Infowars And Alex Jones Banned On Multiple Online Platforms

sniper said:
For people that claim to like independent journalists its interesting to watch you guys celebrate as person after person complains about being censored, then censored, (and also arrested) - but it's all just a conspiracy
Click to expand...




Edited post could not delete.
 
franklinstower said:
Its like you just waited till all of the arguments got passed up and started with the same crap that was debunked or made to look like the bullshit after it got buried and then just started over man.
Click to expand...
Dont get emotional sweetie
 
sniper said:
Dont get emotional sweetie
Click to expand...


I dont feel emotional its just exhausting keeping you guys in line. I have a question for you though. Did you support or resist recent legislation to end net neutrality?
 
TheBlondBomber said:
Oh so you’re shrugging now about class actions after you were bragging about your legal acumen and calling others dumb? Keep digging.

But for your own legal edification, I’ll indulge you.

A class action probably wouldn’t work either and it would probably fail on the typicality requisite. Numerosity so great that it would make joinder impractical? Yeah. Got that. Questions of law or fact common to the class? Yeah. Probably. Typicality? Probably not. Alex Jones’s claims would not be typical to the class. Adequacy of representation? Sure. Why not?
Click to expand...

Just find some people that have been ban from which ever social media platforms you want. I'd start with those white supremest types. Then have them agree to have you represent them, unless of course you can't practice law. Then take the battle that their first amendment rights have been violated. If you can't represent them yourself, you can pay a lawyer to represent them. Put your money where your mouth is. This would be away if you couldn't get Alex Jones himself to allow you to take up his case. Of course we both know this would fail. So I don't think you are doing more than repeating bullshit. Move on this isn't a first amendment issue, because you have no right to say anything you want in their websites.
 
franklinstower said:
I dont feel emotional its just exhausting keeping you guys in line. I have a question for you though. Did you support or resist recent legislation to end net neutrality?
Click to expand...
You mean falling in line? You are in formation like a seasoned vet, soldier!
 
sniper said:
You mean falling in line? You are in formation like a seasoned vet, soldier!
Click to expand...


Are you not going to answer the questioning? Its fine I just am really curiouse what your stance is on this and wont be using it to try to get one over on you.
 
franklinstower said:
Are you not going to answer the questioning? Its fine I just am really curiouse what your stance is on this and wont be using it to try to get one over on you.
Click to expand...


Edit-- you are taking so long to answer that I actually think you are looking the issue up right now.......
 
franklinstower said:
Are you not going to answer the questioning? Its fine I just am really curiouse what your stance is on this and wont be using it to try to get one over on you.
Click to expand...
My stance (like my vote) means as much as yours. See: fuckall
 
Lowmanproblems said:
Move on this isn't a first amendment issue, because you have no right to say anything you want in their websites.
Click to expand...

That’s the thing you don’t understand. There is an argument that there is a right to say whatever you want pursuant to the 1st Amendment on the site if there is state action. And the Supreme Court has ruled before that there is state action due to entwinement between private entities and the government, this creating state action. I don’t know why that’s hard for you to understand. Yes, the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled that the first amendment applies to Facebook, YouTube and google, but based on precedent, there is an argument to be made that it does. Really, go read the Wilmington case and you might have a better understanding of state action exceptions. The go read up on the relationship between big tech and the government.

I’ll link you to a website you’re familiar with.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/facebook-personal-data-online-privacy-social-norm/
 
GetTheseHands said:
So now that Infowars has been taken down, how much longer until Fox News and Breitbart is deemed by big tech to not be allowed to exist?
Click to expand...

wont happen.

along with jade helm and a lot of other shit infowars and the like predict.

i wish the companies had left alex on there, because now his shit will become viewed as even more of a "forbidden truth" than it already was. so ironically, we'll probably see MORE instances of people harassing shooting victims and such.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
That’s the thing you don’t understand. There is an argument that there is a right to say whatever you want pursuant to the 1st Amendment on the site if there is state action. And the Supreme Court has ruled before that there is state action due to entwinement between private entities and the government, this creating state action. I don’t know why that’s hard for you to understand. Yes, the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled that the first amendment applies to Facebook, YouTube and google, but based on precedent, there is an argument to be made that it does. Really, go read the Wilmington case and you might have a better understanding of state action exceptions. The go read up on the relationship between big tech and the government.

I’ll link you to a website you’re familiar with.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/facebook-personal-data-online-privacy-social-norm/
Click to expand...

Are Jones' lawyers pursuing this? If not, why not?
 
JosephDredd said:
Are Jones' lawyers pursuing this? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

I would imagine it’s been discussed. I also would imagine it would take a lot of fact finding to craft a well pleaded complaint and make it through the pleading stage. And all this happened today, so I guess we’ll see.

Jones would be fighting an uphill battle that would cost a lot of money based on a theory promulgated by a guy who just took the bar exam. But I did get an A in Con Law and an A- in Civil Rights Actions, so I’m not completely without credentials.
 
Bad move. I dislike Alex as do most, but taking away his freedom of speech gives him ammo and makes him all the more powerful to his followers.

Let the People think for themselves.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
That’s the thing you don’t understand. There is an argument that there is a right to say whatever you want pursuant to the 1st Amendment on the site if there is state action. And the Supreme Court has ruled before that there is state action due to entwinement between private entities and the government, this creating state action. I don’t know why that’s hard for you to understand. Yes, the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled that the first amendment applies to Facebook, YouTube and google, but based on precedent, there is an argument to be made that it does. Really, go read the Wilmington case and you might have a better understanding of state action exceptions. The go read up on the relationship between big tech and the government.

I’ll link you to a website you’re familiar with.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/facebook-personal-data-online-privacy-social-norm/
Click to expand...
Please explain how you think that has anything to do with current laws and the first amendment. That was about collecting data. Was that the correct website you were wanting me to look at?
 
Eazy123 said:
Bad move. I dislike Alex as do most, but taking away his freedom of speech gives him ammo and makes him all the more powerful to his followers.

Let the People think for themselves.
Click to expand...


His freedom of speech has not been infringed in any way. He can say anything he wants anywhere he can do it. No private company should be forced by the government to air content they find unprofitable.

We must keep the government out of private businesses man.

The only way your position could work is IF internet providers were made a public utility (I am in favor of this by the way).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,144
Messages
58,261,697
Members
175,984
Latest member
Omar Ahmed Lotfy

Share this page

Back
Top