Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship


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

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 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

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 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!
 

Ferguson_Mellochill

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

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 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

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 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
 

Ferguson_Mellochill

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:

Top