Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

DickSwiveller Returns

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is also hate speech. the two are not mutually exclusive.

They are. It doesn't fall under hate speech; it falls under incitement to violence - a specific category.

Call Me Jimmy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But it's actively harmful. Look at what happened to the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre. They're grieving for the loss of their children and this scum says they're faking it and they get subsequently abused.

I think he is potentially dangerous but so are a lot of things. Really would like to hear what you mean by 'actively harmful', I mean really specifically. He didn't get banned for anything he said about sandy hook.

Was heartened to see youtuber Kyle Kulinksy seeing the wood for the trees on this issue and as he said nobody debunked/attacked Jones more vehemently than him.

ohnonotgmail

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I think he is potentially dangerous but so are a lot of things. Really would like to hear what you mean by 'actively harmful', I mean really specifically. He didn't get banned for anything he said about sandy hook.

Was heartened to see youtuber Kyle Kulinksy seeing the wood for the trees on this issue and as he said nobody debunked/attacked Jones more vehemently than him.

He WAS potentially dangerous but that was a long time ago. He is ACTUALLY dangerous.

ohnonotgmail

Mutant z wrote: »

Just cut to the chase here you are against freedom of speech this is the sort of stuff people who are in favour of limiting free speech come out with they put it all in fancy words instead of getting to the point.

It is amazing how many use the term freedom of speech without understanding what it means.

super_furry

Mutant z wrote: »

Just cut to the chase here you are against freedom of speech this is the sort of stuff people who are in favour of limiting free speech come out with they put it all in fancy words instead of getting to the point.

Not sure how you're not getting this. Alex Jones still has freedom of speech and he continues to exercise that, what he doesn't have anymore is access to Youtube's audience.

Sonics2k

Mutant z wrote: »

Just cut to the chase here you are against freedom of speech this is the sort of stuff people who are in favour of limiting free speech come out with they put it all in fancy words instead of getting to the point.

Not at all. I absolutely believe in Alex Jones right to Free Speech. I abhor what he says, but he has every right to say it up until he starts peddling full blown hate speech, which is not protected.

He still has is own websites and shows so he has not been removed.

riffmongous

Damn you globalists! How are we going to break the conditioning now?

DickSwiveller Returns

super_furry wrote: »

Not sure how you're not getting this. Alex Jones still has freedom of speech and he continues to exercise that, what he doesn't have anymore is access to Youtube's audience.

Some people have made the argument - and I think quite justifiably - that companies like Youtube, Facebook etc. should be required to abide by first amendment laws.

DickSwiveller Returns

Sonics2k wrote: »

Not at all. I absolutely believe in Alex Jones right to Free Speech. I abhor what he says, but he has every right to say it up until he starts peddling full blown hate speech, which is not protected.

He still has is own websites and shows so he has not been removed.

Hate speech falls under free speech laws in the US

Call Me Jimmy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He WAS potentially dangerous but that was a long time ago. He is ACTUALLY dangerous.

Ok. You'd want to be a bit more specific than 'dangerous' when it comes to policies, are you talking about hate speech?

super_furry

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Some people have made the argument - and I think quite justifiably - that companies like Youtube, Facebook etc. should be required to abide by first amendment laws.

That's a very different argument and unless the massive legal decision is made to indemnify them against the thousands of lawsuits that would follow from allowing the likes of Alex Jones, Isis, the KKK and all the other fringe lunatics that would take advantage of such an approach, it's never going to happen.

Sonics2k

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Some people have made the argument - and I think quite justifiably - that companies like Youtube, Facebook etc. should be required to abide by first amendment laws.

hmm, so you believe that the United States Government should dictate the the policies of a private organisation? That doesn't sound very Republican to me.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Hate speech falls under free speech laws in the US

Quite right, I forgot the US is a bit behind the rest of us on that.

DickSwiveller Returns

Sonics2k wrote: »

hmm, so you believe that the United States Government should dictate the the policies of a private organisation? That doesn't sound very Republican to me.

When these companies have such a huge influence? Absolutely.

Quite right, I forgot the US is a bit behind the rest of us on that.

I think the US have it right. What is 'hate speech' exactly. Who decides what is and what isn't? Sounds like a very Orwellian term to me.

ohnonotgmail

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Ok. You'd want to be a bit more specific than 'dangerous' when it comes to policies, are you talking about hate speech?

what do you think? It really isnt that hard to understand.

Sonics2k

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

When these companies have such a huge influence? Absolutely.




I think the US have it right. What is 'hate speech' exactly. Who decides what is and what isn't? Sounds like a very Orwellian term to me.

You speak of Orwellian as a bad thing, but you've also said that the Government should dictate the policies of private companies? Pick a side man.

Hate Speech vs Freedom of Speech is a very simple really.

Freedom of Speech. That Trump bloke is a bit of a bell-end, isn't he.

Hate Speech. Let's literally kill Trump and his family.

Freedom of Speech. I'm not really comfortable with the concept of gay marriage.

Hate Speech. All the gays are pedos and should be burned alive.

sexmag

You have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to be exempt of the consequences of what you say

Taytoland

Shouldn't have banned him. Using "hate" speech argument would just lead to lots of people being banned from social media platforms from all sections of society.

riffmongous

When will people realise this isn't a free speech issue? This is about a freaking intergalactic invasion into this space through people, it's what all the ancients said, its what they warned of. These people are demons and they are pouring black rivers of pestilent filth down upon our heads while Trump is charging into a goblin's nest and getting covered in goblin vomit.

Chris_Heilong

I wonder what his final video was considering three big names all kicked him all around the same time, he was far too nuts for me and I usually like a balance to the insanely leftwing media we hear blasted into our ears daily but perhaps he was a step too far, I see many saying he was a Character and the real Alex Jones is actually a normal guy, dont know how true that is.

ohnonotgmail

Taytoland wrote: »

Shouldn't have banned him. Using "hate" speech argument would just lead to lots of people being banned from social media platforms from all sections of society.

Platforms are already banning people for hate speech. Boards.ie will ban you for hate speech. You seem to think that is a bad thing and i'm pretty sure i can understand why.

Hector Bellend

vetinari wrote: »

He's already been elected once thanks to loons like this.
Carrying him on your platform is an implicit endorsement of him.

I love this.Democracy is fine with some people until the result doesnt go their way.

Then everybody is a loon.

Exactly the same thing happened with the brexit referendum.

Anyone who lives in a country that elected Bertie Ahern as head of government three times has no right to slag the electoral results or voting pattern of another nations electorate.

While on the subject of Alex Jones. Just because you dont like what someone says it doesnt mean you are entitled to stop them saying it.

Unless they are saying something libelous or illegal but thats another issue.

ohnonotgmail

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I love this.Democracy is fine with some people until the result doesnt go their way.

Then everybody is a loon.

Anyone who lives in a country that elected Bertie Ahern as head of government three times has no right to slag the electoral results or voting pattern of another nations electorate.

While on the subject of Alex Jones. Just because you dont like what someone says it doesnt mean you are entitled to stop them saying it.

Unless they are saying something libelous or illegal but thats another issue.

Facebook, Youtube, Apple et al are entitled to stop him saying it. It is their platform. They make the rules.

L.Jenkins

I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, but many are absolute dheads about it. Lauren Southern I see is one of these right wing antagonists who has her opinions and rightfully so, but she spends as much time if not more poking and prodding people for a reaction than anything else. Milo Yiannopoulos is just as bad if not worse, but he openly admits he gets a kick out of rubbing people up the wrong way.

Franz Von Peppercorn

super_furry wrote: »

That's a very different argument and unless the massive legal decision is made to indemnify them against the thousands of lawsuits that would follow from allowing the likes of Alex Jones, Isis, the KKK and all the other fringe lunatics that would take advantage of such an approach, it's never going to happen.

I mean they already have been on those platforms. They weren’t removed for that.

Free speech laws are pretty strong on the US.

Hector Bellend

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Facebook, Youtube, Apple et al are entitled to stop him saying it. It is their platform. They make the rules.

What are the rules?

Taytoland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Shouldn't have banned him. Using "hate" speech argument would just lead to lots of people being banned from social media platforms from all sections of society.

Platforms are already banning people for hate speech.  Boards.ie will ban you for hate speech.  You seem to think that is a bad thing and i'm pretty sure i can understand why.

Define hate speech. People use the term for anything they don't like these days.

dark crystal

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I love this.Democracy is fine with some people until the result doesnt go their way.

Then everybody is a loon.

Anyone who lives in a country that elected Bertie Ahern as head of government three times has no right to slag the electoral results or voting pattern of another nations electorate.

While on the subject of Alex Jones. Just because you dont like what someone says it doesnt mean you are entitled to stop them saying it.

Unless they are saying something libelous or illegal but thats another issue.

Would you consider calling the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax libelous?

Hector Bellend

L.Jenkins wrote: »

I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, but many are absolute dheads about it. Lauren Southern I see is one of these right wing antagonists who has her opinions and rightfully so, but she spends as much time if not more poking and prodding people for a reaction than anything else. Milo Yiannopoulos is just as bad if not worse, but he openly admits he gets a kick out of rubbing people up the wrong way.

Why give someone you may disagree with the satisfaction of a response?

ohnonotgmail

Hector Bellend wrote: »

What are the rules?

I'm sure you already know if you use those services. Feel free to go to some effort yourself to find out.

Hector Bellend

dark crystal wrote: »

Would you consider calling the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax libelous?

That will be decided in court. Not by me.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Also those platforms aren’t suable for speech themselves, the individual posters are.

ohnonotgmail

Taytoland wrote: »

Define hate speech. People use the term for anything they don't like these days.

"All drag queens should be burned alive". Is that hate speech enough for you?

Taytoland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Define hate speech. People use the term for anything they don't like these days.

"All drag queens should be burned alive".  Is that hate speech enough for you?

Can you link to this being said?

ohnonotgmail

Taytoland wrote: »

Can you link to this being said?

Well i cant because it was taken down. But here is a link to a report on it


https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/08/06/facebook-deletes-infowars-alex-jones-hate-speech-lgbt-racist-hate-speech/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=FB_IA&utm_campaign=PN

WinnyThePoo

Hector Bellend wrote: »

That will be decided in court. Not by me.

So it will be up to a court to decide if sandy hook shootings where a hoax.:rolleyes:

dark crystal

Hector Bellend wrote: »

That will be decided in court. Not by me.

As a human being, do you believe the parents who lost their children are lying?


By the way, Alex Jones himself has backtracked and said he now doesn't believe it was a hoax.

L.Jenkins

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Why give someone you may disagree with the satisfaction of a response?

That's the thing. I don't personally, but far too many people do.

suicide_circus

sometimes hate speech is hate speech

sometimes hate speech is wrong-think

Hector Bellend

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

So it will be up to a court to decide if sandy hook shootings where a hoax.:rolleyes:

NO. What Alex Jones said about will be determined either defamatory ornot.

He's being sued by two of the parents for defamation.

This will be settled via the legal system.

Whether it was a hoax or not won;t be

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/01/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-sandy-hook-defamation-lawsuit

begbysback

What happened to his Welsh accent?

Hector Bellend

dark crystal wrote: »

As a human being, do you believe the parents who lost their children are lying?


By the way, Alex Jones himself has backtracked and said he now doesn't believe it was a hoax.

I never suggested they were lying. Even if they were how would I know.

If Alex Jones has backtracked then he's in trouble unless he can find evidence to back whatever statements he's alleged to have made.

Grayson

dark crystal wrote: »

As a human being, do you believe the parents who lost their children are lying?

Don't push. Anyone who's unwilling to state that sandy hook was not staged obviously has problems with facts. They're never going to admit it.

Or they're just trolling and trying to score points.

Either way, they're not someone you can debate with.

Hector Bellend

L.Jenkins wrote: »

That's the thing. I don't personally, but far too many people do.

More fool them.

It's as clear as day that Milo Yiannopoulos is a professional sh1t stirrer.

People continue to fall for it.

Grayson

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I never suggested they were lying. Even if they were how would I know.

If Alex Jones has backtracked then he's in trouble unless he can find evidence to back whatever statements he's alleged to have made.

You refused to say if it was libellous. You said that's a matter for the courts.

super_furry

riffmongous wrote: »

When will people realise this isn't a free speech issue? This is about a freaking intergalactic invasion into this space through people, it's what all the ancients said, its what they warned of. These people are demons and they are pouring black rivers of pestilent filth down upon our heads while Trump is charging into a goblin's nest and getting covered in goblin vomit.

I just hope no-one tells him about Michael D. He'll think he's a hobbit and try to get the One Ring from him.

Dohnjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Don't push. Anyone who's unwilling to state that sandy hook was not staged obviously has problems with facts. They're never going to admit it.

Or they're just trolling and trying to score points.

Either way, they're not someone you can debate with.

Correct, have had "debates" with them in the past, they aren't the type of people who have reasoned themselves into that viewpoint. Reason is not a part of the equation.

Call Me Jimmy

Grayson wrote: »

Don't push. Anyone who's unwilling to state that sandy hook was not staged obviously has problems with facts. They're never going to admit it.

Or they're just trolling and trying to score points.

Either way, they're not someone you can debate with.

It was obvious he meant whether it was libel or not will be decided in court.

Hector Bellend

Grayson wrote: »

Don't push. Anyone who's unwilling to state that sandy hook was not staged obviously has problems with facts. They're never going to admit it.

Or they're just trolling and trying to score points.

Either way, they're not someone you can debate with.

I never suggested it was staged.

The question raised was whether "calling" it a hoax was libelous.

I stated that this will be decided in court as it is the subject of court proceedings.

dark crystal

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I never suggested they were lying. Even if they were how would I know.

If Alex Jones has backtracked then he's in trouble unless he can find evidence to back whatever statements he's alleged to have made.

Ok, insidious, delusional, divisive and hateful ramblings apart, then you must understand that platforms like Youtube, Facebook, iTunes etc. cannot continue to give a platform to someone who is being sued for defamation in two separate cases.


If his followers think him a martyr for Free Speech, they can still support him by subscribing to his insidious, delusional, divisive and hateful webshow, which is freely available to anyone inclined to listen to him. They can then vote for Trump again, which they would have done anyway, regardless of his platforms.

Hector Bellend

Grayson wrote: »

You refused to say if it was libellous. You said that's a matter for the courts.

Yes. Very clearly. Isnt that the point of libel law?