An article was published in the Weekly Standard this week titled “The Case for Banning Alex Jones” aims to defend the Masters of the Universe almost unanimously blacklisting Alex Jones and Infowars from social media.
The Weekly Standard published an article written by editor Jonathan V. Last titled “The Case for Banning Alex Jones,” which defends Big Tech’s decision to remove the Infowars and host Alex Jones from almost all of its platforms and alleges that the situation is not a free speech matter.
In the article, Last lists a number of arguments for banning Jones, the first being that the situation is not a free speech issue as Jones was banned by private companies. What this argument fails to take into account is the monopolization of digital platforms by a few large tech companies, giving them massive control over who is and is not seen or heard.
(1) It’s a First Amendment issue. Let’s dispense with this one off the top: No, it’s not. And conservatives used to understand the difference between having the right to say something and having the right to say something without consequences.
None of the tech companies that have de-platformed Jones are impinging on his right to speech. He can still record and disseminate podcasts and videos. He can still publish whatever conspiracy theories he wants. No one is threatening him with violence or jail or a fine or denying him a license to carry on as he pleases. No arm of government touches this case in any way.
All that is happening is that privately owned companies are declining to allow him to use their resources to broadcast his speech. There is no First Amendment case—none at all.
In his second point, Last argues that there are many other avenues for Jones to publish his content, while Jones is free to publish his content on his own website, he has been massively limited by his ban from platforms such as Facebook which is used by approximately one third of the world’s population every month:
(2) It’s an equal-access issue. You might recall a couple months ago when conservatives celebrated the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision. (Rightly, in my view.) The nub of their argument was that privately held businesses ought to be allowed to refuse certain kinds of services to certain customers, provided that (1) the refusal was based on reasonable, non-discriminatory grounds and that (2) the person being refused had reasonable recourse to an alternative remedy.
That’s precisely what has happened here. Jones is being denied access based on his behavior and actions, not who or what he is. And he has an enormous, obvious, and reasonable remedy: The Internet.
Last finally argues that there are plenty of people on either side of the political aisle that deserve to be banned from Twitter or Facebook. It would seem that the Weekly Standardeditor is quite comfortable having Silicon Valley tech giants police who does and does not get to speak:
(3) The ban is imperfect. Have you seen all of the conservatives asking “What about Farrakhan?” There are a ton of bad users out on the tech industry’s leading platforms. But saying that these platforms shouldn’t ban Alex Jones because they haven’t banned all of the bad actors is like saying that the DA shouldn’t prosecute one criminal because the police haven’t caught every other criminal.
The answer here is obvious: Tech companies shouldn’t give Jones a pass; they should get rid of the Farrakhans of the world, too. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
Conservatives who worry about the slippery slope ought to wait until we get to a part that’s actually slippery. There is nothing about Alex Jones—nothing—that would allow him to be confused with a reasonably responsible, good-faith actor. This isn’t a hard case. If you have even minimum community standards for decency, you can draw a line here.
CNN has become an activist group
CNN Continues to Lobby Twitter for Infowars Purge
CNN is continuing its effort to pressure Twitter into banning InfoWars, following the mass purge pushed by the news outlet this week.
In an article, CNN senior reporter Oliver Darcy compiled a list of posts which he believed violated Twitter’s terms of service rules, including criticism of Islam and “rants against drag queens.”
Darcy and CNN believe that it violates Twitter’s rules to claim that the Crusades were a “defensive measure.” One of the items on Darcy’s list reads:
A November 2017 video posted to Twitter by InfoWars claimed The Crusades were a “defensive” measure. In the video, Jones suggesting individuals of the Muslim faith were invading Europe. He shouted, “And we are going to stop you again! Do you understand?!”
He also lists an example of Jones complaining about drag queens reading books to children. Breitbart News has reported on the controversy of drag queens reading to children as recently as this week.
CNN led the pressure campaign to get Infowars banned from nearly all large technology services and platforms, while other mainstream media outlets have also supported the campaign.
CNN’s Brian Stelter has also been personally involved in the campaign against Infowars, mocking Alex Jones during one of his livestreams.
Despite CNN’s efforts to get Infowars purged from Twitter, the social network has so far refused to remove the associated accounts.
Infowars has been banned from Facebook, Google’s YouTube, Spotify, Apple podcasts, LinkedIn, Pinterest, MailChimp, and Disqus.
After the InfoWars app on the Apple App Store overtook CNN, CNN also attempted to get InfoWars removed from the App Store.
On Wednesday, InfoWars became the number one trending app on Google’s Play Store.
Something to think about was published today in an article on WUWT; “YouTube to Scribble Green Propaganda Over Climate Skeptic Videos”
“.. Think about what happened when traditional media giants got uppity. They didn’t dominate the debate when they stopped pretending to be objective, they just alienated former viewers who were offended by their bias. Their arrogance created the opportunity for the rise of new media enterprises, by creating a large pool of people who were dissatisfied with the increasingly open biases of traditional media.
I believe something similar is about to happen to Youtube and other openly biased tech giants.
You don’t have to use Youtube for uploading videos. Youtube is convenient and familiar, but now they are becoming abusive towards a substantial number of their users. Like any abusive relationship, sooner or later victims of that abuse will reach the end of their patience, and will turn to alternative services.
The free market will punish their transgressions. Users will vote with their feet ..”
Time to leave the tech giants. In fact this blog was created partly as a result of a Facebook ban (3 days in Facebook jail).
I haven’t deleted my account on Facebook, but i do not use it anymore. Instead i use GAB.ai, MeWe.com, VK.com and OK.ru .. and there are many more without censorship you can use.
Takes time to transfer all services from the tech giants, work in progress.
1 Google+ page deleted, next is to end my use of Google mail.
This blog no longer include YouTube videos in articles because we now know Google’s YouTube has been compromised (corrupted) by the nazi-left and can no longer be trusted as a video host. Free speech and independence is too important to trust in the hands of fascists.
R. J. L.