Alex Jones kicked off YouTube, Facebook, & iTunes

[In the Corn]

I understand your argument, I just think that lines can be drawn, and groups whose primary platform are hatred toward another group are undeserving of state protection.

So a religious group that preaches homosexuality is a sin..deserving of state protection or not?

[DMT]

So a religious group that preaches homosexuality is a sin..deserving of state protection or not?

If that's their primary message, no. But most of them are much broader in scope and I would not consider them "hate groups".

However, I also think it's completely ridiculous that we exempt churches from paying taxes when so many are thinly-veiled political organizations.

[cardboardbox]

I believe that Antifa has every right to "confront" them in PEACEFUL manner.

there's nothing peaceful about antifa.

[DMT]

there's nothing peaceful about antifa.

There's nothing peaceful about fascism.

[senorsheep]

First they came for the alt-right, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a member of the alt-right.

Then they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Nazi.

Then they came for Al Quaeda, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a member of Al Quaeda.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Gregg]

First they came for the alt-right, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a member of the alt-right.

Then they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Nazi.

Then they came for Al Quaeda, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a member of Al Quaeda.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

So you are saying the lefties are giving you the silent treatment?

[baldgriff]

So you are saying the lefties are giving you the silent treatment?

One should be so fortunate..

[senorsheep]

Righteous violence is exponentially more concerning to me than legally protected speech, no matter how contemptible or unworthy that speech might be.

[senorsheep]

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?

I think you should leave the book there, despite the risk of uninformed people adopting its discredited message, because I think there's a greater danger in accommodating people who demand that books they don't like be pulled from library shelves. Your wife is correct in this case, but how confident are you that the next person who adopts this tactic will demonstrate the same judgment about whatever peeves them? Or the next? Or the next?

I'd rather see the book remain available with a disclaimer, or placed in some type of alternative medicine section, than see it pulled. Even our good and sensible acts create ripples we cannot control or predict.

[DMT]

I'd rather see the book remain available with a disclaimer, or placed in some type of alternative medicine section, than see it pulled. Even our good and sensible acts create ripples we cannot control or predict.

But your concerns about ripples that might occur by removing a fraudulent medical book on the shelves have to be balanced against the ripples that might occur by leaving it there. Namely, parents becoming completely misinformed about their children's health by a charlatan who's been banished by the medical community.

[senorsheep]

But your concerns about ripples that might occur by removing a fraudulent medical book on the shelves have to be balanced against the ripples that might occur by leaving it there. Namely, parents becoming completely misinformed about their children's health by a charlatan who's been banished by the medical community.

I think I clearly explained why I prefer a disclaimer to a ban - there is a competing free expression interest to consider. Which, in fairness, I'm sure I weigh more heavily than most.

Why do you prefer a ban to a disclaimer? Do you think the disclaimer wouldn't work?

I'd rather provide context for the book than ban it. If, for instance, somebody wanted to access the book in order to debunk it, I'd like them to have that option.

[DMT]

I think I clearly explained why I prefer a disclaimer to a ban - there is a competing free expression interest to consider. Which, in fairness, I'm sure I weigh more heavily than most.

Why do you prefer a ban to a disclaimer? Do you think the disclaimer wouldn't work?

I'd rather provide context for the book than ban it. If, for instance, somebody wanted to access the book in order to debunk it, I'd like them to have that option.

I'm not opposed to that, and I actually misread B-Fly's original post and thought they had just filed it rather than banned. However, I do think the audience that would be seeking out his books would be prone to ignore the disclaimer.

[Sour Masher]

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.

For me, the slope isn't slippery, and the distinctions are clear. For me, it is not about ideology, it is about reality. Alex Jones is a vile hate monger making millions peddling supplements to fools. But that isn't why he was banned. He was banned for completely fabricating facts about specific individuals and preaching those facts to a gullible audience who harrassed the parents of murdered children. He did this repeatedly, without remorse.

For those arguing abstractly about the importance of the free exchange of ideas, comparing Alex Jones's viscious lies to ideologies and opinions, I see a clear distinction between them. I understand the argument that as a society we should allow people to express even those most appalling ideologies openly in a free society. But for me, there is a clear line separating opinions and facts. Just as the 1st Amendment doesn't protect you if you falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, our society should not allow someone to make repeated unsubstantiated claims, vehemently, and passionately, and in a way that begs for actions from his listeners based on those false claims.

Jones is a lie peddler of the very worst kind. He tells his audience of millions the worst possible lies I can imagine. He tells them some people are pedophiles without any proof. He tells them others who have had their children murdered are actors who are lying about their grief. I am amazed he still walks the earth, frankly. I cannot think of more vile, harmful lies that can be spoken. I don't know what I would do to a man repeatedly sullied the name of my dead child, repeatedly incited listeners to harrass me and my family with phone calls and emails and messages left at my home wishing me and my family harm, mocking my real pain and loss, calling me the liar.

Such lies should be punished. They should be refuted. They should be silenced. Jones should be jailed for his lies and how he peddles them as facts, not just banned for some platforms. Again, not for his ideologies, or opinions about the world, but for the harmful lies he peddles as absolute truths. He harrassed those poor people. And it is right that platforms stopped enabling that harrassment.

Imagine if someone stood outside your house, your place of business, your child's school, and shouted into a bullhorn that you were a pedophile who must he stopped at all cost. Imagine that while this was not true, no one did anything about t, and many if your neighbors began to believe it and treat you as such? Imagine if this led to harrassment and threats made to you and your family. Or imagine all of that, but that man was calling you a liar for claiming your son was murdered. Imagine him saying you and your wife were scumbag actors whose pain was not real, whose dead son was not real. Imagine feeling the pain of having your dead son's memory maligned, or erased by such claims.

This is what Alex Jones has done. This is not speech that should be protected. This is not an ideology we are attacking in banning him. It is deceit with malicious intent. When your conspiracy theories cross the lines into specific claims about individuals that are provably false, and those claims cause harm, that is when we should all be okay with the spread of that message, that lie, being restricted.

[B-Fly]

I think I clearly explained why I prefer a disclaimer to a ban - there is a competing free expression interest to consider. Which, in fairness, I'm sure I weigh more heavily than most.

Why do you prefer a ban to a disclaimer? Do you think the disclaimer wouldn't work?

I'd rather provide context for the book than ban it. If, for instance, somebody wanted to access the book in order to debunk it, I'd like them to have that option.

I tend to agree. My wife actually phrased her objection as to the book being in the parenting section, and herself suggested the idea of a disclaimer and/or re-shelving in a section with old medical books on treatment by leeches. In the same context, we both agreed, for example, that libraries should carry Mein Kampf, but that shouldn't be in the pop psychology/self-help section either.

That said, local public libraries of course don't and can't carry every book ever published and therefore have to make discretionary "curation" decisions all the time about what books to order and what books to pull to make room on the shelves for newer books, so library boards and library staff are necessarily making decisions every day about which books will be of interest or of value to the community they serve.

[In the Corn]

For me, the slope isn't slippery, and the distinctions are clear. For me, it is not about ideology, it is about reality. Alex Jones is a vile hate monger making millions peddling supplements to fools. But that isn't why he was banned. He was banned for completely fabricating facts about specific individuals and preaching those facts to a gullible audience who harrassed the parents of murdered children. He did this repeatedly, without remorse.

For those arguing abstractly about the importance of the free exchange of ideas, comparing Alex Jones's viscious lies to ideologies and opinions, I see a clear distinction between them. I understand the argument that as a society we should allow people to express even those most appalling ideologies openly in a free society. But for me, there is a clear line separating opinions and facts. Just as the 1st Amendment doesn't protect you if you falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, our society should not allow someone to make repeated unsubstantiated claims, vehemently, and passionately, and in a way that begs for actions from his listeners based on those false claims.

Jones is a lie peddler of the very worst kind. He tells his audience of millions the worst possible lies I can imagine. He tells them some people are pedophiles without any proof. He tells them others who have had their children murdered are actors who are lying about their grief. I am amazed he still walks the earth, frankly. I cannot think of more vile, harmful lies that can be spoken. I don't know what I would do to a man repeatedly sullied the name of my dead child, repeatedly incited listeners to harrass me and my family with phone calls and emails and messages left at my home wishing me and my family harm, mocking my real pain and loss, calling me the liar.

Such lies should be punished. They should be refuted. They should be silenced. Jones should be jailed for his lies and how he peddles them as facts, not just banned for some platforms. Again, not for his ideologies, or opinions about the world, but for the harmful lies he peddles as absolute truths. He harrassed those poor people. And it is right that platforms stopped enabling that harrassment.

Imagine if someone stood outside your house, your place of business, your child's school, and shouted into a bullhorn that you were a pedophile who must he stopped at all cost. Imagine that while this was not true, no one did anything about t, and many if your neighbors began to believe it and treat you as such? Imagine if this led to harrassment and threats made to you and your family. Or imagine all of that, but that man was calling you a liar for claiming your son was murdered. Imagine him saying you and your wife were scumbag actors whose pain was not real, whose dead son was not real. Imagine feeling the pain of having your dead son's memory maligned, or erased by such claims.

This is what Alex Jones has done. This is not speech that should be protected. This is not an ideology we are attacking in banning him. It is deceit with malicious intent. When your conspiracy theories cross the lines into specific claims about individuals that are provably false, and those claims cause harm, that is when we should all be okay with the spread of that message, that lie, being restricted.

A business is free to limit speech where ever and whenever it wants. I have no problem with Apple, YouTube, etc. saying we are not going to promote your speech on our platform. We own it, and you don't.

Every single one of Jones' targets should be suing him for liable/defamation as these personal attacks are false. Sue the asshole until he has no money to promote his agenda. Prove him wrong in the court of your peers.

Jones' speech being banned by big business is no different than NFL owners deciding Colin Kaepernick's speech/actions are harmful to their product. You have to be willing to make the sacrifice if you want your message out in the public.