[1A] The Free Speech Thread

[Sylvain]

YT is gone too. But WE'RE the nazi fascists.

Could this actually be good for him? I think he already has his own website where he can post his content.

Now folks on CNN and other media are talking about him, giving him publicity.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Could this actually be good for him? I think he already has his own website where he can post his content.

Now folks on CNN and other media are talking about him, giving him publicity.

Until his website is taken down. Mob mentality can make companies knee-jerk some dumb reactions.

It'll definitely help him with his existing audience... and it may sway some pro-1A non-listeners his way. But it'll just create a deeper divide between his crew and everyone else. He'll be pushed even further toward the "extreme" side of the spectrum.

If people are looking for collusion, how about the fact that Apple, Youtube, Facebook, and Spotify all independently erased the same person on the same day? Years after the supposed "controversy" they keep bringing up.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This gets even murkier when politicians join in and demand companies do something about who they have on their platform, with implied threats...

US Senator from Connecticut:

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1026580187784404994

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, it's safe to close the barn door now. All the horses are out

Do you see the danger now in concentrating so much power and influence in the hands of so few? They need to be broken up and broken down, it would be a free speech and a privacy win. The question is, do they have enough dirt on people who matter politically to pull a J Edgar

And it's the "miracle of the internet" true believers who are going to have to lead the way. We're done

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Alex Jones has also been unpersoned on LinkedIn. Pretty sure he had no content on LinkedIn that violates their terms of service.

One take on the situation:

Alex Jones is a test.

If they get to do this to Alex, unimpeded, they will starting hitting much more moderate targets.

Pick the flamboyant obvious one 1st. Then go from there.

The tactic, and timing pior to Midterms, is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to lift the fold.

I think Alex is in a good position to spearhead a lawsuit and spur congressional inquiry. We should support those efforts even if we find him objectionable.

Continue to talk loudly about it on social media, and do our best to bring it to the attention of this Administration.

 

[BugI02]

"First they came for the [STRIKE]Socialists[/STRIKE] [conspiracy theorists], and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a [STRIKE]Socialist[/STRIKE] [conspiracy theorist]."

Like running plays in football. They won't stop unless you make them stop, because it gets the job done

As long as the targets are strictly from the right half of the spectrum, I predict the progressives will be cheering them on

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Took less than 24 hours before we got to "It's not just Alex Jones"...

 

[2A_Tom]

Like running plays in football. They won't stop unless you make them stop, because it gets the job done

As long as the targets are strictly from the right half of the spectrum, I predict the progressives will be cheering them on

Originally Posted by Mark KernAlex Jones is a test.

If they get to do this to Alex, unimpeded, they will starting hitting much more moderate targets.

Pick the flamboyant obvious one 1st. Then go from there.

The tactic, and timing pior to Midterms, is blatantly obvious to anyone who cares to lift the fold.

I think Alex is in a good position to spearhead a lawsuit and spur congressional inquiry. We should support those efforts even if we find him objectionable.


Continue to talk loudly about it on social media, and do our best to bring it to the attention of this Administration.

I totally agree. I personally like some of the content that the kids that work for infowars do, but I have to stop when he comes on.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Twitter's Jack Dorsey:

We didn’t suspend Alex Jones or Infowars yesterday. We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified. Truth is we’ve been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past. We’re fixing that. We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories. If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure, rather than straightforward principles we enforce (and evolve) impartially regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that’s constructed by our personal views that can swing in any direction. That’s not us. Accounts like Jones' can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions. This is what serves the public conversation best.

Of course, the top reply to him on Twitter is none other than Ellen ****ing Pao.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Check this out.... "failure".... implying the only right action would be to ban this person. That's some real interesting wording.

They're mad that Jack didn't follow the obligation they set?

I wonder if they meant to let this slip... because saying "failure" here is really telling.

 

[2A_Tom]

Is all of this really happening? It seems more like a bad apocalypse movie.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Twitter Plans 'Hate Speech' Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees | The Daily Caller

Twitter is planning to accelerate a crackdown on “hate speech” and is looking to evaluate whether to punish users for “off-platform behavior,” according to a company-wide email sent on Wednesday

 

[BugI02]

Bringing about the "permanent record" BAMN

ETA: I hope people can look up from their navel long enough to realize that we could lose this battle

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So what's everyone's proverbial hill with regards to 1A?

Even with regards to detestable people.

Removal from social networks is pretty tame.
Removal of web hosting for your site... Meh, that's happened.
Removal of content from platforms (YouTube, Vimeo)... that's done.
Not allowed to speak at public venues, universities, schools...
Removal from the Internet. Oh now it gets interesting... Your ISP no longer wants to do business with you? That's probably one that would be overturned with argument.
Maybe cell provider refusing to do business with you... or banks...

Would have to be a pretty awful person for that, I'd imagine... for companies and services to feel so empowered by the court of public opinion that they could do that and think they wouldn't get away with it.

I'm sure such a person will come along eventually, and we'll be tested.

 

[2A_Tom]

I do not see anything that you mentioned as pertaining to the 1A.

Private owners do not have to put up with anything they do not like.

Many do for business reasons. If they can make a profit it is good for them.

If they want to virtue signal and are willing to lose whatever profit they do that is their prerogative.

Do I like it no, I do not care for Mr. Jones. I have probably listened to a total of 2 minutes of his content in 5 - 10 second bites.

I understand that you said the thread would be open to non governmental suppression of speech, but I see no legal recourse for that.

The only way would be to sway public opinion and currently the din of the minority leftists is all that is being taken into account.

 

[BugI02]

So what's everyone's proverbial hill with regards to 1A?

Even with regards to detestable people.

Removal from social networks is pretty tame.
Removal of web hosting for your site... Meh, that's happened.
Removal of content from platforms (YouTube, Vimeo)... that's done.
Not allowed to speak at public venues, universities, schools...
Removal from the Internet. Oh now it gets interesting... Your ISP no longer wants to do business with you? That's probably one that would be overturned with argument.
Maybe cell provider refusing to do business with you... or banks...

Would have to be a pretty awful person for that, I'd imagine... for companies and services to feel so empowered by the court of public opinion that they could do that and think they wouldn't get away with it.

I'm sure such a person will come along eventually, and we'll be tested.

With respect specifically to banks (and insurance companies) isn't this already being done to the NRA and gun manufacturers? Not to mention targeting by the NY governor and AG. "Protected speech" is arguably only about 1/3 of what the 1A covers but so many people act like its the most important part

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I do not see anything that you mentioned as pertaining to the 1A.

Private owners do not have to put up with anything they do not like.

Many do for business reasons. If they can make a profit it is good for them.

If they want to virtue signal and are willing to lose whatever profit they do that is their prerogative.

Do I like it no, I do not care for Mr. Jones. I have probably listened to a total of 2 minutes of his content in 5 - 10 second bites.

I understand that you said the thread would be open to non governmental suppression of speech, but I see no legal recourse for that.

The only way would be to sway public opinion and currently the din of the minority leftists is all that is being taken into account.

With respect specifically to banks (and insurance companies) isn't this already being done to the NRA and gun manufacturers? Not to mention targeting by the NY governor and AG. "Protected speech" is arguably only about 1/3 of what the 1A covers but so many people act like its the most important part

Yeah, I know what I listed definitely isn't 1A-centric... it's actually probably more tied to the SJW thread... but since this thread is already on the topic of Jones... figured I'd throw those in here.

I mean... to "unperson" someone like they're doing to Jones isn't necessarily illegal... I'm not sure what to call it. To label someone as so detestable... so wrong... that you attempt to erase them from existence through technology... There has to be a term or ideology for that.

Maybe it's not an issue that even has its own hill. Maybe it's just the future of society... black-bag and make the bad ones disappear.

 

[2A_Tom]

I believe that is a trend. I see no way to fight it. I don't have a billion dollars and that is the minimum to buy into their game.

 

[KLB]

I do not see anything that you mentioned as pertaining to the 1A.

Private owners do not have to put up with anything they do not like.

Many do for business reasons. If they can make a profit it is good for them.

If they want to virtue signal and are willing to lose whatever profit they do that is their prerogative.

Do I like it no, I do not care for Mr. Jones. I have probably listened to a total of 2 minutes of his content in 5 - 10 second bites.

I understand that you said the thread would be open to non governmental suppression of speech, but I see no legal recourse for that.

The only way would be to sway public opinion and currently the din of the minority leftists is all that is being taken into account.

This one would qualify. At least where those entities were public.

Not allowed to speak at public venues, universities, schools...

 

[2A_Tom]

The hecklers veto does not apply.

Should public universities have to spend thousands of dollars for extra security to protect a controversial speaker?

Should municipalities have to spend thousands of dollars for extra security to protect a controversial speaker?

Should the KKK or Ann Coulter be responsible for this cost?

Possibly the Young Republicans that invited Milo?

Or, should there be a blanket suppression, not of speech, but arrest and prosecution for violence and vandalism?

And who foots the bill for that?