Infowars has been under heat lately. They have been removed from most of the social media platforms for spreading "hate speech". Twitter was one of the few that would not ban him. The claimed that he did not break any rules so he should not be banned. Twitter did not want to be apart of the mob mentality where they would have to issue bans from pressure. It was a strong move and Google ended up removing there ban as well.
Thoughts?
Online
- cultrara
- Dr.Zorko
- eheath
- Kretzschmar
- Newschoolers
- P3t3r
- theabortionator
- Twig
- boxskier
- cory.iyoob
- NedStark
- edai
- Lonely
- Crispy.
- Forcillo
- -eREKTion-
- .Morton
- A.Paul
- AnconSnotty
- andrewsmart
- artrud23
- asian_rick_ross
- averyhiglo
- bedin
- BigPurpleSkiSuit
- BloomedPhotos
- Bondy
- bquick222
- BrawnTrends
- bread_bird
- Buenten
- bweix1125
- cadebucket
- cfranchino
- Coloradical
- COSkierDude
- cozzey
- Craw_Daddy
- CRISPY_WICKED
- crisscross
- CT_CREW
- DirtYStylE
- Drewwondo
- Dstan
- ethanphall
- f100prerunner
- FapMasterFLEX
- fghtoffyrdmns
- flyingtomato21
- Fork
- freeskibum82
- gak98
- gapersarefriends
- gwenpaul
- h.robarge
- hubbards
- jayamait
- jaykamp
- Jeremy_Dyck
- Jesse_
- JohnnyDope
- Just_Send_It
- karlmarx
- kellenm
- kyleisaskier
- Loodwik
- LucaSkiMan
- lwatson210
- marjoribanks
- MikeWeinerONE
- Miklop
- Mlavalley
- Mr_muktuk242
- mystery3
- nOrth_shOre
- Nunnya
- olleolsson
- papermache
- Peter.t
- pollorojo
- robbinJAHood
- ryanlavalleee
- sambuswell
- saskyskier71
- Saucerboyshane
- Sendrick_Lamar
- SHREDlilGNAR
- SkiBoi420
- snowfinder
- SofaKingSick
- stringbenis
- t-raw
- tarick
- Tasty_Bread
- Tater.Tots
- TGraham9
- the.lorax
- Thewhiteroom
- tinkytwinky
- tjshelley
- Too_0ld_for_This
- TripleXLHoodies
- W...
- zmarc88
- 104 members online
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
FREE SPEECH?
Doesn't twitter regularly ban people they don't agree with? Weird that they're the free speech advocates here.
I think hes a fucking psycho but I dont get offended by anything he says. That said if websites feel he's causing a ton of problems its their right to give him the boot.
I think hes a fucking psycho but I dont get offended by anything he says. That said if websites feel he's causing a ton of problems its their right to give him the boot.
Ughhh, I can't stand his idiocy.
Judging from the title of your thread, you don't know what the fuck the 1st Amendment does.
skiermanJudging from the title of your thread, you don't know what the fuck the 1st Amendment does.
It means the US Gov. will not interfere if people use the word. But, these mega corps have other views.
I have a hard time respecting a man that believes sandy hook was a hoax. You have the right to say whatever you want but that doesn't mean I have to respect it.
DirtYStylEIt means the US Gov. will not interfere if people use the word. But, these mega corps have other views.
Yea, exactly. Free speech has fuck nothing to do with what private companies decide, you idiot.
skiermanYea, exactly. Free speech has fuck nothing to do with what private companies decide, you idiot.
Don't make me use the word.
DirtYStylEDon't make me use the word.
What word? Please use.
I'm a big free speech guy, I just dont like it when someone trivializes the deaths of kids and encourages harassing the parents of the dead kids.
Also nothing the companies did infringed on free speech. I think that Infowars approaches the "telling fire in a crowded area" side of free speech.
Also nothing the companies did infringed on free speech. I think that Infowars approaches the "telling fire in a crowded area" side of free speech.
JoeF2661What word? Please use.
the n word
TRVP_ANGELthe n word
Nacho
Damn blue haired sissies, they’re disgusting
LonelyI'm a big free speech guy, I just dont like it when someone trivializes the deaths of kids and encourages harassing the parents of the dead kids.
Also nothing the companies did infringed on free speech. I think that Infowars approaches the "telling fire in a crowded area" side of free speech.
I think you'd have a hard time proving his words have the capability of inciting imminent lawlessness (the factor you are describing with the crowd and fire example) since people are simply angry, not creating mass chaos from his words. However, the bigger point here is that a private company can agree, disagree with, and ban anyone from using their products that they don't want to serve. They are not the government and you aren't entitled to social media, though it seems these days everyone and their mom thinks a driver's license, my tax dollars for your wine tasting college degree, and a Facebook account are God given rights.
Most "free speech" conversations we see simply highlight a gaping lack of understanding.
Dustin.I think you'd have a hard time proving his words have the capability of inciting imminent lawlessness (the factor you are describing with the crowd and fire example) since people are simply angry, not creating mass chaos from his words. However, the bigger point here is that a private company can agree, disagree with, and ban anyone from using their products that they don't want to serve. They are not the government and you aren't entitled to social media, though it seems these days everyone and their mom thinks a driver's license, my tax dollars for your wine tasting college degree, and a Facebook account are God given rights.
Most "free speech" conversations we see simply highlight a gaping lack of understanding.
I would agree, hence the "approaches it".
Well you'll get banned here for speech too.
What goes around is all round. Not that I agree with bans, cuz I don't.
What goes around is all round. Not that I agree with bans, cuz I don't.
JAHpowWell you'll get banned here for speech too.
What goes around is all round. Not that I agree with bans, cuz I don't.
You have freedom of speech but if you start causing a huge scene in a busy restaurant they'll still ask you to leave.
theabortionatorYou have freedom of speech but if you start causing a huge scene in a busy restaurant they'll still ask you to leave.
That's not what I'm really getting at. Of course, it's better to be respectful in that situation. Since I need to clarify, I mean open forum based. Like on here. I want people to be able to say whatever they want so that they can either make themselves sound like a complete fool in the first place, or because of their speech and views, open themselves up to critique by those willing to listen.
JAHpowThat's not what I'm really getting at. Of course, it's better to be respectful in that situation. Since I need to clarify, I mean open forum based. Like on here. I want people to be able to say whatever they want so that they can either make themselves sound like a complete fool in the first place, or because of their speech and views, open themselves up to critique by those willing to listen.
dude there are plenty of other places to do that on the internet. Maybe open a 4chan account?
skiermanThe referenced post has been removed.
It does though... at least according to the Supreme Court. It is the court's established interpretation of the constitution that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. When weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion, the rights of the citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy the preferred position.
The "B-b-but private corporations can do whatever they want" argument is bullshit and you know it. This is a case of people vs. billion dollar corporations and you're arguing that property should have more rights than people. Is that really how you feel or just how you feel about conservatives?
Alex Jones is a moron, that hardly needs clarifying, but his ban is fucking Orwellian. He was banned simultaneously across platforms. That means that a handful of the worlds largest and most powerful tech companies coordinated to silence him. The fact that there isn't almost universal outrage is terrifying as well. Are we fine with letting the billionaire elite become the moral arbiters of free speech in this country? Are we cool with corporations having the power to determine what we can and can't say?
-eREKTion-It does though... at least according to the Supreme Court. It is the court's established interpretation of the constitution that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. When weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion, the rights of the citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy the preferred position.
The "B-b-but private corporations can do whatever they want" argument is bullshit and you know it. This is a case of people vs. billion dollar corporations and you're arguing that property should have more rights than people. Is that really how you feel or just how you feel about conservatives?
Alex Jones is a moron, that hardly needs clarifying, but his ban is fucking Orwellian. He was banned simultaneously across platforms. That means that a handful of the worlds largest and most powerful tech companies coordinated to silence him. The fact that there isn't almost universal outrage is terrifying as well. Are we fine with letting the billionaire elite become the moral arbiters of free speech in this country? Are we cool with corporations having the power to determine what we can and can't say?
Alex jones banned by myspace
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/907393/Eric-Andre-Crashes-Alex-Jones-Rally
So let me get this straight.... You think private companies removing certain content is "Orwellian"....
... but you also think the government should force companies to provide content even if the company doesn't agree with it?
I bet you also think there's some sort of global conspiracy when a professional athlete says something stupid and his sponsors drop him. Fuck off, you love Alex Jones. You're just a crisis actor pretending you don't like him but you're just here defending free speech when in reality, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
Its called a podcast, you fucking moron.
... but you also think the government should force companies to provide content even if the company doesn't agree with it?
I bet you also think there's some sort of global conspiracy when a professional athlete says something stupid and his sponsors drop him. Fuck off, you love Alex Jones. You're just a crisis actor pretending you don't like him but you're just here defending free speech when in reality, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
Its called a podcast, you fucking moron.
-eREKTion-It does though... at least according to the Supreme Court. It is the court's established interpretation of the constitution that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. When weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion, the rights of the citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy the preferred position.
The "B-b-but private corporations can do whatever they want" argument is bullshit and you know it. This is a case of people vs. billion dollar corporations and you're arguing that property should have more rights than people. Is that really how you feel or just how you feel about conservatives?
Alex Jones is a moron, that hardly needs clarifying, but his ban is fucking Orwellian. He was banned simultaneously across platforms. That means that a handful of the worlds largest and most powerful tech companies coordinated to silence him. The fact that there isn't almost universal outrage is terrifying as well. Are we fine with letting the billionaire elite become the moral arbiters of free speech in this country? Are we cool with corporations having the power to determine what we can and can't say?
skiermanSo let me get this straight.... You think private companies removing certain content is "Orwellian"....
Yes, I think a group of the worlds biggest corporations conspiring to silence someone is Orwellian.
skiermanThe referenced post has been removed.
Once again you're arguing in favor of property over people... I think the government should protect the people's right to free speech even if that means going against a corporations opaque terms of service.
skiermanThe referenced post has been removed.
Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Alex Jones is not representing Facebook/Apple/Google, his opinions therefore do not reflect upon those companies. In fact, by censoring Alex Jones these companies are actively editorializing content and could be accurately described as publishers which effectively endorses the rest of the content they host.
skiermanThe referenced post has been removed.
And this is where I give up. What you're doing is creating a caricature of me because you're unable to comprehend opposing viewpoints. Don't stop there, call me a satanic space vampire and go full Alex Jones you fucking retard.
Alex Jones is the man
I just got me some super male vitality
I just got me some super male vitality
I must say that I don't really give a fuck what/who a private company does with their website. What would concern me is if ISPs stopped traffic to Infowars which they can, because net neutrality is no longer a thing. So replace Facebook with Comcast and then Id have a problem.
-eREKTion-Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Alex Jones is not representing Facebook/Apple/Google, his opinions therefore do not reflect upon those companies. In fact, by censoring Alex Jones these companies are actively editorializing content and could be accurately described as publishers which effectively endorses the rest of the content they host.
Would my local grocery store be described as a publisher since they decide what publications they carry/distribute?
-eREKTion-Yes, I think a group of the worlds biggest corporations conspiring to silence someone is Orwellian.
Once again you're arguing in favor of property over people... I think the government should protect the people's right to free speech even if that means going against a corporations opaque terms of service.
You do know Orwell's "1984" novel (which is what the term "Orwellian" refers to) is about a totalitarian state, right? You do know what totalitarian state is, right?
Are you purposely trying to be an idiot or does it come naturally?
People should say what they want, everyone has their own opinions
when are we just gonna make free speech illegal my fellow comrades???
All times are Eastern (-4)
