Free Alex Jones

[Tom 1]

Here's what I think. All or almost all of those who are writing back to me have ignored the point of my initial comment here. It was not to defend Alex Jones.

That said, I was about to summarize my earlier statements, but I think maybe I should just ask you (and anyone else for whom it is appropriate) to take the time to go back and review what I wrote.

Post #17 I’m assuming. I’m also assuming that in the US as in the UK there is a growing sense of not being ‘allowed’ to express a different view on e.g LGBT rights etc. There are a lot of lobbying groups and individuals, e.g within higher education, who are indeed and quite forcefully pushing to shut down anyone who questions their narrative. There are other public figures who challenge this and certainly it is an important issue. I don’t buy the idea that this movement is being orchestrated by a political party though, in the UK for in any case it is more complicated than that. The push for equal rights has a long history, and a lot that is admirable about it. The tipping point where the fight for equal rights becomes the demand that no-one should have a different viewpoint on this or that issue is a kind of end-point or one outcome of that struggle maybe. For Christians, that raises a lot of issues like the whole church/state separation idea, what business we have to interfere in the lives of people outside of the church, how does a Christian live in a world where his or her views are seen as aberrant, and so on - not new dilemmas for Christians. But, in Alex Jone’s case I don’t see how the argument for prioritising free speech applies. Is slander just ‘free speech’? The ravings of characters like Jones have real life consequences. What happened to the guy who turned up at the pizza restaurant with a loaded weapon after being convinced by Jones (or someone similar) that it was the centre of a pedophile ring? Free speech is important. The freedom to live your life and conduct business and a private life without being slandered by loons like Jones is also important. The two have to be reconciled somehow. The other question as others have said is what obligation do private orgs like FB have to host everybody and anybody? None as far as I can see, whatever their decisions are based on they only have to answer to their shareholders ultimately. Being used for political ends doesn’t make a social media platform a political organisation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's you quoting the ACLU....not you stating an actual position.

If you'd like to clarify though....feel free.

I agreed with the ACLU, as Rion perspicaciously inferred.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, government, via laws, can feign an attempt to regulate things like libel, slander, and fraud, but - absent objective measurements - I do not believe that any civil government can legitimately do so.

Absent objective measurements?

You realize these are pretty clearly defined legal terms, right?

 

[Albion]

Post #17 I’m assuming. I’m also assuming that in the US as in the UK there is a growing sense of not being ‘allowed’ to express a different view on e.g LGBT rights etc. There are a lot of lobbying groups and individuals, e.g within higher education, who are indeed and quite forcefully pushing to shut down anyone who questions their narrative. There are other public figures who challenge this and certainly it is an important issue. I don’t buy the idea that this movement is being orchestrated by a political party though, in the UK for in any case it is more complicated than that. The push for equal rights has a long history, and a lot that is admirable about it....

Thank you, Tom. I agree in principle, but to be clearer, the issue is not LGBT rights especially, just as it was not all about Alex Jones. These social media outlets have, in a concerted fashion, censored over 90% of the traffic of conservatives in recent weeks while, as one might expect, Antifa and all manner of terrorist websites are still going on as usual.

There IS a determination on the part of the people who lost the last election to prevent a repeat of that in 2020--by making sure that Facebook et al are not going to be used by opponents of their party and/or candidate. You are aware, I assume, that it has been argued that social media made possible Trumps surprise victory by allowing opinion that was not supported by CNN, NBC, etc. to get around.

Naturally, those people who delight to see the kind of censorship that they like are shouting "free speech rights" at anyone who sees a danger in this development. If its not their kind of speech, its "hate speech" by definition and has no rights.

It is hypocrisy, sure, but we are talking about a way to control the outcome of elections. And that is much more important.

Alex Jones was simply a very easy target, allowing a very easy defense of the decision to remove him, as though the censorship of many other websites that are not at all in the Alex Jones mold is not underway at the same time.

 

[RDKirk]

Absent objective measurements?

You realize these are pretty clearly defined legal terms, right?

Well, not if one's position is that what you say and what I say are equally true and equally false, regardless of what actually happened.

 

[RDKirk]

Thank you, Tom. I agree in principle, but to be clearer, the issue is not LGBT rights especially, just as it was not all about Alex Jones. These social media outlets have, in a concerted fashion, censored over 90% of the traffic of conservatives in recent weeks while, as one might expect, Antifa and all manner of terrorist websites are still going on as usual.

You spoke of two different entities: "These social media sites" and "Antifa and all manner of terrorist websites."

Of course, "these social media sites" and their decisions of what goes on their own platforms have nothing at all to do with "terrorist websites."

And you'd have to show me that they have not done anything to corral the activities of those groups on their own social media sites that is out of line with what they've done with Alex Jones.

There IS a determination on the part of the people who lost the last election to prevent a repeat of that in 2020--by making sure that Facebook et al are not going to be used by opponents of their party and/or candidate. You are aware, I assume, that it has been argued that social media made possible Trumps surprise victory by allowing opinion that was not supported by CNN, NBC, etc. to get around.

That would be the Russian troll sites.

Naturally, those people who delight to see the kind of censorship that they like are shouting "free speech rights" at anyone who sees a danger in this development. If its not their kind of speech, its "hate speech" by definition and has no rights.

It is hypocrisy, sure, but we are talking about a way to control the outcome of elections. And that is much more important.

Alex Jones was simply a very easy target, allowing a very easy defense of the decision to remove him, as though the censorship of many other websites that are not at all in the Alex Jones mold is not underway at the same time.

Show it.

 

[usexpat97]

You spoke of two different entities: "These social media sites" and "Antifa and all manner of terrorist websites.

At one time, christianforums used to ban the English version of the Iranian national news website as "terrorist". Is that still the case?

 

[Albion]

You spoke of two different entities: "These social media sites" and "Antifa and all manner of terrorist websites."

I was referring to the social media sites, like Facebook, treating some speech one way while treating other speech (that by any sensible standard is at least equally hateful or dangerous) the opposite way.

Of course, "these social media sites" and their decisions of what goes on their own platforms have nothing at all to do with "terrorist websites."

If these media continue to present the websites, blogs, etc. of those organizations...they certainly do have something to do with them!

 

[ananda]

Absent objective measurements?

You realize these are pretty clearly defined legal terms, right?

They may be "clearly defined", but they are not objectively measured.

 

[super animator]

You can't measure definitions!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JCFantasy23]

YouTube, Facebook, Spotify and Apple

I know Facebook and Youtube (Google owned) are liberal. No idea on Spotify and Apple but it doesn't surprise me.

Yes, I think it's depressing and a bit frightening that the levels of censorship and control have raised withe company giants, but it's a change in our society that has been coming for awhile and isn't surprising.

 

[JCFantasy23]

The campaign to shut up people who are not politically correct has been ongoing for some time now, and this is simply the latest development in that movement (which was demonstrated when Facebook, Spotify, You Tube and other social media discovered on the same day (!) that this one outlet fails to meet their standards and so must go).

Yep. Through social media, blacklisting on websites, public speaking, college speaking, public firings from these companies, we keep seeing this over several years.

 

[Desk trauma]

Yep. Through social media, blacklisting on websites, public speaking, college speaking, public firings from these companies, we keep seeing this over several years.

Does being a social conservative somehow preclude people from setting up internet and real life venues to express views to a wider audience?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Thank you, Tom. I agree in principle, but to be clearer, the issue is not LGBT rights especially, just as it was not all about Alex Jones. These social media outlets have, in a concerted fashion, censored over 90% of the traffic of conservatives in recent weeks while, as one might expect, Antifa and all manner of terrorist websites are still going on as usual.

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/
https://www.facebook.com/theblaze/
https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/
https://www.facebook.com/TomiLahren/
https://www.facebook.com/judgejeaninepirro/
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialAnnCoulter/

These pages (which are the first six I could think of) are all still live. What you said is demonstrably false. Your belief is a lie.

There IS a determination on the part of the people who lost the last election to prevent a repeat of that in 2020--by making sure that Facebook et al are not going to be used by opponents of their party and/or candidate. You are aware, I assume, that it has been argued that social media made possible Trumps surprise victory by allowing opinion that was not supported by CNN, NBC, etc. to get around.

That is also a lie.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Does being a social conservative somehow preclude people from setting up internet and real life venues to express views to a wider audience?

That's not the point. The point is they shouldn't have to be segregated into their own venues to be able to speak up while people on the other side of the political spectrum have all the big companies on their side with their full support. I get that businesses may let themselves get involved with politics to a degree, but it seems to be going a bit overboard. The same for the colleges.

 

[JCFantasy23]

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/
https://www.facebook.com/theblaze/
https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/
https://www.facebook.com/TomiLahren/
https://www.facebook.com/judgejeaninepirro/
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialAnnCoulter/

These pages (which are the first six I could think of) are all still live. What you said is demonstrably false. Your belief is a lie.



That is also a lie.

His post did not say 100%...

Facebook was caught doing this with a few and have had to make apologies about this, like with Diamond and Silk

 

[iluvatar5150]

His post did not say 100%...

No, he said 90%. I fail to see how you could take down 90% of conservatives while still leaving that list (and many more) untouched.

Facebook was caught doing this with a few

"A few" is not 90%.

and have had to make apologies about this, like with Diamond and Silk

Yes, the pair that lied about not being contacted by Facebook, who had their decision reversed.

 

[Albion]

That's not the point. The point is they shouldn't have to be segregated into their own venues to be able to speak up while people on the other side of the political spectrum have all the big companies on their side with their full support. I get that businesses may let themselves get involved with politics to a degree, but it seems to be going a bit overboard. The same for the colleges.

...or to put it another way, what is the argument in favor of squelching some hate speech while carefully not doing the same with other hate speech?

They cant have "Its a free speech issue!" if they are not going to support free speech.,

 

[Desk trauma]

That's not the point. The point is they shouldn't have to be segregated into their own venues to be able to speak up while people on the other side of the political spectrum have all the big companies on their side with their full support.

Are companies not entitled to chose what they will and will not allow on their servers?

 

[RDKirk]

...or to put it another way, what is the argument in favor of squelching some hate speech while carefully not doing the same with other hate speech?

They cant have "Its a free speech issue!" if they are not going to support free speech.,

They can totally support only the speech they want on their own platforms and still being opposed to government inhibition of political speech--and that is not hypocrisy.

It's an understanding of what the First Amendment actually means and says.

The First Amendment never, ever suggested that a private citizen is obligated--not even morally--to provide a platform for anyone else's speech.

I can be in favor all day long of you having freedom to speak on your own porch, but not on mine, and there is nothing hypocritical about that.