>From this side of the Atlantic where free speech isn't enshrined into law the same way as it is on your side, a few other thoughts.
I'll start by saying that I think operators like Apple, YouTube and Facebook are entirely within their rights to get rid of him. I also think that he's a nasty individual that has somehow gained way too much attention (I first came across him in a Jon Ronson book and TV series many years ago, when Ronson came across him at the Bohemian Grove). As pretty much everyone is saying, this isn't a free speech issue. It's probably being framed that way because to a certain generation, access to YouTube or Facebook is tantamount to how we communicate in 2018. But this is also an example of how the big tech companies are having to decide what they really are. For lots of reasons, they've been trying to take a position of not being responsible for anything. They would argue that they're just the platform and in the same way, the phone company isn't responsible if I plan a crime using the phone, they've wanted to stay out of the fray. How many times has Mark Zuckerberg tried to argue that his is a tech company and not a media company? See also why it's taken them an awful long time to come around to the idea that some of what they're doing might not be good for democracy and be misused by others. That's harder to do now because they're such big advertising beasts. They are part of the media mix. And it turns out that big brands don't want their messaging associated with hate speech and the like. So they have to start making choices. Ideally they want to do everything algorithmically. There's too much being posted for anyone to monitor. We live in a world where Disney or Nickelodeon have many layers of checking before something makes it to one of their kids' channels. But YouTube doesn't even vet all the video that gets posted to the kid-friendly bit of YouTube. The interesting things is that these companies tend to be quite at good at keeping some things off their sites - notably porn. Sure they also end up banning Renaissance paintings, iconic photographs from the Vietnam war, and mothers feeding their babies. But the algorithms seem reasonably good at identifying bare skin. What they can't do is easily determine content beyond that, and more to the point, whether it crosses their virtual line in the sand about what's acceptable. Is a man behind a desk screaming dangerous or not? In the end, I don't have a problem with any of this happening. YouTube and Facebook aren't basic services like electricity and water which we all have a right to. They get to make their own rules. If you don't agree with them, then set-up your own video hosting site. Just the same as when no publisher wants to publish your 'manifesto' you can go away and get it printed yourself. We live in an age when, for better or worse, it is easier than ever to get your message out there and find like minded individuals. There aren't half a dozen proprietors who control access to print, or four network presidents who in effect control access to public airwaves. Sure, it might impact on your real business of selling over-priced so-called food supplements, but that's a different problem. Adam On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:30 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > No problem. But it does prompt me to repeat Some things more succinctly > from my initial post that probably got lost in my long and boring > elaborations: > > 1. This is not a First Amendment Issue > > 2. It is a Free Speech issue (which goes beyond what is constitutional and > legal, and goes to a broader culture of free expression, including such > things as academic freedom and equal access to even private platforms). > There is no fundamental legal right to “free speech” - to protection from > non-governmental restriction, but the expectation that all parties will > have equal access to expression in any particular forum (in the context of > whatever limitations are placed on all parties equally) is an important > part of a larger free and democratic culture based on and essential for > the proper implementation of the Constitutional freedom. > > 3. Facebook is allowed to ban Jones if it wants to (being an asshole is > not a protected class) > > 4. The question is, ought Facebook to ban Jones? I think the answer is > probably (hopefully) yes, but I think that depends on the quality and > specificity of the the terms of service in place at the time. I fear the > relevant terms are too vague, and lead to arbitrary and biased > implementation that make room for the tyranny of the majority. The answer > to the question does not (should not) depend on how many people don’t like > Jones, or how passionately they dislike him. > > 5. It is hard (not impossible) to write specific criteria that would cover > people like Jones but not people like Rush LImbaugh or Michael Moore. It is > important though. > > 5. I don’t give a shit about Alex Jones. I do give a shit about lots of > other potentially unpopular speakers. > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:17 AM Doug Fields <d...@flids.net> wrote: > >> Sorry...my mail reader broke this topic up into several different >> threads, and I missed the majority of well thought out back-and-forth that >> many of you have posted in the last 24 hours. If I'd read those first, my >> response would've been a lot more reasoned and nuanced, and a lot less >> simplistic and flippant. >> >> >> My bad. >> >> >> Doug Fields >> >> Tampa, FL >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Doug Fields >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 8, 2018 8:11:13 AM >> *To:* TV or Not TV >> *Subject:* Re: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Semi-OT: InfoWars accounts suspended >> across digital media >> >> Once *again*, for the people who cut 8th grade Civics too many >> times...the 1st Amendment grants you protection from the *government* >> prosecuting you for things you say. *That* is the one and only definition >> of "free speech" protection granted by the Constitution. Yes, you can say >> anything you damned well please. No, you are most definitely *not* >> protected from the ramifications that will come as a response to what you >> say. And no one else is required to help you spread your message on their >> property or via their platforms, as long as they're not discriminating >> against you for some explicitly prohibited reason. >> >> Doug Fields >> Tampa, FL >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com <tvornottv@googlegroups.com> on >> behalf of Steve Timko <steveti...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 7, 2018 6:25:03 PM >> *To:* TV or Not TV >> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Semi-OT: InfoWars accounts suspended >> across digital media >> >> If porn and stripping are free speech issues then Alex Jones is a free >> speech issue. >> >> Not sent from an iPhone >> On Aug 7, 2018, at 1:27 PM, "Kevin M." <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I’m amazed at seemingly intelligent writers claiming this is a free >> speech issue. It’s a business decision. It turns out having a guy in your >> establishment screaming threats and insults at children is bad for >> business. As others have said, if you ran a bookstore or managed an office >> and there was some lunatic shouting at the top of his lungs, you’d ask him >> to quiet down or leave. Facebook and YouTube didn’t deny him service, they >> suspended him after he abused the service. >> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 1:22 PM Steve Timko < steveti...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I tuned in to Alex Jones' stream for a few minutes this morning. He said >> Apple's Tim Cook is leading the attack on him. Is that a dog whistle way of >> saying the gays are against him? >> He also said the Fox News owners owners won't let the Fox News hosts >> speak honestly about him getting yanked off YouTube and social media. >> >> Not sent from an iPhone >> On Aug 6, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Steve Timko < steveti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Loved this Tweet. >> >> https://twitter.com/joshgondelman/status/1026629178484051971?s=19 >> >> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 5:45 PM 'Greg Diener' via TVorNotTV < >> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 1:26:26 PM UTC-4, Kevin M. (RPCV) wrote: >> >> Spotify, YouTube, Facebook, and iTunes... to name a few. >> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/infowars-alex-jones-apple-facebook-spotify.html >> >> Still allowed on Twitter, though. >> >> >> Of course he's still allowed on Twitter that would imply that Jack Dorsey >> would have one ounce of courage inside his body. >> >> Greg >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- >> Kevin M. (RPCV) >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
