Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for One Week

[Hayabusa Rider]

For those of us who don't follow Alex Jones or really know anything about him, can you provide the Cliff's Notes about what "hate speech" he committed?

IMO the problem with "hate speech" is that it's often a catchall for the problematic. I dislike the term, not that it's inapplicable but overly vague. I too don't know that much about the specifics of Jones. Does he support White Supremacy? If so and he uses his public visibility to promote it then "hate speech" might apply. I would say that Alex Jones is racist in supporting White Supremacy. Charges need to be specific. If I tar someone with "hate speech" or some other terms then that is psychologically sufficient to beg the question into banning someone. Hate speech is like "do you still beat your wife".

With all that said, the little I have read from Jone's material qualifies him to be removed by private companies for Pizzagate, attacks against families who lost loved ones etc. He represents someone who incites harm to others with that purpose in mind. That he is reprehensible isn't the issue for me, it's his demonstrated behaviors that he knows or ought to know is an attack on those who cannot defend themselves against the harm he intends.

Anyway, if someone is a racist and there is material cause to accuse then do so with demonstrable facts, be it direct support, approval, or knowingly accepting aid from racist institutions.

 

[glenn1]

IMO the problem with "hate speech" is that it's often a catchall for the problematic. I dislike the term, not that it's inapplicable but overly vague. I too don't know that much about the specifics of Jones. Does he support White Supremacy? If so and he uses his public visibility to promote it then "hate speech" might apply. I would say that Alex Jones is racist in supporting White Supremacy. Charges need to be specific. If I tar someone with "hate speech" or some other terms then that is psychologically sufficient to beg the question into banning someone. Hate speech is like "do you still beat your wife".

With all that said, the little I have read from Jone's material qualifies him to be removed by private companies for Pizzagate, attacks against families who lost loved ones etc. He represents someone who incites harm to others with that purpose in mind. That he is reprehensible isn't the issue for me, it's his demonstrated behaviors that he knows or ought to know is an attack on those who cannot defend themselves against the harm he intends.

Anyway, if someone is a racist and there is material cause to accuse then do so with demonstrable facts, be it direct support, approval, or knowingly accepting aid from racist institutions.

I'm on the same bandwidth as you. If someone said something demonstrably untrue and perhaps done for malicious purposes but there's no discernible nexus to common hate speech themes (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) then calling it hate speech seems inappropriate. The Pizzagate and "this school shooting was a staged event" sound more like quackery like "the moon landing was faked by NASA" then calling for the extermination of Jews. Certainly the sites are within their rights to remove his access rights as they see fit, but it serves no purpose to invent a reason that seems untrue ('hate speech') while the simpler and more accurate truth of "he believes completely batshit conspiracy theories that appeal to crazies and may lead to those crazies being a risk to others" is completely adequate to the task.

 

[zinfamous]

For those of us who don't follow Alex Jones or really know anything about him, can you provide the Cliff's Notes about what "hate speech" he committed? I know about the claims that Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax but it seems a stretch to call that hate speech - stupid claim and contrary to reality, but I'm not seeing where the hate angle comes in. Is there more? Not trying to be glib, Google news searches don't really seem to clarify what would be in scope of his claimed hate speech beyond the Sandy Hook and Pizzagate claims.

These are solid examples of his intolerance of intellect and the absorption of actual, fundamental knowledge through the common tools of rational logic, observation, and general testing. I have no tolerance for his hatred of a fact-based reality.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm on the same bandwidth as you. If someone said something demonstrably untrue and perhaps done for malicious purposes but there's no discernible nexus to common hate speech themes (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) then calling it hate speech seems inappropriate. The Pizzagate and "this school shooting was a staged event" sound more like quackery like "the moon landing was faked by NASA" then calling for the extermination of Jews. Certainly the sites are within their rights to remove his access rights as they see fit, but it serves no purpose to invent a reason that seems untrue ('hate speech') while the simpler and more accurate truth of "he believes completely batshit conspiracy theories that appeal to crazies and may lead to those crazies being a risk to others" is completely adequate to the task.

Pretty much. I think it is fair to argue that promoting theories like Pizza gate and Jade Helm are the same as yelling fire in a theater--classic examples of the limits of public free speech. All you need is prior knowledge of a properly-primed, proudly-armed, and radicalized group of nutsos, and they will respond to such claims as expected.

 

[Vic]

For those of us who don't follow Alex Jones or really know anything about him, can you provide the Cliff's Notes about what "hate speech" he committed? I know about the claims that Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax but it seems a stretch to call that hate speech - stupid claim and contrary to reality, but I'm not seeing where the hate angle comes in. Is there more? Not trying to be glib, Google news searches don't really seem to clarify what would be in scope of his claimed hate speech beyond the Sandy Hook and Pizzagate claims.

I prefer the word "incitement" rather than "hate speech." Jones uses his public platform to spread paranoia and encourage violence against a large number of groups. His favorite schtick is a basically an update of the satanic ritual abuse scare of the 80s. The basic formula is <insert group here, but usually government, Democrats, liberals, LGBT, Muslims, Jews> are <poisoning us, kidnapping our children for ritual abuse, mind control, chemtrails, GMO, etc> and only he knows the secret to save his faithful listeners/viewers. Quite frankly, his shit is so bizarre that it's hard to grasp that anyone actually believes it, but millions do.
There's plenty of information out there with examples of his inciteful rhetoric, including a few in this thread.

 

[Commodus]

For those of us who don't follow Alex Jones or really know anything about him, can you provide the Cliff's Notes about what "hate speech" he committed? I know about the claims that Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax but it seems a stretch to call that hate speech - stupid claim and contrary to reality, but I'm not seeing where the hate angle comes in. Is there more? Not trying to be glib, Google news searches don't really seem to clarify what would be in scope of his claimed hate speech beyond the Sandy Hook and Pizzagate claims.

He's been virulently anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-transgender (his use of the derogatory term "tranny" is just the tip of the iceberg). Basically, he treats everyone in those categories as subhuman, and he's willing to demonize them to the point where he incites threats.

His false Sandy Hook claim isn't so much hate speech as just willful harm to others. He knew his conspiracy theory led to serious death threats against victims' parents (they've had to move in some cases), but kept it up until legal action threatened to bring him down. He was genuinely willing to risk the deaths of innocent people in order to make a quick buck. That by itself should be enough to merit permanent bans, let alone the hate speech.

 

[glenn1]

There's plenty of information out there with examples of his inciteful rhetoric, including a few in this thread.

Even "incitement" might be too strong IMHO. It seems he's predicted Civil War 2.0 to be arriving "next week" for several years running, which I guess could be an incitement (to the kind of person who thought Jodie Foster was telling him to kill Ronald Reagan). @BUTCH1 has mentioned him flogging quack vitamins and "calling for violence" (with no examples cited of course to judge this claim). @Amused offered that he slandered other people, again not incitement IMHO.

The dude sounds like a crank and someone we're better off without but "hate speech" seems definitely too strong. Even saying he's "inciting violence" seems to an an exercise in requiring someone in the wrong state of mental health making some logical leaps off what he said to arrive at some feeling that he was issuing a call to action.

 

[Vic]

Even "incitement" might be too strong IMHO. It seems he's predicted Civil War 2.0 to be arriving "next week" for several years running, which I guess could be an incitement (to the kind of person who thought Jodie Foster was telling him to kill Ronald Reagan). @BUTCH1 has mentioned him flogging quack vitamins and "calling for violence" (with no examples cited of course to judge this claim). @Amused offered that he slandered other people, again not incitement IMHO.

The dude sounds like a crank and someone we're better off without but "hate speech" seems definitely too strong. Even saying he's "inciting violence" seems to an an exercise in requiring someone in the wrong state of mental health making some logical leaps off what he said to arrive at some feeling that he was issuing a call to action.

Instead of arguing over semantics, why don't we just agree that:
1) privately-owned social media platforms, such as Facebook and Youtube, have every right to ban Jones for violating their terms of service, and
2) Jones should be held responsible for any John Hinckley's he creates.

 

[glenn1]

Instead of arguing over semantics, why don't we just agree that:
1) privately-owned social media platforms, such as Facebook and Youtube, have every right to ban Jones for violating their terms of service, and
2) Jones should be held responsible for any John Hinckley's he creates.

On the first sure, there's no right to use a service like Facebook. On the second I think it depends on the circumstances, it's not like Jodie Foster did anything to incite John Hinckley and we would need to first determine what motivated a would-be future Hinckley and if was credible to link it to Jones.

 

[Vic]

On the first sure, there's no right to use a service like Facebook. On the second I think it depends on the circumstances, it's not like Jodie Foster did anything to incite John Hinckley and we would need to first determine what motivated a would-be future Hinckley and if was credible to link it to Jones.

I'm of the opinion that sometimes you argue over things like semantics just so you can have something to argue about.
Obviously, Jodie Foster did nothing to create Hinckley.

 

[cytg111]

I'm on the same bandwidth as you. If someone said something demonstrably untrue and perhaps done for malicious purposes but there's no discernible nexus to common hate speech themes (e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) then calling it hate speech seems inappropriate. The Pizzagate and "this school shooting was a staged event" sound more like quackery like "the moon landing was faked by NASA" then calling for the extermination of Jews. Certainly the sites are within their rights to remove his access rights as they see fit, but it serves no purpose to invent a reason that seems untrue ('hate speech') while the simpler and more accurate truth of "he believes completely batshit conspiracy theories that appeal to crazies and may lead to those crazies being a risk to others" is completely adequate to the task.

Mmmm... whatabout riling up the alt-right to fight in the civil war against the space-demon-democrat-liberal-gloablist-progressives? Cause he IS doing that ...

 

[UglyCasanova]

Instead of arguing over semantics, why don't we just agree that:
1) privately-owned social media platforms, such as Facebook and Youtube, have every right to ban Jones for violating their terms of service, and
2) Jones should be held responsible for any John Hinckley's he creates.

Point 2 is a dangerous path to go down as a society. Unless Jones said go out there and kill it’s tough to pin anything down. Should we hold BLM leaders responsible for the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings? Should the author of the Turner Diaries be held accountable for McVeigh?

 

[Vic]

Point 2 is a dangerous path to go down as a society. Unless Jones said go out there and kill it’s tough to pin anything down. Should we hold BLM leaders responsible for the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings? Should the author of the Turner Diaries be held accountable for McVeigh?

You don't have any credibility here on this subject anymore.

 

[BUTCH1]

Point 2 is a dangerous path to go down as a society. Unless Jones said go out there and kill it’s tough to pin anything down. Should we hold BLM leaders responsible for the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings? Should the author of the Turner Diaries be held accountable for McVeigh?

Jones HAS said he's going to "take out" Mueller with a split-second "politically" murmured in at the front. This guy's just WAY out of line, calling parents who have had to suffer the horror of losing a 7yr old to gun violence "fake" is not "opinion". This horrible event was a documented FACT and he has no business humiliating these people.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You don't have any credibility here on this subject anymore.

Attacking the person not the argument. Weird that doesn’t sound like the straightforward and honest Vic we all know

 

[Commodus]

Point 2 is a dangerous path to go down as a society. Unless Jones said go out there and kill it’s tough to pin anything down. Should we hold BLM leaders responsible for the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings? Should the author of the Turner Diaries be held accountable for McVeigh?

Here's the problem with your false analogy: Jones knows he's fostering violence and continues with it. He knew people were threatening to kill the parents of Sandy Hook victims and chose to perpetuate the hoax rather than set the record straight. He intentionally uses violent terminology knowing some people will take it literally.

Also, it's pretty despicable to lump BLM in with the author of the Turner Diaries. BLM leaders are not even suggesting that supporters kill cops.

 

[jackstar7]

Attacking the person not the argument. Weird that doesn’t sound like the straightforward and honest Vic we all know

No one has to engage with you in good faith, dumbnuts. You have squandered that gesture here.

 

[Vic]

Attacking the person not the argument. Weird that doesn’t sound like the straightforward and honest Vic we all know

Dude, you called to have me banned because my speech hurt your feelings. You don't get to pretend that you're a free speech warrior anymore.

edit: I take that back a bit. You are free to continue trying, of course.

 

[yllus]

I'll bet that within a year that the new talking point he'll given will be that Facebook and Twitter should be regulated by the government as public utilities; dudes like boomerang will commence yelling so with no idea how hilarious it is for a so-called conservative to take that position.

Well, that was quick.

Today in conservatism Laura Ingraham suggests it may be time for the government to take over Facebook and Twitter and run them as public utilities to eliminate bias against conservatives.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, that was quick.

Today in conservatism Laura Ingraham suggests it may be time for the government to take over Facebook and Twitter and run them as public utilities to eliminate bias against conservatives.

These are the dumbest of times.

 

[Josephus312]

Well, that was quick.

Today in conservatism Laura Ingraham suggests it may be time for the government to take over Facebook and Twitter and run them as public utilities to eliminate bias against conservatives.

In the Soviet States of America information minister Laura Ingraham has spoken.

We might be there soon.

 

[BUTCH1]

LOL , Ingraham at the 2016 RNC convention,

 

[JSt0rm]

LOL , Ingraham at the 2016 RNC convention,

you can clearly see the nazi salute and wave are 2 separate actions. Like how the fuck do these people exist?

 

[cytg111]

Well, that was quick.

Today in conservatism Laura Ingraham suggests it may be time for the government to take over Facebook and Twitter and run them as public utilities to eliminate bias against conservatives.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaamn....
What the actual. F.
- Is the tweet deleted? Its going to be a good talkingpoint come midterms.. Theyll come for your guns.. Theyll come for your facebook twitter snap discord eeeeeverything...

 

[darkswordsman17]

you can clearly see the nazi salute and wave are 2 separate actions. Like how the fuck do these people exist?

I think that's the "joke". She clearly wanted it to be very visible, enough that anyone who is anti-Nazi would go "WTF?!?" Because in the minds of these jackasses, its better for people to think you're a Nazi/white supremacist, than to be someone that takes issue with people acting like Nazis.

I agree, but I also don't know how the fuck actual Nazis/wannabe Nazis exist.