• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
^^^ Silicon Valley is notoriously libertarian, not liberal.

Can’t agree. It’s solidly Democratic and associated with every right on cause that is on trend at the time, be it transgender bathrooms, Black Lives Matter, refugee / migrant rights , environmental campaigns etc. Maybe libertarian to the extent that they want legal weed but that’s the extent of it.

On last evening's PBS Newshour they interviewed the dean of the University of Missouri Law School. Here's a link to the segment:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-kicking-alex-jones-off-social-media-is-not-legally-censorship

The main takeaway was that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects speech from interference by the Government, period. Private companies are not bound by it to allow any speech they don't approve of. So, while Alex Jones' feelings may be hurt, his First Amendment rights are not being infringed (at least not from a legal standpoint).

The same reasoning applies to claims of "Censorship." Again, the legal definition of censorship is suppression of speech by the Government. Whatever Facebook et. al. are doing, it doesn't meet the legal definition of censorship.

All that being said, I'm uneasy with the idea of any social media platform taking it upon itself to silence a particular point of view. I think it might be argued that if social media meets the definition of a public utility, they have a duty to allow all points of view. I figure, let demagogues like Jones babble on. The more they talk, the more obvious it becomes that they are unhinged. And, sooner or later, they are likely to step on a legal land mine.

As one of my teachers once told me, "The surest way to destroy a scoundrel is to let him talk and quote him accurately."

Yes, the First Amendment of course relates to Government not private companies.

But, given the changed nature of discourse and the disproportionate influence a handful of media / tech companies have on information, there is an argument that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are now effectively the public square and so should not censor opinion expressed within that public square. This is the key argument for these companies to be regulated as though they were public utilities.
 
The question then is how will it be regulated. Like speech in general?
I'm generally for that, but it makes for some difficulties as a regular person speaking doesn't have the same impact as someone with the capital to start up a media presence . This recent election too, and Jones ties to the administration at least at the start gave him a large push.
Which he used to leverage attacks at people. Which sure, he can get sued for it, but it's well out of the bag now and is only going to keep going.
This is being pushed as a free speech issue, but remember he's pushed a gun man to show up at a pizzaria and the harassment of families.
The argument is true, that he didn't start it, but he's pushing them or helped them grow. And it certainly is a good cover.
Ideologies are fine, but there should be limit when you're actively causing people harm.
 
Thank the gods that people are finally speaking up in defence of poor Alex Jones and his treatment at the hands of those nasty corporations. It makes such a refreshing change from the constant outpouring of outrage on here over Colin Kaepernick's treatment by the NFL. :rolleyes::tumble:
 
It would be just as accurate to say that the Beatles pushed Charles Manson to order his “family” to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders.

maximus otter

Although in the case of Pizzagate Jones did of course admit that Infowars had promoted an 'incorrect narrative' - which, if not exactly responsibility, is an admission of something that Jones and his lawyers felt that they could not simply walk away from.

He even suggested that holding Infowars accountable 'improved' them. Lets hope that he enjoys any course of improvement that this latest case might provide.

...As one of my teachers once told me, "The surest way to destroy a scoundrel is to let him talk and quote him accurately."

Yes. And hopefully, this is what the legal representatives of the Sandy Hook families are about to do.
 
It would be just as accurate to say that the Beatles pushed Charles Manson to order his “family” to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders.

maximus otter
That's horsehockey. Jones has actively declared that the families were crisis actors and that there was a pedophile ring running out of a pizza shop. And reported it as fact.
By comparison a mad man took a flatly innocent song and made flatly insane conclusions from it.
You don't have the Beatles getting on Mic, strumming their guitars, and saying "Hey Charley this broad should die."
You do have Alex Jones on his news channel telling people that kids are being raped in a basement and these people who's children were murdered are just faking it.

He is peddling these things as true.
This is not an idiologocal difference. He is, as a media figure, presenting these things as true. And encouraging the harassment and abuse these people have received.

And it rather shows the lack of strength in your argument to present such a weak attempt.
There are I've no doubt better comparisons to exist, though the equivalent places on the left tend to be much more fractured. And really there's a large amount of overlap after a certain point.
We recognize words have power. They can inspire and damn, cause and end wars. And like most power there should be checks and balances in their use, nor should you escape consequences for its misuse.
In this case, we have a man shouting fire in a theater causing people to be threatened and harassed. Since for some people the only concern seems to be the money spent, the moving and security, as well as lost profits are a harm as well.
Of course there are those who don't have the funds to spend. Maybe if they just stick to individual targets at a time everyone will be happy.
 
That's horsehockey. Jones has actively declared that...there was a pedophile ring running out of a pizza shop. And reported it as fact.

By comparison a mad man took a flatly innocent song and made flatly insane conclusions from it.

I'd invite you to read Wikipedia's entry on the genesis of the Pizzagate weirdness. The child prostitution allegations were already viral before Jones got in on the act, having been spread on Twitter, 4Chan and Reddit among other platforms.

Manson was indeed disturbed. Totally unlike a man who crossed several states to shoot up a pizza restaurant with an AR-15 because voices on the Intermong said, "Save kids from being bummed by Saviles and Glitters using the code phrase "cheese pizza". "

:rolleyes:

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
I'd invite you to read Wikipedia's entry on the genesis of the Pizzagate weirdness. The child prostitution allegations were already viral before Jones got in on the act, having been spread on Twitter, 4Chan and Reddit among other platforms.

Manson was indeed disturbed. Totally unlike a man who crossed several states to shoot up a pizza restaurant with an AR-15 because voices on the Intermong said, "Save kids from bummed by Saviles and Glitters using the code phrase "cheese pizza". "

:rolleyes:

maximus otter
Stories that spread on internet troll sites and then reported by a fellow as true news.
I'd invite you to visit the sites, there's an incredible load of nonsense. A few weeks ago a friend of mine showed a disturbingly detailed story of "owning" Anne Frank.
And then Alex Jones is presenting stories that come from that cess pool as true news.
And yes, in that case it was a single case, not a series of harassment fanned on by Jones.
The best case you can make here is Jones was just using his platform to share crazy, but false news, in order to get more views and sales of his supplements, at the cost of the harassment of these families.
Again, if your sole focus is on property. These people have had to invest in substantial property to move away from the harassment that Jones used his platform to espouse.
He's encouraging harassment at the cost of other persons property.
Otherwise he's adding fuel to a fire, reporting troll claims from websites dedicated to trolling and pushing them up by presenting them with credibility.
I missed the point where he presented "These parents are crisis actors" in verse. I do see him repeatedly pushing conspiratorial claims as fact and presenting them as true and leading to harassment.
Hence your faulty claim. The Beatles were not presenting media that claimed people should be killed, or actively made any claims in that regards At the best, you can look at their encouraging of the John is Dead myth.
Jones is promoting these things as true. He's making money from it on other people's platforms that he's been granted access to, at the cost of harassment. Yes the gun man was the extreme end, but it was the top level of the abuse received by the place.
Meanwhile how many times have these families moved?

This is becoming less that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and more determined refusal of consequences for the things you say, do and promote.
 
Interesting article about the Sandyhook parents law suit against Jones and it's implications.
......
Thus far, Jones’ legal arguments remain embroiled in the nuances of free speech: Specifically, what kind of platform constitutes a serious media institution, and what kind of actions signify a public figure. ...

https://www.wired.com/story/alex-jones-lawsuit-will-help-redefine-free-speech/
In fact, the crux of the controversy is the status of a limited purpose public figure, which may have a wide field of application. As reporter for the WACO assault John McLemore learnt to his expense. Due to innacurate reporting, he was victim of what was the equivalent of harassment by trolls at a time when internet was still not very influent, and had his career as a journalist sunk. But his suit was dismissed :
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/reporter-waco-destroyed-no-regrets/
That night, Houston Chronicle reporter Kathy Fair—who would later serve as Rick Perry’s chief of staff under her married name, Kathy Walt—told Nightline anchor Ted Koppel that, according to her ATF sources, “reporters for, I believe, the TV station, allegedly were hiding in the trees when federal agents arrived.” The sources, Fair continued, “have told me they think they were set up by at least one reporter” who had “tipped off the sect about [the raid].”
This early account would prove to be mostly untrue. No reporters were at Mount Carmel before the ATF arrived. No one was hiding in trees. And no one had deliberately tipped off the Branch Davidians. McLemore’s colleague Jim Peeler, a cameraman, had inadvertently aroused the suspicions of the Branch Davidians after getting lost on the way to Mount Carmel that morning and talking with a postman, who turned out to be Branch Davidian David Jones. But it was McLemore who caught the bulk of the early backlash. After Fair’s report and a follow-up segment on Dallas station WFAA, some viewers blamed McLemore for the catastrophic outcome of the raid. Suddenly, it wasn’t Higgins reaching out to KWTX to thank the station’s reporters, but viewers calling to demand that McLemore be fired. One, McLemore told the Dallas Observer in 1998, had said, “The blood of these ATF agents is on McLemore’s hands.”
......
The end of the siege was the effective finale of McLemore’s journalism career. He was nominated for an Emmy for his coverage, but “that stigma never left me,” he says. A group of ATF agents and the families of the agents who died during the raid sued KWTX, the Waco Tribune-Herald, and a Waco ambulance company for negligent actions that caused the deaths and injuries at Mount Carmel. (The case settled out of court for a reported $15 million.) In Waco, McLemore and his family felt unwelcome, with his wife, a receptionist at a bank, getting hounded at work by those who held the reporter partially responsible for the Branch Davidian tragedy. McLemore tried to get jobs in other markets, but he never got a call back from most stations, and others only agreed to meet with him in the hopes of getting a scoop. “I got job interviews in places, and I’d get there and sit down, and they’d say, ‘Hey, do you mind if we turn the camera on?’” McLemore remembers. “And then they’d start: ‘So, did you tip them off?’”

Life Partners, the life insurance policy purchasing firm, was “about the only place that I could get a job,” McLemore says. He attempted to get damages for his tarnished reputation by suing Fair, the Chronicle, and other news organizations for defamation, but he eventually lost the case when the Texas Supreme Court ruled that he was a “limited purpose public figure” and thus had to prove that the reporters and stations had displayed “actual malice” in filing what turned out to be inaccurate stories. Eventually, his marriage broke up, and he left Waco for the ConocoPhillips job in Houston.
The reasons for his qualification as a limited interest public figure are enlightening :
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-l...r-covering-1993-waco-raid-ruled-public-figure
The court concluded that television news reporter John McLemore became a limited-purpose public figure by voluntarily involving himself in a public controversy, playing more than a trivial role in that public controversy, and subsequently alleging defamation that was germane to his participation in the public controversy.
Because the court found McLemore to be a limited-purpose public figure, it required him to prove that the Dallas television station, WFAA-TV, acted with actual malice -- knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth -- in allegedly defaming him. The court added that a WFAA reporter's sworn statement that she believed her reports were accurate and were about a "highly newsworthy" investigation being run by law enforcement officials negated the presence of actual malice since McLemore presented no proof controverting her assertions.

McLemore covered the raid for KWTX-TV in Waco and was one of only a few reporters on the scene when several ATF agents and Davidians were killed or wounded. He sued WFAA for defamation in 1994 because the Dallas station had aired reports indicating he may have tipped off the Davidians about the raid. He claimed that the WFAA broadcasts damaged his reputation in the community.

The trial court denied WFAA's motion for summary judgment, and an appellate court affirmed after concluding that McLemore was a private individual who only needed to prove negligence to prevail. The state Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts and threw out McLemore's claim.

The state Supreme Court applied a three-part test to determine whether McLemore was a limited-purpose public figure who would have to prove actual malice to recover for defamation, or a private person who would just have to prove negligence.

The court first determined that there was a public controversy at issue. That public controversy was the broad question "of why the ATF agents failed to accomplish their mission."

Next, the court found that McLemore played "more than a trivial or tangential role" in the controversy by voluntarily inviting public attention to the public discourse about the raid. "By reporting live from the heart of the controversial raid, McLemore assumed a risk that his involvement in the event would be subject to public debate," the court declared.

Finally, the court concluded that the alleged defamation was directly related to McLemore's participation in the controversy. "He was on the scene in his role as a journalist," the court noted, and "WFAA's alleged defamatory comments are indeed germane to McLemore's participation in the controversy over the media's role in the failed attack."
With such a wide definition, it will be difficult to Pozner and De La Rosa to argue that as vocal anti-gun activists, they are not limited interest public figures.

As for the controversy over whether internet giants as Facebook or Google should be subjected to the same rules regarding freedom of expression as a state entity, my answer is yes. They have definitely crossed the boundary between mere private action and the influence of an entity with power over public opinion similar to a government's.
 
Breaking libel, defamation, and slander laws should have consequences. If the "info" is inflammatory enough, there are precedents arguing against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
 
Have you seen the recent screenshots? Alex Jones briefly flashed his phone to camera and an eagle-eyed viewer spotted that one of the several browser tabs open was transexual pornography.

Now I don't care what floats anybody's boat (if not actually depraved), but I do care when the government putting chemicals in the water turns frikkin' Alex Jones gay!
 
In fact, the crux of the controversy is the status of a limited purpose public figure, which may have a wide field of application. As reporter for the WACO assault John McLemore learnt to his expense. Due to innacurate reporting, he was victim of what was the equivalent of harassment by trolls at a time when internet was still not very influent, and had his career as a journalist sunk. But his suit was dismissed :
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/reporter-waco-destroyed-no-regrets/

The reasons for his qualification as a limited interest public figure are enlightening :
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-l...r-covering-1993-waco-raid-ruled-public-figure

With such a wide definition, it will be difficult to Pozner and De La Rosa to argue that as vocal anti-gun activists, they are not limited interest public figures.

As for the controversy over whether internet giants as Facebook or Google should be subjected to the same rules regarding freedom of expression as a state entity, my answer is yes. They have definitely crossed the boundary between mere private action and the influence of an entity with power over public opinion similar to a government's.
 
Have you seen the recent screenshots? Alex Jones briefly flashed his phone to camera and an eagle-eyed viewer spotted that one of the several browser tabs open was transexual pornography.

Now I don't care what floats anybody's boat (if not actually depraved), but I do care when the government putting chemicals in the water turns frikkin' Alex Jones gay!
Alex Jones is a frog? Now I've got even more questions!
 
Alex Jones is a frog? Now I've got even more questions!
1e9.jpeg
 
Doesn't float your boat, old man?
No... I mean, all I could see in the video was not very much on Alex's screen. The bit right at the end was so blurry, nothing could be discerned from it.
 
Sometimes I hate the Internet, and sometimes stuff like this emerges:


It looks as though he's intending to play a version of the defence he mounted in his child custody hearings: it's all a show. The twist is that he's claiming that the Sandy Hook parents are infringing his 2nd Amendment rights by campaigning to ban selected classes of gun. That's going to be a hard sell:

On Infowars, Mr Jones has said the defamation case is "all out of context".

His defence argues first and second amendment rights as they ask for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

The first amendment in the US constitution guarantees free speech; the second affords the right to bear arms.

The media mogul's defence team claims that it is his constitutional right to invent stories and that no reasonable person would take Mr Jones' words as fact.

Mr Jones has also implied that the parents are actors seeking to undermine laws allowing private gun ownership.

His lawyer Mark Enoch claims the lawsuit is attacking the second amendment by targeting Mr Jones' free speech rights, according to the Austin-American Statesman newspaper.

He said the lawsuit was part of the parents' public campaign "to outlaw conspiracy theories, assault rifles, high-capacity clips and to increase firearm registration requirements".

Full Article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45358890
 
Alex Jones looked a fool, but the idea of Marco Rubio giving him a good hiding is risible--he's like a slimy hobbit.
 
Alex Jones looked a fool, but the idea of Marco Rubio giving him a good hiding is risible--he's like a slimy hobbit.

Slimy Hobbit versus Frog Made Gay By Water? It's like American wrestling on methamphetamine and hillbilly heroin.

Oh, hold on - that is American wrestling.
 
Back
Top