Alex Jones shutdown on YouTube, Facebook, and Apple

Post Reply New Topic

I just love how people go on about the right to free speech when someone has completely abused that right.

Please elaborate.

Private websites are not obligated to host anyones videos, blogs or other speech content nor are they prohibited from removing content that is found to violate rules/policy on that website.

These kind of senerios have nothing to do with the constitutional right to free speech, which prohibits the government punishing you for your opinion. Last I checked Youtube, Facebook and Apple aren't governmental organizations.

Though there are some exceptions you can face legal penalties for making verbal threats, inciting violence and I've heard you're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire.

I hate Alex Jones with a burning passion, I think he's a wacko and possibly autistic. However, if YouTube were to remove his channel, they'd have to do the same to Progressive channels that want to incite violence on Trump supporters and conservatives alike.

Yes if there are channels like that they should be removed as well.

Also he's probably more likely anti-social than autistic, but I am not a diagnostician so I can't say either way.

It's not that hard to understand, here it is: "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."

It makes absolutely no claims about any level of agreeableness to the speech, it merely states the government can't restrict your speech, especially on public property (peaceably assemble, i.e. protest). I myself am sick and tired of people trying to distort 'free speech' into areas it was never intended, and would be disastrous if it did. I'll support anyone's claim to say what they want in a public area, I'll support their right to protest even if I don't agree with them, because that's what the First Amendment is. What I won't support is people attempting to expand that restriction onto private citizens and businesses, because then you're legislating what a person or group can and can't do with their own personal property (which is very, very communistic by the way). Here's two examples of what the results would be of the First Amendment applying to 1. business and 2. private citizens, as the courts have applied the law to government at this point in time.

BUSINESS--
Grocery Store A is selling pears at half off this week. Grocery Store B hears about the sale and wants to compete but their weekly flyer has already been sent. So, as not to be outdone, Grocery Store B's manager walks down to Grocery Store A's fruit aisle and plops down a giant board advertising 75% of pears at Grocery Store B's location. Obviously Grocery Store A is none too pleased and wants it removed, but guess what, now that the First Amendment applies to business, Grocery Store A is s**t out of luck because removing their competitors ad from their aisle would be a violation Grocery Store B's 'free speech'.

CITIZEN--
Being a card carrying member of the NRA and a proud Trump supporter, Bob bonds with a new teammate in his softball league named Tim. Bob invites Tim over for dinner. Tim then goes into a long diatribe about what an idiot Trump is, because unbeknownst to Bob, Tim is a card carrying member of the Sierra Club and proud supporter of Hillary Clinton. After learning this Bob doesn't want Tim's liberal views influencing his young children. Unfortunately for Bob, he can't remove Tim from his house because now that the First Amendment applies to his private domicile that would be a free speech violation.

That's why the First Amendment only applies to the government, if you start applying it to citizens and business you are in effect taking away their private property rights. Furthermore, you're not saying the speech is free, meaning free to listen to, free to discard, free to ignore, rather you're forcing to people to listen to it which is oh so not free.

Again, you'll see me support the First Amendment in it's current application even for groups I despise. It applies to public institutions (government) and public spaces-- things we should all have equal rights over. However, when you move it out of the public sphere and into the private sphere it's now become an oppressive law as opposed to a law of freedom.

... like privately-owned social websites dedicated for the use of people with autism spectrum disorders.

I look at it this way: If I allow someone to come into my home, and that person insults everyone else there, I am not going to tell that person to shut up; I am going to tel that person to leave. This has nothing to do with one person's "free speech", and everything to do with everyone else's right to pursue happiness ... philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) once observed that "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong." Wise words, then and now.

The administrators of YouTube, Facebook, and Apple have not told Alex Jones to shut up; they have told him to leave. He still has plenty of other venues where he can spew his filth.

Exactly and they have every right because it's their property. This issue isn't even close to a First Amendment issue, it's censorship yes, and if that's how the pro-Jones people want to pursue this issue that's a very valid argument. But it's not a First Amendment issue exclusively because the First Amendment and thus 'free speech' is only applicable to the government. I wish people would understand the Bill of Rights is actually a group of restrictions, but they're restrictions on the government, if we start applying them to private people and businesses we're actually just putting more restrictions on those private entities and it would have to be renamed the Bill of LESS Rights.

Agreed. The Bill of Rights is actually a Bill of Restrictions on the government. It is NOT a Bill of Impositions on the general public. Semi-literate armchair lawyers try to impose their personal agendas on the rest of us with their distortions and outright lies concerning what should and should not be done, while the rest of us actually read government documents and understand the full scope of their application.

I think Alex Jones was dethroned from these various social media platforms due to said institutions growing a backbone and getting tired of the things he has said or expressed. Nor is this an issue of free speech, I think in some ways, as this is speculation on my part that these various entities probably choose to remove him is they might fear that, they themselves could potentially come under lawsuits for being the party(ies) providing the means for Alex Jones to spout out all sorts of things. Though said suit would be a long shot ,but it's not impossible for it to happen.

In the simplest terms, AJ wouldn't play nice, so he was kicked off the playground.

It has nothing to do with backbone and everything to do with fear of losing money when their sponsors pull out, boycotts, top employees not wanting to work for them, and physical and cyber attacks. The companies that sponsor social media companies fear the same.

They did it because they were afraid or were told the companies that sponsor them will pull out, they will be victims of physical and cyber attacks. The companies that sponsor social media companies fear not being able to find employees, boycotts and physical and cyber attacks if they continue to sponsor companies that platform Jones.[/quote]

Exactly sir, as I would do that if I was in that scenario from a business perspective.

I 100% agree it's economics at play here for the businesses in question. They've crunched their numbers internally and came to the conclusion Alex Jones is a bigger liability to their bottom line than a benefit. Generally when a large internet company makes a move that pisses off some of their users they'll release a statement or two to justify their move and pacify those upset, in this case their response (or lack thereof) is the equivalent of: f**k off, don't care. They wouldn't approach this situation in such a manner if the internal bean-counters didn't tell them that's how the numbers were lining up.

Of course money is the motivating factor behind the decision to boot Jones to the curb. Back in early 2003, Jessie Ventura had signed a three-year contract to do a program on MSNBC. His people got a call from the network asking if Ventura was in favor of the Iraq War, which was shortly to commence. They said no. They asked if there was any possibility his mind could be changed. They said no. They promptly bought out his contract. Phil Donahue also had a program on MSNBC, but his anti-war stance got him the axe. Mainstream media is decidedly pro-war and is controlled by corporate interests. MSNBC is owned by General Electric, which has military contracts with the U.S. military. Need I say more?

Why I feel that this story should concern us all is simply that any voice that conflicts with the corporate script will continue to be under attack and demonized. Alternative media is a serious threat to the status quo, and they will continue to pump out propaganda to marginalize it. Alex Jones may be a crackpot, producing just as much mis-information as the MSM, true, but that really isn't the central issue. If we don't stand up and fight against the tyranny of corporatism in the media, it's only a matter of time before all dissenting voices will eventually be shut down.

I assume private corps like FB (I'm not on it), Twitter (I'm not on it) Et al. can do what they want as long as it's not discriminatory. Since they're not censoring employees, perhaps they can even wantonly discriminate against any of their users as they so choose. I don't really see a problem with booting Alex Jones or any other conservative user if FB, You Tube, Twitter wants to do that since they're private companies.

The only thing I absolutely do think should change is how these companies should be viewed by the public. This is where the blatant inaccuracy lies: the public's perception that these companies are objective and non-biased. They are most definitely not.

The public perception should simply change to accept that FB, Twitter, Youtube, Google, CNN, Huffpo, MSNBC, NBC are indisputably companies run based on hard line "leftist" ideology. It's that simple. I don't think it's something to be upset about. Call a spade a spade, that's all.

I think therefore the only minor tweak needed in the public's collective consciousness is:

"FB, Twitter, Youtube, Google, CNN, Huffpo, MSNBC, NBC, etc. censor non-leftist viewpoints. Duh, everyone knows that."

Hiding behind some sort of deceptive veil of objectivity and tolerance on their part is a joke. Just call them for what they are and let's all move on.