So far, Indie Folk Alex Jones remains accessible.
yeah, um, no.
Julian, fuck you right up the Assange.
Remember the snark about spammers’ “Free Speach” (based on a misspelling in one spammer’s self-justifying sigline that went viral)? Maybe we ought to dust that off for this situation, to go with “Freedumb Caucus”, “Get A Brain Morans”, etc.
YouTube had him on restricted access (no Livestreams) after he called for someone to get shot. They closed his account yesterday because he livestreamed using another channel and they have clear rules in the terms of service about not doing that.
It’s telling that they’re not thinking. There’s no evidence that they can.
From the same site, “It makes you wonder if these tech giants are working together to throttle conservative content online? And who is behind the scene pulling the strings?”
Who’s pulling the strings? Why, George Soros and Hillary Clinton, of course. They each have color-coded phones in their Information Control dungeon with direct lines to Apple, YouTube, and Facebook, and their word is an instant command. Hillary and Soros were especially worried that the 9/11 conspiracy and the Sandy Hook hoax were about to be exposed, so they put a stop to it. THE TRUTH must not be revealed. The annoying thing is that Hillary was cackling madly the whole time.
I thought Alex Jones was the guy from the A Scanner Darkly film. How is his content related to hate speech?
Are you really that fucking stupid?
From the OP’s link.
Which barely scratches the surface of the vileness that is Alex Jones.
Right I understand the claim being made, I just haven’t seen the evidence of it. I’m not going to wade into his material, if it is even possible to at this point.
Also, in addition to what’s already been said, he has both uttered and incited death threats, the most deplorable of which was the vicious claims that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a deliberate hoax, and inciting some of his like-minded followers to threaten the families who were already mourning the loss of their children.
Since many authoritarian governments have criminalized hate-speech, I feel it is probably in my best interest to understand what qualifies as hate speech to society. I thought I had a good grasp of what it was, but when gun-nut of Piers Morgan fame is accused of hate speech, I am not sure anymore.
Yes I know about the sordid claims he has made about the shooting victims. The claims about inciting violence would have to be proved, though.
One article said he made a death threat against Mueller, and carefully quoted his video. I watched the short video they provided and did not hear a death threat. He said they were going to have some sort of political showdown and made a gun with his fingers and acted like he was a cowboy.
It would seem that they don’t.
(Wait, do you mean proved to you? Nah, they still don’t)
Hehe
I can’t help but think this is exactly what Jones wants. Now he can legitimately boast how he’s being censored and oppressed by leftist powers that don’t want him spreading the (his) truth.
Idk I’m sure this is hurting his pockets pretty fiercely.
Really? My impression is that authoritarian regimes generally like to criminalize speech critical of the regime in order to secure their power, and peaceful democratic societies criminalize speech that directly incites violence against specific minority groups in order to protect the most vulnerable in society. Do the differences confuse you?
Woman who threatened Sandy Hook parent arrested in Tampa
That’s just one example. The courts seem to have established probable cause: “Before the arrest warrant was issued, Richards was free on $25,000 bond and barred from websites that push conspiracy theories.”
Regardless of whether or not you consider it a death threat, it’s evident that his speech comes dangerously close to the incitement of political violence. Whether it crosses the line legally is not material; what’s material is that it clearly violates the norms of public decency, and platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and so on have a vested interest in ensuring that these platforms don’t become a breeding ground for the incitement of behavior that can lead to harassment or injury.
Whether they apply that standard consistently might be a fairer question to ask, but I’ll leave that for someone else. In any case, if the claim is that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and others are applying these standards selectively, then they should make some effort to prove it by citing numerous valid examples, rather than just crying about censorship. There are plenty of other conservative voices with access to these same platforms so it shouldn’t be too hard to make the case.
Jones was charged with incitement?
Has Spotify taken down the White Album in response to the Manson murders?
Authoritarians come in different styles, does that confuse you?
Right, I’m mostly concerned about the claims of “hate speech”. Any proof?