Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Options
12467…59

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,176 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mutant z wrote: »
    You ban him then you start to ban everyone else who's opinion you don't like where does it all end.




    ah the old slippery slope. where would be without it.


  • Options
    #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    listermint wrote: »
    Trump has no chance of re-election in 2020 so let's put that to the side.

    Sure give me a price. :pac:


  • Options
    #94
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,321 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Mutant z wrote: »
    You ban him then you start to ban everyone else who's opinion you don't like where does it all end.

    Hopefully with people who decide that in order to avoid being banned, they're not going to make death threats, make groundless accusations of paedophilia or send mobs after the parents of murdered children.


  • Options
    #95
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,131 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    super_furry wrote: »
    You're all over the place here.

    This is about Alex Jones being banned on Facebook and Youtube for harassment and radicalising lunatics.

    Isis, and muslim extremists are also banned on Facebook and Youtube for harassment and radicalising lunatics.

    Hey, you forgot our leftist crypto islamofascist agenda. Now get back to growing your beard for the jihad. That beard you brought to the last jihad was embarrassing. You're letting everyone down.


  • Options
    #96
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    HalloweenJack wrote: »
    Didn't Alex Jones admit in court that he plays a "character" on his radio show?

    I don't have a problem with hate speech being banned, e.g. "Kill Muslims", but people having a differing opinion, i.e. " I don't like Muslims", however unpalatable need to be challenged and engaged instaed of outright silenced.

    I think it's a dangerous precedent and definitely leads to "surprises" like Trump and Brexit. Some people who voted for them would certainly have felt they couldn't express themselves publicly and probably avoided discussing the topic when an open discussion might have done more good.

    Saying "kill muslims" is incitement to violence and is already illegal. It has nothing to do with 'hate speech'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Mutant z wrote: »
    This is just the start freedom of speech is being attacked worldwide for those who don't have leftist views, Antifa can be just as violent as they want and nothing is done to them but someone says something you don't like suddenly they get banned from the airwaves its not good for freedom of speech and democracy.

    You genuinely need to read up on what Freedom of Speech means and stop throwing it out.

    A private platform is under absolutely no condition to allow people to have a voice on their service.

    Alex Jones is nothing more than scum who abuses the insecurities and paranoia of people in order to make money. This is the same pile of human garbage that claimed the children murdered in Sandyhook were crisis actors.


  • Options
    #98
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,176 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Saying "kill muslims" is incitement to violence and is already illegal. It has nothing to do with 'hate speech'


    how is saying "Kill Muslims" not hate speech? Similarly with his "All drag queens should be burned alive".


  • Options
    #99
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how is saying "Kill Muslims" not hate speech? Similarly with his "All drag queens should be burned alive".

    It falls under incitement to violence


  • Options
    #100
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,176 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    It falls under incitement to violence


    It is also hate speech. the two are not mutually exclusive.


  • Options
    #101
    Mutant z
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Mutant z


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Mutant z wrote: »
    This is just the start freedom of speech is being attacked worldwide for those who don't have leftist views, Antifa can be just as violent as they want and nothing is done to them but someone says something you don't like suddenly they get banned from the airwaves its not good for freedom of speech and democracy.

    You genuinely need to read up on what Freedom of Speech means and stop throwing it out.

    A private platform is under absolutely no condition to allow people to have a voice on their service.

    Alex Jones is nothing more than scum who abuses the insecurities and paranoia of people in order to make money. This is the same pile of human garbage that claimed the children murdered in Sandyhook were crisis actors.
    Just cut to the chase here you are against freedom of speech this is the sort of stuff people who are in favour of limiting free speech come out with they put it all in fancy words instead of getting to the point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is also hate speech. the two are not mutually exclusive.

    They are. It doesn't fall under hate speech; it falls under incitement to violence - a specific category.


  • Options
    #103
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    But it's actively harmful. Look at what happened to the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre. They're grieving for the loss of their children and this scum says they're faking it and they get subsequently abused.

    I think he is potentially dangerous but so are a lot of things. Really would like to hear what you mean by 'actively harmful', I mean really specifically. He didn't get banned for anything he said about sandy hook.

    Was heartened to see youtuber Kyle Kulinksy seeing the wood for the trees on this issue and as he said nobody debunked/attacked Jones more vehemently than him.


  • Options
    #104
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,176 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Call Me Jimmy wrote: »
    I think he is potentially dangerous but so are a lot of things. Really would like to hear what you mean by 'actively harmful', I mean really specifically. He didn't get banned for anything he said about sandy hook.

    Was heartened to see youtuber Kyle Kulinksy seeing the wood for the trees on this issue and as he said nobody debunked/attacked Jones more vehemently than him.


    He WAS potentially dangerous but that was a long time ago. He is ACTUALLY dangerous.


  • Options
    #105
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,176 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mutant z wrote: »
    Just cut to the chase here you are against freedom of speech this is the sort of stuff people who are in favour of limiting free speech come out with they put it all in fancy words instead of getting to the point.


    It is amazing how many use the term freedom of speech without understanding what it means.


  • Options
    #106
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,321 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Mutant z wrote: »
    Just cut to the chase here you are against freedom of speech this is the sort of stuff people who are in favour of limiting free speech come out with they put it all in fancy words instead of getting to the point.

    Not sure how you're not getting this. Alex Jones still has freedom of speech and he continues to exercise that, what he doesn't have anymore is access to Youtube's audience.


  • Options
    #107
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Mutant z wrote: »
    Just cut to the chase here you are against freedom of speech this is the sort of stuff people who are in favour of limiting free speech come out with they put it all in fancy words instead of getting to the point.

    Not at all. I absolutely believe in Alex Jones right to Free Speech. I abhor what he says, but he has every right to say it up until he starts peddling full blown hate speech, which is not protected.

    He still has is own websites and shows so he has not been removed.


  • Options
    #108
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Damn you globalists! How are we going to break the conditioning now?


  • Options
    #109
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    super_furry wrote: »
    Not sure how you're not getting this. Alex Jones still has freedom of speech and he continues to exercise that, what he doesn't have anymore is access to Youtube's audience.

    Some people have made the argument - and I think quite justifiably - that companies like Youtube, Facebook etc. should be required to abide by first amendment laws.


  • Options
    #110
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Not at all. I absolutely believe in Alex Jones right to Free Speech. I abhor what he says, but he has every right to say it up until he starts peddling full blown hate speech, which is not protected.

    He still has is own websites and shows so he has not been removed.

    Hate speech falls under free speech laws in the US


  • Options
    #111
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    He WAS potentially dangerous but that was a long time ago. He is ACTUALLY dangerous.

    Ok. You'd want to be a bit more specific than 'dangerous' when it comes to policies, are you talking about hate speech?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,321 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Some people have made the argument - and I think quite justifiably - that companies like Youtube, Facebook etc. should be required to abide by first amendment laws.

    That's a very different argument and unless the massive legal decision is made to indemnify them against the thousands of lawsuits that would follow from allowing the likes of Alex Jones, Isis, the KKK and all the other fringe lunatics that would take advantage of such an approach, it's never going to happen.


  • Options
    #113
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Some people have made the argument - and I think quite justifiably - that companies like Youtube, Facebook etc. should be required to abide by first amendment laws.

    hmm, so you believe that the United States Government should dictate the the policies of a private organisation? That doesn't sound very Republican to me.

    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Hate speech falls under free speech laws in the US

    Quite right, I forgot the US is a bit behind the rest of us on that.


  • Options
    #114
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    hmm, so you believe that the United States Government should dictate the the policies of a private organisation? That doesn't sound very Republican to me.

    When these companies have such a huge influence? Absolutely.

    Quite right, I forgot the US is a bit behind the rest of us on that.

    I think the US have it right. What is 'hate speech' exactly. Who decides what is and what isn't? Sounds like a very Orwellian term to me.


  • Options
    #115
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,176 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Call Me Jimmy wrote: »
    Ok. You'd want to be a bit more specific than 'dangerous' when it comes to policies, are you talking about hate speech?


    what do you think? It really isnt that hard to understand.


  • Options
    #116
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

    When these companies have such a huge influence? Absolutely.




    I think the US have it right. What is 'hate speech' exactly. Who decides what is and what isn't? Sounds like a very Orwellian term to me.

    You speak of Orwellian as a bad thing, but you've also said that the Government should dictate the policies of private companies? Pick a side man.

    Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech is a very simple really.

    Freedom of Speech. That Trump bloke is a bit of a bell-end, isn't he.

    Hate Speech. Let's literally kill Trump and his family.

    Freedom of Speech. I'm not really comfortable with the concept of gay marriage.

    Hate Speech. All the gays are pedos and should be burned alive.


  • Options
    #117
    sexmag
    Registered Users Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭sexmag


    You have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to be exempt of the consequences of what you say


  • Options
    #118
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    Shouldn't have banned him. Using "hate" speech argument would just lead to lots of people being banned from social media platforms from all sections of society.


  • Options
    #119
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    When will people realise this isn't a free speech issue? This is about a freaking intergalactic invasion into this space through people, it's what all the ancients said, its what they warned of. These people are demons and they are pouring black rivers of pestilent filth down upon our heads while Trump is charging into a goblin's nest and getting covered in goblin vomit.


  • Options
    #120
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    I wonder what his final video was considering three big names all kicked him all around the same time, he was far too nuts for me and I usually like a balance to the insanely leftwing media we hear blasted into our ears daily but perhaps he was a step too far, I see many saying he was a Character and the real Alex Jones is actually a normal guy, dont know how true that is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,176 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Shouldn't have banned him. Using "hate" speech argument would just lead to lots of people being banned from social media platforms from all sections of society.


    Platforms are already banning people for hate speech. Boards.ie will ban you for hate speech. You seem to think that is a bad thing and i'm pretty sure i can understand why.


Advertisement