Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

With well-known nutjob Alex Jones getting kicked off of a lot of media platforms, the free speech debate has erupted once again. I thought it would be worth making a thread around it so that people can verbally tear each other apart for having a different opinion, just as our founding fathers intended. 

I personally think that free speech has been distorted by certain groups of people who seem to feel that you should be allowed to voice violent rhetoric and incite hate with no consequences. In addition, freedom of speech in America means protection from censorship by the government, not by private companies, which a lot of people seem to misunderstand. 

Feel free to voice your own opinions. 

The latter point is one nobody ever gets. I've seen people right here on this forum who think they have constitutional 'rights' when it comes to a website.

But companies are fuckin huge now and social media especially is woven into people's lives in a way no one would've ever predicted. It's not really comparable to getting kicked out of Walgreens.

You can't really say businesses and their interests are completely separate from government now either.

I believe people like Alex Jones have a right to be entertainingly schizophrenic snake oil salesmen wherever they damn well please, and Youtube should not have removed my favorite Sci-Fi worldbuilding channel from its medium. However, I feel like it should be different for small places like us to prune our minimalistic bonsai of the internet from its disruptive and obnoxious branches. But mostly I just believe in things that directly benefit me and people I know, because that's what everyone does.

I've always seen Alex Jones as a crazy, but mostly harmless, nutjob that can be mildly entertaining. Thing is, sometimes he actually says things that are agreeable until he goes off into a tangent.

Alex Jones: As you can see, these are clear signs of corruption within the administration and they are trying to distract us from this by diverting our attention...

Me: Mhmmm...I'm following...

Alex Jones: AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REPTILE-ALIEN HYBRIDS FROM THE 5TH DIMENSION!!!!

Back on point: As Mizal said, while free speech is a constitutional right for the citizens that cannot be interfered with (excluding violent/threatening rhetoric), this only applies to the government. Private entities are allowed to set whatever limitations on speech that they want because they have a right to do so.

The problem is that the culture surrounding free speech extends to social media platforms despite them being private entities. It's more or less expected that these entities would support free speech given that their purpose is giving people another way to connect with each other. So while they are well within their right to ban/limit the speech of their users as they please, it is generally frowned upon by whatever group was effected. It especially doesn't look good when some platforms (eg. Facebook and Twitter) have been shown to be deliberately biased against certain groups. In some cases, they'll ban one user belonging to a "bad group" for saying something labeled "offensive" or "extreme" while being perfectly fine with a different user belonging to a "good group" saying something much worse. There would probably be a lot less backlash against these social media platforms if they were consistent with their own rules.

NOTE: I included a one-sentance summary at the bottom, in case you didn't want to read my whole post.

I believe the way it's set up is something like this: Free speech is something that only works for vocal. I'm typing here. If an admin wants, they can delete this entire thread, so what we say is being selected. It isn't say-whatever-you-want stuff. Even in games like PUBG or Fortnite, you have signed up and can be banned. The free speech part is like in it's own country - you can only say so much without being executed (or otherwise punsished).

Vocally, we can say almost whatever we want. Whether it's about how fucked-up the economy is, or about Donald Trump's latest post on Twitter, or even lunch plans. We can't say anything like "Want some heroine" or "I will hunt you down and kill you, motherfucker," but we can discuss normal topics. We also can't say anything sexual to a woman who would feel uncomfortable, as she would claim that your molesting her. But that's another matter.

Summary: In my opinion, you are able to use the first amendment rights verbally, while the things that you sign up for can select how much they get rid of, or they can even ban you.

No... freedom of speech, by pretty much anyone's definition, isn't only vocal. It extends to all forms of speech, be it written, typed, painted or whatever the fuck.

Hey Mr. Cake, there's so much wrong with what you've posted, I don't even know where to begin. And no, not your opinion, factually. I don't know, but this sounds like the views of someone who isn't American or who received a really crappy public education.

The first amendment is actually very, very clear. It starts out with "Congress shall make no law..." That's the entire point of that amendment. It was the people telling government that government can't tell people to shut up -- no matter what. It doesn't matter what the medium is. In fact, one of the big reasons around this amendment was so that people could publish written pamphlets criticizing the king. This applies to gestures -- for example I can give a government agent the finger and that can never be a crime. But it is about laws. I can wolf-whistle in public and that cannot be a crime (at least in the US). It specifically protects me so I CAN say things that are insulting. And I most certainly CAN say things that make people uncomfortable. It doesn't mean that what I say won't have consequences, just that the government cannot make that a crime.

When it comes to employment law, that's a whole nuther ball of wax. Today that's a mess that no one understands (thank you slimeball lawyers). Again, there can be consequences to what I say when I am on the job, but those are consequences related to employment. So yes, the NFL CAN limit the free speech of their players as part of their employment contract (ignore for a moment the unions). But the government cannot make it a crime to kneel before a football game.

On general web sites, the person who created the site can 100% control what's on the site because they created it, period. Some web hosts may exercise that control as well. While you have the freedom to say what you want, you can't force someone else to provide you a platform to say it.

And that's just the factual, legal part. We can talk all about what's right or wrong below, as Steve has mentioned...

I've heard the "Private corporation, doesn't have to free speech" argument a lot lately, and I think it's pretty drivel, because that's not really what free speech is. Free Speech doesn't only extend to protection from government censorship in every way, it extends past that. Legally, sure, that's where the line is. The US constitution, and indeed most countries' laws or constitutions, only protects it to the extent of what the government can or can't do.

However, the conversation we're having shouldn't be one of simple legality. I mean, one, that's a terrible conversation, yes, the media platforms can legally do this, end of story. 

While this definitely isn't illegal, it's a very bad principle for people to try and defend. Freedom of speech as a concept is based around the simple idea that ideas should flow and be discussed, and we should try to protect the freedom of unpopular ideas to be expressed, because without that, we can't actually improve our ideas and see which ones are correct and so on and so forth. In this regard, Alex Jones getting kicked off these media platforms are a really serious thing, and something we should not support.

While it's again definitely legal, having people support these massive and critical tools of thought exchange to have freedom of speech stricken from it only leads to bad precedence and the erosion of freedom of speech, and that's pretty fucking awful for all of us.

There's no real benefit to keeping him around, though. Using YouTube he's directed a legion of angry, sweaty fucks to harass the family of Sandy Hook victims. There's a clear benefit to kicking him off. 

If you run a pub, obviously your customers can talk about whatever they want. But if someone starts fucking loudly yelling about the Jews being behind it all, you'd probably kick him out. 

The benefits on principle. On principle, we should protect the free speech of everyone, because when we start saying that it can be decided some people can be limited on that, then it all goes to shit. If someone has the right to decide what's beneficial to be discussed, you've already fucked up concept of freedom of speech.

Loudly yelling about Jews being behind it all is not what this is, because Alex Jones isn't disrupting other services, and pubs aren't important instruments of free speech and thus defending free speech there isn't essential. It's the difference between kicking someone out of your house because you disagree with their support of Republicans, or kicking someone off Twitter for it. While they're both privately owned, one is essential for speech and discourse, the other is not.

I fail to see how claiming Sandy Hook was fake and that the parents were paid actors is essential for speech and discourse. This isn't a difference in opinion, it's an outright lie made by Jones to manipulate as many people as he can. 

To stress this: Freedom of speech is essential for discourse. Not being able to restrict what can and can't be said is essential for speech and discourse. We need to on principle be opposed to censoring people for their beliefs or opinions. No matter how reprehensible the belief system you want to make the exception for is, once you allow for exceptions, it turns to shit.

What is correct in principle is not necessarily correct in practice. The shit that comes out of Alex Jones' mouth isn't essential for anything except compost. He adds nothing but lies and misinformation and banning him from facebook is hardly a great loss. 

You're missing the point. Yes, Alex Jones is shit, and everything he says is shit, and personally I'd be delighted if his head was blown off by some conspiracy theorist spurred on by him. That doesn't change the fact that if you start censorship, than freedom of speech is crippled, and that's bad. If you abandon your principles, than you don't have any, and freedom of speech as a principle is gone right out the window.

Alex Jones still has his own website to spew his lies from and anywhere in the public area to use as an outlet. He doesn't have an inherent right to a Facebook or Youtube account. Like I've said before, freedom of speech should only be about protection from the government, not by private companies. 

I feel like you're not hearing a word I'm saying.

- No, Alex Jones doesn't have a constitutional right here. Legally, his rights aren't being violated.

- Yes, Alex Jones is scum.

- Freedom of Speech is an important value that we should preserve essentially in areas essential to discourse and debate and speech as a general idea, because freedom of speech is important as a concept. 

- While Twitter and Facebook and Youtube are private, they are still pretty critical to spreading ideas in the modern world, and definitely essential to discourse and debate and speech as a general idea.

-Yes

-Yes

-Some ideas and thoughts are not worth debating because they are so completely ludicrous it's impossible to have a legtimate argument. 

-Yes, and not everybody has a right to those websites. Trolls and flamers are banned on a regular basis from those websites and I think Alex Jones classifies close to that category. 

You've claimed to have turned to supporting free speech as of late, but let me make this clear. If you think that you can start tossing ideas and thoughts out as not worthy of free speech, then you're not for free speech in any way. As soon as you allow people to start deciding that some ideas aren't worth debate, than free speech as a concept is destroyed. So best either waddle back to the anti-free speech side or maybe figure out what free speech is.

Alex Jones spread evil beliefs, but that doesn't make him a troll. Too often, people decide that other opinions are just "Trolls" and not really even worth debating, leading to censorship and again, the degradation of free speech.

And I've made my stance quite clear, as I posted in the discord. "My stance is that you should be allowed to say what you want unless it's a direct call to violence. And that applies only to censorship by the government, not by private companies." There's no contradiction in my stances. 

Some ideas are truly not worth debating, period. Are you telling me that the idea that Sandy Hook was fabricated by Obama is somehow worth the time of day? 

The man who claimed that the "chemicals in the water is turning the frogs gay" is not worth arguing with.

What is your stance on free speech, though? Not the legal concept as it exists in the US, but the whole concept. Is it a good idea that we should strive for? Either you're against it as a concept and you don't think we should do as little as we can to minimize restrictions on debate and discourse and speech, in which case I think you're an idiot with an ideology far worse than Jones, or than yes, those ideas shouldn't be censored.

I don't think all claims or ideas deserve the same merit or attention and should be treated accordingly. 

You didn't answer my question, do you think the idea that Sandy Hook is fake is worth debating?

Not what I asked. Obviously, all ideas don't deserve the same merit or attention. But, should we try to limit censorship of ideas wherever we can, or do you think some ideas should be censored, even if by private entities?

Apologies, I assumed it was rhetorical. Is Sandy Hook worth debating? Well yes, it's worth debating and then debunking, definitely. All negative ideas are worth the time to debate and debunk. If we refuse to debate with ideas like Sandy Hook being faked, then how exactly do we expect people who think that to learn?

Yes, I think private entities should have the right to censor ideas that are within their jurisdiction. 

But Sandy Hook is not worth debunking, because it's so blatantly false that any reasonable person could tell right away. Also his speech also indirectly hurt the parents of the kids who were killed because nutjobs who believed in what he said harassed them, forcing them to move multiple times. Speech has consequences. 

What's the difference between:

1. Some ideas are not worth debating

and

2. We should censor some ideas because they are not worth debating

I might suggest that if you support #2 then you need some authority to decide what is worth debating and what is not...and if you support that idea then you don't really support free speech, you support free speech that you agree with.

No, that's not the case. For example, I think flat-earth theory is mind-boggingly stupid, but what it says doesn't direct hurt or defame other people, so I think it's acceptable under free speech. Alex Jones on the other hand, has been shown several times to have impacted others negatively with his rhetoric- for example, he called the Sandy Hook parents paid actors, which led to their harassment. 

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you support free speech except when it might hurt someone's feelings? I mean you're not working with direct action here. The classic example of "Fire!" in the movie theater is direct action: it is speech that directly leads to violence and danger. Person A saying that person B might be faking something; then person C decides on their own to take an action isn't the same as direct action, I'd see that as indirect action.

Other cases have talked about "Fighting words." Again, in those cases, it was about clear and direct action, not indirect and related actions. If I say, "Smoking is bad for you," and then someone else decides to shoot people who smoke, that doesn't mean I should be shut up, but it appears that you're suggesting my speech should be limited because of actions of other people and how other people react to my words, and that's just censorship with different parameters.

I'm just saying companies might not want to have people who defame and lie about the parents of school shooting victims on their website.

So it's no longer even about whether it's "blatantly false", but instead now about whether saying things impact others negatively? What if I say that Trump's basically Hitler? That leads to him getting more harassment, and negatively impacts him.

There's a significant power imbalance in your example. If you said that about Trump, he wouldn't be significantly impacted in any way. 

So who can I say it about? Coal executives with little media attention? Saying shit about them would lead to them being actually impacted. What about a cop in a shooting? If I say he's secretly a racist scumbag, that'll effect him.

Even then, seems to me most of the bullshit Jones throws out is at people with lots of attention anyway, so besides the Hook example he's not doing too much, and he hasn't even talked about them in ages, so he's not getting kicked off just for that.

How could you affect anyone? You don't have the social following of Alex Jones. 

Have you already forgotten Pizzagate, when he claimed a pizza shop was a hideout for a pedophile ring. Alex Jones doesn't deserve social media. 

So if I get more popular, I'm going to get my speech restricted more and more? Does that seem like a fair system to you?

Never the less, if I was popular, then. 

To be fair, popularity isn't needed to negatively impact someone's life because of what you're saying. I'm sure you've heard of cases of people - students and teachers alike - having their lives/careers negatively impacted because of some bullshit that was flung at them by a small, but loud, number of voices. One hostile voice in a crowd of disgruntled people can and has caused things to escalate due to mob mentality.

As far as Trump, business leaders, and police officers go: Trump's family has lost business deals because of what they were being labeled as (it wouldn't do good to do business with someone that is slammed as a racist, sexist, etc) and I'm sure the same has happened to other businesses before. Police officers who were just doing their jobs have had their careers and lives ruined because a couple people decided that they had to be racist. That incident that jump started the BLM movement is a good example. That officer was afraid to show his face for some time.

That's not really the point I'm trying to make. I'm focusing how Coins clearly thinks that Alex Jones negatively impacting people should be restricted, but the criteria he puts out just wouldn't stand given I'm sure he'd be fine with negatively impacting someone of more questionable character, like a Liberal Comedian insulting and ridiculing a coal executive to the point of negatively impacting them.

the harassment of a multimillionaire coal executive who profits off of actively harming other people's living spaces isn't comparable to harassing the families of dead children. full stop 

The criteria Coins put down for the limiting of free speech was based off, as Coins said, "directly hurting or defaming other people", so yeah, the harassment of a multimillionaire coal executive does fall under that. The reason I went with a coal executive is because it's not something Coins would probably agree with putting in this same category, showing the criteria he's using don't work.

Oh, I was actually agreeing with you. From what I gathered, he's saying that it should be limited if you negatively impact someone (which is far too broad of a standard in the first place). Of course, that would mean that it's up to his discretion as to what is negative. In Trump's case, him being labeled as Hitler (among other things) did negatively impact him and his family because it caused him to lose business. Now, to him, that may not be considered negative, but it certainly would to the Trumps. If that's not enough, it drew negative attention to the supporters to the point that many of them were harassed and assaulted. I'm curious if Coins would have a problem with people labeling Trump all of these things even when we have seen how it resulted in such harassment.

The case the Coins was making basically sums up to "Limit the free speech of people that say things I don't agree with to the X degree." When it comes down to it, Alex Jones say a lot of crazy shit, but I've never heard of some directly calling for violence. If some nut wants to act on something he says, Jones's speech can't be limited due to actions taken by someone that decided to listen to him. It's a very slippery slope.

Wow, I'm completely with Steve on something. Weird.

But yes, this is a horrible precedent. However, I wish the companies would just be honest, instead is hiding behind B.S. Instead of claiming, "Oh, we're protecting people" and other such crap, I wish Facebook would just be honest and say, "Hey, we don't like this guy. We don't like what he's saying, so we're shutting him down. And if we don't like what you're saying, we're going to shut you down. If you don't like that, bugger off."

But yeah, honesty and big companies don't often appear in the same sentence.

I find myself agreeing with him as well, which both shocks and appalls me.

I'm right about near everything, it's cool.

I also agree with Steve on this and feel weird about being on his side in something. In addition to being a horrible precedent, I also think that Alex Jones is largely harmless and silencing him on large platforms will do more harm than good. Sure, some crazies listen to him and cause trouble, but let's face it, if you're willing to believe Alex Jones's conspiracy theories and violently act on them, you're probably a danger anyways. Even if the folks wouldn't be as dangerous without Alex Jones, the man hasn't been completely silenced and still has a website to discuss his views on. Now, I don't know about you, but if I were a conspiracy theorist and someone who I thought to be telling deep dark secrets was removed from major methods of communication, I'd get pretty paranoid and I might start to feel like more extreme measures than speech might be necessary. In other words, I can totally see this move radicalizing people who actually believe Alex Jones. As Steve said, if these ideas aren't discussed and debunked, the folks who adhere to them don't get a chance to learn. Instead, the ideas are confined to echo chambers and in echo chambers, extreme ideas/tendencies can be magnified and thus, made more dangerous as their adherents lose touch with the normal world and become fanatics. There's a reason that cults like secrecy and isolation, it aids indoctrination.

Wow, I hadn’t even considered that. It’s more dangerous to let his ideas go unchallenged than to block him and add some legitimacy in the eyes of his listeners.

Heck, even I joked that they were silencing him because they actually were turning the frogs gay.

Only sensitive pussies suppress free speech.

I'm more curious as to why Twitter hasn't banned him themselves. I thought Twitter dropped the ban hammer for almost anything.

 

Because Twitter knows the truth about the frogs