Well, I think it pretty clearly is a free speech issue (though not, for the obvious reason, a First Amendment issue). Labeling it thus does not mean Facebook et al are in the wrong; free speech is not an absolute value, and we accept limitations on it all the time. I think there is a good argument to block Jones, but I think it does have to be placed within the free speech debate.
I am always worried when speech is limited (anywhere) in response to pressure from emotionally charged majorities. In a country that has historically placed the highest value on free speech, I think we have to be prepared to err on the side of too much rather than too little. Again, that does not mean it is wrong to ban Jones on FB - a good argument can be made that his poison nonsense is clearly over the line of what is acceptable. The problem for me is that the line being used here is not clearly defined. I reject the notion that the line is whatever the loudest majority feels it to be at the current moment. I would prefer some set of concrete criteria be provided that users of social media could consider in advance. I would prefer that rather than banning Jones in toto, specific instances in which he has violated those criteria in the past are banned, and he (and everyone else) are given maybe 3 strikes in the future before they are permanently banned going forward. What are the criteria? I am not sure - and that is what makes me nervous about this situation. Should we man all “hate speech”? I don’t even know what that is. I hate Donald Trump - having posted that on this corner of social media, should I now be banned? Use of the “N-Word” to express threat and devaluation is anathema to me, but no, I do not want to see Richard Pryor or rap music banned. Anti-semitism is appalling and disgusting, but, again, no, I do not want to see Shakespeare banned. Probably no set of criteria would ever be perfect - but any set would be better than a vague sense of “most of us really don’t like that shit.” Expression which is harmful or incites serious harm towards others is probably a good place to start, though that already is plenty ambiguous. Expression which is non-transparent (where the real source/funding is hidden or distorted) might also be part of useful criteria - although, for someone who signs his posts on this site as “PGage” that might seem a bit hypocritical - and at least underlines the difficulty. Questions with easy answers: 1. Is Alex Jones reprehensible? (Yes) 2. Does Facebook have the right to ban Alex Jones? (Yes) A question with more difficulty answers: 3. How do we protect not just the right of but the access to free expression of very unpopular people? I think anytime anyone’s ability to express themselvs is limited (even when justified) we have to spend a lot of time thinking long and seriously about answers to question #3. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:28 PM Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:25 PM Steve Timko <steveti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If porn and stripping are free speech issues then Alex Jones is a free >> speech issue. >> > > Alex Jones still has his website where anybody can stream his videos. This > is not a free speech issue. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
