they went after definitely more than Alex Jones, who and what will be next? . . .

[LSSBB]

No, this is wrong. There is no first amendment issue involved, but that doesn't mean that there is no free speech issue involved. Free speech is a larger concept than just the first amendment.

The fact that it's a private business is relevant because private businesses should have freedom of association. But even if that right is more important here, we shouldn't pretend that freedom of speech isn't implicated in any way. It still is.

Yeah, it's a free speech issue when they wipe graffiti off their railroad cars too! Let's broaden that brush, broaden it good and wide!

ETA: why I am I suddenly picturing Mr. Douglas standing on a soapbox lecturing bewildered Hootervillians, while patriotic music plays?

 

[Ziggurat]

As I stated elsewhere, Jones/Infowars may be some of the biggest and most influential conspiracy mongers out there, but they are far from the only ones and conspiracy mongering videos make up a big hunk of YT's content. Why ban him but leave the others alone? Did YT make this decision on an ad-hoc basis?

Of course they did it ad-hoc. The timing demonstrates that pretty well.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, it's a free speech issue when they wipe graffiti off their railroad cars too!

Yes, it is. In that case, free speech conflicts with property rights, and property rights justifiably win. In this case, free speech conflicts with freedom of association. And you can argue that freedom of association should win here. Recognizing the existence of a free speech issue doesn't mean you always have to side against any restriction on that speech. When different freedoms conflict, speech doesn't always win.

 

[LSSBB]

Yes, it is. In that case, free speech conflicts with property rights, and property rights justifiably win. In this case, free speech conflicts with freedom of association. And you can argue that freedom of association should win here. Recognizing the existence of a free speech issue doesn't mean you always have to side against any restriction on that speech. When different freedoms conflict, speech doesn't always win.

I would argue that since they own the server, it is also property rights in the case under discussion.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I would argue that since they own the server, it is also property rights in the case under discussion.

IANAL, but I should think so, since unauthorized access to a server is legally considered to be trespassing. Jones can set up his own Crap Shop in the town square, but other merchants aren't obliged to let him use their shop.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have to admit, a tiny part of me worries about this, just barely.

At some point FB, Twitter, YT get so big that any organization that wants to have real social and political influence needs to have a presence on them. I mean, try to imagine a political campaign for a federal office or statewide office with no FB, Twitter or YT. It just wouldn't work. Shut someone out of those, you shut them out of office. It's not a monopoly, but it's... something. It really does get close to first amendment territory, even without government hands in the mix.

Given that these companies are now multi-nationals, what gives the US constitution any more power over them than any other countries laws? Why should the US 1st Amendment win out over much of the EU's Hate Speech laws?

As I stated elsewhere, Jones/Infowars may be some of the biggest and most influential conspiracy mongers out there, but they are far from the only ones and conspiracy mongering videos make up a big hunk of YT's content. Why ban him but leave the others alone? Did YT make this decision on an ad-hoc basis?

It had nothing to do with him spouting CT's, but rather that there were complaints about his CT's violating the YT ToS, specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses.


[Edited to add] What people have to realise is that YT and FB are businesses that survive on advertising, and more and more, advertisers don't want their adverts being associated with certain things, which is leading to, especially on YT, videos being pulled and demonetized for quite minor things. One channel I watch, ThegnThrand, who is involved in the study and testing of historical weapons, had his channel removed due to old videos that involved Ninja Fire Pots. Without the rallying around of the HEMA YT Community, a petition that gained over 50,000 signatures in 48 hours, and the dedicated work of a couple of other YTubers who managed to get a YouTube staffer to look into the matter, he could have lost the channel forever. In this case it was reinstated after a living person got involved. But the fact is that YT is very quick to can a channel if they either get complaints or the video triggers their algorithms. Jones really was lucky to have survived as long as he did.

 

[rlopez2]

Shapiro and Jones had been at each other throats from some time already, but I respect Shapiro for still being able to see that it is wrong to ban him and thoroughly articulate why:

// __ Ben Shapiro REACTS to ALEX JONES' Banning: "He's a Crazy Liar But He Shouldn't Be Banned"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQmgWVIPM00
~

 

[rlopez2]

RE: ... specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses ...

There is no way to codify and enforce "Hate Speech" clauses. Do you really believe that just the act of writing up something grammatically correct makes it right, moral? That would be like saying to the truth is "democratic" (meaning that the more people believe something the "truer" it is), which is what populism, media is based on; the biggest lie of them all.

 

[gerdbonk]

They will be not only discrediting themselves even more and reducing their customer base in number and kind, but their decision is silly because, technically speaking, Alex Jones can go ahead and start his own site (that is cheap and easy). Then, what would come next? Are they pushing USG to take it from there? Will USG then officially and openly become thought police? Would that not only be unconstitutional (well, whatever is left of that sacrosanct Constitution), but "unAmerican"?

Um, he had his own site long before he branched out to social media. And he still has it. The USG has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[PhantomWolf]

RE: ... specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses ...

There is no way to codify and enforce "Hate Speech" clauses. Do you really believe that just the act of writing up something grammatically correct makes it right, moral? That would be like saying to the truth is "democratic" (meaning that the more people believe something the "truer" it is), which is what populism, media is based on; the biggest lie of them all.

There is no way to codify "Be civil and polite" either, but that is Rule 0 of this board's ToS and plenty of people have been banned for repeated breaches of it. It's up to the staff of the organisation to interpret the rules of that Organisation, and as long as they do so consistently, then failing to abide by those standards can and often will have your service terminated.

 

[rlopez2]

RE: The USG has nothing to do with any of this.

This is joke, right? At least make your sarcasm a little plain, because there are many people who think like that. Some people actually believe O'Reilly was removed as one of the most followed U.S. prestitudes for looking at a co-worker's butt.

 

[rlopez2]

RE: ... as long as they do so consistently, then failing to abide by those standards can and often will have your service terminated

That is exactly my point how can you do that "consistently"? Explain to me philosophically or specifically if you want. To me it is like saying you can codify what truth be. How on earth can we mere mortal do that?

 

[carlitos]

I also saw someone peddling the, "Social media is now the town square. People shouldn't be banned from it without taking away all of their rights."

So let's put Jones in the stocks, tar and feather him or run him out of town on a rail. These are classic town square ways to deal with Jones.

 

[fagin]

RE: ... as long as they do so consistently, then failing to abide by those standards can and often will have your service terminated

That is exactly my point how can you do that "consistently"? Explain to me philosophically or specifically if you want. To me it is like saying you can codify what truth be. How on earth can we mere mortal do that?

Please try and learn the quote function - it's a simple button.

Mere mortals have to do everything. The immortals are fictional characters.

 

[Loss Leader]

RE: The USG has nothing to do with any of this.

This is joke, right?

Um ... Do you have any evidence that the federal government actually was involved in banning Jones from FB and YouTube?

I don't know of any. The last time I looked, the chief executive of the US was a big Alex Jones fan.

 

[Craig4]

RE: The USG has nothing to do with any of this.

This is joke, right? At least make your sarcasm a little plain, because there are many people who think like that. Some people actually believe O'Reilly was removed as one of the most followed U.S. prestitudes for looking at a co-worker's butt.

Would you care to produce evidence beyond your silly little incredulity that either, the government had anything to do with removing Jones from YouTube or Facebook or O'Reilly wasn't fired for exposing Fox News to significant liability from sexual harassment lawsuits? Those allegations go far beyond looking at a co-worker's butt by the way.

 

[Craig4]

RE: ... specifically the "Hate Speech" clauses ...

There is no way to codify and enforce "Hate Speech" clauses. Do you really believe that just the act of writing up something grammatically correct makes it right, moral? That would be like saying to the truth is "democratic" (meaning that the more people believe something the "truer" it is), which is what populism, media is based on; the biggest lie of them all.

Are you suggesting a private company should be compelled to keep people they don't want and damage their brand on their platforms? Where, in all its articles does the constitution say that you have a right to a YouTube channel? I'll be needing chapter and verse please.

 

[Checkmite]

Are you suggesting a private company should be compelled to keep people they don't want and damage their brand on their platforms? Where, in all its articles does the constitution say that you have a right to a YouTube channel? I'll be needing chapter and verse please.

I think I saw a tweet where someone tried to discredit all of the "Facebook is a private company and can make whatever rules it wants" arguments by "revealing" the fact that Facebook is publicly traded. The tweet had quite a self-satisfied tone to it, but of course it went over about as well as you might expect.

 

[dudalb]

No, this is wrong. There is no first amendment issue involved, but that doesn't mean that there is no free speech issue involved. Free speech is a larger concept than just the first amendment.

The fact that it's a private business is relevant because private businesses should have freedom of association. But even if that right is more important here, we shouldn't pretend that freedom of speech isn't implicated in any way. It still is.

Ok then, how about making Fox News present a liberal viewpoint?

 

[paulhutch]

I have to admit, a tiny part of me worries about this, just barely.

At some point FB, Twitter, YT get so big that any organization that wants to have real social and political influence needs to have a presence on them. I mean, try to imagine a political campaign for a federal office or statewide office with no FB, Twitter or YT. It just wouldn't work. Shut someone out of those, you shut them out of office. It's not a monopoly, but it's... something. It really does get close to first amendment territory, even without government hands in the mix.

We may need a revision of the radio and TV broadcasters Equal-time rule or some similar rule to stop the large new media companies from unfairly discriminating against the candidate(s) they don't like.