Alex Jones and corporate censorship

Not entirely, and the law supports my view, private businesses may not deny goods or services based on race, gender, religion, age, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability. There are exceptions (for religious reasons -against homosexual practices, probably for national security reasons -against certain foreign national origins, due to incapacity -for certain disabilities). Should political belief be a lawful basis for discrimination?

There's another issue due to the nature of the businesses at issue, the services they provide and their size. It is more difficult to support banning individuals for their political beliefs by a major internet service provider like Google or Apple, than by a restaurant or night club, there really is no comparable to Google or Apple, but there are lots of similar restaurants and night clubs. It should also be noted that when the government forbids discrimination of those protected classes, it focuses on fundamental goods or services a business provides (like housing, healthcare or transportation) and freedom of expression is a fundamental right.

So my answer is not as categorical, it depends.

So the critical left has its marching orders, Trump opposes this, it must be supported.

But as the president sensibly noted:

We can all do that, I expect many do, right here I'll skip over postings by individuals I've found solely focused on some specific issue with a very distorted perspective, I agree with the President when he says:

Who is making these decisions to censor, on what basis, why does it appear so subjective?

 

I refuse to say why what?

Multiple Democrats and multiple media specifically targeted Alex Jones regarding social media allowing him to post in the months leading up to this. Now suddenly several social media outlets get together and ban him, and you want us to think the two have zero relation whatsoever lest we be on part with moon landing hoaxers?

Pull your head out.

Corporations frequently fall prey to concentrated pressure campaigns by activists which is why the activists do what they do.

 

Even mentioning nazis in the same post as ANTIFA is a bonus for the lefties

 

Sorry but you still have this wrong. I actually supported the Christian bakers and now I am supporting Google and Co on this particular issue. My beliefs don't fall on partisan lines.

ETA: Your explanation with Accommodation laws doesn't cover political factions. Anyway Alex was actually allowed to use the platforms and he did so for a while. His issue is about the freedom of association not accommodation.

 

Alex Jones isn't just an person spouting unpopular views. I actually find him the worse party in all this because he mixes horsecrap with legit questions and theories to delegitimize those view points.

The freedom of speech issue is less about censorship than it is about the abuse and perversion of the 1st Amendment. Alex Jones is a good example of someone perverting and abusing the 1st to mislead and misinform the public.

 

Yes, the law supports your view but it's still sad to see you agree with the Democrats on this issue.

 

Out of where, ma'm?

Frequently? Put a number on that? 10%? 1%? 100%? Or did you pull that number out of where your head is located?

The fact remains corporations exist for a single reason: to create wealth. No one buys stock in order to lose money or to foster some idealistic cause. There is no antifa or nazi stock. Sure, some people will buy "green" stocks, but mostly they just lose money. Their choice.

Furthermore, as we've seen with some corporations, be it the NFL, Papa John's, or Chik-fil-A, they try to avoid politics for this very reason. Sometimes they can't help it such as when members say something political, but the corporation itself tries to remain apolitical because it usually works against maximizing profit.

 

So are you taking back the false equivalence of moon landing hoaxing with noting that a several months-long campaign by both House Democrats and major media outlets to get Alex Jones in specific banned from social media WORKED?

It doesn't matter if media try to avoid politics - activists come to them and try to make it political. Starbucks caved with loiterers because of pressure. **** like this happens frequently.

If politicians and media getting together to pressure social media specifically over ALEX JONES going back to the fall of 2016, then why was Jones banned from any outlet, let alone several within a few days?

This is obviously political.

 

LOL. Have a great day, ma'm.

 

What has he falsely advertised?

Sorry, is there a law against "inciting harm?" And what harm is he supposed to have incited exactly?

 

I don't know since I don't listen to him. You tell me.

Dude, you've gone from "could be" to making an accusation. What, exactly, are you seeking to say here? What point, if any, are you trying to make?

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

 

I think you are confusing principle with practicality.

On principle, the stifling of his views--and I will certainly agree that they are hateful and absurd--is a step in the wrong direction, for a free society, I think.

If he is given a podium, he is not nearly so likely to make converts as he is to turn off large numbers of people, I believe.

 

Agree the USA is 2 completely different nations.

Whats not healthy is that "progressives" - like all tyrants - will not let people live without the prog hand directing their every thought and deed.

And conservatives wont go underground. That's not a solution "progressives" will accept anyway, progs demand open and total obedience. In a tyrannical domain, the ruling class will not allow a person to just quietly live his life and be left alone.

 

You could be right

I could be reading this wrong but the lawsuit was filed early August and within days Jones is banned

 

The US is a nation governed by rule of law. Some laws are deceitfully enacted and manipulated, but the law must be upheld. There is a process to change the law; people who believe businesses must be free to discriminate need to promote this view and urge those who support it to convey that view to elected representatives who in turn must be urged to repeal and oppose any legislation contrary to this view.

Naturally, if people who think businesses ought to be able to discriminate are banned from the internet and not allowed to share their views online there is a problem, particularly when banned advocates for such policies then opt for conventional protests or demonstrations only to be confronted by opponents whose use of online media is unimpeded, not a fair fight.

 

Yet you seem to disagree with those who seek to change the law. Why?

Nonetheless, Internet businesses have a TOS which everyone agrees to upon joining. Are you saying that those businesses should never be able to ban someone who violates the TOS?

 

I've said this before and more than once; the major internet service providers need something more than their own particular TOS to govern them due to the scope of the service they provide. A club for Mets fans can discriminate against admitting Giants fans, there are other clubs which could admit them, not many affected. Google provides internet communications for billions of people, there is no comparable source, all other sources together have less than 10% of Google's coverage, the same could be said of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and such. At some point a private business is so ubiquitous its TOS alone won't suffice and must be moderated.

Additionally, based on the fact we haven't had any reporting of non conservative or Republican bannings, it does appear these TOS are being applied in a discriminatory manner, nobody is banning advocacy for the violent overthrow of the government when by Antifa afins, there's no censorship of violence against perceived environmental degradation, those who promote violence against opponents of unlawful immigration, homosexual marriage, abortion, gentrification, income disparity or universal healthcare, are all given a free pass, no censorship. So the application of TOS does not appear at all fair and objective, it only applies if the banned oppose a leftist agenda. Should a business be allowed to discriminatorily enforce its TOS?

 

Disagreed with more authoritarian law on private businesses. As long as the TOS is fair to all, I see no reason for people to bitch about it.

 

I wouldn't put it that way, but agree. However, I don't at all believe the TOS of these internet giants is applied in a manner "fair to all", as I noted before, advocacy for violence is more tolerated when for a leftist cause.

 

Could be, but it's their business, their choice. File a complaint.

 

You can't separate the practicality from the principle. If there is no practical obstacle to Jones getting his message out - and there is not - then principle has not been offended. His views have not been 'stifled' and he retains a very effective podium.

This is the bit I don't get. If Fox refuses to give air time to a left wing figure vastly less extreme than Jones no one screams about 'freedom of speech'. They might talk about 'bias', but they aren't the same thing. As best I am aware publishers have never been compelled to publish views they disagreed with and news and book sellers were never compelled to sell them. There was/is no infringement of free speech there, and it was MUCH, MUCH harder to disseminate views in the print era without easy access to those distribution systems. Same goes for TV & radio when they were fundamental parts of the information distribution system.

Yet now that information is easier to disseminate & access than it ever has been, suddenly a number of platforms refusing to carry particular content is 'suppression' and is a free speech issue. Not buying it. There might be a discussion to have about bias, but even if that is the case, so what? As I have pointed out, all it takes to find the content you want is a few key strokes. Practicality & principle interact in a world where this is the case. If Jones or others can no longer access the internet there may be an issue to discuss, but we are a very, very long way from that.

 

That could be a perception bias

Do an analysis and see if your perception holds

Personally I think it is more because the right are more inclined to resort to name calling and personal attacks. On this board I would report five times the number of right wing posters making remarks outside of the TOS than I do left wingers

 

Agreed. I prefer letting fools advertise their ignorance. However, too many are under the impression that his first amendment rights mean that he is somehow owed other peoples' podiums.

 

Social media sites do not fit the definition of a "natural monopoly" so IMHO they can do whatever they like. If broadband providers implement censorship that is a different matter.