YouTube, Apple and Facebook remove content from InfoWars and Alex Jones

[wiffleball 4,631]

Plans to impose a censorship and mass surveillance framework may now commence"

 

https://www.infowars...the-globalists/

 

 

----------

 

Quoting Infowars? Oh that's rich.

[Mike Honcho 4,009]

I dont like him, but he should still have a voice. Im a constitutionalist and thats focked up.

 

I'm going back to that NFL/Kneeling thread where the "constitutionalist" called out President Trump for saying people should lose their jobs/NFL lose tax breaks if players kneel during the anthem.

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

So you defended the Dixie Chicks boycott I'm sure.

No, I was in middle school I didnt give af.

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

 

I'm going back to that NFL/Kneeling thread where the "constitutionalist" called out President Trump for saying people should lose their jobs/NFL lose tax breaks if players kneel during the anthem.

Whats that have to do with this? Oh thats right, TRUMP?!?!!!

[Mike Honcho 4,009]

Whats that have to do with this? Oh thats right, TRUMP?!?!!!

 

So the "constitutionalist" has problems with BUSINESSES deciding who can speak on their platforms, but when the Govt. says people should lose their jobs or tax breaks for speaking he doesn't see the problem.

 

Forbes

 

While there is a wide range of behavior that may restrain free speech in the colloquial sense, a violation of one's right to free speech under the the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires some form of "state action." With respect to the recent attempts to prevent NFL players from protesting during the playing of the U.S. national anthem, there are at least two arguments that the restraint on speech constitutes a form of state action.

 

First, President Donald Trump, in comments both to the press and on Twitter, threatened to remove “massive tax breaks” from the 32 NFL teams unless they were to “fire” players who protested during the U.S. national anthem. While Trump, as a private citizen, is entitled to have any opinion of the NFL players' protests, the Supreme Court decision in Bantam Books Inc. v. Sullivan explains that when a government employee uses the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion and intimidation” to induce private entities to act in a way that chills free speech rights, that government employee's conduct violates the First Amendment.

 

Second, the restraints on free speech involving NFL players, in certain circumstances, may occur in stadiums that are owned and operated by local municipalities. For example, in the recent U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decision of Beckman v. Chicago Bear Football Club, the court ruled that a Green Bay Packers fan may proceed with his First Amendment lawsuit against the Bears after team management refused to allow him to attend an on-field event in Soldier Field (a facility jointly operated by the Bears and the Chicago parks department) while dressed in Packers clothing.

 

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

 

So the "constitutionalist" has problems with BUSINESSES deciding who can speak on their platforms, but when the Govt. says people should lose their jobs or tax breaks for speaking he doesn't see the problem.

 

Forbes

This is so much bigger than just Trump, stop making this all about Trump. Obvious and desperate deflection. This is regulating information EVERY American should be against this. I dont care if its a right or left winger. If this was Secular Talks channel I would be saying the same exact thing.

[Mike Honcho 4,009]

This is so much bigger than just Trump, stop making this all about Trump. Obvious and desperate deflection. This is regulating information EVERY American should be against this. I dont care if its a right or left winger. If this was Secular Talks channel I would be saying the same exact thing.

 

I made it about the First Amendment for the "constitutionalist" and you want to avoid talking about real First Amendment issues. Seems you are a "constitutionalist" only when it serves you. And for the last time, the Constitution does not say anything about businesses having to allow free speech within their business.

 

Might want to bone up on the Constitution, it does say what you think it does.

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

 

I made it about the First Amendment for the "constitutionalist" and you want to avoid talking about real First Amendment issues. Seems you are a "constitutionalist" only when it serves you. And for the last time, the Constitution does not say anything about businesses having to allow free speech within their business.

 

Might want to bone up on the Constitution, it does say what you think it does.

Id argue that Alphbet, Facebook have been 100% politicized. Like I said, they need to be forced to split.

 

I ask you the same question I asked crack, when his website gets taken down, will you support it then? Yes or no.

[Mike Honcho 4,009]

Id argue that Alphbet, Facebook have been 100% politicized. Like I said, they need to be forced to split.

 

I ask you the same question I asked crack, when his website gets taken down, will you support it then? Yes or no.

 

When his website gets taken down by who, his ISP? Nope, cause it's still their business decision, and it's still not a First Amendment issue.

 

 

Do you think he will get his website taken down before these, American Nazi Party or the KKK? Just cause Mr Jones doesn't get to spew his BS from popular places like Twitter or FB, doesn't look like he's about to lose his ability to do so.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

Not that I owe you an explanation but I typed UCANN on my phone one time and it always auto corrects, oh well. The point remains anyways and do you have any constructive thoughts on the subject? Also, Im a retard? Arent you like a 45 year old barista or something? Talk about reaching for the stars my man.

Lol

[MDC 5,877]

My SD had to wear black sneakers when she was a barista this summer.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

My SD had to wear black sneakers when she was a barista this summer.

Creepy

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

 

When his website gets taken down by who, his ISP? Nope, cause it's still their business decision, and it's still not a First Amendment issue.

 

 

Do you think he will get his website taken down before these, American Nazi Party or the KKK? Just cause Mr Jones doesn't get to spew his BS from popular places like Twitter or FB, doesn't look like he's about to lose his ability to do so.

If you dont have a problem with someone being completely removed from the internet then theres no point in continuing the discussion. Im sure you supported Obama giving the internet away as well.

[Mike Honcho 4,009]

If you dont have a problem with someone being completely removed from the internet then theres no point in continuing the discussion. Im sure you supported Obama giving the internet away as well.

 

Under the scenario you have created, where a business decides who can use their service and if they don't adhere to those terms, they are removed...yeah, no problem at all. And there is no point in you continuing a discussion when you keep trying to make it something that it's not.....

 

 

Also, relinquishing control of ICANN was not giving away the internet. ICANN has zero to do with internet content or firewalls, they have ability to regulate content on the internet. So I guess....

 

[SenatorRock 708]

Interesting thread.

 

I don't think there are many people who view Alex Jones as some messenger of truth. He is an act. Some of his content is true and some is bullshit, all of it designed for clicks. AJ is no different than CNN or Buzzfeed or Michael Moore.

 

Michael Moore is actually a very good comparison. Most people view him as a complete hack and conspiracy nut. Remember his movie claiming that George W Bush was responsible for 9/11? That is comparable to AJ calling Sandy Hook a hoax. Both obviously bull , both very offensive to the victims, both designed to get eyeballs and money from stupid people.

 

The fact that AJ has been singled out by the Social Media Cartel is 100% political.

 

I don't watch any of his content but think he should have the right to post it if people/companies like Michael Moore, CNN, and Buzzfeed are allowed to post their content. Censoring people under the false claims of "hate speech" (or "abusive language" if you are a soy drinking guzzling mod at commieguys) is Nazi behavior.

 

 

The best part of this is that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple have set themselves up for anti-trust suits. Focking morons. If they want to selectively silence individuals and prevent companies from entering the market then they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Interesting thread.

 

I don't think there are many people who view Alex Jones as some messenger of truth. He is an act. Some of his content is true and some is bullshit, all of it designed for clicks. AJ is no different than CNN or Buzzfeed or Michael Moore.

 

Michael Moore is actually a very good comparison. Most people view him as a complete hack and conspiracy nut. Remember his movie claiming that George W Bush was responsible for 9/11? That is comparable to AJ calling Sandy Hook a hoax. Both obviously bull ######, both very offensive to the victims, both designed to get eyeballs and money from stupid people.

 

The fact that AJ has been singled out by the Social Media Cartel is 100% political.

 

I don't watch any of his content but think he should have the right to post it if people/companies like Michael Moore, CNN, and Buzzfeed are allowed to post their content. Censoring people under the false claims of "hate speech" (or "abusive language" if you are a soy drinking ###### guzzling mod at commieguys) is Nazi behavior.

 

 

The best part of this is that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple have set themselves up for anti-trust suits. Focking morons. If they want to selectively silence individuals and prevent companies from entering the market then they should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Actually he os far different than CNN.

You are a focking moron.

[Voltaire 4,554]

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

 

Good video, had a lot of good things to say, but fock I hate that guy.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Actually he os far different than CNN.

You are a focking moron.

Not really. CNN has a target audience and so does he. If you think CNN is interested in delivering actual news to anyone but it's target audience, then you are the moron.

[Voltaire 4,554]

 

Good video, had a lot of good things to say, but fock I hate that guy.

For a long time he was a recommended view on the right side of my screen but I never clicked on his channel because his username is so focked up. Then, about two weeks ago, a video of his loaded automatically since it was next in line and I'd not indicated a preference. Fock, I was impressed. I've been watching him frequently since. He puts out tons of videos and is quite knowledgeable.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Not really. CNN has a target audience and so does he. If you think CNN is interested in delivering actual news to anyone but it's target audience, then you are the moron.

Both having a target audience does not mean they are the same.

If you think even their slant is the same as pushing crap like he did with Sandy Hook and other things...you are the dumbest person in here.

[drobeski 3,061]

Bake that cake !