Which seems like something that needs to be fixed. They are just too big.
playing devils advocate here:
In the 50’s crazy people only had ability for the town to hear, now people can have the world hear what they say and that has further reaching implications. The company is a vehicle for that, it’s like a global megaphone.
Maybe the issue is that modern crazy towns people demand more than they are really entitled too and that there are more people and therefore more crazy town people.
Yeah, you no longer have the “village idiot” and now have the “band of raging maniacs”
I know I was giving a bit of a false equivalence there but my point was that without the ability to speak on these platforms, you have a significantly restricted ability to speak.
I’d like to advocate for an internet Bill of Rights, of sorts. I’m not sure what it would need, but maybe that’s a topic for another thread?
I would not. I think speech management is important in the digital age. By that i mean self management, taking personal responsibility.
I mean we kind of already have laws for this stuff…
1 Like
That sounds like a euphemism for censorship.
Not relevant anymore
1 Like
it does if your perspective is that statement means no freedom of speech, it’s more granular than that. But this is becoming a circular argument.
1 Like
Uhh, no it’s called self control.
Don’t make shit up and smear people that you don’t like. Alex Jones dug himself in the hole he’s in.
He gave the globalists an excuse to do what they have wanted to do for so long. We are talking about the most deceptive and manipulative people on Earth.
Well, I mean he made up the Sandy Hook shooting up (I keep bringing this up I know, but it’s a major point). So if he isn’t just a fruit loop he does not have the best of intentions for anybody.
A bit.
My concern is that freedom of speech is binary. You have it or you don’t. There is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on 1A. If you’re not in the USA, that’s a different situation, but I really don’t see why people don’t believe in freedom of speech.
The problem right now is that the internet is global and laws are local to a country or city. That’s where the idea of an internet bill of rights comes in. It would be rights given to people when conversing on the internet. If you want internet in your country, you’ll have to agree to not infringe it.
Yes, he did play a part in that. The problem is that this whole situation is bigger than him. He’s just the beginning. If you can’t see that, you’re not worth conversing with.
I was under the impression that @anon97550313 was talking about regulated speech control. I was debating policy, not human decency because humans cannot be trusted to be decent.
Ambiguity
It’s a red herring, not a point.
Why does your “right” to be not offended trump my right to free speech?
Think about the chilling effect of censorship and how that’s bad. It won’t stop people from having those views. It just stops them from talking about them, which stops people from debating them, which stops people from debunking them, which causes the ideas to take root even moreso in the minds of the people. I know you’ll argue this is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but understand that it’s happening in America now.
2 Likes
I’ve gotten the feeling that the argument for the removal of Alex Jones always comes from the point of view that his speech are untruthful or unacceptable. Which is to proclaim the sites banning him the arbiters of truth. Additionally if it were really about not wanting to hear what he has to say the real solution is to block him personally; but no, its actually about censorship. Its about depriving everyone their right to listen, not only Alex’s right free expression.
Blocking him and ignoring him… thats what you would call:
Freedom of speech is supposed to be the tool of the downtrodden. What happens when the same implements that were used in this case are used to censor those on the other side of the aisle. Letting censorship occur just because you disagree with the victim is a dangerous road to walk, because power changes hands.
1 Like
You ain’t wrong about the potential of censorship spiraling out of control and being a potential danger to us in the future, but:
Why does the right to make shit up about me and smear me trump my feelings and emotions? Why does it decide it’s okay for a person to harass others? This is a shitty “ooh your so offended” argument that snowflakes make. Yes, I would be most offended if I was the parent of the children that died there and not only that but people harassed me based on made up shit Alex Jones said about me and my deceased children faking it, who wouldn’t be besides a heartless and soulless excuse of a human?
Even if it was somehow fake, why the hell would Alex Jones be crazy enough to say this in the public knowing that it would turn on him like this (knowing that the globalists like to manipulate people’s emotions)? Why would he even speak out against the government in the open if there really was a deep state? He would have been taken out years ago. Why would he side with Trump, a guy who wants to be a dictator and is most likely working with another one? Trump wants a deep state so why would Alex Jones even like him?
He has self-prophecized himself being censored off of the web in a way that I don’t think he is honest about a thing he says. If your worried about censorship, wouldn’t you want to avoid a situation that will lead to censorship?
… or he was a shill all along ?
idk, quite a few people have suggested that. He is entertaining though 
And this is why it’s more dangerous that so many people believe his blatant lies and conspiracies. That has real world consequences.
Also, blocking and ignoring him doesn’t do shit when he is accusing you of being part of a great conspiracy act and millions of people follow you and harass you online and even in real life! There were parents that had to move out multiple times! While you so kindly defend him, remember to answer to those people as well, if your brave enough to.
I can block him and ignore him myself, that won’t do anything really.
Defamation laws exist for a reason.
1 Like
I wouldn’t be surprised at this point really. I mean he is practically doing everything he can to get censorship going despite his rhetoric.
It butts right up at your right to sue me for slander and defamation. I don’t defend the words of anyone who says something awful. I do, however, defend their right to say it. The light is the best disinfectant, and the only way to bring things to the light is to have unfettered free speech.
I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement in the social platform’s role in the free speech area. Are they the carrier or judge, jury and executioner?
He was going on about this for 6 years. Don’t you think he’d have been droned during the Obama era if they really cared enough?
Personally, I kinda think he was on to something huge. I don’t know what it was, but I’m curious.
I’m gonna defer to @SesameStreetThug for the rest of this argument, since this really sums it up:
You don’t think there are American state actors actively working against freedom, safety and America? If you all knew some of the shit I know… Heads would roll.
I think he sees himself as a martyr. It’s working.
I’ve seen it. I’m not sure. If you look at his history, it’s pretty clear he was always nuts.
ironically a globalist view point.
Do you have a better solution?
I don’t align 100% with a specific ideology. Hell, probably not even 50%
Your 100% free speech. But that regulation would not be 100% freedom in itself.
Make your mind up 
Honestly Alex Jones should be tried for defamation of character but so could the one that made up Pizzagate and all those millions of conspiracies about Hillary Clinton that were made up (assuming they weren’t Russian spies of course, if that’s the case, they better stay in Russia or Ukraine or some shit).
Of course they would throw a fit and say the “government is out to get them” when they are being tried (guilty or not). I mean shit, Trump does it all the time.