Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

Your actual argument is you believe are more of an expert on legal matters than a Federal court judge. Which is delusional when it comes to legal matters.

Except this isn't solely a Legal matter, is it? It has to do with ways of communicating that have only existed in the last 10 years and only really been used as a platform for political Discourse in the last 5-6 years.

The Judges ruling first outlines the rights of a private company to conduct business as they see fit, but then acknowledges that in a specific instance they must set rules to preserve constitutional rights.

If you wished to argue the point honestly, you'd talk about the factors around the decision and why it's not appropriate to extend their requirement to the wider populace - but of course, you know that the retort would be a simple statement of fact - they have set the precedent that in order to preserve constitutional rights, they can infringe on the rights of a private citizen and private company.

No you took a line out of context and katmaned it.

You posted it, I pointed out that it shows what their position was.

If they told Congress to piss off they would have had congress removing their freedoms to act as they have thus far.

And then, they could Cite the 1st Amendment and tell Congress to get Fucked. Literally.

New York Times Co. v. United States
or
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

There is a long history of decisions by the Supreme Court in the US that where there is uncertainty, they ere on the side of Free Speech.

Colluding really, so do you have any evidence or are you just trying to create a conspiracy.

I'm not saying for certain it happened, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.

As for the accusation that i are offering a strawman its clearly you that are trying to do this.
its pretty simple Jones has breached the site rules of the sites he was banned from.
but as a defense you can only offer strawmans , Do you offer that he is not guilty, nope, instead you offer up as a defense others are guilty, that there is a classic strawman. you then introduce all these other players and possible conspiracies and how he can say whatever he likes, but this is not the case at all.

I'll make it really simple:

I think banning Jones was a bad decision. Not because I like him. Not because I support him. But because banning him provides validation of his claims to his followers AND because I don't like censorship (Political or Otherwise).

The next point is that this ruleset is not being applied to those that hold the same political views as Twitter. This is not saying that Alex Jones should or should not have been banned because of this (which is what you are trying to Strawman me as saying) - only that this is a form of Political Censorship.

If you watch they are fighting to keep their special privileges.ie section 230
This occured a liitlle over a week before jones content was removed and the process of suspending Jones activities went into overdrive.
Its pretty clear reading between the lines they were offered a chance to clean up there sites or face having their privillages revoked, as just saying "hey we only run the site and people post stuff its not our fault what the content is" is no longer enough

Ah Yes, Section 230 - I think we should refer to a judgement made in favour of AOL:

holding AOL negligent in promulgating harmful content would be equivalent to holding AOL "liable for decisions relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from its network -- actions quintessentially related to a publisher's role."

Remember what I said about once they start Editorializing, they shot themselves in the foot?

Thank you for proving my point (once again)

[husaberg]

Except this isn't solely a Legal matter, is it? It has to do with ways of communicating that have only existed in the last 10 years and only really been used as a platform for political Discourse in the last 5-6 years.

The Judges ruling first outlines the rights of a private company to conduct business as they see fit, but then acknowledges that in a specific instance they must set rules to preserve constitutional rights.

If you wished to argue the point honestly, you'd talk about the factors around the decision and why it's not appropriate to extend their requirement to the wider populace - but of course, you know that the retort would be a simple statement of fact - they have set the precedent that in order to preserve constitutional rights, they can infringe on the rights of a private citizen and private company.



You posted it, I pointed out that it shows what their position was.



And then, they could Cite the 1st Amendment and tell Congress to get Fucked. Literally.

New York Times Co. v. United States
or
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

There is a long history of decisions by the Supreme Court in the US that where there is uncertainty, they ere on the side of Free Speech.



I'm not saying for certain it happened, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.




I'll make it really simple:

I think banning Jones was a bad decision. Not because I like him. Not because I support him. But because banning him provides validation of his claims to his followers AND because I don't like censorship (Political or Otherwise).

The next point is that this ruleset is not being applied to those that hold the same political views as Twitter. This is not saying that Alex Jones should or should not have been banned because of this (which is what you are trying to Strawman me as saying) - only that this is a form of Political Censorship.



Ah Yes, Section 230 - I think we should refer to a judgement made in favour of AOL:



Remember what I said about once they start Editorializing, they shot themselves in the foot?

Thank you for proving my point (once again)

Your point is you think you know better then a US judge does when it comes to the law, You clearly don't. Its entirely a legal mater which it was brought before the US federal Court rather than TDL's IT desk.
You then wish to propagate that in your opinion that Congress has no powers to uphold the rights of US citzens, they clearly do
You then wish to use only parts of the US constitution when it suits your argument. The Constitution has more than one part. I posted the relevent ones above.
You seek to say youtube twitter and facebook they are free to do as they wish in regards to content on their sites
Yet you then attempt to say they are not free to do as they wish when it it comes to banning people such as Jones when he fails to meet their own rules.
Congress's Job is to protect all its citizens this includes reminding companies of its obligations under the US Consitution this includes and them input into laws that effect them.
If Social media dont want to have further laws put in place to protect the rights of all US citizens they need to uphold all of the US constitution or face the consequences of not doing so which will result in regulation.

Free speech on Social media
This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.
This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. "So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," . "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court."

Can you be arrested for saying something critical of the government on social media
Definitely a First Amendment issue.
But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances.
"It's definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with your speech,"

If Your comment or post was deleted on social media
It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue.
There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want.

[TheDemonLord]

Your point is you think you know better then a US judge does when it comes to the law, You clearly don't. Its entirely a legal mater which it was brought before the US federal Court rather than TDL's IT desk.
You then wish to propagate that in your opinion that Congress has no powers to uphold the rights of US citzens, they clearly do
You then wish to use only parts of the US constitution when it suits your argument. The Constitution has more than one part. I posted the relevent ones above.
You seek to say youtube twitter and facebook they are free to do as they wish in regards to content on their sites
Yet you then attempt to say they are not free to do as they wish when it it comes to banning people such as Jones when he fails to meet their own rules.
Congress's Job is to protect all its citizens this includes reminding companies of its obligations under the US Consitution this includes and them input into laws that effect them.
If Social media dont want to have further laws put in place to protect the rights of all US citizens they need to uphold all of the US constitution or face the consequences of not doing so which will result in regulation.

On point 1: There is a technology component, which is what I'm addressing, not the legal component. And on that part, yes, I DO think I know better (considering I've been working in Internet/Cloud based companies for over a Decade). Your attempt to claim otherwise is as the picture.

On point 2: Wrong way round. Congress has no powers to infringe the rights of US Citizens. That's the entire point of the Constitution - to Limit the powers of Government.

On point 3: There's a reason why the First Amendment is First (and the second amendment is directly after it) - it is the Amendment that is held in highest regard. If a situation arises where there appears to be a conflict, it tends to take precedence - so citing it is entirely correct. You just don't like that it disproves your argument.

On point 4: Yes, they are free to do as they wish - however, if they want to claim objectivity, then I'm going to hold them to the set of rules they espouse to follow. You'll note, I've not stopped them from doing anything, I've just pointed out it was both dumb and hypocritical. Furthermore, the bias has now meant they are undertaking a "Publishers role", which has implications.

On point 5: So what law have they breached? You'll need to prove that if you wish to make that claim.

On point 6: The only reason they would need to do that, is if it's considered a Public space, so do you know better than the Lawyer now as well?

[husaberg]

On point 1: There is a technology component, which is what I'm addressing, not the legal component. And on that part, yes, I DO think I know better (considering I've been working in Internet/Cloud based companies for over a Decade). Your attempt to claim otherwise is as the picture.

the ruling was on a legal mater, you mater how much you try and twist it its exactly what it is thats why a judge made the ruling rather than a self syled IT expert.

On point 2: Wrong way round. Congress has no powers to infringe the rights of US Citizens. That's the entire point of the Constitution - to Limit the powers of Government.

Congress is protecting the rights of all US citizens.

On point 3: There's a reason why the First Amendment is First (and the second amendment is directly after it) - it is the Amendment that is held in highest regard. If a situation arises where there appears to be a conflict, it tends to take precedence - so citing it is entirely correct. You just don't like that it disproves your argument.

No it doesnt as i have said numerous times they are a private organisation, The first amendment doesnt apply you cant have it both ways.

On point 4: Yes, they are free to do as they wish - however, if they want to claim objectivity, then I'm going to hold them to the set of rules they espouse to follow. You'll note, I've not stopped them from doing anything, I've just pointed out it was both dumb and hypocritical. Furthermore, the bias has now meant they are undertaking a "Publishers role", which has implications.

Your point is moot as they are free to do as they wish. no matter what you think it is you that is being hypocritical in attempting to say they have impinged someones free speech one it doesnt apply and two when they are only enforcing their rules.

On point 5: So what law have they breached? You'll need to prove that if you wish to make that claim.

I said they have a duty to protect the rights of all their citizens they will make laws to do this if required, which is why there is so many amendments to the constitution.

On point 6: The only reason they would need to do that, is if it's considered a Public space, so do you know better than the Lawyer now as well?

I dont need to know more than a lawyer (or claim to that was you in the first section) because i can follow the process and the reason they invited facebook and twitter and youtube to speak before Congress.
In case you missed it there was some pretty major problems exposed at the Last US election with regards to social media. The Social media big three have readily acknowledged Russians exploited their platforms ahead of the 2016 election So they were asked to explain to Congress what they're doing to counter abuse of their networks ahead of this year's congressional midterms.
Also i know more than half of Americans think the government should regulate tech companies, nearly two-thirds of US adults believe social media harassment is "a major problem," and most of them believe it's the tech industry's job to fix it.

[TheDemonLord]

the ruling was on a legal mater, you mater how much you try and twist it its exactly what it is thats why a judge made the ruling rather than a self syled IT expert.

Okay. Technology creates an Emergent problem. The Law often takes up to a Decade to address it. The Judges ruling (in regards to the Technology component) is contradictory. This is not a legal opinion, it's a Technology opinion.

Case in point: Truth in Domain Names act - was passed in 2003 and later strengthened in 2006 - the problem had been around since the mid 90s.

Congress is protecting the rights of all US citizens.

And what right is it that you are presupposing they are violating?

No it doesnt as i jhave said numerous times they are a private organisation, Note you are not a judge or a lawyer.

Except the Judge in point has made a ruling, on a private organization, in regards to the 1st Amendment.

Your point is moot as they are free to do as they wish.

So you've just invalidated your argument then...

I said they have a duty to protect the rights of all their citizens they will make laws to do this if required, which is why there is amendments to the constitution.

No, the constitution defines the limits on the government. There are only 27 Amendments. You are clearly getting confused...

I dont need to know more than a lawyer or claim to that was you in the first section because i can follow the process and the reason they invited facebook and twitter and youtube to speak before Congress.
In case you missed it there was some pretty major problems exposed at the Last US election with regards to social media. The Social media big three have readily acknowledged Russians exploited their platforms ahead of the 2016 election So they were asked to explain to Congress what they're doing to counter abuse of their networks ahead of this year's congressional midterms.
Also More than half of Americans think the government should regulate tech companies, nearly two-thirds of US adults believe social media harassment is "a major problem," and most of them believe it's the tech industry's job to fix it.

What an interesting point... - so, you are saying that if the companies are allowing Political speech on their platforms, they have an obligation to make sure it's unbiased so as to not unfairly sway popular opinion...

Which would mean selectively banning right-wing figures, whilst not banning Left-wing figures would run counter to this - Thanks again for proving my point.

And as for your stats - the devil is in the details:

If you were to ask the "over half of Americans" what the Government should regulate the companies on - I can guarantee you, you wouldn't have a unanimous response.

Then you have to discuss what is Harassment - if you ask a Left-wing activist, Harassment is merely disagreeing with their opinion...

[husaberg]

the ruling was on a legal mater, you mater how much you try and twist it its exactly what it is thats why a judge made the ruling rather than a self syled IT expert.

Okay. Technology creates an Emergent problem. The Law often takes up to a Decade to address it. The Judges ruling (in regards to the Technology component) is contradictory. This is not a legal opinion, it's a Technology opinion.

No it doesnt as i have said numerous times they are a private organisation, The first amendment doesn't apply you cant have it both ways.

Except the Judge in point has made a ruling, on a private organization, in regards to the 1st Amendment.

You really need to get your story straight judge makes a ruling and they are wrong because you know better yet another judge makes a ruling that you agree with (thats nothing to do with the argument as it doesnt apply to the actions of facebook and twitter and youtube) but you then claim this proves your point.
Which one is it?
The judges riuling if you bothered to read it said the multiple use of the account to deliver official information deemed it a public place (not the whole of twitter only the trump account.) the Judge made a legal ruling in regards to its use defining its legal jurisdiction which is entirely a legal matter.

The judge’s ruling found, however, that the company has less control over the @realDonaldTrump account than Trump himself and White House social media director Dan Scavino – also a public official. Their power includes the ability to block people from seeing the account’s tweets, and “from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets,” in the form of replies and comments on Twitter’s platform.
Also key was the fact that the @realDonaldTrump account is used for governmental purposes. Specifically, the judge found that “the President presents the @realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President” – such as announcing the appointments and terminations of government officials.

The rest is just you attempting to claim a win when it the reality that you lost pages ago. When it was pointed out that Youtube and facebook and all the others were entirely within there rights to ban him. You just dont like it that Alex Jones was banned and it was entirely legal the way it happened and it has nothing to do with free speech.
Thus I will ask you a pretty simple question
Were facebook etc behaving within their rights to ban Alex Jones yes or no.

[Graystone]

Are you struggling to understand



If so - perhaps you might want to go back to read about Spot the Dog.



It's discriminating based on Race and Sex - Therefore, it's Racist and Sexist.

Why are you so eager to make it about Race and Sex? Unless you are a Racist, Sexist.

The only thing that I've mentioned about Martyrdom is:



And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.

See how there is no Race or Sex involved in that argument.

So what is your point? The dude isn't a martyr on account if they are right to ban him based on his behaviour, not his beliefs.

What's discriminating based on race/sex? Are you saying it is racist for me to call someone else out as a racist?

[TheDemonLord]

So what is your point? The dude isn't a martyr on account if they are right to ban him based on his behaviour, not his beliefs.

There's my point.

If they are banning him on his behaviour (as they and you claim), then the expectation is that they would ban everyone else who falls fowl of the standards they set.

But that isn't what has happened, which indicates that it isn't just his behaviour, but ALSO his beliefs.

And being banned for his beliefs is what will make him a Martyr to his fanbase and considering what he espoused, will provide a justification and verification for what he says:

"They are out to get me"
and so they went out and proceeded to "get him"

What's discriminating based on race/sex? Are you saying it is racist for me to call someone else out as a racist?

"White Male Privilege"

I see that phrase in the same way that you'd see the phrase "Nigger Bitch beneficiary" - the discrimination and derogatory nature of the comment is the same.

That, and the fact you brought it into the discussion where it did not exist prior is why I called you a Sexist and Racist.

[Graystone]

There's my point.

If they are banning him on his behaviour (as they and you claim), then the expectation is that they would ban everyone else who falls fowl of the standards they set.

But that isn't what has happened, which indicates that it isn't just his behaviour, but ALSO his beliefs.

And being banned for his beliefs is what will make him a Martyr to his fanbase and considering what he espoused, will provide a justification and verification for what he says:

"They are out to get me"
and so they went out and proceeded to "get him"



"White Male Privilege"

I see that phrase in the same way that you'd see the phrase "Nigger Bitch beneficiary" - the discrimination and derogatory nature of the comment is the same.

That, and the fact you brought it into the discussion where it did not exist prior is why I called you a Sexist and Racist.

And it's that if (which was a typo of of) which requires an understanding of the reasons he was banned, thus they are entirely relevant, and not a Strawman as you claim.

Are you off your rocker? White male privilege is not a derogatory term, it's a well observed attribute in many societies. Nor was it used to discriminate against you in any way.

[TheDemonLord]

And it's that if (which was a typo of of) which requires an understanding of the reasons he was banned, thus they are entirely relevant, and not a Strawman as you claim.

A rather telling Typo then...

The reason for his ban is irrelevant, since I've not made any statement as to whether or not it was justified. So it's entirely a strawman of my position, since I've never made that claim.

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban, then it stands to reason that other people who have likewise breached the ToS should also be banned.

If they are not being banned, then it is clear that the stated reason (breach of ToS) is not the sole reason for the ban.

Are you off your rocker? White male privilege is not a derogatory term, it's a well observed attribute in many societies. Nor was it used to discriminate against you in any way.

It's a derogatory term as far as I (and others) are concerned, Coined by Marxist activists, propagated by University courses with no serious academic standards. I'll simply restate - I look upon you when you use that phrase, in the same way you look upon a member of the KKK when they use the phrase "Nigger Bitch Beneficiary".

Well Observed? Only by Marxists, Racists and Sexists - obsessed with Power, Race and Sex.

And not used to Discriminate? Then tell me - why specify a group if not to discriminate?

[husaberg]

There's my point.

If they are banning him on his behaviour (as they and you claim), then the expectation is that they would ban everyone else who falls fowl of the standards they set.

But that isn't what has happened, which indicates that it isn't just his behaviour, but ALSO his beliefs.

And being banned for his beliefs is what will make him a Martyr to his fanbase and considering what he espoused, will provide a justification and verification for what he says:

"They are out to get me"
and so they went out and proceeded to "get him"

Plenty of people have been banned from You tube with far greater number of subscribers than Alex Jones
Are you suggesting they were out to get them as well
https://www.nickiswift.com/114873/youtube-stars-banned/
For the record in regards to Jones they were clear.

Apple, the largest podcast platform, said in a statement that it "does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users. Podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming. We believe in representing a wide range of views, so long as people are respectful to those with differing opinions."

a spokesperson for Spotify said in a statement on Monday: "We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community. Due to repeated violations of Spotify’s prohibited content policies, The Alex Jones Show has lost access to the Spotify platform."

A spokesperson for YouTube told Billboard in a statement: "All users agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines when they sign up to use YouTube. When users violate these policies repeatedly, like our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures, we terminate their accounts." The terms specifically prohibit hate speech, though YT did not specify why it took the action in removing four pages: the Alex Jones Channel, Alex Jones, InfoWars and InfoWars Nightly News.

Last week, podcast platform Stitcher also pulled all of Jones' episodes and Facebook had earlier suspended Jones' personal account,

[Katman]

And now we have a cartoonist receiving death threats over his caricature of Serena Williams.

The world's gone barking fucking mad.

[Drew]

And now we have a cartoonist receiving death threats over his caricature of Serena Williams.

The world's gone fucking mad.

What's your point? That has nothing to do with free speech, it's just regards looking for stuff to be upset about.

[FJRider]

And that's the point - No one has any issues when the rules are fairly enforced.

If I am in a group that gets stopped ... then I get the officers discretion and the others get charged ... is the law getting fairly enforced or not ... ???

The claim that I'm making is that the rules are being selectively enforced. In fact, if we extend our Police Metaphor - do you remember the fuss that was kicked up when Police were letting of Maori for various offences.

Aside from the fact I ignore most of you claims (as I think most of them are bullshit) and nearly ignored this one. BUT ... is this a call of your's of some form of (reverse .. ???) Police racism ??? Or is it simply that Maori are not allowed to use the officers discretion to escape charges ... if white dudes are getting pinged ... ???

As I recall ... you are a (self declared) expert in IT. Are you also a (self declared) expert in law too ... ???

[Katman]

If I am in a group that gets stopped ... then I get the officers discretion and the others get charged ... is the law getting fairly enforced or not?

No, it's not.