Free Alex Jones

[PaulEdwardMorgan]

I've been struggling with my faith lately, but reading all these replies about how everyone is so glad that we silenced Alex Jones fills my heart with hope. haha. That man was so destructive to the human spirit. I was always astonished that he had such a public platform. Knowing that so many people were equally astonished breathes life into my fatigued soul.

 

[Desk trauma]

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).

Mr Jones is still free to say whatever he likes and publish on platforms which want to carry his content, how is be being "shut up"?

 

[Ringo84]

I guess it's just the free market at work....
Ringo

 

[Desk trauma]

I guess it's just the free market at work....
Ringo

Nonsense! it's only the free market when things go the way social conservatives want them to.

 

[Albion]

That would only be true if the Democratic party owned YouTube, Facebook, and so forth. They don't, so your assertion is either hyperbole or an outriout lie..

Nonsense. There are plenty of alliances in the world of politics and cases of organizations working together with others that they share common values with. It is not necessary for them all to be outright owned by the same people.

 

[durangodawood]

....Alex Jones has the right to post the content that he posts.....

No one has the "right" to post on privately owned boards.

For example I dont have the "right" to post here at CF, and one of my posts was removed by the owners.

 

[FenderTL5]

There are plenty of alliances in the world of politics and cases of organizations working together with others that they share common values with. It is not necessary for them all to be outright owned by the same people.

Exhibit A:
A.L.E.C. and it's member corporations and legislators.

Although the idea that there's no "ownership" could be questioned.

 

[RDKirk]

YouTube, Facebook, Spotify and Apple apparently decided it was a good idea to remove content associated with InfoWars and its founder Alex Jones. This is just one of many crimes of the regressive left. Whether or not you like him, it should be clear that Alex Jones has the right to post the content that he posts.

I don't think you understand what "right" means.

I own a home. I own the front porch of my home. I have the right to stand on my front porch and make whatever political speech I want--and the police can't come to my porch and arrest me.

But that doesn't obligate me to let you come onto my front porch and make whatever speech you want.

YouTube, Facebook, Spotify and Apple are not public utilities, they are privately owned "front porches" just like christianforums.com is a privately owned "front porch."

The owners are not obligated to suffer Alex Jones. Alex Jones has every right to buy a server farm, hire people to run it, and then speak whatever he wants.

But he has no "right" to use anyone else's property.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course that it true, but on the other hand, it is distressing to realize that so many Americans who grew up believing in freedom of speech now are not in the least worried by the efforts of one political party to win the next presidential election by preventing the exercise of free speech by anyone who does not agree with them.

How do you get from 'of course it's true these are the actions of private companies' to 'the efforts of one political party'? (Much less to arrive at an infringement of 'the exercise of free speech' which again is not relevant to either private companies or political parties.)

 

[super animator]

Pet theory: They only cut him off, because their legal advicers say that he is going to lost the lawsuit, hard*.
*For good reason mind you.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think you understand what "right" means.

I own a home. I own the front porch of my home. I have the right to stand on my front porch and make whatever political speech I want--and the police can't come to my porch and arrest me.

But that doesn't obligate me to let you come onto my front porch and make whatever speech you want.

YouTube, Facebook, Spotify and Apple are not public utilities, they are privately owned "front porches" just like christianforums.com is a privately owned "front porch."

The owners are not obligated to suffer Alex Jones. Alex Jones has every right to buy a server farm, hire people to run it, and then speak whatever he wants.

But he has no "right" to use anyone else's property.

Some people think facebook et al are so critical to daily living that they are almost like a utility, and thus properly subject to massive govt interference to protect 'rights'.

 

[AirPo]

YouTube, Facebook, Spotify and Apple apparently decided it was a good idea to remove content associated with InfoWars and its founder Alex Jones. This is just one of many crimes of the regressive left. Whether or not you like him, it should be clear that Alex Jones has the right to post the content that he posts.

 

[Albion]

How do you get from 'of course it's true these are the actions of private companies' to 'the efforts of one political party'? (Much less to arrive at an infringement of 'the exercise of free speech' which again is not relevant to either private companies or political parties.)

I was making a point. All the impassioned reactions that followed within seconds had one thing in common--they didn't speak to the point I had made.

As for your question here, I should think that it is beyond doubting that privately owned companies can and do cooperate with each other.

 

[durangodawood]

....I should think that it is beyond doubting that privately owned companies can and do cooperate with each other.

Of course they do, in many ways.

Take lobbying, for example. Whole industries "collude" on lobbying govt to promote their shared interests. This is natural and to be expected.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As for your question here, I should think that it is beyond doubting that privately owned companies can and do cooperate with each other.

Whooptido. This still has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms from government censorship.

 

[Phil 1:21]

As a conservative, people like Jones make me cringe. They provide a real life example of the hateful extreme, and unfortunately, try to present themselves as the norm. I'm not the least bit interested in helping him further his narrative, but I do think it's important we pray for him.

 

[Albion]

Whooptido. This still has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms from government censorship.

As I said, not my point. Good bye.

 

[abysmul]

Not a crime, as others have said. He's free to speak, he's free to host his own web page or TV or radio network.

 

[AirPo]

Of course that it true, but on the other hand, it is distressing to realize that so many Americans who grew up believing in freedom of speech now are not in the least worried by the efforts of one political party to win the next presidential election by preventing the exercise of free speech by anyone who does not agree with them.

It is distressing to realize that so many Americans believe this.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course that it true, but on the other hand, it is distressing to realize that so many Americans who grew up believing in freedom of speech now are not in the least worried by the efforts of one political party to win the next presidential election by preventing the exercise of free speech by anyone who does not agree with them.

Freedom of speech extends to companies allowing them to decide
what message they choose to deliver. Social media is not a goverment
entity required to allow unregulated use.

You are calling for government to interfere with the free speech
of business groups.