Of course he should be banned - all these platforms have clearly defined terms and conditions and codes of conduct which Jones has continually violated.
This isn't some first amendment debate - Jones still has the right to promote his own app, podcast or whatever.....he just can't do it on somebody elses dime.
It certainly helps legitimize him to his fans. Still a fine move, he's a waste of air.
If that where the case he would have been banned long ago.Yeah, I anticipated that would be his move on this. But those platforms, if they host defamatory content, they can be held accountable for the defamation along with Jones. That's why this happened. Because Jones defames innocent people who have rock solid cases that the likes of which Facebook, Youtube. etc. can't stop with their entire army of lawyers.
Jones pedals ******** and the only way to belive it is if you're a ****ing idiot. If he could prove any piece of it he would have nothing to fear from a defamation lawsuit and Facebook, Youtube would absolutely be in the clear. Only because there is no reasonable way for Jones to believe what he says are these guys banning him. Period. They don't care about what he's saying. They don't care why he's saying it. They just know after being beaten over the head with facts that what he is saying is intentional ******** that opens them up to defamation, since they now know for a fact that what he's saying is not true.
You don't know when the defamed people's lawyers made those platforms aware of the information they have.If that where the case he would have been banned long ago.
So you think banning him from these platforms is the right move?
He seems to have experienced a rise I'm popularity off of it. My fear is that this kind of move will legitimize his platform. He has already started to spin it as a "see they don't want you to hear the truth" kind of thing.
I think you are right on the spot here. There are about 5 Million Americans who will follow Alex Jones one way or another, even if he has to print pamphlets and smuggle them from state to state. Banning him in generic terms is a very bad business move for the platforms. Setting guidelines required of all contributors is very very good for business and very very bad for the hungry lawyers.
The air is public domain though, and there's enough of it for everyone.
I knew Rush Limbaugh's producer in Sacramento. A lot of folks were pleased as punch when we got an intelligent and articulate spokesman for what we all knew was right.
"Ditto heads"If you look around the internet you can find recordings of Rush's old radio shows from the 80's. A lot of the show was just Rush spewing outlandish "Howard Stern-light" stuff for comedic/shock value that people starting taking seriously. His original producer (Kit Carson?) was smart enough to recognize the potential, clean the show up a bit and eventually get it syndicated.
Always found that interesting that's how the conservative talk radio format that we know today started.
If you look around the internet you can find recordings of Rush's old radio shows from the 80's. A lot of the show was just Rush spewing outlandish "Howard Stern-light" stuff for comedic/shock value that people starting taking seriously. His original producer (Kit Carson?) was smart enough to recognize the potential, clean the show up a bit and eventually get it syndicated.
Always found that interesting that's how the conservative talk radio format that we know today started.
They can listen to him on CB radio. Kick him off the wonderful platforms us globalists created.
just an aside.... where are you from???? some country that historically just slices heads of nonconformists/disbelievers???
come to America and learn to swim in actual water. It's scarier than sand. But still, sometimes people drown in sand. And other stuff. One day there was a school tour of a salt pile, climbing around on it, when the automatic screw for feeding the bagger kicked on, and sucked her under. They stopped the screw mechanism, but couldn't dig her out in time. Drowned in salt. Might be the origin of the term "getting screwed" too, whaddya think. Automatic stuff isn't human.
I think US libs are taking a step back palling around with folks who still don't get the drift of Western culture, which emerged from perhaps the darkest age in human history, where "the Divine Right of Kings" and "Primus nuptum" were pretty convincing slogans like the ones used today by Leftwing mobs raging through the 'net, burning books and deleting history, trying to purify the past and photo-shop the future.
Of course, I won't really say conservatives are more enlightened. But perhaps they do it all backwards... glorifying the past and hiding from the future..... oh yeah, and burning what books have not been burned yet.
Probably you really laugh a bit when trying to find rhetoric to snare me with...… but I dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee..... or imagine I do.
The foundations of modern Western civilization are woven outta people who fought, died, and still won some few elements of human dignity and liberty, digging with bare fingers into castle stone until the damn castles crumbled. Maybe never really finished the job. But will never quit trying.
It takes a thousand screaming ninnies to go up in flames before we find one Jean du Arc, a thousand knuckleheaded jocks taking bribes from royals in the secret night, throwing battles to the Lords in the light of day, to find one Braveheart.
But in the end, the nattering naybobs of negativism and the twittering troglodytes of totalitarianism, just don't have a case. People will be free.
/politicaldictionary.com/words/nattering-nabobs-of-negativism/
"
nattering nabobs of negativism
A phrase used by Vice President Spiro Agnew to refer to the members of the media with whom he had a very acrimonious relationship.
Said Agnew while speaking to the California Republican state convention on September 11, 1970: “In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club — the ‘hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.'”
While the phrase is generally attributed to Agnew, it was actually written by White House speechwriter William Safire.
Will Bunch: “The words that William Safire penned and that Spiro Agnew mouthed actually had enormous impact that has lasted until this day. They helped foster among conservatives and the folks that Nixon called ‘the silent majority’ a growing mistrust of the mainstream media, a mistrust that grew over two generations into a form of hatred. It also started a dangerous spiral of events — journalists started bending backwards to kowtow to their conservative critics, beginning in the time of Reagan, an ill-advised shift that did not win back a single reader or viewer on the right. Instead, it caused a lot of folks on the left and even the center to wonder why the national media had stopped doing its job, stopped questioning authority.”
"
I am a good swimmer, and a good skater too. And I shoot straight. Being related close enough to globalists might help me escape being taken too seriously when playing devil's advocate sometimes, but it also makes my nattering incomprehensible to some.
It takes a real moron to believe it will help some cause to cut me down to size. But then moronic causes like purifying public forums do attract morons. Even rich morons.
And that Will Bunch's expansive moralizations over the wisdom of media hacks is about as self-serving as any conceited bonehead. "question authority" was a sixties phrase owned by potheads too smart to care for their neurons, too stupid to think for themselves. Don't care much, more like.
The media in this country has been owned, compromised, prostituted probably from the days of King George III. Throw a hunk of meat over the wall, and you can pilfer the goods of the palace while our media snarls over a whiff of blood.
Of course, because you fancy yourself speaking for all Americans, so the only explanation for my opinions is that I'm a filthy foreigner.
I only read the first paragraph. I assume the rest is irrelevant **** about the UN wanting to enslave us all.
I mean, you must know a lot about sand and about people having their heads chopped off...Of course, because you fancy yourself speaking for all Americans, so the only explanation for my opinions is that I'm a filthy foreigner.
I only read the first paragraph. I assume the rest is irrelevant **** about the UN wanting to enslave us all.
I mean, you must know a lot about sand and about people having their heads chopped off...
babe usually doesn't go there, but that post of his was pretty gross.
A lot of people think that they are in the majority with their opinions because when they state their opinions people tend to agree. But for the most part its just being polite. When people talk to me in person about politics and I'm not in the mood to debate (which is most of the time) I tent to just nod my head and change the subject. Or just say something like, I dont know that but whatever and move on. They tend to think I am agreeing with them and that usually is not the case.