Should Alex Jones be Banned?

[Oceanborn]

I do not like Alex Jones, for the record. It's not even his message that irritates me as much as he does. I hate his voice and his sloppy, unkept appearance. However, the precedent set by deleting his platform is a great concern to me. Who is next? Sometimes I watch Paul Joseph Watson- a member of Infowars- is he next? Sargon of Akkad? Lauren Southern? Whether you like them or hate them, do they not have a right to a platform? The leftists who either supported the ban, or outright ban conservatives will argue that these are private companies who can ban whoever they wish- however, these companies now have a monopoly on social media content. I find it strange that Spotify, Facebook, Apple, and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other. Facebook deleted the Infowars page at 3 in the morning. And this wasn't about "fake news" it was about Infowars supposedly breaking community guidelines for hate speech. They cited specifically Jone's videos on mass migration and called it Islamophobic. This is lib-speak for "disagreed with our new progressive morality."

Everyone who is celebrating: you could be next. If you are not left of Michael Moore, perhaps you are too far right. It is now up to the globalist-social media corporations to control freedom of speech. Twitter hasn't banned Infowars yet, but they will I'm certain. Recently, the idiots who sued President Trump for blocking them on Twitter actually won and the courts forced him to unblock these individuals because it threatened their freedom of speech. Really? What's happening here?

Americans need to stand up for the freedoms they have left before it's gone. Banning unpopular or even outright obnoxious opinions is a dangerous precedent. Read 1984...

 

[beefheart]

It's the free market banning him. The right is all for the free market, until they aren't.

 

[Cardinal]

Banned from where? Privately owned platforms? Yes, I believe he should be banned from those. Should he be "shut down" by the government? No, with a few exceptions (incitement to violence, threats, crying fire in a crowded movie theater, etc.), it is not the government's place to do so.

 

[Praxas]

I do not like Alex Jones, for the record. It's not even his message that irritates me as much as he does. I hate his voice and his sloppy, unkept appearance. However, the precedent set by deleting his platform is a great concern to me. Who is next? Sometimes I watch Paul Joseph Watson- a member of Infowars- is he next? Sargon of Akkad? Lauren Southern? Whether you like them or hate them, do they not have a right to a platform? The leftists who either supported the ban, or outright ban conservatives will argue that these are private companies who can ban whoever they wish- however, these companies now have a monopoly on social media content. I find it strange that Spotify, Facebook, Apple, and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other. Facebook deleted the Infowars page at 3 in the morning. And this wasn't about "fake news" it was about Infowars supposedly breaking community guidelines for hate speech. They cited specifically Jone's videos on mass migration and called it Islamophobic. This is lib-speak for "disagreed with our new progressive morality."

Everyone who is celebrating: you could be next. If you are not left of Michael Moore, perhaps you are too far right. It is now up to the globalist-social media corporations to control freedom of speech. Twitter hasn't banned Infowars yet, but they will I'm certain. Recently, the idiots who sued President Trump for blocking them on Twitter actually won and the courts forced him to unblock these individuals because it threatened their freedom of speech. Really? What's happening here?

Americans need to stand up for the freedoms they have left before it's gone. Banning unpopular or even outright obnoxious opinions is a dangerous precedent. Read 1984...

Welcome to the free market.

 

[Amelia]

43% of Republicans polled think Trump should have the power to close news outlets



But it's a crime against humanity if a private corporation kicks someone off their platform for violating their terms of service.



Should Debate Politics be allowed to ban anyone?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I believe Facebook, Twitter, etc have the right to carry on their platforms what they choose to carry in the same way Walmart has the right to carry in their stores and websites what they choose to carry.

If Walmart chooses not to carry a magazine because it is against their own code of ethics, so be it. If Twitter chooses not to allow a specific users on its platform so be it.

If however any company or government was trying to force all other options of distribution to not to carry the content they do not like, then that I would be against

 

[trixare4kids]

It's the free market banning him. The right is all for the free market, until they aren't.

Nonsense.

 

[OlNate]

I do not like Alex Jones, for the record. It's not even his message that irritates me as much as he does. I hate his voice and his sloppy, unkept appearance. However, the precedent set by deleting his platform is a great concern to me. Who is next? Sometimes I watch Paul Joseph Watson- a member of Infowars- is he next? Sargon of Akkad? Lauren Southern? Whether you like them or hate them, do they not have a right to a platform? The leftists who either supported the ban, or outright ban conservatives will argue that these are private companies who can ban whoever they wish- however, these companies now have a monopoly on social media content. I find it strange that Spotify, Facebook, Apple, and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other. Facebook deleted the Infowars page at 3 in the morning. And this wasn't about "fake news" it was about Infowars supposedly breaking community guidelines for hate speech. They cited specifically Jone's videos on mass migration and called it Islamophobic. This is lib-speak for "disagreed with our new progressive morality."

Everyone who is celebrating: you could be next. If you are not left of Michael Moore, perhaps you are too far right. It is now up to the globalist-social media corporations to control freedom of speech. Twitter hasn't banned Infowars yet, but they will I'm certain. Recently, the idiots who sued President Trump for blocking them on Twitter actually won and the courts forced him to unblock these individuals because it threatened their freedom of speech. Really? What's happening here?

Americans need to stand up for the freedoms they have left before it's gone. Banning unpopular or even outright obnoxious opinions is a dangerous precedent. Read 1984...

Private Company can refuse service to those who they don't agree with, so long as they are not prohibited by law to do so. Jones still has any number of ways to enjoy his 1st amendment rights. I just don't see anything in the first amendment that guarantees a platform, or that the anyone will cover the costs to express themselves...

 

[Amelia]

.... Recently, the idiots who sued President Trump for blocking them on Twitter actually won and the courts forced him to unblock these individuals because it threatened their freedom of speech. Really? What's happening here? ....

Trump is using his Twitter for official government communications. For that reason he can't block people arbitrarily.


Facebook and YouTube are private corporations.


You act disgusted that a government outlet is not allowed to quash free speech but that private outlets are allowed to ban people who violate their terms of service.

#CognitiveDissonance

 

[trixare4kids]

I do not like Alex Jones, for the record. It's not even his message that irritates me as much as he does. I hate his voice and his sloppy, unkept appearance. However, the precedent set by deleting his platform is a great concern to me. Who is next? Sometimes I watch Paul Joseph Watson- a member of Infowars- is he next? Sargon of Akkad? Lauren Southern? Whether you like them or hate them, do they not have a right to a platform? The leftists who either supported the ban, or outright ban conservatives will argue that these are private companies who can ban whoever they wish- however, these companies now have a monopoly on social media content. I find it strange that Spotify, Facebook, Apple, and YouTube all banned Infowars within 12 hours of each other. Facebook deleted the Infowars page at 3 in the morning. And this wasn't about "fake news" it was about Infowars supposedly breaking community guidelines for hate speech. They cited specifically Jone's videos on mass migration and called it Islamophobic. This is lib-speak for "disagreed with our new progressive morality."

Everyone who is celebrating: you could be next. If you are not left of Michael Moore, perhaps you are too far right. It is now up to the globalist-social media corporations to control freedom of speech. Twitter hasn't banned Infowars yet, but they will I'm certain. Recently, the idiots who sued President Trump for blocking them on Twitter actually won and the courts forced him to unblock these individuals because it threatened their freedom of speech. Really? What's happening here?

Americans need to stand up for the freedoms they have left before it's gone. Banning unpopular or even outright obnoxious opinions is a dangerous precedent. Read 1984...

If I ran the world, no one would be banned.
Adults are fully capable of changing the channel.

 

[Oceanborn]

crap.. my poll didn't post.
again these globalist corporations have a monopoly on social media.(The globalists are about as capitalist as Stalin) Should Sprint or AT&T ban Alex Jones, as well, if they don't like his content? No one sees a disturbing precedent here? This happens shortly before the 2018 midterm elections.. which other conservative media platform will be banned? It looks as if Mueller still wont find anything to get rid of Trump with, so all of a sudden banning of conservative platforms begin before midterm elections. It will get much worse by 2020. Guaranteed. If this is the only conservative platform that gets banned, I will be surprised.

And if this happened to the Young Turks, or Vox.. other liberal media platforms, there would be outrage. TYT is just as fake as Alex Jones.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If I ran the world, no one would be banned.
Adults are fully capable of changing the channel.

Hard core porn on daytime broadcast TV?

 

[beancounter]

No one should be banned unless they advocate violence against others (either directly or indirectly, subtly or blatently) e.g. Sarah Palin and her "target" commercials.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

crap.. my poll didn't post.
again these globalist corporations have a monopoly on social media.(The globalists are about as capitalist as Stalin) Should Sprint or AT&T ban Alex Jones, as well, if they don't like his content? No one sees a disturbing precedent here? This happens shortly before the 2018 midterm elections.. which other conservative media platform will be banned? It looks as if Mueller still wont find anything to get rid of Trump with, so all of a sudden banning of conservative platforms begin before midterm elections. It will get much worse by 2020. Guaranteed. If this is the only conservative platform that gets banned, I will be surprised.

And if this happened to the Young Turks, or Vox.. other liberal media platforms, there would be outrage. TYT is just as fake as Alex Jones.

If I want to go to the Young Turks I would go to their website, the same for Vox.

I expect Alex Jones supporters can type in Infowars on their search bar to find his website

 

[Oceanborn]

Trump is using his Twitter for official government communications. For that reason he can't block people arbitrarily.


Facebook and YouTube are private corporations.


You act disgusted that a government outlet is not allowed to quash free speech but that private outlets are allowed to ban people who violate their terms of service.

#CognitiveDissonance

Violate their terms of service?.. so when liberals threaten people with actual violence and post hateful content-- and these social media giants ignore this behavior, I suppose you're fine with that? # cognitive dissonance

I don't agree with all of Trump's tweets, and i do not think he should be conducting government business using that platform in an ideal world. However, and this is the crux of my point here, Trump is not allowed an actual platform with mass media companies like CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc.. who report 90% negative news on him 24 hours a day. What other platform does Trump have if not Twitter and Facebook?

 

[Vadinho]

He should be committed, the guy makes Sam Kineson look like Mr. Rogers.

 

[Oceanborn]

If I want to go to the Young Turks I would go to their website, the same for Vox.

I expect Alex Jones supporters can type in Infowars on their search bar to find his website

for now.. godaddy banned some other website. Infowars could be next. The point I am making is that this is setting a dangerous precedent in a society that supposedly values freedom of speech. It starts with Alex jones (some people celebrate, others don't care) but where does it go from here? I'm hopeful that other platforms will take the place of these Globalist, social engineering, information-stealing corporate monsters. However, corporations have great power through lobbying. Quick Books lobbied its competition into non existence, and now we're all stuck with the world's worst accounting system.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

for now.. godaddy banned some other website. Infowars could be next. The point I am making is that this is setting a dangerous precedent in a society that supposedly values freedom of speech. It starts with Alex jones (some people celebrate, others don't care) but where does it go from here? I'm hopeful that other platforms will take the place of these Globalist, social engineering, information-stealing corporate monsters. However, corporations have great power through lobbying. Quick Books lobbied its competition into non existence, and now we're all stuck with the world's worst accounting system.

Godaddy is not the internet

Plenty of other options including to self host

 

[Amelia]

If I want to go to the Young Turks I would go to their website, the same for Vox.

I expect Alex Jones supporters can type in Infowars on their search bar to find his website

^^ that

 

[Zyphlin]

"Should he"? Its not my call, it's the call of those private companies. Personally, I'm not a fan of a platform aimed at sharing of peoples views and contents censoring things significantly, but it's absolutely in their power to do so.

 

[Ikari]

I don't think that he should be banned, but these are also private servers so they can police their content as they wish.

 

[trixare4kids]

Hard core porn on daytime broadcast TV?

Porn is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission so your question is moot.

 

[Atomic Kid]

If I ran the world, no one would be banned.
Adults are fully capable of changing the channel.

Unfortunately while any adult is capable of changing the channel it also abundantly apparent that many of them are incapable of separating facts from fantasy. Matter of fact one is them is probably sitting in the Oval Office at this very moment. We aren't talking about 'entertainment' choices here. Alex Jones is offering up his conspiracy theory laden content as being 'news' and 'information'. And many of these so-called adults whom are viewing his channels are going about causing real pain, anguish and harm to innocent people whom through no fault of their own find themselves being the targets of his selective deluded manifestations. Such as the parents of Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings. That's not what free speech is suppose to be about.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Porn is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission so your question is moot.

Quote Originally Posted by trixare4kids View Post
If I ran the world, no one would be banned.
Adults are fully capable of changing the channel.

My question was not about what the FCC does, but what you if you ran the world would do regarding porn on broadcast TV, as you said if you ran the world nothing would be banned

 

[Amelia]

Violate their terms of service?.. so when liberals threaten people with actual violence and post hateful content-- and these social media giants ignore this behavior, I suppose you're fine with that? # cognitive dissonance

I don't agree with all of Trump's tweets, and i do not think he should be conducting government business using that platform in an ideal world. However, and this is the crux of my point here, Trump is not allowed an actual platform with mass media companies like CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc.. who report 90% negative news on him 24 hours a day. What other platform does Trump have if not Twitter and Facebook?

Not sure what point you're making here. The fact is that Trump does use Twitter for government communication. Then he banned people from it because he's a big baby. And he got smacked for violating the First Amendment because he's part of the government. What happens on Facebook has nothing to do with the First Amendment. If you don't like them, boycott them. Start a social network for non-liberals.

Trump does get lots of coverage. If he gave more news conferences, news outlets would carry it. Word for word. Every rambling minute. Oh, and he has Fox.

90% of the news coverage on him is negative because 90% of what he does is negative. Not even Fox TV personalities have been able to keep from rolling their eyes at his bizarre behavior in spite of being paid to try to make him look good.



Should Debate Politics be allowed to ban people or not?