Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

Lets look at the claims you have made and why its relevent

Your claims and you claim its not relevant if youtube twitter and FB were within their rights to an him now. You by your own claims clearly said it was entirely relevant.

Every single point does not make any reference to whether or not he breached the ToS, the IF that you are highlighting is me taking what they have said as writ. It matters not to my argument whether he did or did not breach the ToS. So any questions about this are irrelevant.

I'll simply restate the sentance that both yourself and Graystone seem to have trouble understanding:

"If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach."

Again, for both claims there is no burden of proof on my side as to whether or not he has breached the ToS, since I'm not trying to dispute or validate whether he did.

Your continued attempts to throw up other arguments while not answering simple questions is a gish gallop.

No, as I've made only 2 points. Are you having trouble counting as well as reading?

The throwing upo of all the other issues why not answering the simple questions put to you is also a strawman defense.

If it was as you say, it would be a Red Herring, not a Strawman, since I'm not trying to misrepresent your argument.

[husaberg]

Every single point does not make any reference to whether or not he breached the ToS,

Really thats not true now is it? you clearly did , so lets clear up that doubt you are attempting to create.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.

If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..

I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.

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

[Katman]

Is this like a Katman origins story? So many common threads between the two of you which are only growing and becoming more hilarious...

While your habit of using lots of words to convey absolutely fuck all of any substance is remarkably Berkesque. (Not to mention boganesque).

[TheDemonLord]

Really thats not true now is it? you clearly did , so lets clear up that doubt you are attempting to create.

Then you can't understand English or common English literary devices and we are at an impasse.

I'll simply restate: If he was banned due to a breach of the ToS (which I'm not arguing for or against), then others (who I am arguing have breached the ToS) should also be banned. The fact they have not been banned indicates that just breaching the ToS alone is not enough to warrant a Ban and therefore there is something in addition to have warranted the Ban.

If he has not breached the ToS, then there is something else to have warranted the Ban.

I'm not sure how much more simple I can make that sentance or point.

[husaberg]

Then you can't understand English or common English literary devices and we are at an impasse.

I'll simply restate: If he was banned due to a breach of the ToS (which I'm not arguing for or against), then others (who I am arguing have breached the ToS) should also be banned. The fact they have not been banned indicates that just breaching the ToS alone is not enough to warrant a Ban and therefore there is something in addition to have warranted the Ban.
If he has not breached the ToS, then there is something else to have warranted the Ban.

I'm not sure how much more simple I can make that sentance or point.

You can restate the fact you refuse to answer simple questions as many times and as many ways as you like. You can claim its not relevant again as well.

Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.

If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..

I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.

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

the questions you yourself point as as being relevant, but steadfastly refuse to answer will still be there.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

You have the terms and conditions of service for the platforms, you claim to understand them, you have access and knowledge of the content of what Alex jones posted.
but you steadfastly refuse to put on your big boy pants and admit he was in breach of the TOS.
Yet at the same time you freely state others were.

Can you not see how hypocritical that is of you to do this.

.
I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS .

Oh look above its seems you did once admit he was in breech inadvertantly at least.

Your reticence admitting whether he is in breach is especially amusing Especially considering you claimed you were an IT expert far more qualified than even a federal court judge in making a ruling about the internet.

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..

I DO think I know better (considering I've been working in Internet/Cloud based companies for over a Decade). .

[FJRider]

[QUOTE=Katman;1131109875]If everyone in your group was guilty of the same offence, your penchant for sucking pig dick doesn't make his discretion 'fair'.

Typical reaction to anybody getting something they didn't ... or can't keep their mouth shut long enough to get.

[Katman]

Typical reaction to anybody getting something they didn't ... or can't keep their mouth shut long enough to get.

Dude, I ain't sucking anyone's dick to get off a ticket.

[husaberg]

Dude, I ain't sucking anyone's dick to get off a ticket.

Odd because you were the only one that raised it as being a viable option. No one else did.

sucking pig dick doesn't make his discretion 'fair'.
And yes, I'm all too painfully aware that life isn't always fair.

[FJRider]

There are 2 philosophical view points here:

An expert on philosophy as well ... I'm impressed ...

As is your want and right.

And within the bounds of free speech too ... I hope I didn't offend ...

There's no such thing as "Reverse Racism", only Racism. If we seek to have a less Racist society, it seems clear to me that to achieve that, we would want less Racism, not more.

So ... did you believe it to be racist or not ... ???

If you are familiar with the situation, then you'd know that statement is completely disingenuous.

Have you bought a dictionary ... or just learned to use it more often ...

[FJRider]

Odd because you were the only one that raised it as being a viable option. No one else did.

And I guess you could say ... his dick was inside the law ...

[TheDemonLord]

You can restate the fact you refuse to answer simple questions as many times and as many ways as you like. You can claim its not relevant again as well.

the questions you yourself point as as being relevant, but steadfastly refuse to answer will still be there.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

Was the fish riding a Bicycle?

YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THEREFORE I WIN!

/parody.

You have the terms and conditions of service for the platforms, you claim to understand them, you have access and knowledge of the content of what Alex jones posted.
but you steadfastly refuse to put on your big boy pants and admit he was in breach of the TOS.
Yet at the same time you freely state others were.

The clue is in the last sentance. My point is about others. Therefore, in relation to the point I am making It is irrelevant whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach.

It's relevant to the point you are trying to make, but not to mine.

Can you not see how hypocritical that is of you to do this.

All I see is someone intent on constructing an a terracotta army of Strawmen.

Especially considering you claimed you were an IT expert far more qualified than even a federal court judge in making a ruling about the internet.

Note how you've deliberately cherry picked the quotes, removing the qualification I made.

If you read the ruling that the judge made, there are parts of it that contradict each other. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that. Now, the Lawyer tries to limit these contradictions by setting limitations (namely that a personal account is being used in an Official Manner, for Official Statements, but an Official) but that doesn't change the contradiction between This statement:

Peaceful public speech and demonstrations in those venues cannot be stopped based on what is being said without a compelling government interest. Twitter, however, is not a real-world space. And it’s run by a private company.

and the ruling:

comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I'll give you a clue - in statement one she refers differentiates between Twitter as not a real-world space and Public Venues (which currently are covered by the auspices of the 1st Amendment) and she makes a clear acknowledgement that Twitter is private.

She then goes on to acknowledge the The God-Emperors Twitter account is comparable to a Public forum (which is contradiction to the differentiation she made in statement 1) and that something owned and operated by a Private company, is now considered a Public space, requiring 1st Amendment protections.

This is not a Legal opinion, this is a combination of English and a bit of understanding about the Internet.

[TheDemonLord]

An expert on philosophy as well ... I'm impressed ...

If you are handing out qualifications, then I'll take it...

And within the bounds of free speech too ... I hope I didn't offend ...

On the contrary, I think it'd be more interesting if you did manage to offend.

So ... did you believe it to be racist or not ... ???

If you treat a group different based solely on Race, then yes - that's Racism. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative.

Do you disagree with that statement? If not, can you tell me how a policy of letting people off for a particular crime based solely on their race isn't racist?

Even if the intent was benevolent?

Have you bought a dictionary ... or just learned to use it more often ...

Nah, I've just tried to be more careful with spelling... and besides - surely it would be a Thesaurus you are thinking of, if one is seeking to expand their vocabulary...

[husaberg]

The clue is in the last sentance. My point is about others. Therefore, in relation to the point I am making It is irrelevant whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach.

Only by your own admission it is relevant, your own words betray you.

If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..

If he is not guilty his ban was not due to a breach of TOS
You made it relevent there.

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour

You say If they are banning him for his behavior, you made it relevant there.

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.

You say, If his alleged breech to the tos warrent a ban it sounds like you made it relevant there to whether there was a breach or not.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

You have the terms and conditions of service for the platforms, you claim to understand them, you have access and knowledge of the content of what Alex jones posted.
Hint you have already admitted he was.....

.
I can point to multiple left wing verified accounts, with tweets that are clearly as much a breach of the ToS .

[husaberg]

And I guess you could say ... his dick was inside the law ...

Not only that, when you think about it hes the one claimed he got off his last ticket and that all cops are corrupt......

[TheDemonLord]

Only by your own admission it is relevant, your own words betray you.

If you remove all context from them, and interpret them in the most spastic way possible.

The only reason for doing so would be because the actual point being made isn't refutable.

It's like we have a coin toss - I'm saying that regardless of whether it's a Head or a Tail, there's a ~50% chance of it being Heads or Tails - you are arguing that because I don't know whether it happens to be a Head or a Tail, I can't make that statement.

And then demanding that I answer if it's a Head or a Tail as proof of some form of Victory.