Alex Jones Banished


To say nothing about the fact that the same “nebulous terminology” is used on IW?

What’s good for the goose?

Sorry, It’s just ironic, that’s all.


Yes, the WBC case was about this. Heckling funerals for killed Vets, who undoubtedly had parents there.

You can set limits to how close they’re standing, but you can’t stop them from heckling.


I wasn’t aware that any of this had anything to do with anything being done live in person. Leftist shills talk crap about conservatives all the live-long day at every venue imaginable, whether the subject be gun control, Trump, homosexual (etc.) issues, abortion, immigration, what have you. In a lesser known example, when President of Focus on the Family Jim Daly appeared on some program to discuss abortion vis-a-vis FoF’s position, and the pro-abortion guest out-and-out slandered FoF, accusing them of deceiving the women who they were counseling and showing ultrasounds of their unborn babies. That was face to face, and that was hurtful. So is propaganda in general, and I hope that you’re aware that the left is guilty of their share (I would argue far more than their share).


Does that matter, would it be ok if a family who had lost a child was mocked in some other way? Say in a local paper? Does it really matter how the mockery is conducted in this case?

I’m not talking about public figures making fun of adults for their political positions. I’m talking about a man who has used people who aren’t in the public eye for any reason other than their elementary school-aged children were slain by a perp with a firearm being used as political rage bait.

I don’t care if AJ talks about Bill Mahar or Obama or Devin Nunes…We’re talking about a man blatantly lying and causing harm for ratings… Something he and his lawyers admit is just an act.

Even if you think it should be allowed on the grounds of some larger principle, hopefully, you think that’s wrong. If you think it’s wrong, then perhaps you can understand why AJ was forced off of certain media platforms.

More what-aboutism.

I’m always happy to discuss and evaluate situations on their merits. But the reality is, we’re always going to find examples that appear to counter other examples. If you really want me to judge the situation you’ve described objectively, start by answering my questions then give me a source back to what you refer, but please, don’t make it seem as if one despicable act justifies another.

It just ends up being a race to the bottom. This is the same thing we scold our children for.

Lastly, let’s remember that this isn’t a legal issue, no one is trying to silence AJ, there’re just saying he can’t use their platforms to do it.


I don’t support that either. I don’t think that people agreeing that mocking or harassing people who are burying their loved ones is wrong and shouldn’t be allowed is a violation of someone else’s free speech.

The interesting part of this is no one is saying that AJ is breaking a law or that he can say what he wants to on his own show (at least that I’m aware of). It’s just that certain social media platforms have decided he can’t say it on their platforms.

If I were to say, take out an ad on Fox mocking the deaths of fallen Marines. And we’re talking about a special brand of mockery. AJ is claiming that the deaths never even happened. I’m sorry, but that a step too far.

If I did the equivalent, might Fox decide that they don’t want to run that sort of content? If they did, can you imagine that people would be upset, not only for me for doing it, but at Fox for allowing something that to go on air? Not to mention how people enraged by my behavior might decide to enact their own brand of justice. Imagine after having done that I proudly walked through a Trump campaign rally. Does anyone seriously believe I’d make out on my own two feet?

(PS remember my father and Brother are retired Marines, so this example is not meant to be disrespectful, but an example that I know people here are passionate about).

But those issues aside, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. If a group decided to protest a fallen Marine or a Member of Greenpeace don’t you think that (before this age of anything-goes-as long-as-the-people-doing-it-share-your-cultural-or-political-ideology) that people would band together on principle and ostracize (or worse) the people who thought it was ok to do something like that?

Now it’s ok because they are “exercising” their “free speech”?

So the question I’m asking you is, are you really surprised about this? That social media platforms would decide to ban AJ for his conduct?


We can’t ban speech just because it makes someone else feel bad; that’s too vague a criteria, and it’s too easily abused.

Free speech already has limitations set out in English Common Law, if it’s not one of those exceptions, it’s something we need to allow for the health of our own institutions. Exceptions are lined out due to material consequence, not content, and that’s a distinction we need to retain.


Leaving my personal thoughts out of this, this thread is about banning AJ from social media sites, not creating laws that prevent emotional harm. For the record I don’t think it would be all that difficult to define rules around mocking the family and friends of the recently deceased, but I digress…

The families of the People that AJ mocked have been harrassed and received death threats. Now, we can discuss who that falls on, the idiots making the threats or the idiot that incited them, but there are, in this case, material consequenses.


There are already rules against libel. If it applies, a judge will see it.


No, he’s not. No one has to look at him or listen to him. I don’t.

What crap is he spewing that causes “real pain and anguish to people who have suffered enough after the death of a child”? Are you thinking of the Democrats at Westboro Baptist Church? I’ve gone rounds conservatives here in defense of those morons too.

Free speech is intended to protect speech. It’s the unpopular speech that is in danger of censorship. it’s the unpopular speech that needs protecting.

Yes. Certainly, property owners have the right to prevent someone from hanging out at a funeral and making a nuisance of himself, but Westboro has a right to its stupidity. Why anyone would at this point take Westboro seriously or as an ofense is beyond me. They’re a joke. Their pastor died. I think that means he was a fag enabler by their definition.

Aren’t you glad there are government officials to decide what is mean and hateful and unnecessary? Guess it helps when “you” hold mainstream popular views. And you don’t have to be exposed to viewpoints “you” find offensive.

Get no argument from me except that IW probably doesn’t pretend to be a place where ideas are exchanged freely. I don’t know that though. I don’t have an account there, and I don’t visit the site. I do however use YouTube and Facebook, which do purport to be platforms where people can exchange ideas freely. Now they can add except when you’re a lunatic and we deem your opinions offensive and hateful.


And I oppose any attempt to regulate them. That’s what happens in a free market Internet. I can still call them out for their hypocrisy. I think it’s incredibly short-sighted of those calling for regulation.

You mean his stupid conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook? Absolutely he has a right to say it. Same way the left politicized it for gun control and everyone else used it for political gain. It happened in public. It was public business. It’s definitely fodder for public discussion. Even when people are stupid, mean and wrong.

With 320 million people in the country, a lot of bad opinions will exist. They’ll be unpopular. If they weren’t unpopular or “going too far” they wouldn’t need free speech protection. If only popular speech is protected, there is no need for a “free speech.”

You realize Fox isn’t a social media platform pretending to be a place where speech is free. It’s very managed, and that’s clear from the start. It’s one of the problems (and benefits) of old media. Media like that still serve a purpose, but they’re very different from social media.

But I bet, Fox gives voices to bad and even offensive opinions that “go too far.”

Well, yeah.

Indeed. Many have stood directly in front of Westboro Baptist in exactly the way the marketplace of ideas is intended to function.

For the record, this thread is about whether the government ought to regulate social media as public utilities because social media booted Alex Jones.

Or so they say. But what if Alex Jones is right? The only knowledge I have of Sandy Hook is mainstream media and a belief the mainstream media weren’t lying. What if they were. What if they were lied to? What if the whole thing was staged?

I suspect that would be difficult to keep secret, and the mainstream media would sniff it out and report it fairly quickly, but what if Alex Jones is right? What if the government really did a great job of setting it up? How would you know?


It’s easier to ignore what isn’t in my face. The great thing with TVs, PCs, and smart phones is that they all have this wonderous setting called “off.” I wish people (of every socio-political stripe) would make more use of it. It would do much to take the wind out of windbags.

By the way, do you feel the same way when leftists politicize a mass shooting?

The case I talked about involved blatant lying for a far more nefarious cause than ratings; it was to promote the murder of the unborn.

Since it appears to have all been done in private circles and the government wasn’t involved in forcing him out, I have no quarrel with it.

I don’t have a source; I heard the clip on the radio. The original video might be on YouTube or something, but I wouldn’t know how to look for it (and I couldn’t anyway, on dial-up).

I don’t mean to suggest that two wrongs make a right. But it seems to me that one is merely poor taste, and the other is slandering the character of an organization, and by extention, its leadership. Another point is that although I don’t necessarily think you’re doing it deliberately, I’m getting an impression of selective outrage. As for myself, I don’t know Alex Jones from a hole in the ground.


Me too. I see the “hypocrisy card” played by brown in many other threads.


That’s not the issue. The discussion surrounds AJ and IW being banned from social media sites.


Whether or not one agrees with (or even watches and hears) what Mr. Jones has to purvey is immaterial. What’s going on is a bunch of agenda-driven owners (and employees) of private entities have chosen to censure the content of those entities, after they were falsely sold to their users as “open” platforms for discussion of ideas. They have the “right” to do that, of course, since they are private entities and not government run. At the same time, the USERS have the right to abandon their use. Their policies are insidious in that they are creeping towards limiting content to a single political point of view to the detriment of “openness”. It worked in academia, so why not on the internet?


Well, more evidence Donald Trump himself wants to regulate political speech. I remember a discussion here awhile back about the president’s and conservatives’ opposition to free speech.

Trump’s Twitter:

…results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!

Google search results for “Trump News” shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of…

I searched “Donald Trump” on Google and got these for the first six headlines:

“Donald Trump is going to be a big winner tonight” CNN
“Trump Warns Google Facebook and Twitter in row over bias” BBC
“President Trump congratulates McSally on nomination, takes swipe at Jeff Flake” ABC15 Arizona
“Trump warns evangelicals of ‘violence’ if GOP loses in the midterms” CNN
“CNN slammed after Lanny Davis admits he was source for Trump Tower bombshell” Fox News
“Tiger Woods’ comments about President Trump are surprising to no one” USA Today

This was followed by Donald Trump tweets including his whining about the media.

Big freaking deal. What a wuss.


Hahahah, on Aug. 24, he tweeted:

Social Media Giants are silencing millions of people. Can’t do this even if it means we must continue to hear Fake News like CNN, whose ratings have suffered gravely. People have to figure out what is real, and what is not, without censorship!

Hahaha, well hope this is the one approach he decides to roll with.


I have had posts on Facebook deleted because, according to Facebook, they didn’t meet Facebook’s “standards” when all I was doing was re-posting something that I found ON Facebook without additional comment! Invariably, it was a post that was mildly critical of liberals or liberalism.


Do you think the government ought to do something about it?


No. I’LL “do something about it.”


I think it’s more than fair to say that Facebook has a social media monopoly and bust it off into 16 units.

Same for Alphabet.

It’s a lot easier than regulation which will be a mess.

Breaking up Viacom and other media holdings would be good as well.