Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

[MayhemMonkey]

 

[DespicablePeep]

Alex Jones is a joke, but so is most of the media. I think there should be total freedom and even though these platforms are private for the good of democracy free speech should be upheld. These conglomerates have too much power.

 

[PubliusVentidius]

Alex Jones is a joke, but so is most of the media. I think there should be total freedom and even though these platforms are private for the good of democracy free speech should be upheld. These conglomerates have too much power.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from libel, slander and false speech. If you go around saying that people are pedophiles with no proof whatsoever or lying about murdered children like Jones did you should expect to be legally pursued eventually and experience backlash on various levels.

 

[GetTheseHands]

The China model is a blueprint for these people. And it appears that more and more governments are starting to emulate the Chinese in how they control their citizenship.

America needs to remain as the strongest voice for liberty, to prevent the future from becoming a technologically assisted dystopia, which it very well easily could be.

We laugh at the Chinese and how illiberal they are, but they too were sold on the idea of compromising freedoms for safety, and they actually had legitimate reasons to fear violence and disruptions of society, considering the sheer brutality of their recent history. In our case, we are selling our asses to global tyranny because we've literally become so pampered that we fear our own shadows.

Communists love communist style censorship

 

[TheGreatA]

Communists love communist style censorship

It's the only way that their weak ideas can prevail in the marketplace of ideas. By banning all the competition. Then again, that's to be expected of a people who believe that banning competition and nationalizing and strictly regulating all industries, is the best way to elevate the economy.

I, myself, am not afraid of the competition so I'm fully willing to let other people say their piece. Then I'll just promptly respond and debunk what they're saying.

 

[tonni]

It's the only way that their weak ideas can prevail in the marketplace of ideas. By banning all the competition.

I, myself, am not afraid of the competition so I'm fully willing to let other people say their piece. Then I'll just promptly respond and debunk what they're saying.

 

[GetTheseHands]

It's the only way that their weak ideas can prevail in the marketplace of ideas. By banning all the competition.

I, myself, am not afraid of the competition so I'm fully willing to let other people say their piece. Then I'll just promptly respond and debunk what they're saying.

Remember if you ban 'hate speech' you control thought. Which means you can silence those who say things like "Communism has killed 100 million people" if you are trying to convince people to try communism again.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from libel, slander and false speech. If you go around saying that people are pedophiles with no proof whatsoever or lying about murdered children like Jones did you should expect to be legally pursued eventually and experience backlash on various levels.

Agree but use the courts

 

[Rational Poster]

Agree but use the courts

The courts are being used and the corporations are reacting to those cases.

 

[floivanus]

Remember if you ban 'hate speech' you control thought. Which means you can silence those who say things like "Communism has killed 100 people" if you are trying to convince people to try communism again.

I think you missed the word “million” in there bud

 

[GetTheseHands]

I think you missed the word “million” in there bud

you right

 

[waiguoren]

Just hope to hell that your government never goes as far as mine appears to be doing, in order to "combat hate speech". They are creating mobile phone apps, "command centers", government-funded projects to take down what they deem to be "hate speech" (which in reality is basically anything that goes against the mainstream narrative).

Just now, there has been a huge outrage because of a Catholic Christian politician making statements that are anti-abortion, and a call to ban the "independent thinking" of government officials, by leftist parties.

People are literally being convicted of crimes for saying stuff like "not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorism in Europe is committed by Muslims". Once you reach that point, there's no going back.

Cherish your First Amendment because above all, it's the greatest one you've got, and the most important in ensuring that the others will exist, too.

This is Finland, right?

Convicted only for saying that? Seriously?

Re: First Amendment, the crazy thing is that most of the framers of the US Constitution didn't think the Bill of Rights was necessary. They thought these rights would be implied, and that enumerating them would allow the government to take away other, unlisted rights.

 

[GOATER]

Infowars isn't banned from the internet. I was just on it a couple of minutes ago, and Infowars is still hosted on a private company's data center, which makes your analogy still flawed. Backpage is a website that's actually banned from the Internet.

Again.....The website was down during that time...So I said, if it's banned, then that is free speech ban...DO you understand now?


I never said the website was banned...Somebody said it was a possibility and that's why I said, if it's banned, it's a free speech ban....My analogy is spot on.


If Infowars was banned from the internet, then it will be a free speech violation IMO.

 

[vengeful]

Again.....The website was down during that time...So I said, if it's banned, then that is free speech ban...DO you understand now?


I never said the website was banned...Somebody said it was a possibility and that's why I said, if it's banned, it's a free speech ban....My analogy is spot on.


If Infowars was banned from the internet, then it will be a free speech violation IMO.

Unless it's banned by the government it's not a free speech ban, do you understand now why your analogy was and still is wrong?

 

[Rational Poster]

Again.....The website was down during that time...So I said, if it's banned, then that is free speech ban...DO you understand now?


I never said the website was banned...Somebody said it was a possibility and that's why I said, if it's banned, it's a free speech ban....My analogy is spot on.


If Infowars was banned from the internet, then it will be a free speech violation IMO.

The government doesn't run the internet.

They participate in it, but no single organization public or private control the internet.

It's a collection of public and private interconnected networks that can choose to disengage from it at will.

Simply put, if Alex Jones's ISP and/or web host decides to terminate their contracts with him it's still not a first amendment issue.

The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to access the internet nor does it compel private companies to do business with you (webhost/ISPs). Quite the opposite. The Supreme Court has ruled that a private corporation has a near limitless right to refuse serving customers.

 

[GOATER]

Unless it's banned by the government it's not a free speech ban, do you understand now why your analogy was and still is wrong?

Again read the post that started all of this.

I said, IMO the Internet should be a human right, a form of free speech...If they did that, IMO that's a free speech ban because I hold the Internet above all.

I don't give a shit if it's not in the constitution or the internet is not runned by the government...I think the constitution is outdated anyways and feel we should updated to include the internet as a one of our American Rights.

 

[GOATER]

The government doesn't run the internet.

They participate in it, but no single organization public or private control the internet.

It's a collection of public and private interconnected networks that can choose to disengage from it at will.

Simply put, if Alex Jones's ISP and/or web host decides to terminate their contracts with him it's still not a first amendment issue.

The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to access the internet nor does it compel private companies to do business with you (webhost/ISPs). Quite the opposite. The Supreme Court has ruled that a private corporation has a near limitless right to refuse serving customers.

I never said they ran the internet.....as for the constitutions, it's outdated as fuck.

The Internet has some much knowledge and it's pretty much the town public square that being banned from making a website or from it, is 100% detrimental to the human who can't speakout or look at the internet.....So yes, I feel the constitution should be updated to include the internet, that's my opinion.

As for ISP/Web Host having the right to terminate.....again, that might be the case right now....but with an updated constitution, I feel that it shouldn't be possible for AMERICAN ISP or WebHost to ban a website and prevent free speech.


If Facebook/Youtube/etc, services don't want Infowars, I understand that since they have guidelines and they are a video host service.....However ISP and Webhost? That I do not agree with at all.

Analogy: Facebook/Youtube are stores...I agree, they have the right to kickout people from their store who are being disruptive(Alex).............................ISP/Webhost are the builders of the town, who made the streets/sidewalks/Stores and houses around town, they don't have the right (Again in my point of view, has nothing to do with the constitution) of banning a person from using the streets/sidewalks/ or creating their own house/stores.....That's how I see it.

 

[Rational Poster]

I never said they ran the internet.....as for the constitutions, it's outdated as fuck.

The Internet has some much knowledge and it's pretty much the town public square that being banned from making a website or from it, is 100% detrimental to the human who can't speakout or look at the internet.....So yes, I feel the constitution should be updated to include the internet, that's my opinion.

As for ISP/Web Host having the right to terminate.....again, that might be the case right now....but with an updated constitution, I feel that it shouldn't be possible for AMERICAN ISP or WebHost to ban a website and prevent free speech.


If Facebook/Youtube/etc, services don't want Infowars, I understand that since they have guidelines and they are a video host service.....However ISP and Webhost? That I do not agree with at all.

Analogy: Facebook/Youtube are stores...I agree, they have the right to kickout people from their store who are being disruptive(Alex).............................ISP/Webhost are the builders of the town, who made the streets/sidewalks/Stores and houses around town, they don't have the right (Again in my point of view, has nothing to do with the constitution) of banning a person from using the streets/sidewalks/ or creating their own house/stores.....That's how I see it.

ISPs and web hosts have the same terms and conditions and contractual obligations that any other corporation has.

Why should they be different? Doesn't make any sense to me. They are no different from a cable company or phone company and there are many many many options.

 

[GOATER]

ISPs and web hosts have the same terms and conditions and contractual obligations that any other corporation has.

Why should they be different? Doesn't make any sense to me. They are no different from a cable company or phone company and there are many many many options.

Because they are the infrastructure of the internet like I said, if this were a town...ISP and Webhost would be the builders of Streets/sidewalks/Houses/and Stores......If they can just ban anybody from this town from setting up shop there or completely from it, that's preventing free speech hardcore....Sure you could go to another ISP/Webhost (Although some area's don't have much ISP options) but what if they all decided to ban somebody?......Seems like bullshit to me.

Like I said, I think the constitution needs an update....under this constitution, all of this might be 100% ok....I disagree with it however.

 

[Rational Poster]

Because they are the infrastructure of the internet like I said, if this were a town...ISP and Webhost would be the builders of Streets/sidewalks/Houses/and Stores......If they can just ban anybody from this town from setting up shop there or completely from it, that's preventing free speech hardcore....Sure you could go to another ISP/Webhost (Although some area's don't have much ISP options) but what if they all decided to ban somebody?......Seems like bullshit to me.

Like I said, I think the constitution needs an update....under this constitution, all of this might be 100% ok....I disagree with it however.

The only way I would agree with any of this is if the internet itself was publicly owned and government run.

But it isn't and it won't be and it will always be like this.

Forcing a company to do business with someone they don't want to is a violation of their rights.