Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
But Alex Jones WAS held accountable for saying what he said. He has been sued, several times by the parents, he has been ordered to pay for libel.

I'm fine with Alex being sued...but off of YouTube, off of Twitter, off of Facebook, can't use certain banks, can't use PayPal, etc. That's not right and it's happened to many more people up to and including the former President of the United States.


Is it that you don't see what is happening OR do you think "Well it won't happen to me"?...because if you think it won't happen to you I've got to tell you unless your views on transgendered kids change, brace yourself for big time blowback in the coming years should things continue as they are.


This is a "fascist", "corporatist", totalitarian push towards an ideological singularity....it ain't just about Alex Jones which is why many people have chosen to support him even if they disagree with what he said. It's about his right to say it and still be a member of society, that's it....I don't care how much you hate the man, that doesn't matter AT ALL.


Look... I don't get the bank or the PayPal thing, unless I'm missing something in the translation. But let's talk about YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Would it be ok if he got on YouTube and clearly incited violence against a certain group? Would that fall under freedom of speech and that's all there is to that? It's one thing saying something in the street or at a corner bar where your audience is limited, and the worse thing that could happen is someone doesn't like what you're saying and beats the crap out of you. It's quite another to take advantage of two new developments of the 21st century.... social media, and gullible, itchy trigger finger bastards.

Why the dogged insistence of using the easy, go-to, blanket protection of something like freedom of speech to defend and (wink wink) turn your head on people who are determined to stoke the flames of hatred, mistrust, and division among the easily persuaded? Aren't we capable as a society to discern between what is truly meant by freedom of speech and what shouldn't be allowed? Is that too complicated a task? It's pretty obvious that many people nowadays are weak-minded, and represent easy prey for those with a powerful platform and a big mouth. It's too simplistic to brush that off with constitutional amendments which, again... were meant for the good of man, and under those times and circumstances. Not meant to be used as a crutch by opportunistic hate-mongers.

YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook may be social platforms. But they have to answer to regulatory authorities whose task is either necessary and good, or overreaching and evil.... depending on what your beliefs are.