudary who called for Pamela Geller to be executed to be FREED from jail despite remaining “highly dangerous” - Geller Report

Watch the video and tell me which of the guests was the most rational and then tell me which one was not allowed to speak in the UK. Telling the truth is now classed as Hate Speech in the UK.

Was he deplatformed before he was arrested?

Twitter FINALLY removes the hate-filled account of ISIS preacher Anjem Choudary | Daily Mail Online

Alex Jones banned from Facebook, Apple, Spotify, and Youtube.

A Free Man

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

A Free Man

Veteran Member

A Free Man

Mr

رسول الآلهة

A Free Man

A Free Man

A Free Man

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

yawn <ignore> yawn

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Mr

Mr

Certified People sTabber

A Free Man