Enemy of the People

#276
#276
ClearwaterVol said:
From my perspective...

I do not like restrictions on free speech. This, however, is not a free speech issue. This is an example of a company protecting itself from lawsuits. Infowars is absolute garbage. Anyone that buys into anything said on Alex Jones' radio show is mentally deficient. However, some of the idiots that tune in believe what he says is true and act upon it. Remember the idiot who went to the Sandy Hook anniversary and harassed all the parents telling them that there kids weren't dead? It is not much of a leap to see someone hurting someone that Jones has accused of pedophilia or whatever. You Tube was aware of the lies spread by Jones. They were aware that his followers are mentally ill and now they have knowledge that they will act on AJ's shtick. It wouldn't be a shock to see a jury buying into that argument and nailing a Yahoo to the wall.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for anyone buying into CNN or MSNBC...it’s total propaganda...

Why is he or infowars subject to scrutiny or censorship? Because it is a different opinion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce and SpaceCoastVol
#277
#277
Next we will be jailing people for believing 9/11 was an inside job...

Totalitarian..
 
#278
#278
IPleadInsanity said:
Kind of like a business telling their employees to stand for the anthem? This clown was censored from a public forum, no other way to look at it. It always comes back to who will judge each case on its merits, no one is qualified. The correct way is to turn it off, judge it yourself.
Click to expand...
Define "public forum"?
 
#285
#285
McDad said:
It did? I wonder if Twitter is more or less public than facebook?
Click to expand...

You see, CWV basically explained how Facebook, YouTube and others will get screwed though he didn't mention it. Likely because he knew a smart person like yourself or me would come up with the answer and explain it to folks like Mick or LG who needs detailed explanations.

Basically, if someone wants to sue them for screening and censoring what they consider "hate speech" but not censoring other extremely blatant hate speech, they (the plaintiff) will win that case. Because you must have a set standard of what's considered "hate speech" that is applied across the board. You cannot censor one side of the political or social spectrum without equally imparting such censorship across the spectrum. Of course, that's if someone was vindictive enough to go after them (you know someone will) and has the money to back such a lawsuit to the SCOTUS (they may not).

It's going to come to a head sooner rather than later.
 
#286
#286
Grand Vol said:
You see, CWV basically explained how Facebook, YouTube and others will get screwed though he didn't mention it. Likely because he knew a smart person like yourself or me would come up with the answer and explain it to folks like Mick or LG who needs detailed explanations.

Basically, if someone wants to sue them for screening and censoring what they consider "hate speech" but not censoring other extremely blatant hate speech, they (the plaintiff) will win that case. Because you must have a set standard of what's considered "hate speech" that is applied across the board. You cannot censor one side of the political or social spectrum without equally imparting such censorship across the spectrum. Of course, that's if someone was vindictive enough to go after them (you know someone will) and has the money to back such a lawsuit to the SCOTUS (they may not).

It's going to come to a head sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
If private media companies are considered public forum as Twitter is (bad precedent imo), I think you have a valid point. A lawsuit would be likely even without the Twitter precedent; but with the precedent it is more likely to favor Jones.
 
#287
#287
ClearwaterVol said:
There is no such thing as a slippery slope. Judge each case on the merits. I have serious reservations whether any such case could ever be maintained against Jones, the radio station or You Tube, but I understand companies not wanting to find out.



No, this is not a democrat/republican issue this is a green, as in money, issue. Nobody sane people really give two sh!ts about AJ, but you really don't want to be the test case on something like this. Plaintiff is likely to be sympathetic as hell. Alex Jones doesn't come off as sympathetic in the slightest and nobody will be able to deny the history of action of his "fans" when reacting to the conspiracy theories he trots out as fact.
Click to expand...

If not for scumbag lawyers these companies wouldn’t need to be worried about getting sued.

Does it make you proud that your profession has caused people to consider “fear of a lawsuit” in almost every decision?
 
#288
#288
hog88 said:
If not for scumbag lawyers these companies wouldn’t need to be worried about getting sued.

Does it make you proud that your profession has caused people to consider “fear of a lawsuit” in almost every decision?
Click to expand...


I like your style!
 
#290
#290
hog88 said:
If not for scumbag lawyers these companies wouldn’t need to be worried about getting sued.

Does it make you proud that your profession has caused people to consider “fear of a lawsuit” in almost every decision?
Click to expand...

Yes and I'm surprised you're so against holding people accountable for their words and actions.
 
#291
#291
ClearwaterVol said:
Yes and I'm surprised you're so against holding people accountable for their words and actions.
Click to expand...

A call to action ? Yes hold them responsible ( it can be a crime ) ACTIONS ? .. yes we must be held accountable for our own actions . ( see above ) WORDS? Why do you think the first amendment is a right ? Without the first amendment the other rights that we have aren’t worth the paper they are written on . Now if you want to argue that AJ didn’t stay within community guidelines , well there you have a point . The problem is when you pick one account out to ban like Alex Jones and say you are bad and hateful but shut your eyes to say Louis Farrakhan & Antifa . No way you leave those accounts up and have any claim whatsoever of not being bias .
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#292
#292
ClearwaterVol said:
Yes and I'm surprised you're so against holding people accountable for their words and actions.
Click to expand...

It is not I who doesn’t want people held accountable, it is you.

It is due to your profession that we have warning labels about touching a hot stove, putting plastic bags over our heads, don’t swallow bleach and ext ext. It is you who sues to place the blame for their clients actions onto someone else.
 
#293
#293
hog88 said:
It is not I who doesn’t want people held accountable, it is you.

It is due to your profession that we have warning labels about touching a hot stove, putting plastic bags over our heads, don’t swallow bleach and ext ext. It is you who sues to place the blame for their clients actions onto someone else.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. Your hatred of lawyers borders on comical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW
#296
#296
Pacer92 said:
The same could be said for anyone buying into CNN or MSNBC...it’s total propaganda...

Why is he or infowars subject to scrutiny or censorship? Because it is a different opinion?
Click to expand...

If you cannot see the difference between Alex Jones and CNN then there is no hope of having a discussion about the issues with you. Alex Jones has simply taken Art Bell's shtick and taken it from a 2AM timeslot to prime time.

DancingOutlaw said:
Well a court said Trump can’t block people on Twitter because that’s a public forum.
Click to expand...

That is apples to oranges comparison. The issue was that Trump was using Twitter as a public platform to speak, but wanted to limit the discourse to people that agreed with him. It was more about a public official suppressing free speech.

Grand Vol said:
You see, CWV basically explained how Facebook, YouTube and others will get screwed though he didn't mention it. Likely because he knew a smart person like yourself or me would come up with the answer and explain it to folks like Mick or LG who needs detailed explanations.

Basically, if someone wants to sue them for screening and censoring what they consider "hate speech" but not censoring other extremely blatant hate speech, they (the plaintiff) will win that case. Because you must have a set standard of what's considered "hate speech" that is applied across the board. You cannot censor one side of the political or social spectrum without equally imparting such censorship across the spectrum. Of course, that's if someone was vindictive enough to go after them (you know someone will) and has the money to back such a lawsuit to the SCOTUS (they may not).

It's going to come to a head sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the situation you are alluding to will come to a head because You Tube, Twitter etc can exclude anyone they want provided the exclusion is not based upon discrimination of a protected class. Twitter could decide tomorrow to ban everyone that has made an anti trump tweet and not be in violation of any laws. Private companies can suppress free speech.
 
#298
#298
ClearwaterVol said:
If you cannot see the difference between Alex Jones and CNN then there is no hope of having a discussion about the issues with you. Alex Jones has simply taken Art Bell's shtick and taken it from a 2AM timeslot to prime time.



That is apples to oranges comparison. The issue was that Trump was using Twitter as a public platform to speak, but wanted to limit the discourse to people that agreed with him. It was more about a public official suppressing free speech.



I don't believe that the situation you are alluding to will come to a head because You Tube, Twitter etc can exclude anyone they want provided the exclusion is not based upon discrimination of a protected class. Twitter could decide tomorrow to ban everyone that has made an anti trump tweet and not be in violation of any laws. Private companies can suppress free speech.
Click to expand...

How is he suppressing free speech when it’s his PRIVATE page? Does the government have proprietary rights to his Twitter handle, @realDonaldTrump?

Oh, but that’s different..... except it’s not!

Pay close attention to the all-caps above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
#300
#300
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't believe that the situation you are alluding to will come to a head because You Tube, Twitter etc can exclude anyone they want provided the exclusion is not based upon discrimination of a protected class. Twitter could decide tomorrow to ban everyone that has made an anti trump tweet and not be in violation of any laws. Private companies can suppress free speech.
Click to expand...

Oh really? So, anti-white hate speech is predicated on "protected class" status?

Their reasoning was lame and you know it. You want to be argumentative, I get it, but you know as well as I do that suppressing speech from one side while tacitly supporting the other side through non-interference is not a winning combo in a courtroom. All a lawyer has to do is ask three simple questions.

"Do you have official standards for cases of censorship?"

"Are those standards applied fairly across the board?"

"Why didn't you apply them in these particular cases?" and show the judge/jury the specific cases where said standards weren't applied.

The thing about it is, YouTube and others depend on such videos for a revenue stream. Furthermore, they pay posters for such content. Hence, while technically not an employee, they are reducing a revenue stream to a particular person because of their political or ideological beliefs while continuing the practice with ones they agree with or as a minimum, don't interfere with.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top