Current Events > Alex Jones "banned completely" from Facebook, Apple and Spotify

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 8
Heineken14 08/06/18 2:30:19 PM #102:	KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate." --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:906372202] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/06/18 2:30:39 PM #103:	For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906372225] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 08/06/18 2:33:26 PM #104:	Antifar posted... For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform. That's what wikileaks is for. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:906372399] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform.</quote> That's what wikileaks is for.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:33:28 PM #105:	Antifar posted... For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform. soooo it is ok to make up news because you do not like something? --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906372403] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform.</quote> soooo it is ok to make up news because you do not like something?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 08/06/18 2:34:05 PM #106:	Squidkids posted... Antifar posted... For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform. soooo it is ok to make up news because you do not like something? It's been working splendidly for Donnie.... :/ --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:906372441] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>For every Alex Jones there are thousands of people with less provably-false political beliefs that don't post them online for fear of reprisal from their boss. Those are the people whose free speech you should have concern for, not the guy with a media platform.</quote> soooo it is ok to make up news because you do not like something?</quote> It's been working splendidly for Donnie.... :/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:34:33 PM #107:	Tyranthraxus posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government. I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906372472] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government.</quote> I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 08/06/18 2:35:51 PM #108:	KhanJohnny posted... Tyranthraxus posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government. I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests. Then the salt-right should come up with their own social media platforms and not rely on Big Gubment forcing private companies to do their bidding, since they supposedly hate that. --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:906372553] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government.</quote> I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests.</quote> Then the salt-right should come up with their own social media platforms and not rely on Big Gubment forcing private companies to do their bidding, since they supposedly hate that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:35:55 PM #109:	Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate." It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906372560] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate."</quote> It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 08/06/18 2:36:16 PM #110:	KhanJohnny posted... Tyranthraxus posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government. I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests. Alex Jones is not the person you should be making this argument for. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:906372581] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government.</quote> I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests.</quote> Alex Jones is not the person you should be making this argument for.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:38:44 PM #111:	Bio1590 posted... @KhanJohnny posted... Tyranthraxus posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government. I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests. Alex Jones is not the person you should be making this argument for. this, you are basically saying it is good to spread false information so people can make false conclusions .. why now? --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906372715] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government.</quote> I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests.</quote> Alex Jones is not the person you should be making this argument for.</quote> this, you are basically saying it is good to spread false information so people can make false conclusions .. why now?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:39:11 PM #112:	Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Tyranthraxus posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government. I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests. Then the salt-right should come up with their own social media platforms and not rely on Big Gubment forcing private companies to do their bidding, since they supposedly hate that. Easier said than done when a handful of liberal corporations already dominate the market <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906372746] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government.</quote> I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests.</quote> Then the salt-right should come up with their own social media platforms and not rely on Big Gubment forcing private companies to do their bidding, since they supposedly hate that.</quote> Easier said than done when a handful of liberal corporations already dominate the market</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 08/06/18 2:39:17 PM #113:	KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate." It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual. Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him...... --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:906372752] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate."</quote> It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual.</quote> Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him......</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:40:31 PM #114:	Squidkids posted... Bio1590 posted... @KhanJohnny posted... Tyranthraxus posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government. I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests. Alex Jones is not the person you should be making this argument for. this, you are basically saying it is good to spread false information so people can make false conclusions .. why now? I never said it was good to spread false information. But no one appointed Facebook to be a global censor of what is false or not. We shouldn't have self-interested corporations driven by the profit-motive be the de facto arbiters of political debate. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906372832] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> The first amendment shouldn't restrict anything that isn't the government.</quote> I disagree. A democracy needs informed debate, and social media are an essential part of the debate in the modern world. Allowing corporations to ban people or content essentially allows them to control the national debate, which is a terrible state dor freedom of debate, especially when there are only a handful of large social media companies which have aligned interests.</quote> Alex Jones is not the person you should be making this argument for.</quote> this, you are basically saying it is good to spread false information so people can make false conclusions .. why now?</quote> I never said it was good to spread false information. But no one appointed Facebook to be a global censor of what is false or not. We shouldn't have self-interested corporations driven by the profit-motive be the de facto arbiters of political debate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Roshon 08/06/18 2:40:50 PM #115:	You break their terms, they have every right to kick you off their platforms. Its simple. --- ANORA! https://imgur.com/WvXvQIA <cite>Roshon posted [p:906372856] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>You break their terms, they have every right to kick you off their platforms. Its simple.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:41:12 PM #116:	Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate." It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual. Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him...... What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906372875] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate."</quote> It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual.</quote> Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him......</quote> What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/06/18 2:42:40 PM #117:	KhanJohnny posted... But no one appointed Facebook to be a global censor of what is false or not. We shouldn't have self-interested corporations driven by the profit-motive be the de facto arbiters of political debate. Correct! But also Facebook and Twitter are just the tip of that iceberg. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906372976] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>But no one appointed Facebook to be a global censor of what is false or not. We shouldn't have self-interested corporations driven by the profit-motive be the de facto arbiters of political debate. </quote> Correct! But also Facebook and Twitter are just the tip of that iceberg.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 08/06/18 2:43:25 PM #118:	KhanJohnny posted... What dont you understand about it being about the principle. It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not. Because things like context exist. Thats the thing, is like, once its Mueller, everyones so scared of Mueller, theyd let Mueller rape kids in front of people, which he did. I mean, Mueller covered up for a decade for Epstein kidnapping kids, flying them on sex planes, some kids as young as 7 years old reportedly, with big perverts raping them to frame people. I mean, Mueller is a monster, man, said Jones. God, imagine hes even above the pedophiles, though. The word is he doesnt have sex with kids, he just controls it all. Can you imagine being a monster like that? God. And then, Jones shifts gears into threat mode, pantomiming cocking a gun and shooting it more than once. His target: Robert Mueller. "That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen. It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads," Jones swore. This is literally who you're going to bat for right now. --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:906373018] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>What dont you understand about it being about the principle. It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not.</quote> Because things like context exist. <quote>Thats the thing, is like, once its Mueller, everyones so scared of Mueller, theyd let Mueller rape kids in front of people, which he did. I mean, Mueller covered up for a decade for Epstein kidnapping kids, flying them on sex planes, some kids as young as 7 years old reportedly, with big perverts raping them to frame people. I mean, Mueller is a monster, man, said Jones.</quote> <quote>God, imagine hes even above the pedophiles, though. The word is he doesnt have sex with kids, he just controls it all. Can you imagine being a monster like that? God.</quote> <quote>And then, Jones shifts gears into threat mode, pantomiming cocking a gun and shooting it more than once. His target: Robert Mueller. "That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen. It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads," Jones swore.</quote> This is literally who you're going to bat for right now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
epik_fail1 08/06/18 2:43:57 PM #119:	I am pretty sure spreading lies about people you don't like is not protected under free speech laws. Imagine if Alex Jones decided to spread a pizzagate conspiracy on you and your family business and brainwashed lunatics into believing you own pedo basements and eventually a wannabe hero try to "save kids" from you . Because that is exactly the kind of things Alex Jones do. Ignorant conservatism is still protected under freedom of speech laws, but this guy makes up false crap against tons of people. --- Primrose for smash <cite>epik_fail1 posted [p:906373054] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>I am pretty sure spreading lies about people you don't like is not protected under free speech laws. Imagine if Alex Jones decided to spread a pizzagate conspiracy on you and your family business and brainwashed lunatics into believing you own pedo basements and eventually a wannabe hero try to "save kids" from you . Because that is exactly the kind of things Alex Jones do. Ignorant conservatism is still protected under freedom of speech laws, but this guy makes up false crap against tons of people.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:44:43 PM #120:	KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate." It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual. Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him...... What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not. YES it does matter! you can't mislead people because it undermines civil structure, the basic guideline in determining if something is immoral or not. A lot of people are not bright on top of things and take his BS as 100% fact when all he does is spew lies because he does not like something. Freedom of speech is not completely free, I can't go around in buildings screaming fire when there is no fire. epik_fail1 posted... I am pretty sure spreading lies about people you don't like is not protected under free speech laws. Imagine if Alex Jones decided to spread a pizzagate conspiracy on you and your family business and brainwashed lunatics into believing you own pedo basements and eventually a wannabe hero try to "save kids" from you . Because that is exactly the kind of things Alex Jones do. Ignorant conservatism is still protected under freedom of speech laws, but this guy makes up false crap against tons of people. THIS --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906373097] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate."</quote> It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual.</quote> Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him......</quote> What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not.</quote> YES it does matter! you can't mislead people because it undermines civil structure, the basic guideline in determining if something is immoral or not. A lot of people are not bright on top of things and take his BS as 100% fact when all he does is spew lies because he does not like something. Freedom of speech is not completely free, I can't go around in buildings screaming fire when there is no fire. <cite>epik_fail1 posted...</cite> <quote>I am pretty sure spreading lies about people you don't like is not protected under free speech laws. Imagine if Alex Jones decided to spread a pizzagate conspiracy on you and your family business and brainwashed lunatics into believing you own pedo basements and eventually a wannabe hero try to "save kids" from you . Because that is exactly the kind of things Alex Jones do. Ignorant conservatism is still protected under freedom of speech laws, but this guy makes up false crap against tons of people.</quote> THIS</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 08/06/18 2:44:54 PM #121:	If you're going to argue about Facebook censorship you should be arguing about Facebook bowing down to foreign governments like how they're censoring the situation in Bangladesh right now at the reqeust of the Government there. Not "political debate" as it relates to a crackpot conspiracy theorist actively harming political discourse. --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:906373109] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>If you're going to argue about Facebook censorship you should be arguing about Facebook bowing down to foreign governments like how they're censoring the situation in Bangladesh right now at the reqeust of the Government there. Not "political debate" as it relates to a crackpot conspiracy theorist actively harming political discourse.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/06/18 2:44:54 PM #122:	Oh man, Jeffrey Epstein. Not really sure that's the figure Jones, a Trump supporter, wants to be bringing up. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906373110] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>Oh man, Jeffrey Epstein. Not really sure that's the figure Jones, a Trump supporter, wants to be bringing up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:45:49 PM #123:	Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... What dont you understand about it being about the principle. It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not. Because things like context exist. Thats the thing, is like, once its Mueller, everyones so scared of Mueller, theyd let Mueller rape kids in front of people, which he did. I mean, Mueller covered up for a decade for Epstein kidnapping kids, flying them on sex planes, some kids as young as 7 years old reportedly, with big perverts raping them to frame people. I mean, Mueller is a monster, man, said Jones. God, imagine hes even above the pedophiles, though. The word is he doesnt have sex with kids, he just controls it all. Can you imagine being a monster like that? God. And then, Jones shifts gears into threat mode, pantomiming cocking a gun and shooting it more than once. His target: Robert Mueller. "That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen. It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads," Jones swore. This is literally who you're going to bat for right now. Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906373161] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>What dont you understand about it being about the principle. It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not.</quote> Because things like context exist. <quote>Thats the thing, is like, once its Mueller, everyones so scared of Mueller, theyd let Mueller rape kids in front of people, which he did. I mean, Mueller covered up for a decade for Epstein kidnapping kids, flying them on sex planes, some kids as young as 7 years old reportedly, with big perverts raping them to frame people. I mean, Mueller is a monster, man, said Jones.</quote> <quote>God, imagine hes even above the pedophiles, though. The word is he doesnt have sex with kids, he just controls it all. Can you imagine being a monster like that? God.</quote> <quote>And then, Jones shifts gears into threat mode, pantomiming cocking a gun and shooting it more than once. His target: Robert Mueller. "That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen. It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads," Jones swore.</quote> This is literally who you're going to bat for right now.</quote> Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 08/06/18 2:46:16 PM #124:	Bio1590 posted... If you're going to argue about Facebook censorship you should be arguing about Facebook bowing down to foreign governments like how they're censoring the situation in Bangladesh right now at the reqeust of the Government there. Not "political debate" as it relates to a crackpot conspiracy theorist actively harming political discourse. Also true! Like, Mark Zuckerberg is fine with Holocaust-deniers on his platform in the U.S., but has different standards elsewhere. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:906373194] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>If you're going to argue about Facebook censorship you should be arguing about Facebook bowing down to foreign governments like how they're censoring the situation in Bangladesh right now at the reqeust of the Government there. Not "political debate" as it relates to a crackpot conspiracy theorist actively harming political discourse.</quote> Also true! Like, Mark Zuckerberg is fine with Holocaust-deniers on his platform in the U.S., but has different standards elsewhere.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:46:17 PM #125:	Bio1590 posted... If you're going to argue about Facebook censorship you should be arguing about Facebook bowing down to foreign governments like how they're censoring the situation in Bangladesh right now at the reqeust of the Government there. Not "political debate" as it relates to a crackpot conspiracy theorist actively harming political discourse. epik_fail1 posted... I am pretty sure spreading lies about people you don't like is not protected under free speech laws. Imagine if Alex Jones decided to spread a pizzagate conspiracy on you and your family business and brainwashed lunatics into believing you own pedo basements and eventually a wannabe hero try to "save kids" from you . Because that is exactly the kind of things Alex Jones do. Ignorant conservatism is still protected under freedom of speech laws, but this guy makes up false crap against tons of people. these ^ --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906373195] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote>If you're going to argue about Facebook censorship you should be arguing about Facebook bowing down to foreign governments like how they're censoring the situation in Bangladesh right now at the reqeust of the Government there. Not "political debate" as it relates to a crackpot conspiracy theorist actively harming political discourse.</quote> <cite>epik_fail1 posted...</cite> <quote>I am pretty sure spreading lies about people you don't like is not protected under free speech laws. Imagine if Alex Jones decided to spread a pizzagate conspiracy on you and your family business and brainwashed lunatics into believing you own pedo basements and eventually a wannabe hero try to "save kids" from you . Because that is exactly the kind of things Alex Jones do. Ignorant conservatism is still protected under freedom of speech laws, but this guy makes up false crap against tons of people.</quote> these ^</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:47:22 PM #126:	Squidkids posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate." It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual. Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him...... What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not. YES it does matter! you can't mislead people because it undermines civil structure, the basic guideline in determining if something is immoral or not. A lot of people are not bright on top of things and take his BS as 100% fact when all he does is spew lies because he does not like something. Freedom of speech is not completely free, I can't go around in buildings screaming fire when there is no fire. Yes you can so long as you screaming that does not cause imminent danger. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906373253] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate."</quote> It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual.</quote> Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him......</quote> What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not.</quote> YES it does matter! you can't mislead people because it undermines civil structure, the basic guideline in determining if something is immoral or not. A lot of people are not bright on top of things and take his BS as 100% fact when all he does is spew lies because he does not like something. Freedom of speech is not completely free, I can't go around in buildings screaming fire when there is no fire. </quote> Yes you can so long as you screaming that does not cause imminent danger.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:47:27 PM #127:	KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... What dont you understand about it being about the principle. It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not. Because things like context exist. Thats the thing, is like, once its Mueller, everyones so scared of Mueller, theyd let Mueller rape kids in front of people, which he did. I mean, Mueller covered up for a decade for Epstein kidnapping kids, flying them on sex planes, some kids as young as 7 years old reportedly, with big perverts raping them to frame people. I mean, Mueller is a monster, man, said Jones. God, imagine hes even above the pedophiles, though. The word is he doesnt have sex with kids, he just controls it all. Can you imagine being a monster like that? God. And then, Jones shifts gears into threat mode, pantomiming cocking a gun and shooting it more than once. His target: Robert Mueller. "That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen. It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads," Jones swore. This is literally who you're going to bat for right now. Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. I am glad you have no political power then. --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906373258] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>What dont you understand about it being about the principle. It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not.</quote> Because things like context exist. <quote>Thats the thing, is like, once its Mueller, everyones so scared of Mueller, theyd let Mueller rape kids in front of people, which he did. I mean, Mueller covered up for a decade for Epstein kidnapping kids, flying them on sex planes, some kids as young as 7 years old reportedly, with big perverts raping them to frame people. I mean, Mueller is a monster, man, said Jones.</quote> <quote>God, imagine hes even above the pedophiles, though. The word is he doesnt have sex with kids, he just controls it all. Can you imagine being a monster like that? God.</quote> <quote>And then, Jones shifts gears into threat mode, pantomiming cocking a gun and shooting it more than once. His target: Robert Mueller. "That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen. It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's the real world. Politically. You're going to get it, or I'm going to die trying, bitch. Get ready. We're going to bang heads. We're going to bang heads," Jones swore.</quote> This is literally who you're going to bat for right now.</quote> Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> I am glad you have no political power then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 08/06/18 2:47:31 PM #128:	KhanJohnny posted... Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform? --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:906373260] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:50:17 PM #129:	Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform? Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906373391] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?</quote> Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:51:56 PM #130:	@KhanJohnny posted... Squidkids posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate." It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual. Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him...... What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not. YES it does matter! you can't mislead people because it undermines civil structure, the basic guideline in determining if something is immoral or not. A lot of people are not bright on top of things and take his BS as 100% fact when all he does is spew lies because he does not like something. Freedom of speech is not completely free, I can't go around in buildings screaming fire when there is no fire. Yes you can so long as you screaming that does not cause imminent danger. OMFG@!!!! HE DOES CAUSE DANGER! he mispreads false information like what would lead to the pissagate thing with someone trying to "save kids" when there was nothing to save. Or fear mongering sales to sell stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PxY-wOrI8" data-time="&start=74 --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906373482] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>@KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>This is why the First Amendment needs to be applied to large social media companies that are of enormous importance to political debate</quote> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-youtube-seem-fine-with-alex-jones-making-death-threats-sex-crime-claims_us_5b5760d2e4b0b15aba92db0e Ah yes... "political debate."</quote> It's not like I believe what Alex Jones says. I barely know who he is. It's about the principle not any individual.</quote> Then maybe you should learn before hitching your wagon to him......</quote> What dont you understand about it being about the principle? It doesn't matter whether everything Jones says it 100% false or not.</quote> YES it does matter! you can't mislead people because it undermines civil structure, the basic guideline in determining if something is immoral or not. A lot of people are not bright on top of things and take his BS as 100% fact when all he does is spew lies because he does not like something. Freedom of speech is not completely free, I can't go around in buildings screaming fire when there is no fire. </quote> Yes you can so long as you screaming that does not cause imminent danger.</quote> OMFG@!!!! HE DOES CAUSE DANGER! he mispreads false information like what would lead to the pissagate thing with someone trying to "save kids" when there was nothing to save. Or fear mongering sales to sell stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2PxY-wOrI8" data-time="&start=74</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:52:36 PM #131:	KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform? Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well. You do not understand the first amendment do you? --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906373508] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?</quote> Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well.</quote> You do not understand the first amendment do you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:53:05 PM #132:	Antifar posted... KhanJohnny posted... But no one appointed Facebook to be a global censor of what is false or not. We shouldn't have self-interested corporations driven by the profit-motive be the de facto arbiters of political debate. Correct! But also Facebook and Twitter are just the tip of that iceberg. Nice to be on the same side. I agree they're the tip, but I wouldn't apply it to smaller sized social media companies, depending on how you define that. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906373541] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>But no one appointed Facebook to be a global censor of what is false or not. We shouldn't have self-interested corporations driven by the profit-motive be the de facto arbiters of political debate. </quote> Correct! But also Facebook and Twitter are just the tip of that iceberg.</quote> Nice to be on the same side. I agree they're the tip, but I wouldn't apply it to smaller sized social media companies, depending on how you define that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dan da man 08/06/18 2:54:31 PM #133:	infowars is a fake news network that alex jones uses to shill his fraudulent, untested, unverified drugs to low iq racists they can easily exploit. so this banning is fine. --- Which then got me thinking and realised i sexually assaulted her when we were about that age. - MixedGattz <cite>dan da man posted [p:906373627] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>infowars is a fake news network that alex jones uses to shill his fraudulent, untested, unverified drugs to low iq racists they can easily exploit. so this banning is fine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 2:56:25 PM #134:	Squidkids posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform? Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well. You do not understand the first amendment do you? I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906373740] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?</quote> Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well.</quote> You do not understand the first amendment do you?</quote> I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 2:58:00 PM #135:	@KhanJohnny posted... Squidkids posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform? Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well. You do not understand the first amendment do you? I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it. Then you need to study harder, because you clearly do not understand the full picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions False statements of fact Main article: False statements of fact In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9] The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14] There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yniul1YEBUE" data-time=" --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906373850] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>@KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?</quote> Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well.</quote> You do not understand the first amendment do you?</quote> I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it.</quote> Then you need to study harder, because you clearly do not understand the full picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions False statements of fact Main article: False statements of fact In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9] The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14] There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yniul1YEBUE" data-time="</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vyrulisse 08/06/18 3:01:40 PM #136:	Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites --- https://imgur.com/6VeX04D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Gkh_9hyi8 <cite>Vyrulisse posted [p:906374030] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 3:03:12 PM #137:	@Vyrulisse posted... Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites refuted right above your post Squidkids posted... @KhanJohnny posted... Squidkids posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform? Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well. You do not understand the first amendment do you? I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it. Then you need to study harder, because you clearly do not understand the full picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions False statements of fact Main article: False statements of fact In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9] The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14] There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yniul1YEBUE" data-time=" This is not hypocrisy at work here. --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906374113] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites</quote> refuted right above your post <cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?</quote> Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well.</quote> You do not understand the first amendment do you?</quote> I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it.</quote> Then you need to study harder, because you clearly do not understand the full picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions False statements of fact Main article: False statements of fact In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9] The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14] There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yniul1YEBUE" data-time="</quote> This is not hypocrisy at work here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
epik_fail1 08/06/18 3:04:39 PM #138:	Vyrulisse posted... Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies? --- Primrose for smash <cite>epik_fail1 posted [p:906374196] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites</quote> If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 3:05:11 PM #139:	Squidkids posted... @KhanJohnny posted... Squidkids posted... KhanJohnny posted... Heineken14 posted... KhanJohnny posted... Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms. So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform? Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well. You do not understand the first amendment do you? I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it. Then you need to study harder, because you clearly do not understand the full picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions False statements of fact Main article: False statements of fact In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9] The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14] There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yniul1YEBUE" data-time=" Did you read what you just posted lol False speech, in and of itself, is not unprotected speech. Plenty of lies and falsehoods are protected speech. Moreover, courts, not Facebook, are well placed to decide which falsehoods break the law and which do not. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906374232] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Heineken14 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.</quote> So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?</quote> Absolutely. Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook. Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well.</quote> You do not understand the first amendment do you?</quote> I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it.</quote> Then you need to study harder, because you clearly do not understand the full picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions False statements of fact Main article: False statements of fact In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9] The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14] There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yniul1YEBUE" data-time="</quote> Did you read what you just posted lol False speech, in and of itself, is not unprotected speech. Plenty of lies and falsehoods are protected speech. Moreover, courts, not Facebook, are well placed to decide which falsehoods break the law and which do not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vyrulisse 08/06/18 3:05:15 PM #140:	Nah it's not refuted because most of the same people would be crying foul if this happened to someone that spouted viewpoints they agreed with I literally never said free speech anywhere btw --- https://imgur.com/6VeX04D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Gkh_9hyi8 <cite>Vyrulisse posted [p:906374243] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>Nah it's not refuted because most of the same people would be crying foul if this happened to someone that spouted viewpoints they agreed with I literally never said free speech anywhere btw</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dan da man 08/06/18 3:06:48 PM #141:	alex jones is a libelous drug dealer and infowars is his distributor. --- Which then got me thinking and realised i sexually assaulted her when we were about that age. - MixedGattz <cite>dan da man posted [p:906374315] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>alex jones is a libelous drug dealer and infowars is his distributor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Ayatollah C 08/06/18 3:08:15 PM #142:	These Infowars headwands were telling us free speech was only under attack in Londonistan last week. Maybe Youtube, Spotify and Apple moved to the UK. Also, they were all for letting the free market regulate itself until yesterday. Now the free market needs the gubment to step in and give dickheads a platform. It's all well lol. --- It made more sense in my head I don't know <cite>The Ayatollah C posted [p:906374382] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>These Infowars headwands were telling us free speech was only under attack in Londonistan last week. Maybe Youtube, Spotify and Apple moved to the UK. Also, they were all for letting the free market regulate itself until yesterday. Now the free market needs the gubment to step in and give dickheads a platform. It's all well lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bio1590 08/06/18 3:08:53 PM #143:	Vyrulisse posted... Nah it's not refuted because most of the same people would be crying foul if this happened to someone that spouted viewpoints they agreed with I literally never said free speech anywhere btw Can you even think of one actual example that is the "equivalent" of Alex Jones or are you just gonna argue hypothetical bullshit? --- https://imgur.com/bbRWLI8 https://imgur.com/A0BErSV <cite>Bio1590 posted [p:906374427] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>Nah it's not refuted because most of the same people would be crying foul if this happened to someone that spouted viewpoints they agreed with I literally never said free speech anywhere btw</quote> Can you even think of one actual example that is the "equivalent" of Alex Jones or are you just gonna argue hypothetical bullshit?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
catboy0_0 08/06/18 3:09:30 PM #144:	blair, flexed --- I obviously like you at least a little to even talk to you -cornman one day I hope to post a message so great it ends up in someones sig -Two_Dee <cite>catboy0_0 posted [p:906374464] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>blair, flexed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kayoticdreamz 08/06/18 3:11:44 PM #145:	Naturally liberals defend censorship of people they disagree with <cite>kayoticdreamz posted [p:906374595] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote>Naturally liberals defend censorship of people they disagree with</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 08/06/18 3:11:45 PM #146:	Bio1590 posted... PoopPotato posted... You can still listen to Alex Jones on his own website so he hasn't just disappeared. However, if I were one of these tech companies, I'd still want people to watch/"listen to him using my platform since it generates revenue for me. Those who don't like him can just not click on his podcast. Nobody is quitting iTunes or Facebook just because AJ is a nut. Facebook is losing billions of market value because people are quitting over shit like the data scandal and the intentional spread of literal fake news. They made millions in the first place, permanently own that data, and these idiots were told by FaceBook that this would happen to them. FaceBook definitely did not get the bad end of the deal by any stretch of the imagination. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:906374601] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PoopPotato posted...</cite> <quote>You can still listen to Alex Jones on his own website so he hasn't just disappeared. However, if I were one of these tech companies, I'd still want people to watch/"listen to him using my platform since it generates revenue for me. Those who don't like him can just not click on his podcast. Nobody is quitting iTunes or Facebook just because AJ is a nut.</quote> Facebook is losing billions of market value because people are quitting over shit like the data scandal and the intentional spread of literal fake news.</quote> They made millions in the first place, permanently own that data, and these idiots were told by FaceBook that this would happen to them. FaceBook definitely did not get the bad end of the deal by any stretch of the imagination.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 3:11:58 PM #147:	epik_fail1 posted... Vyrulisse posted... Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies? Exactly, what is what that court case is about, you can't name slander people, making it hard to get a job because of false information being spread about them etc. For example, you can get sued up the rear if you spread around person x is a pedo, then that person fails to get jobs over it. That is not protected on free speech @Vyrulisse , @KhanJohnny . What alex jones does is on parallels to such situations. The first amendment has limitations, and hur dur liberal oppression is not a pass to break past those limitations. This is not hypocrisy Vyrulisse, I thought you where smarter then this --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906374617] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>epik_fail1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites</quote> If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies?</quote> Exactly, what is what that court case is about, you can't name slander people, making it hard to get a job because of false information being spread about them etc. For example, you can get sued up the rear if you spread around person x is a pedo, then that person fails to get jobs over it. That is not protected on free speech @Vyrulisse , @KhanJohnny . What alex jones does is on parallels to such situations. The first amendment has limitations, and hur dur liberal oppression is not a pass to break past those limitations. This is not hypocrisy Vyrulisse, I thought you where smarter then this</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gafemage 08/06/18 3:13:19 PM #148:	@Vyrulisse posted... spouted viewpoints they agreed with He spreaded transparently false information to millions of lunatics for years - including baseless allegations of mass pedophilia - and enabled a public wave of harassment against grieving family members of Sandy Hook victims. Pretty far cry from disagreeable viewpoints, you stupid fuck. --- https://imgur.com/1EOFcjn https://imgur.com/epjd8zk <cite>Gafemage posted [p:906374692] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>spouted viewpoints they agreed with</quote> He spreaded transparently false information to millions of lunatics for years - including baseless allegations of mass pedophilia - and enabled a public wave of harassment against grieving family members of Sandy Hook victims. Pretty far cry from disagreeable viewpoints, you stupid fuck.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barber102 08/06/18 3:18:18 PM #149:	M_Live posted... X-Pac_Heat posted... Alex Jones is a harmless wacko This is a bad precedent. He's not harmless when a lot of people actually eat up his toxic rhetoric Yeah, he definitely isn't harmless. The people that support him are super disillusioned, he has been responsible for people believing things like pizzagate and sandyhook being a hoax. While I don't agree with outright censorship, I don't have any real answer for the issues this lunatic has his listeners believe. --- Fire and blood. <cite>Barber102 posted [p:906375017] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>M_Live posted...</cite> <quote><cite>X-Pac_Heat posted...</cite> <quote>Alex Jones is a harmless wacko This is a bad precedent.</quote> He's not harmless when a lot of people actually eat up his toxic rhetoric</quote> Yeah, he definitely isn't harmless. The people that support him are super disillusioned, he has been responsible for people believing things like pizzagate and sandyhook being a hoax. While I don't agree with outright censorship, I don't have any real answer for the issues this lunatic has his listeners believe.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KhanJohnny 08/06/18 3:21:10 PM #150:	Squidkids posted... epik_fail1 posted... Vyrulisse posted... Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies? Exactly, what is what that court case is about, you can't name slander people, making it hard to get a job because of false information being spread about them etc. For example, you can get sued up the rear if you spread around person x is a pedo, then that person fails to get jobs over it. That is not protected on free speech @Vyrulisse , @KhanJohnny . What alex jones does is on parallels to such situations. The first amendment has limitations, and hur dur liberal oppression is not a pass to break past those limitations. This is not hypocrisy Vyrulisse, I thought you where smarter then this Courts are the place where violations of libel law should be handled, not within the confines of a profit-motived corporation who can choose which political actors may use their platforms and which can't. <cite>KhanJohnny posted [p:906375187] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>epik_fail1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites</quote> If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies?</quote> Exactly, what is what that court case is about, you can't name slander people, making it hard to get a job because of false information being spread about them etc. For example, you can get sued up the rear if you spread around person x is a pedo, then that person fails to get jobs over it. That is not protected on free speech @Vyrulisse , @KhanJohnny . What alex jones does is on parallels to such situations. The first amendment has limitations, and hur dur liberal oppression is not a pass to break past those limitations. This is not hypocrisy Vyrulisse, I thought you where smarter then this</quote> Courts are the place where violations of libel law should be handled, not within the confines of a profit-motived corporation who can choose which political actors may use their platforms and which can't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squidkids 08/06/18 3:23:10 PM #151:	KhanJohnny posted... Squidkids posted... epik_fail1 posted... Vyrulisse posted... Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies? Exactly, what is what that court case is about, you can't name slander people, making it hard to get a job because of false information being spread about them etc. For example, you can get sued up the rear if you spread around person x is a pedo, then that person fails to get jobs over it. That is not protected on free speech @Vyrulisse , @KhanJohnny . What alex jones does is on parallels to such situations. The first amendment has limitations, and hur dur liberal oppression is not a pass to break past those limitations. This is not hypocrisy Vyrulisse, I thought you where smarter then this Courts are the place where violations of libel law should be handled, not within the confines of a profit-motived corporation who can choose which political actors may use their platforms and which can't. that.. is not a rebuttal... to what i said.................. This post has no point, so i can't reply to you other then the above How about this, Alex jones should be grateful he is not in jail over this BS. --- Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr <cite>Squidkids posted [p:906375313] in Alex Jones... [t:76875791]...</cite> <quote><cite>KhanJohnny posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squidkids posted...</cite> <quote><cite>epik_fail1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>Funny how CE loves censorship when it happens to someone we don't like. Never change hypocrites</quote> If Alex jones spread lies about you that you own a pizzagate where you rape children and you started getting death threats because of it, would you defend is freedom of lies?</quote> Exactly, what is what that court case is about, you can't name slander people, making it hard to get a job because of false information being spread about them etc. For example, you can get sued up the rear if you spread around person x is a pedo, then that person fails to get jobs over it. That is not protected on free speech @Vyrulisse , @KhanJohnny . What alex jones does is on parallels to such situations. The first amendment has limitations, and hur dur liberal oppression is not a pass to break past those limitations. This is not hypocrisy Vyrulisse, I thought you where smarter then this</quote> Courts are the place where violations of libel law should be handled, not within the confines of a profit-motived corporation who can choose which political actors may use their platforms and which can't.</quote> that.. is not a rebuttal... to what i said.................. This post has no point, so i can't reply to you other then the above How about this, Alex jones should be grateful he is not in jail over this BS.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 8

Current Events > Alex Jones "banned completely" from Facebook, Apple and Spotify (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Alex Jones "banned completely" from Facebook, Apple and Spotify