Saint Cy of JFC

Well-Known Member
For anyone who hasn't been following, several social media and content hosting sites (YouTube, Spotify, apple, and Facebook) have banned Alex Jones, a right wing conspiracy theorist.

Twitter announced today they wouldn't be banning him, citing that he hasn't broken any of twitters policy rules and its the news media's job to discredit the rumors Jones spreads.

So do people like Jones need to be censored by the major social media platforms?

Does banning someone like Jones, who capitalizes on a paranoid right wing subsection, help legitimize him among his fan-base?
 

Douchebag K

Well-Known Member
he sounds like a tool .. but who ultimately decides what's acceptable or not if you block certain people ?? And are these private companies allowed free reign to decide or being a monopoly should they be subject to state run guidelines ? Tricky but it's a slipperly slope blocking whoever unless they're advocating violence.
 

Gameface

Black Lives Matter
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
Jones doesn't just peddle conspiracy theories, he defames innocent people. Keep in mind if he could show that what he's saying is true there's no grounds for a lawsuit. If he could even show that he has good reason to assume what he was saying was true he'd be okay. But he's lying and he knows he's lying and he is causing real harm to people and putting those people at risk of violence (see pizzagate) from retaliation from idiots along the lines of babe and dutch, who are being told this is a fight between good and evil.
 

Saint Cy of JFC

Well-Known Member
Jones doesn't just peddle conspiracy theories, he defames innocent people. Keep in mind if he could show that what he's saying is true there's no grounds for a lawsuit. If he could even show that he has good reason to assume what he was saying was true he'd be okay. But he's lying and he knows he's lying and he is causing real harm to people and putting those people at risk of violence (see pizzagate) from retaliation from idiots along the lines of babe and dutch, who are being told this is a fight between good and evil.
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.
 

Gameface

Black Lives Matter
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
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.
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.
 
just remember when the civil war ultimately starts. the left started censorship! the left(antifa) started violence!

the james gunn thing was a repsonse to roseanne bar.
sarah yeong can be racist and get a job at the NYT.


when we cant converse or dsicuss anymore. that's when violence break out. when we cant discus our views with arguments coutner arguments. or witht stupidity like homosexual frogs. is when humans tend to become violent.
i dont want censorship. but when there is censorship a true resistence starts. not the fake resistance de niro did standing in front of a room in hollywood and yell f trump! and get an aplause!
 

Catchall

Well-Known Member
2019 Prediction Contest Winner
I don't think people should be banned for expressing their point of view. Alex Jones isn't the only guy presenting views on conspiracies, false flags, and such. That said, these social media are private platforms (rather than regulated utilities), and they can restrict users for various reasons.

What will happen is that some other social platform will pick him up and attract his audience there.
 

Gameface

Black Lives Matter
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
I don't think people should be banned for expressing their point of view. Alex Jones isn't the only guy presenting views on conspiracies, false flags, and such. That said, these social media are private platforms (rather than regulated utilities), and they can restrict users for various reasons.

What will happen is that some other social platform will pick him up and attract his audience there.
He wasn't banned for expressing his point of view.

He was banned for using his show for defamation. These platforms were made aware by the people being defamed that Jones has been provided with incontrovertible evidence that he is committing defamation, and so by Jones knowing that that the damaging things he's saying about innocent people aren't true, when he continues to say them (on these platforms) he is continuing to commit defamation. Now that the platforms have been provided with evidence that Jones is both saying damaging things that aren't true, and that Jones knows these things aren't true, those platforms are now fully aware that they are providing a venue for a him to continue to say untrue things that both he and the platform know are not true, that are doing real harm (not just hurting feelings, babe, you ****ing clown) these platforms are complicit in the defamation.

So they banned him.

It's not really hard to understand.
 

Gameface

Black Lives Matter
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
Here's what defamation is:

"Defamation of character" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages.
Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake. Political and social disagreement is important in a free society, and we obviously don't all share the same opinions or beliefs. For instance, political opponents often reach opposite conclusions from the same facts, and editorial cartoonists often exaggerate facts to make their point.

What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

  • published
  • false
  • injurious
  • unprivileged
Let's look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be
 

Catchall

Well-Known Member
2019 Prediction Contest Winner
Okay, yeah. It looks like there are legit defamation suits pending against Jones. That could motivate these platforms to drop him.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Jones doesn't just peddle conspiracy theories, he defames innocent people. Keep in mind if he could show that what he's saying is true there's no grounds for a lawsuit. If he could even show that he has good reason to assume what he was saying was true he'd be okay. But he's lying and he knows he's lying and he is causing real harm to people and putting those people at risk of violence (see pizzagate) from retaliation from idiots along the lines of babe and dutch, who are being told this is a fight between good and evil.
Bulletproof is open to a lawsuit, along with JFC, for saying this. He is just as stupid as he thinks Alex Jones is for putting me in the same sentence as "putting those people at risk of violence from retailiation from idiots" followed immediately by "along the lines of babe and dutch."

This jewel is saved in my file, Jason.
Jones doesn't just peddle conspiracy theories, he defames innocent people. Keep in mind if he could show that what he's saying is true there's no grounds for a lawsuit. If he could even show that he has good reason to assume what he was saying was true he'd be okay. But he's lying and he knows he's lying and he is causing real harm to people and putting those people at risk of violence (see pizzagate) from retaliation from idiots along the lines of babe and dutch, who are being told this is a fight between good and evil.
He wasn't banned for expressing his point of view.

He was banned for using his show for defamation. These platforms were made aware by the people being defamed that Jones has been provided with incontrovertible evidence that he is committing defamation, and so by Jones knowing that that the damaging things he's saying about innocent people aren't true, when he continues to say them (on these platforms) he is continuing to commit defamation. Now that the platforms have been provided with evidence that Jones is both saying damaging things that aren't true, and that Jones knows these things aren't true, those platforms are now fully aware that they are providing a venue for a him to continue to say untrue things that both he and the platform know are not true, that are doing real harm (not just hurting feelings, babe, you ****ing clown) these platforms are complicit in the defamation.

So they banned him.

It's not really hard to understand.
So, you're not a lawyer, bro. I don't share your faith in allegations or lawsuits, or judges.

People come out of the webz every day, protesting stuff. Seems like I recall how you thought Antifa was right about Charlottesville, and seems like you failed to lodge your indignant outrage about the Trump supporters who have been bloodied up by violent demonstrators. Did anyone get bloodied up when the ignorant and intolerant folks came out to protest the Sandy Hook parents.

principles enshrined in laws like "stand your ground" attempt to protect citizens from being attacked, and justify self-defense. Principles like freedom of speech entitle the parents to answer anyone's criticisms.... and in this case maybe they even got to go on TV to do so.

emotional stress and fears are today recognized as actionable damages, but I suspect there will be some questions in the minds of reasonable.... non-political...impartial sorts of judges about just where one person's rights begin and the others' end.

Not entirely bad to have public issues.

Since I haven't been watching or listening to Alex Jones, I'd have to go there to decide what I really think of him. Probably about ten million others will do so, too.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Here's what defamation is:
A definition like this isn't going to play well in court.

not with an opening line like "defamation is anything anyone else imagines is a put down". yah, OK, even saying defamation "can be" won't rule the case. There are specifications in the relevant legal codes that do govern what the laws mean, and what is legally "defamation".

…...and then.... when the lawyers go at it.... who the hell knows what anyone will think ….. or what a judge or jury will decide.

Alex should settle soon, and get a lawyer to go over his schtick on air before he goes out to "battle".
 
Last edited:

babe

Well-Known Member
Jones doesn't just peddle conspiracy theories, he defames innocent people. Keep in mind if he could show that what he's saying is true there's no grounds for a lawsuit. If he could even show that he has good reason to assume what he was saying was true he'd be okay. But he's lying and he knows he's lying and he is causing real harm to people and putting those people at risk of violence (see pizzagate) from retaliation from idiots along the lines of babe and dutch, who are being told this is a fight between good and evil.
you should go find the Jones show where he said whatever he said..... not so smart to just believe what you're told.

For a long time I've believed you are plugged in to some kind of organized political information project because of how quick you come outta the gate with the stuff almost the minute it is put out anywhere. I wish you'd think about it for two minutes.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
For anyone who hasn't been following, several social media and content hosting sites (YouTube, Spotify, apple, and Facebook) have banned Alex Jones, a right wing conspiracy theorist.

Twitter announced today they wouldn't be banning him, citing that he hasn't broken any of twitters policy rules and its the news media's job to discredit the rumors Jones spreads.

So do people like Jones need to be censored by the major social media platforms?

Does banning someone like Jones, who capitalizes on a paranoid right wing subsection, help legitimize him among his fan-base?
I heard Jack Dorsey (Twitter Man) today on Sean Hannity's show..... in the first spot up front in his program. It was a very civil discussion, and they both thanked one another for the chance to talk about Twitter's policies on air. I almost decided to open a twitter account.

I don't know Jones. I have wondered, when I've listened to him, whether he is himself a sort of psy-op put out there by the globalists to make their critics look bad..... lol.

But I've come to believe he is sincere, and passionate. Some people just like that out front style.

yah, and then I go on Wikipedia or some other liberal sort of source to see what they say about him, and find nothing but slobbering hateful codespeak . Even in your rhetoric here there is a sort of set-up of the issues that most people do recognize as biased, with the marginal exceptions of devout over-the-top liberal advocates...…

You do know, I would hope, that "Conspiracy Theorist" is a term invented by the OSS/CIA at the close of WWII to be used to suppress anyone who started reporting Nazi personnel in America. My father worked in a military-oriented corporation where many were employed. The Russians got their cut of German science, too.

The Bush dynasty..... very thick in CIA history..... really likes to spread that smear. It means anyone with some unanswered questions who needs to be stonewalled by guvmint officials for any reason.

As I've gathered things, Alex Jones got some John Birch Society literature and turned into a full-time student of whatever he could find that would suggest something stinks in Denmark(fish capital of Europe). He is a zealot.... meaning he's got no brakes..... uhhhmmm…… we can quibble about brains or not..... I don't imagine successful people with lots of money are the sort to lock into occult crap....and I usually have to tune him out pretty soon when he talks about some things.... but then there is that little grove of Redwoods in the hills north of San Francisco.... where a lot of folks sorta go to "bond". Even Reagan went there.

But the place isn't far from the big fire right now. Must actually be as hot as Hell, and this is the time those elites usually go there.....
 
Last edited:

babe

Well-Known Member
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 all of the public platforms, and JFC, need to publish their policies and post some kind of notice of material that is or should be removed. I think abuse of the rules, consistently pushing the marginal limits, should trigger a notice to cut it out. Then a ban if site management is ignored.

If you are a liberal site, or any other sort of site.....and wish only certified, approved material, it would be very civil of you to identify yourself.

So, say, if you're a sport fan site.... lets be really really imaginative here.... owned and operated by Russians for political purposes...… you're OK as long as you give notice of your true character....

If you don't, I suppose even I would not object if Mueller hauls you into court. Uhmmm….. yah.... but lets get the law on the books before we start prosecuting that. Right now, I think there is actually no law proscribing free speech from foreign nationals or foreign-owned entities with interests in the US. Even in elections, foreigners get to say what they want in the USA.

The elections laws on the books do proscribe American politicians from taking money from foreign interests, like Hillary did many times..… and paying foreign agents to produce false information, like Hillary and the DNC did.

And, further, there are quite a few laws against the use of government assets, personnel on paid time, etc etc etc in election efforts.....

That's why I call CNN out for being worse liars than Alex Jones, and more in need of serious prosecution.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
Since I haven't been watching or listening to Alex Jones, I'd have to go there to decide what I really think of him. Probably about ten million others will do so, too.
On May 19, 2017, babe wrote:

"So I confess I listen to a lot of people while I drive long drives. Among my favorites are Breitbart, Alex Jones, Michael Savage, two guys on latenight "Redeye Radio" from Texas, two guys on Sunday morings from I think New York, George Noury on Coast to Coast, and when I really want intelligence, Mark Levin or Roger Stone. David Webb, Andrew Willkow, and others. It is a great time to be alive."

https://jazzfanz.com/threads/donald...gating-russian-election-hacking.68043/page-16
 

candrew

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Jazzta

Guest
The fact that several platforms have decided to ban him at the same time comes through as very "iffy" to me...

He talks about all these staged events, well I think this megaban is staged. AJ really is a dangerous character, controlled opposition if you ask me.
 
Last edited:

candrew

Well-Known Member
The fact that several platforms have decided to ban him at the same time comes through as very "iffy" to me...

He talks about all these staged events, well I think this megaban is staged. AJ really is a dangerous character, controlled opposition if you ask me.
Clearly they were all waiting for one of the platforms to grow a pair and ban him. It doesn't reflect well on them; but in the end; so what?

And an obvious consequence if they didn't follow suit is Jones using their platform to tear apart the one(s) that banned him - which is a headache that I'm sure none of these providers would want to deal with.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
On May 19, 2017, babe wrote:

"So I confess I listen to a lot of people while I drive long drives. Among my favorites are Breitbart, Alex Jones, Michael Savage, two guys on latenight "Redeye Radio" from Texas, two guys on Sunday morings from I think New York, George Noury on Coast to Coast, and when I really want intelligence, Mark Levin or Roger Stone. David Webb, Andrew Willkow, and others. It is a great time to be alive."

https://jazzfanz.com/threads/donald...gating-russian-election-hacking.68043/page-16
I think if you check around, I mentioned that I heard the program Alex Jones did on the Sandy Hook "actors". I later went to his site and looked at the pics, and rummaged around what was available elsewhere. Alex Jones is not on XM 125, and my older car with the AM radio as the only option has been mothballed. I did hear him talking about the lawsuit this week, but have not researched it recently.

I haven't heard Michael Savage recently, or Rush Limbaugh. I get several Breitbart programs including Sonnie's Corner (Sonny Johnson) on Saturdays around 11 Pacific, who is my current fav. She studies history. For example, she can tell you how the Republicans ditched the Blacks early on in the Progressive Era (circa 1880-90) and how the Dems were eugenicists also ditching the blacks until LBJ pulled the Welfare State caper to capture the black vote. The Republicans were responsible for the Civil Rights gains before LBJ. The CPUSA never blinked on the black issues though.

She really hates that the DCW yanked her away from her aunt and threw her to the wolves of foster care because her mom was too strung out on drugs to do the job. Her aunt is her hero who did everything to get her back to people who care.

Roger Stone never had his own program, but he was on Alex Jones back in the day quite often.

Redeye Radio, which I can only get on the Albuquerque AM station, does get boring after the news is discussed the first half hour. A lot of truckers hang with those two guys.

The Sunday Morning program with two guys from New York isn't on XM 125 anymore.

Levin, Wilkow, Redeye, Webb, and several others simply refuse to do any "conspiracy theory" stuff, and won't even try to defend Alex Jones at all, if anyone calls in trying to pull up the subject. Breitbart is basically in the same camp, trying to build a reputation for being reasonable.... except they do discuss the net dominance strategy being worked by the Left.

The chairman of CPAC and his wife who is working for Trump does a great program too, CPAC 360 I think is what it's called. XM 125 has a very good commentator on Sundays in the place of the other two guys from New York. He is pretty much extremely knowledgeable and moderate in all his ways.

I get tired of Levin's rudeness and yelling, but I have to admit he is overall one of the best. Wilkow wears me out with his unrelenting logic and persona. I understand he is friends with a lot of other, liberal XM hosts who prowl the halls where he works.… He's even friends with Nancy Pelosi's daughter, who has come on his program sometimes.

I have found quite a few more local talk radio hosts pretty good, like AM 570 in Salt Lake, Rod whatshisname in the afternoons 4-7. I enjoy Dave Ramsey too.

I hated radio and TV life from 1964 to 1988 because we had a solid wall of fake news from Cronkite to NPR. I got so damn sick of all those liars. uhhmmm…. well, OK paid stooges reading the scripts they were given by their bosses.....Almost every one a member of the national CFR run outta Rockefeller House. Pravda was bad, too. 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.

I am going to offer my services to Breitbart. Dunno if they'll take me. They are young, savvy and determined to bring news to the public. They have a very good Breitbart Texas group. The other night they had the recently retired ICE chief on for a whole hour... or was it three hours. Quite a different story from what most of you think, but beyond question civil and decent and factual. I've gone over the allegations of errors in Breitbart. Overall, they've done pretty good with what resources they have.... and they discuss their mistakes in level civil terms. They are not "in the tank" for Trump, without good reason. Like Levin, they will discuss what they think Trump is missing or doing wrong for hours.

I've never heard any of these, except Alex Jones, speak without balance rhetorically. Well, OK. Hard to tell when Wilkow is in "Balance" when he's saying "We are right. They are wrong. That's the End of the Story" He is hardcore economic capitalist.

And, oh, I forgot David Webb. Probably the best of them all. He is so knowledgeable he can make Rush look silly. The very soul of civility and compassion and good sense.
 
Last edited:
Top