Alex Jones kicked off YouTube, Facebook, & iTunes

[DMT]

That doesnt change the fact, that you have to let people see and hear the bullshit so they can decide what to do with it. Just because "it doesn't hold up in contemporary 'Murica" doesnt mean we shouldnt see the shit to know its shit.

They're embracing it dude.

[DMT]

We already know it's shit, zero reason to allow this POS to spew his BS into millions of households anymore.

[In the Corn]

We already know it's shit, zero reason to allow this POS to spew his BS into millions of households anymore.

That's a pretty slippery slope your walking there DMT.

Should we have shut down punk music and it's anarchy message back in the '70's, as it was "shit"?

Where do we draw the line. I'm not saying I know the answer, but I'm leery anytime someone says we should shut down a form a speech because the next form in the cross hairs could be one with which you agree.

[Teenwolf]

TW -
I cant speak to which "lefties" are being shutdown by the Apple's, Facebook's, Twitter's or YouTube's likely because it hasnt been made public. It doesnt mean that these organizations dont have a bias.

I do know the people like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro have both had various portions of their productions demonetized by YouTube. I find Rubin interesting as he has folks from both sides of the aisle on from Sam Harris, Eric and Brett Weinstein to Ben Shapiro and Thomas Sowell.

Dave Rubin is an idiot, paid for by the Koch brothers. 1st part is opinion, 2nd part is fact.

Demonetization happens across both right and left wing platforms, it's only the right wing that cries about it! Especially #1 crybaby Dave Rubin. Seriously. Young Turks and Majority Report have videos demonetozed all the time without crying g about it.

[DMT]

That's a pretty slippery slope your walking there DMT.

Should we have shut down punk music and it's anarchy message back in the '70's, as it was "shit"?

Where do we draw the line. I'm not saying I know the answer, but I'm leery anytime someone says we should shut down a form a speech because the next form in the cross hairs could be one with which you agree.

Yea sorry I disagree. It's like arguing that Nazis and the KKK should be given free reign to hold rallys.

[DMT]

The 1st Amendment has never been absolute.

[In the Corn]

The 1st Amendment has never been absolute.

I'm sure Donnie will make sure he reminds us of that when he curbs the freedom of the press.

As I said, a slippery slope.

DMT, in some weird way, you are drinking the Kool-Aid that's out there. I'm shocked that you would want to curtail someone's civil liberties. That just doesn't seem to square with your liberal-leanings.

[baldgriff]

Yea sorry I disagree. It's like arguing that Nazis and the KKK should be given free reign to hold rallys.

They should, just as Socialists, Communists, Anarchists based groups should. Didnt the Supreme Court already decide this?

[DMT]

I'm sure Donnie will make sure he reminds us of that when he curbs the freedom of the press.

As I said, a slippery slope.

DMT, in some weird way, you are drinking the Kool-Aid that's out there. I'm shocked that you would want to curtail someone's civil liberties. That just doesn't seem to square with your liberal-leanings.

His 1st Amendment rights are still intact as has already been discussed above.

And 1st Amendment rights not being absolute has already been decided by the SCOTUS

[DMT]

They should, just as Socialists, Communists, Anarchists based groups should. Didnt the Supreme Court already decide this?

Sorry, I disagree. Their rallies almost ensure violence will ensue, and public monies should not be wasted protecting them. We fought a World War to extinguish Nazism.

[B-Fly]

Good debate. Let me throw out a different example to tease out some ideas on this. My wife gets pretty apoplectic about the anti-vaccine movement. I don't get quite as worked up about it, but I do see a real public safety concern if/when enough people buy into anti-vax misinformation and conspiracy theories that they (1) endanger their own kids, (2) endanger kids with a real specific medical reason why they can't get vaccinated (e.g., a drug allergy), and (3) endanger "herd immunity" and can create epidemics of previously controlled/eradicated diseases.

So when my wife saw Andrew Wakefield's anti-vax book in our local public library in the parenting section, she flipped and brought it to the attention of the library staff, who brought it to the library board, who ultimately decided to remove the book from the shelves. For those who don't know the story on Andrew Wakefield, I'll link to Wikipedia rather than trying to summarize it in a way that would undoubtedly reflect my bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

So in a case like this, there's a strong case against the "just leave it out there and let readers decide for themselves whether to credit it" perspective, and for "censorship" or at the very least re-shelving the book so it's in medical/scientific history or with warnings/provisos, etc. What do you all think?

[baldgriff]

Sorry, I disagree. Their rallies almost ensure violence will ensue, and public monies should not be wasted protecting them. We fought a World War to extinguish Nazism.

Its hard to extinguish an ideology. It spread to other areas of the world and is still around. Hell our government hired most of the scientists that were in Germany. What, the ones that were before just all of a sudden weren't anymore? Ideologies dont really die out - we just forget about them until they show up again.

Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it................

[B-Fly]

His 1st Amendment rights are still intact as has already been discussed above.

And 1st Amendment rights not being absolute has already been decided by the SCOTUS

Correct, but they essentially have said that the government can regulate time, place and manner, not content/viewpoint. So the KKK can march, but the township can require a permit and compel them to use a specific location and time, and perhaps could bill them for the additional policing/security costs to keep them and others safe. The Court has also found that the government can restrict/punish direct incitement to violence, but the KKK and neo-Nazi groups are often savvy enough to walk the line they're required to walk to avoid prosecution for direct incitement.

[DMT]

Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it................

Exactly... underestimating the threat posed by Nazis would be doing just that .

[DMT]

Good debate. Let me throw out a different example to tease out some ideas on this. My wife gets pretty apoplectic about the anti-vaccine movement. I don't get quite as worked up about it, but I do see a real public safety concern if/when enough people buy into anti-vax misinformation and conspiracy theories that they (1) endanger their own kids, (2) endanger kids with a real specific medical reason why they can't get vaccinated (e.g., a drug allergy), and (3) endanger "herd immunity" and can create epidemics of previously controlled/eradicated diseases.

So when my wife saw Andrew Wakefield's anti-vax book in our local public library in the parenting section, she flipped and brought it to the attention of the library staff, who brought it to the library board, who ultimately decided to remove the book from the shelves. For those who don't know the story on Andrew Wakefield, I'll link to Wikipedia rather than trying to summarize it in a way that would undoubtedly reflect my bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

So in a case like this, there's a strong case against the "just leave it out there and let readers decide for themselves whether to credit it" perspective, and for "censorship" or at the very least re-shelving the book so it's in medical/scientific history or with warnings/provisos, etc. What do you all think?

Wakefield is a fraud and I absolutely commend your wife for her actions.