Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-08-2018 06:03PM

The thing is, how long would AJ last on Boards?
Would people scream "Censorship!" if he was banned for being an arsehole?
To me it's "my gaff, my rules", and if people start getting obnoxious and shifty, they will end up head first in the bins outside.
They can go crying about afterwards, but they'll be doing it somewhere else.

Also:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-republicans-press-media-enemy-of-american-people-news-trust-ipsos-poll-a8481686.html

43% of Republicans say Trump should be able to shut down news outlets, new poll finds

Now ain't that the darndest thing?
Suddenly fire and flame for media censorship.

The Legend Of Kira · 09-08-2018 06:14PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You'd change your tune pretty quickly if someone in your family was killed and followers of this man were harassing you because he had indirectly incited them to do so

It's incitement to hatred and an abuse of free speech.

B0jangles wrote: »

How much is your good name worth to you?

How much money would you be willing to accept to make up for years and years of constant harrassment?
Having to move house repeatedly, having to change jobs, maybe even having to change your name?
Having to scrape together enough money to even take a court-case against someone as rich as Alex Jones?

He is entitled to hold all the crackpot, stupid, scurrilous opinions he wants.
He is not entitled to express those opinions without suffering any consquences, and is he certainly not entitled to the use of a private platform as his megaphone to project his opinions to a huge audience.

Let him scream his rubbish from a street corner.

If he incites people either directly or indirectly by giving out another person,s home address or giving out/publishing another person,s private number he should be prosecuted under anti harassment laws.

If he wants to express opinions about this being a government conspiracy or that being a government conspiracy, as I support freedom of opinion- I don,t take issue if he wants to express such opinions. Another analogy since the JFK assassination in the early 1960,s a small subculture of people believe it was a conspiracy, I disagree with their opinion but I don,t think they should be stopped from expressing such opinions.

To be hypothetical if Alex Jones were to say on his show or a in public post John Doe is working for the government John Doe is involved with such conspiracy John Doe lives at this address, Alex Jones should be prosecuted under anti harassment laws in such a hypothetical scenario.

B0jangles · 09-08-2018 06:21PM

So he uses his wealth to pay off the people he slanders,( if they even manage to get him into court), and he's free to do so again and again and again?

People whose lives he ruins purely for entertainment purposes have to put up with years of abuse so Alex Jones's right to talk ****e is protected?

Your ideas about rights and freedoms are extremely warped

batgoat · 09-08-2018 06:24PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If he incites people either directly or indirectly by giving out another person,s home address or giving out/publishing another person,s private number he should be prostituted under anti harassment laws.

If he wants to express opinions about this being a government conspiracy or that being a government conspiracy, as I support freedom of opinion- I don,t take issue if he wants to express such opinions. Another analogy since the JFK assassination in the early 1960,s a small subculture of people believe it was a conspiracy, I disagree with their opinion but I don,t think they should be stopped from expressing such opinions.

To be hypothetical if Alex Jones were to say on his show or a in public post John Doe is working for the government John Doe is involved with such conspiracy John Doe lives at this address, Alex Jones should be prostituted under anti harassment laws in such a hypothetical scenario.

It's 'prosecuted'... I think it's pretty inhuman not to consider the impact that his behaviour has had upon grieving families. No site is required to host such an arsehole. This is capitalism as much as anything, it's good business to not associate with him. (That's not a violation of freedom of speech) I very much so hope that the legal cases against him are successful. When 'opinions'(more of a smear campaign though, defamation and libel laws exist) start actively harming the lives of the people, that's a legitimate grievance.

The Legend Of Kira · 09-08-2018 06:31PM

B0jangles wrote: »

So he uses his wealth to pay off the people he slanders,( if they even manage to get him into court), and he's free to do so again and again and again?

People whose lives he ruins purely for entertainment purposes have to put up with years of abuse so Alex Jones's right to talk ****e is protected?

Your ideas about rights and freedoms are extremely warped

If he mentions someone by his/her name & makes unfounded accusations against that person then he/she has every right to sue him for libel defamation with a court order that he has to retract his accusation + not make any more further comment while the case is ongoing, if he does it gets treated as contempt of court.

Venom · 09-08-2018 06:38PM

Ipso wrote: »

A lot of these free speech advocates also seem to be constitution fetishists, but the US constitution only protects speech from government censorship and not private entities.
Not to say that having companies pick and choose isn't worrying, as there are serious problems with echo chambers that we don't need to add to it.

It's not a free speech issue with the social media platforms, which you correctly point out does not effect them what so ever but instead whether they are breaking the rules of the communications act under which they operate. This act is what allows them to remain in business by protecting them from slander/libel lawsuits as their only the distributors of content and not publishers of content. When these platforms start pushing people with different ideals off of the service, they become publishers and should be then held to the same account as newspapers and television.

B0jangles · 09-08-2018 06:42PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If he mentions someone by his/her name & makes unfounded accusations against that person then he/she has every right to sue him for libel defamation with a court order that he has to retract his accusation + not make any more further comment while the case is ongoing, if he does it gets treated as contempt of court.

Does he just get to keep doing this over and over again until he finally runs out of money?

How many people's lives does he get to destroy before its finally ok to take his precious YouTube account from him?

Why are you so much more concerned with the right of a millionaire to destroy people's lives than with the right of ordinary people to live freely and.safely?

batgoat · 09-08-2018 06:50PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If he mentions someone by his/her name & makes unfounded accusations against that person then he/she has every right to sue him for libel defamation with a court order that he has to retract his accusation + not make any more further comment while the case is ongoing, if he does it gets treated as contempt of court.

Well, here he specifically names Pozner as a member of the conspiracy.

“This guy’s company would come in handy to any Sandy Hook hoax perpetrators with prior convictions,” Youtube researcher MrStosh314 states in the film. “He could ultimately remove any negative associations from the Internet. Could he be hanging around online bloggers and researchers for the purpose of protecting the Sandy Hook parents?” Evidently someone does not want this video in the public domain. Download the video and spread it far and wide
https://www.infowars.com/internet-censors-viral-sandy-hook-truth-documentary/

Oh, here's him targeting him again but this time, it's the man's dead son. That family has had to move seven times as a result of this ****. Suspect a fair few articles like this have also since been removed. But it's a good sampling of the dodgy stuff he did to these families.

https://www.infowars.com/mystery-sandy-hook-victim-dies-again-in-pakistan/

Cheerful Spring · 09-08-2018 08:03PM

I dislike Jones was always my believe he harms honest discussions about conspiracies. His overtop the rhetoric needed to be stopped. He often says things that are blatantly untrue and false and does not correct that. If you going to claim no kids were shot and killed in Schools and they are paid actors you better have something concrete in regards to say that.

In Regards to 9/11 their politicians and people in law enforcement who doubt the official story. It just not crackpots on the internet who believe there is cover up here.

PistolsAtDawn · 09-08-2018 08:07PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yes it is. When you have rules against hate speech, and you allow his sh1t you are saying it is not hate speech, that it is valid discourse.

Define hate speech?

Dohnjoe · 09-08-2018 08:29PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If he mentions someone by his/her name & makes unfounded accusations against that person then he/she has every right to sue him for libel defamation with a court order that he has to retract his accusation + not make any more further comment while the case is ongoing, if he does it gets treated as contempt of court.

He doesn't need to "mention their names". Their names are in the press. (Despite the fact that he has actually used names), he has labeled all relatives of slain children (in the case of Sandy Hook) as "actors" and as such has incited hatred against them. In many direct harassment has occurred toward those people by his followers.

I'll be shocked if he doesn't get eviscerated in court

end of the road · 09-08-2018 08:30PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You'd change your tune pretty quickly if someone in your family was killed and followers of this man were harassing you because he had indirectly incited them to do so

how do you know?

Dohnjoe · 09-08-2018 08:39PM

end of the road wrote: »

how do you know?

I'm going to wager a guess that the enjoyment level of being harassed by lunatics is probably close to zero

Call Me Jimmy · 09-08-2018 11:36PM

The Twitter one is interesting and follows what I'd expect. People take the other companies at their word that he simply violated their policies and rightfully got rid of him. Twitter says he hasn't violated their policies but people don't believe them and are pressuring them to remove him anyway... I can't see that culture going away any time soon. Article in The Verge says by not taking him down Twitter is making a political choice. But somehow when the others did take him down that was of course policy, not politics.

And so a race to the bottom by activists who can scream the loudest, should be fun.

Ipso · 09-08-2018 11:39PM

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Define hate speech?

And who gets to define it?

I can't believe this repulsive c*** is getting all this attention.

Cheerful Spring · 09-08-2018 11:50PM

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Define hate speech?

Inciting violence is hate speech. Jones just recently said the Democrats were planning a 4th of July civil war in the country with no back up to this. Many people don't know this a gunman showed up a Pizza place involved in the Pizzagate conspiracy demanding to see what was happening inside the restaurant he was arrested. Jones often incites violence on his podcast.

Call Me Jimmy · 09-08-2018 11:56PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Inciting violence is hate speech. Jones just recently said the Democrats were planning a 4th of July civil war in the country with no back hope to this. Many people don't know this a gunman showed up a Pizza place involved in the Pizzagate conspiracy demanding to see what was happening inside the restaurant he was arrested. Jones often incites violence on his podcast.

If incitement to violence was hate speech, why would hate speech be needed as a concept seeing as incitement to violence was already illegal? Have a read of the many different definitions of hate speech, I especially like facebooks vague page-long word salad. It is a quagmire, as we are soon to find out.

Cheerful Spring · 10-08-2018 12:19AM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If incitement to violence was hate speech, why would hate speech be needed as a concept seeing as incitement to violence was already illegal? Have a read of the many different definitions of hate speech, I especially like facebooks vague page-long word salad. It is a quagmire, as we are soon to find out.

I just surprised it took them this long to ban him. It ok to talk about conspiracies when there evidence for it. Jones thinks everything is a damn conspiracy. Whats the evidence kids were child actors and were not killed in a school shooting? Personally, I would have pulled him off the air for promoting this conspiracy. There a million or so people listening to him who probably believed the kids were not killed. Alex is not educating the masses about real conspiracies his selling propaganda.

I can't find the video now but Alex, after he was banned, demanded revolution and told his supporters to storm these sites.

Seriously you think this guy showed be allowed to promote his agenda. Guy clearly insane.

Call Me Jimmy · 10-08-2018 12:50AM

Secular Talk video has said pretty much everything I've been thinking through about this, interesting watch.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 04:09AM

B0jangles wrote: »

Does he just get to keep doing this over and over again until he finally runs out of money?

How many people's lives does he get to destroy before its finally ok to take his precious YouTube account from him?

Why are you so much more concerned with the right of a millionaire to destroy people's lives than with the right of ordinary people to live freely and.safely?

If & when he gets found guilty of defamation with the current lawsuit against him he should be ordered by the court not to make accusations with proof/basis on his show & if he breaks the order it gets treated as contempt of court.

Why are you so much more concerned with the right of a millionaire

Im concerned about censorship once it starts & becomes accepted by people where it ultimately ends in the longer term.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 04:12AM

batgoat wrote: »

Well, here he specifically names Pozner as a member of the conspiracy.

Oh, here's him targeting him again but this time, it's the man's dead son. That family has had to move seven times as a result of this ****. Suspect a fair few articles like this have also since been removed. But it's a good sampling of the dodgy stuff he did to these families.

https://www.infowars.com/mystery-sandy-hook-victim-dies-again-in-pakistan/

Given that Alex Jones mentioned him directly I support his right to sue Jones as is happening with the lawsuit.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 04:18AM

Don,t think this video or opinion analysis article have being posted in this thread, but I agree with analysis by both people.

https://www.facebook.com/CareyWedler/videos/2141420319262147/?hc_ref=ARQrnslPDHv2AUWOD7CyZHB0wdiPWFaswxJAapfKjdV_DJTS9lUpLKlMVa-jCBV1T9A

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435466-alex-jones-ban-internet-censorship/

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 04:20AM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Secular Talk video has said pretty much everything I've been thinking through about this, interesting watch.

I concur with his analysis that banning Jones might get him more following, the law of unintended consequences, thanks for posting.

The Legend Of Kira · 10-08-2018 04:50AM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just surprised it took them this long to ban him. It ok to talk about conspiracies when there evidence for it. Jones thinks everything is a damn conspiracy. Whats the evidence kids were child actors and were not killed in a school shooting? Personally, I would have pulled him off the air for promoting this conspiracy. There a million or so people listening to him who probably believed the kids were not killed. Alex is not educating the masses about real conspiracies his selling propaganda.

I can't find the video now but Alex, after he was banned, demanded revolution and told his supporters to storm these sites.

Seriously you think this guy showed be allowed to promote his agenda. Guy clearly insane.

Seriously you think this guy showed be allowed to promote his agenda. Guy clearly insane.

Lets say for the sake of argument that Twitter & whatever other social media sites he,s on do a u turn & ban him- he still has his own website with a big following who view it on a daily basis, what is to done about him going on about conspiracies on his website when he has the following that he has ?

Dohnjoe · 10-08-2018 08:41AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Im concerned about censorship once it starts & becomes accepted by people where it ultimately ends in the longer term.

There are plenty of common sense limitations to free speech

Sometimes people get these confused with censorship. There's obviously a grey area - so those should be for the courts to decide. Ultimately private platforms, e.g. Boards, have their own policies (on harassment, racism, etc) and they can decide. This site bans people on a regular basis - Alex Jones would be just another user (but in his case he's a "high" profile one)

listermint · 10-08-2018 08:53AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Lets say for the sake of argument that Twitter & whatever other social media sites he,s on do a u turn & ban him- he still has his own website with a big following who view it on a daily basis, what is to done about him going on about conspiracies on his website when he has the following that he has ?

Nothing who cares. It's his own website

He will always have clowns that will watch him. Meanwhile the rest of us can ignore him and said clowns.

Because they are a tiny proportion of people.

Who cares what he does of he has his own platform. People will eventually stop watching it and his business will die out

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2018 09:58AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If & when he gets found guilty of defamation with the current lawsuit against him he should be ordered by the court not to make accusations with proof/basis on his show & if he breaks the order it gets treated as contempt of court.

an order on a blanket basis like this would quickly be found unconstitutional. It is nonsense to even suggest it.

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Im concerned about censorship once it starts & becomes accepted by people where it ultimately ends in the longer term.

with less hate speech in the public domain. A good thing.

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2018 10:00AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Lets say for the sake of argument that Twitter & whatever other social media sites he,s on do a u turn & ban him- he still has his own website with a big following who view it on a daily basis, what is to done about him going on about conspiracies on his website when he has the following that he has ?

you have finally got it. He can say what he likes subject to whatever legal repercussions that might bring. All that has changed is where he can say it.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-08-2018 10:28AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have finally got it. He can say what he likes subject to whatever legal repercussions that might bring. All that has changed is where he can say it.

It's been argued right from the start, but "oh no, big, bad censorship is coming for free speech, rabble, rabble!".
Bullsh*t.

Do I really have to keep posting this every few pages? Seems like I do.

There is no argument about this. Any argument can be dealt with be referring to one of the panels.

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2018 10:29AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's been argued right from the start, but "oh no, big, bad censorship is coming for free speech, rabble, rabble!".
Bullsh*t.

Do I really have to keep posting this every few pages? Seems like I do.

There is no argument about this.

I know there isn't. But it is still nice to see somebody finally get it, even if i think they did it accidentally.

Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

Comments