Current Events > I mean, Infowars makes a good point about censorship tbh

(+) Yeah! (+)

can't argue with em there
---

Yeah but what about liberals and the deep state, hmm?
---

as someone said, nobody's stopping him from what he's saying

but companies have the right to stop him from broadcasting on their platforms

it's like if somebody came up to me and called me a fucking dirty greasy wog for being of Italian descent. Me punching them in the face is not a violation of freedom of speech.

Have all the freedom of speech you want, but it doesn't save you from repercussions if your speech is aggressive or inciting.
---

Yeah, it's ironic that guys like Jones can't see the hypocrisy in their actions. Honestly, they probably do, but there is no money to be made on being untalented and reasonable (as opposed to being untalented and radical).

YouTube isn't obligated by law to publish all content submitted to them. People tend to forget that YouTube is a service, a private service, that offers to publish content for free with profit from advertising. Just like book publishing, they get to choose what they will and won't publish. People think because it's free, that means that it is a public service, and it's not.

Then people argue they should let the idiots like Jones talk. I guess it's a valid point, but at some point, it's just pointless. Not all viewpoints require equal platforms to be discussed. If I decide to teach that all people must wear neon-green flip flops to appease the great cucumber in the sky, that doesn't mean I should get the same time and platforms as, say, the debate on abortion or gun control.

DavidWong posted...

as someone said, nobody's stopping him from what he's saying

but companies have the right to stop him from broadcasting on their platforms

it's like if somebody came up to me and called me a fucking dirty greasy wog for being of Italian descent. Me punching them in the face is not a violation of freedom of speech.

Have all the freedom of speech you want, but it doesn't save you from repercussions if your speech is aggressive or inciting.

And in turn you will also face repercussions from the law. Not a very good analogy
---

glitteringfairy posted...

And in turn you will also face repercussions from the law. Not a very good analogy

Like I said, a book publishing firm is a better analogy.

DavidWong posted...

it's like if somebody came up to me and called me a fucking dirty greasy wog for being of Italian descent. Me punching them in the face is not a violation of freedom of speech.

Uh it's a violation of his rights. What a stupid example.
---

you get the point i'm making

CE the #1 place for attacking the straw man
---

It is okay to ban info wars yet you must bake the cake for the NAZI wedding.
---

DavidWong posted...

as someone said, nobody's stopping him from what he's saying

but companies have the right to stop him from broadcasting on their platforms

it's like if somebody came up to me and called me a fucking dirty greasy wog for being of Italian descent. Me punching them in the face is not a violation of freedom of speech.

Have all the freedom of speech you want, but it doesn't save you from repercussions if your speech is aggressive or inciting.

That's not the perfect example though cause you would actually get arrested for assualt if you punched them. People that use this example always make it sound like the shittalker is open game to attack with no legal punishment