Perhaps the most well known fringe conspiracy theorist in the world, who is a living endorsement of why abortion should be kept legal, has been permanently banned from twitter. Not just temporarily suspended, permanently banned
Oh happy day
Alex Jones eats shit from Twitter
Posts
Total:
50
-->
@Imabench
It's a twitter conspiracy!
Why is it a good thing that Alex Jones is not allowed on twitter?
Because you don't liike what he says?
Because you feel threatened by what he says?
Lol, its good Alex Jones is not allowed on twitter because he's a vile psychopath who preys on the gullibility of idiots to fund his bank account. Only someone as extremist and dim-witted as the average Alex Jones supporter would think that his banning from Twitter is not a fundamental improvement for society as a whole.
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
But Twitter can do its thing, I just think it's funny that they claimed in front of Congress that they don't censor Conservatives. Even the fringe batshit crazy ones should be free to speak their minds as long as they don't violate the TOS (which I argue he didn't).
-->
@Imabench
This is just proof that you don't give a sh!t about the constitution. As much as I hate left wing bias and main stream media hacks, I don't want them banned. They have just as much right to say what they want as anyone else. You can't pick and choose because you do or don't agree with what is said. I could care less about Alex Jones.
Although, Twitter is a for profit private company, they can do what they want, so there is more than just the 2nd amendment to look at in this instance.
-->
@Mopac
he's authoritarian and intolerant progressive, thought that was common knowledge.
Alex Jones an authoritarian? An intolerant progressive? I don't buy that.
Can you blame the guy for selling brain crank pills and water filters to stay afloat? Who cares if he's crazy? Everytime I watch the political activism on tv that they call "news", I see crazy, and indeed psychopathic people.
These people are all lying. Not only are they all lying, but it's hard for me to believe that they aren't aware that they are lying.
So far I'm still getting...
"I don't like what he's saying"
And/or
"I'm threatened by him"
-->
@Mopac
LOL not Jones, the O.P.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Seems awfully intolerant too. I wonder where this crusader for the gullible idiots gets his opinion from.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Mopac
Nice to see you two once again having a stupidity competition in a thread. You're both off to a solid start so far, will be interesting to see who goes full retard first.
-->
@Imabench
OMG, a truth speaker DA.com. Go Team Imabench! We need your type on the Supreme court bench where these numbskull men are making supreme laws regarding what women can or cannot do with their bodies.Lol, its good Alex Jones is not allowed on twitter because he's a vile psychopath who preys on the gullibility of idiots to fund his bank account. Only someone as extremist and dim-witted as the average Alex Jones supporter would think that his banning from Twitter is not a fundamental improvement for society as a whole.
Kavanaugh is a sick excuse for a moral human being.
-->
@DBlaze
You manage to debunk your own arguments for why its not unconstitutional in the first place, while at the same time mistaking the Right to bear arms (2nd amendment) with right to free speech (1st amendment)
-->
@Imabench
OMG, thank you thank you thank you. That got me laughing. Thank you!Nice to see you two once again having a stupidity competition in a thread. You're both off to a solid start so far, will be interesting to see who goes full retard first.
Please, Imabench, never leave DA.com.
-->
@Imabench
What does my alleged stupidity have to with anything?
So why the hate for Alex Jones? Is selling masculinity pills to people really a reason to silence him?
-->
@Imabench
Touche! I Made an honest mistake there. Sorry, new meds making my brain a bit fuzzy, I am going to try and refrain from commenting on any more posts, other than the next couple of sentences.
I meant there is more than just the 1st amendment at stake. I didn't debunk anything, it depends on what the laws are on social media. I'm not sure what they are, or how they apply, but I would think that twitter can ban whoever they want... (or is it the same legal issues as the cake chef, and the gay marriage?) It might be, only there is no religious belief to stand behind. So Twitter may find themselves in a lawsuit. Very doubtful though.
I can answer both questions with one answer on this one which is convenient
Jones got his accounts suspended for abusive behavior, which basically every online platform has policies against and basically every state and country has laws regulating against, often under the 'cyberbullying' flag..... On top of just being abusive though, Alex Jones has repeatedly fostered false conspiracy theories that bring real harm to people targeted by them, and is clearly a snake-oil salesmen who is trying to con his own listeners to finance his own wealthy lifestyle at the expense of completely distorting basic facts and tragic disasters.....
This isn't a celebration against Jones because he's a conservative. This is a celebration against Jones because he's a complete and utter lunatic, which is different from being a conservative
-->
@DBlaze
@Mopac
Mopac:
Why is it a good thing that Alex Jones is not allowed on twitter?Because you don't liike what he says?Because you feel threatened by what he says?
Because dangerous crazy people like him shouldn't have a bull horn to amplify their craziness. I don't personally feel threatened, but I'm sure people like - oh I don't know - Sandy Hook survivors and families of the victims, do.
DBlaze:
This is just proof that you don't give a sh!t about the constitution
Oh, please, please, please, tell me how this has anything to do with the constitution.
-->
@drafterman
I don't know much about Jones, don't listen to him.... but if someone on the left were silenced on one of these social media sites, you know they would say it is an infringement of their free speech. Don't tell me they wouldn't.
They are claiming because Donald Trump took away Brennan's Security clearance, it is an infringement of his free speech. Explain that one.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/brennan-security-clearance-former-intel-officials/index.html
-->
@DBlaze
I don't know much about Jones, don't listen to him.... but if someone on the left were silenced on one of these social media sites, you know they would say it is an infringement of their free speech. Don't tell me they wouldn't.
Oh, I don't doubt it. That's because most people - on either side - really don't have a clue or really don't care to be accurate. But, right now in this moment, I'm talking to you. You invoked the Constitution for this particular case so I'm asking you what it has to do with this particular case.
They are claiming because Donald Trump took away Brennan's Security clearance, it is an infringement of his free speech. Explain that one.
The explanation seems pretty straightforward: the government (via Trump) is imposing a punishment (revocation of clearance) on a private citizen (John Brennan) in response to his speech (harsh criticism of Trump).
Not that I know what the hell that has to do with Alex Jones, Twitter, and the Constitution, which is what this discussion is about.
-->
@Imabench
Yet here you are calling people, myself included, stupid. How is this not abusive and or cyberbullying?
Selling a product that people are willing to buy does not make said person worthy of censure.
So how is Alex Jones abusive? What did he say that crossed the line?
If Alex Jones fosters false conspiracy theories, why should that matter? People do that all the time. Heck, they even do it on the television. How is this a problem? Why should Alex Jones be blamed if crazy people do crazy things because of information they heard from him?
He is not doing anything different than what I see everytime I watch these 24 7 news networks on tv. They all lie, they all distort facts, they all say things that could influence crazy people, and they all look crazy and dangerous from a certain perspective.
Just ignore the guy. Most people ignore what they don't want to hear anyway.
-->
@drafterman
There are a lot of people who can be considered dangerous and crazy that not only are given a bullhorn, but are even propped up and celebrated by culture at large.
So why is Alex Jones a special case?
-->
@Mopac
There are a lot of people who can be considered dangerous and crazy that not only are given a bullhorn, but are even propped up and celebrated by culture at large.So why is Alex Jones a special case?
He isn't a special case in my book. Get rid of the lot of them. He is not entitled to an audience and Twitter is under no obligation to provide him a platform for one.
-->
@drafterman
I just said that I agree that I don't think it applies because it is a private business, I just don't know the laws regarding social media and how they are allowed to expel customers from their services.
The stifling of free speech does make sense, but there could be other reasons.
-->
@DBlaze
Then I don't understand why you brought it up at all.
-->
@drafterman
Did you not see my new medication post? I blame that for everything today on my part. I'm surprised I am able to do my job right now. I need to get used to it, then I will be back on the ball.
I did say this earlier though.
I meant there is more than just the 1st amendment at stake. I didn't debunk anything, it depends on what the laws are on social media and if they do apply to free speech. I'm not sure what they are, or how they apply (if at all), but I would think that twitter can ban whoever they want... (or is it the same legal issues as the cake chef, and the gay marriage?) It might be, only there is no religious belief to stand behind. So Twitter may find themselves in a lawsuit for discrimination? Very doubtful though.
-->
@DBlaze
To say that there is "more than just" the 1st amendment at stake is to still say the 1st amendment is at stake (it's just not the only thing at stake). So, what does the 1st amendment have to do with this?I meant there is more than just the 1st amendment at stake.
-->
@drafterman
I understand that. I don't know, is it an infringement of a persons first amendment right of Social Media to decide to suspend an account without the user clearly breaking the rules of the site? Or would possibly be classified as discrimination? I would think it would be one or the other. Unless it does not matter either way because it is a private business.
I'm kinda going back and forth on this.
I'm basically looking for input here, but asking incorrectly (still on the meds).
I don't know, is it an infringement of a persons first amendment right of Social Media to decide to suspend an account without the user clearly breaking the rules of the site?
No.
Or would possibly be classified as discrimination?
The generic act of "discrimination" isn't illegal, civilly or otherwise. Only forms of discrimination which have been explicitly identified as illegal are illegal.
Unless it does not matter either way because it is a private business.
Correct.
-->
@drafterman
Well, do you have a problem with him having his own platform?
What if all the social media people use starts to block anything linking to that platform?
What about e-mail? Do you think that e-mail should be cleansed of those not worthy to have a platform? A private business owns the e-mail service, do they have a right to censor private communications?