Alex Jones

[xbacksideslider]

I agree with this guy -

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/dou ... jones-ban/

[jhwalker]

Interesting discussion. thanks.
Although I am 'a rightie' I find Alex Jones to be difficult to watch/listen. not that it matters...

[xbacksideslider]

Good to see you posting again.

Yeah, when I watch Alex Jones I do it the same way as I watch Rachel Maddow, for the entertainment.

[jhwalker]

I can't watch Rachel

[xbacksideslider]

You must be a member of Spanky's ("Our Gang") He Man Woman Hater Club.

[jhwalker]

You must be a member of Spanky's ("Our Gang") He Man Woman Hater Club.

Must be...

[03_SONIC_BLUR]

The First Amendment is a protection from the government limiting speech. Free Speech is a concept, and ideal, that the antidote to speech you don't like is a better, more compelling argument. There is no such thing as hate speech. There is no speech or speaker that should be limited or muted in anyway, anywhere. Any such action is viewpoint bias, and goes against the concept of free speech

[SonicVenum]

The First Amendment is a protection from the government limiting speech. Free Speech is a concept, and ideal, that the antidote to speech you don't like is a better, more compelling argument. There is no such thing as hate speech. There is no speech or speaker that should be limited or muted in anyway, anywhere. Any such action is viewpoint bias, and goes against the concept of free speech

Is this any different when you consider that the social media companies that have banned him and his network are private companies, and not government entities? He's still free the have his website, and people can go there if they want to watch/listen to what he has to say.

[xbacksideslider]

My first thought too, is to join the chorus and say "They own their sites, they can control their site's content.

On second thought, no, this is not a free transaction, rather it is a transaction enabled and protected by law; these companies bought "safe harbors" and protections from anti-trust and from defamation and God knows what other privileges from the politicians.

This evil, exactly like slavery in the past, depends on the force of law for its very existence.

If a city council grants a monopoly license to build the loud speaker system in the public square, does that monopoly get to control what can be said on it? Defined by market share, Google is a monopoly, so is Twitter, so is YouTube, so is Discus, so is search. Barriers to entry are huge; competition impractical.

No one forces anyone to listen, hit "delete" or "block" if you don't like it. That's the beauty of the net, as opposed to that old regulated MSM - big three networks plus three newspapers - uni-think. Wow, with the net, we got to choose. No more, now choice is denied; we are throttled, banned, shadow banned.

Urgency. This is free speech, competition among ideas.

I like the way this guy thinks -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK_MPMc ... e=youtu.be

The Tech Left has a de facto oligopoly which suppresses one side of the argument.
If you care about truth, about competition of ideas, this has to end. Now.