TheBannerofHomuraAkemi
Active Member
Dude have some standards please.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Alex Jones banned from Facebook, Apple, Spotify, and Youtube.
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
Dude have some standards please.
TheBannerofHomuraAkemi
Active Member
You do know that Alex Jones is just playing a character and doesn't really believe any of this.
Trump's Favorite Conspiracy Theorist Is Just 'Playing a Character'
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Uh huh, except all the other platforms, of course.
The terms of service that he violated.
Hahahahahahaha no.
First amendment rights don't extend to platforms owned and operated by other people for whom you agree to a terms of service that dictates their use. Do you believe anyone has the right to come into your house and scream obscenities in your face?
Once again, Jones violated the terms of service. If you are genuinely against media platforms banning people for violating an agreement those individuals agreed to prior to using their media platforms, perhaps it is best you not use those services any more.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Sounds like your post will end up in one of Alex's videos as proof of conspiracy.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I'm sure he will gather more sheep. He has to abide by the same rules applied to everyone else on those web sites.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
We agree 100%. He is on the fringe of the fringe and very far from this conservative's values.
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
Who ownsyoutube... then who ownsgoogle? The onlyonewhothinks it's a subcontractoredissue. If you tracetheconnections, you will find that not only do wenothavefirstammendmentrights, but the improperlyratifiedpatriotact has killedtheconstitution that was put in place to protectusfromthegovernment. They can do pretty much whatevertheywant, because wethepeople are at least actinglikelemmings. That's not to say that I think we should or even couldmarchanywhere to upholdourrights without having the jackbootedthugsinbluecaps rainingdeathfromabove on our unsorryderrieres. But I'd buymeadog or get usedtostayingupnights to avoid the overnightexpresstreatment.
or "You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe."
________________________
BTW... some people who believe everything Jesus says, don't go to churchbuildings.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I think your space bar might be broken.
Ya know, everything I know about Jones I learned right here on RF.
I just don't find political extremists all that interesting. From Jones to Sharpton, I just don't care.
Tom
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Understood, and I'm sure he (along with the alt-right in general) is far from most conservatives' values. The same holds true regarding the SJWs (such as antifa) vs. your average liberal. Both are fringe yet very visible and vocal minorities. The problem lies with each side trying to paint the other with their most extreme, outlandish examples rather than trying to find common ground. It also doesn't help that both sides are reluctant to call out these wacky elements within their own ranks.
I'm sorry, I know people don't like him, but Alex Jones is hilarious. It's an act, and at its heights, it is one of the best around.
and how else would we get derivative works like:
and how else would we get derivative works like:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
"Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe."
- The InfoWars tems of service (SOURCE: Terms of service)
- The InfoWars tems of service (SOURCE: Terms of service)
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't even like Alex Jones. Not a fan at all.
That said, I expected censorship from the left anyways. It's what they do.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
True. They're left-leaning organizations all the same.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
I don't get calling this "censorship." By the technical definition it is, in the sense that any restriction on speech anywhere technically is, but it isn't what we generally think of when that term is used. i.e. The state cracking down on politically relevant speech.
1) The man advocates that people "stand up and do something about" the "globalist blood-sucking vampire goblin elites" on a regular basis. That could be a call to political action, except... one of his slogans is "1776 will commence again!" It would make him a martyr, so I'd never advocate doing it, but one could make a fair legal "incitement to violence" case based on that alone. That isn't protected speech in the first place.
2) He repeatedly referred to the Sandy Hook parents as crisis actors. Combined with his calls to stand up and do something about the "Matrix" we live in, and the fact that he spits out some dozen videos a day, that created an environment which encouraged the harassment of families that already lost children. Something that didn't exist for the Columbine families and those of other school shooting victims, pre-Infowars. To communicate the gravity of it: one family had to move 7 times due to wackjobs harassing and threatening them. The First Amendment refers to Congress and has been traditionally interpreted to apply to government bodies as a whole. YouTube is a private company and perfectly in their rights to enforce their terms of service. In fact, it hurts the very credibility of their terms not to.
We don't live in a world where a high quantity of one kind of speech doesn't crowd out a platform, or one where those influenced by said speech don't act on it. It's very dangerous to give the state the power to control political speech, and I don't advocate doing so. But actions taken by private institutions to clean up the dialogue they're putting out are commendable, to me.
1) The man advocates that people "stand up and do something about" the "globalist blood-sucking vampire goblin elites" on a regular basis. That could be a call to political action, except... one of his slogans is "1776 will commence again!" It would make him a martyr, so I'd never advocate doing it, but one could make a fair legal "incitement to violence" case based on that alone. That isn't protected speech in the first place.
2) He repeatedly referred to the Sandy Hook parents as crisis actors. Combined with his calls to stand up and do something about the "Matrix" we live in, and the fact that he spits out some dozen videos a day, that created an environment which encouraged the harassment of families that already lost children. Something that didn't exist for the Columbine families and those of other school shooting victims, pre-Infowars. To communicate the gravity of it: one family had to move 7 times due to wackjobs harassing and threatening them. The First Amendment refers to Congress and has been traditionally interpreted to apply to government bodies as a whole. YouTube is a private company and perfectly in their rights to enforce their terms of service. In fact, it hurts the very credibility of their terms not to.
We don't live in a world where a high quantity of one kind of speech doesn't crowd out a platform, or one where those influenced by said speech don't act on it. It's very dangerous to give the state the power to control political speech, and I don't advocate doing so. But actions taken by private institutions to clean up the dialogue they're putting out are commendable, to me.
Last edited:
Well, technically it's censorship, but it's not state sponsored censorship which is a huge difference compared to China and especially North Korea.
Alex Jones still has avenues offered to people to view his content. He could also build a multi-million dollar online business similar to Youtube, facebook. He can then censor, excuse me, I mean regulate his own content. For now, he'll just have to settle for his own infowars.com site.