4 ms·

The first amendment represents an ideal. An ideal the country is walking back from as it discovers a large faction does not share the same morals. The decisio

The first amendment represents an ideal. An ideal the country is walking back from as it discovers a large faction does not share the same morals. The decision to silence instead of engage will lead to disintegration of the country if its not dealt with.

gamblor956 8y ago
First Amendment is about government action, not self-motivated private/corporation action. Facebook, Spotify, and Apple realized that continuing to allow Alex Jones to remain on their platforms would result in substantial harm to the commercial viability of their platforms, as a result of boycotts, lawsuits, etc. by the 99% of people that Alex Jones spends his life spewing lies about. It was an easy financial decision. Hell, they could have faced absolutely massive shareholder lawsuits if they hadn't kicked him off their platforms.
- slededit 8y ago
  The only rational solution is to make political affiliation a protected class. It is the only way to ensure democracy in this age of corporations which exert national control over what we see and hear. Radio waves had FCC protection, no such system exists for the internet which is rapidly replacing these systems. If in the days of the first amendment paper producers conspired en mass to censor we would have seen it dealt with then. Alas its a modern problem which is ours to solve.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    In the days of the First Amendment...newspapers did actively censor their opposition. Hell, the First Congress, most of whom participated in the drafting of the Bill of Rights and its ratification by the States, passed the Sedition Act, clamping down on free speech in a way not seen since outside of WWII. As for making political affiliation a protected class...that wouldn't shield Jones. He's being kicked off for slander, lies, and acts of incitement, not his claim to be a conservative.
    - slededit 8y ago
      I speak of paper mills not newspapers. This is analogue to DNS providers and other internet infrastructure providers participating in censorship. It would be a clear breach of first amendment rights to force someone with editorial control to print something.
      - tchaffee 8y ago
        Horrible analogy. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are nothing like DNS and other internet infrastructure, nor are they like paper mills. Alex Jones runs a website using DNS and internet infrastructure and gets 10 million monthly visitors. Where's the censorship?
tchaffee 8y ago
The ideal is very clear: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". That's it. It forbids Congress from making laws. Any ideal beyond that is fully imagined and does not exist as part of the Constitution. And we've been doing fine for well over 200 years with that simple ideal alone. With the internet and the ability to easily create a website or blog, people have more means of expressing their opinion than at any time in history. Alex Jones still runs his own website last I checked. He hasn't been silenced. Not even close. Fifty years ago he would have been the kooky guy living at the end of your street and no one would know who he is.
- dmix 8y ago
  > Fifty years ago he would have been the kooky guy living at the end of your street and no one would know who he is. Are you suggesting guys like him weren't famous, wealthy, and had popular speaking tours across the country? If so, you're sadly mistaken about the reach of even wrong ideas. Quackery and supernatural stuff was extremely popular among the middle class America in the 1800s and well into the 1970s. The internet has given individuals a wider platform, but it hasn't changed the amount of individuals (ie, audience size) willing to consume this stuff... We can't ban our way out of this problem. The risks/costs of doing so (false positives of anyone pushing what is considered 'fringe' at the moment) is far too high to go down this path. And if anything it increases the audience of these people who become martyrs and victims of the very 'conspiracies' they are pushing. It's far better to ignore them or fight them than to ban them.
  - tchaffee 8y ago
    > Are you suggesting guys like him weren't famous, wealthy, and had popular speaking tours across the country? Yes. I'm suggesting that far fewer of them had access to the potential to be heard. Every nut job and his brother now has a blog, website, YouTube channel, etc. > The internet has given individuals a wider platform, Yes. What I said above. A much wider platform. Instead of an obscure book hidden away on a bookshelf, these guys have a potential audience of the much of the globe. With cheap mobile that reach even extends to very poor countries with little access to education or even books. > but it hasn't changed the amount of individuals (ie, audience size) willing to consume this stuff... I'm not convinced that's true and to be convinced I'd have to see some actual numbers. There are LOADS of people these days willing to participate in confirmation bias and the internet makes that far easier. The very few conspiracy theorists I knew 30 years ago had to work hard at their research and I kind of respected the dedication. These days if you want to believe in chem trails it's just a simple search term, click, and copypasta away. We've automated the production of conspiracy theorists. > We can't ban our way out of this problem. We aren't. Alex Jones still has a website with 10 million monthly visitors. He has a radio show and publishes books. I'm assuming that if Facebook, YouTube, or even I wanted to publish something on Alex Jones' website, he would "censor" us. I'm not even suggesting that we should try to "solve" the problem of conspiracy theorists. I'm suggesting that companies should have the right to free speech. If YouTube doesn't want to host the garbage ideas of Alex Jones, they should go right ahead and ban him. If Alex Jones' doesn't want to host Facebook's content or my content on his website, he should feel free to ban us. Where is the actual problem?

gamblor956 8y ago

First Amendment is about government action, not self-motivated private/corporation action. Facebook, Spotify, and Apple realized that continuing to allow Alex Jones to remain on their platforms would result in substantial harm to the commercial viability of their platforms, as a result of boycotts, lawsuits, etc. by the 99% of people that Alex Jones spends his life spewing lies about. It was an easy financial decision. Hell, they could have faced absolutely massive shareholder lawsuits if they hadn't kicked him off their platforms.

slededit 8y ago
The only rational solution is to make political affiliation a protected class. It is the only way to ensure democracy in this age of corporations which exert national control over what we see and hear. Radio waves had FCC protection, no such system exists for the internet which is rapidly replacing these systems. If in the days of the first amendment paper producers conspired en mass to censor we would have seen it dealt with then. Alas its a modern problem which is ours to solve.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  In the days of the First Amendment...newspapers did actively censor their opposition. Hell, the First Congress, most of whom participated in the drafting of the Bill of Rights and its ratification by the States, passed the Sedition Act, clamping down on free speech in a way not seen since outside of WWII. As for making political affiliation a protected class...that wouldn't shield Jones. He's being kicked off for slander, lies, and acts of incitement, not his claim to be a conservative.
  - slededit 8y ago
    I speak of paper mills not newspapers. This is analogue to DNS providers and other internet infrastructure providers participating in censorship. It would be a clear breach of first amendment rights to force someone with editorial control to print something.
    - tchaffee 8y ago
      Horrible analogy. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are nothing like DNS and other internet infrastructure, nor are they like paper mills. Alex Jones runs a website using DNS and internet infrastructure and gets 10 million monthly visitors. Where's the censorship?

tchaffee 8y ago

The ideal is very clear: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". That's it. It forbids Congress from making laws. Any ideal beyond that is fully imagined and does not exist as part of the Constitution. And we've been doing fine for well over 200 years with that simple ideal alone. With the internet and the ability to easily create a website or blog, people have more means of expressing their opinion than at any time in history. Alex Jones still runs his own website last I checked. He hasn't been silenced. Not even close. Fifty years ago he would have been the kooky guy living at the end of your street and no one would know who he is.

dmix 8y ago
> Fifty years ago he would have been the kooky guy living at the end of your street and no one would know who he is. Are you suggesting guys like him weren't famous, wealthy, and had popular speaking tours across the country? If so, you're sadly mistaken about the reach of even wrong ideas. Quackery and supernatural stuff was extremely popular among the middle class America in the 1800s and well into the 1970s. The internet has given individuals a wider platform, but it hasn't changed the amount of individuals (ie, audience size) willing to consume this stuff... We can't ban our way out of this problem. The risks/costs of doing so (false positives of anyone pushing what is considered 'fringe' at the moment) is far too high to go down this path. And if anything it increases the audience of these people who become martyrs and victims of the very 'conspiracies' they are pushing. It's far better to ignore them or fight them than to ban them.
- tchaffee 8y ago
  > Are you suggesting guys like him weren't famous, wealthy, and had popular speaking tours across the country? Yes. I'm suggesting that far fewer of them had access to the potential to be heard. Every nut job and his brother now has a blog, website, YouTube channel, etc. > The internet has given individuals a wider platform, Yes. What I said above. A much wider platform. Instead of an obscure book hidden away on a bookshelf, these guys have a potential audience of the much of the globe. With cheap mobile that reach even extends to very poor countries with little access to education or even books. > but it hasn't changed the amount of individuals (ie, audience size) willing to consume this stuff... I'm not convinced that's true and to be convinced I'd have to see some actual numbers. There are LOADS of people these days willing to participate in confirmation bias and the internet makes that far easier. The very few conspiracy theorists I knew 30 years ago had to work hard at their research and I kind of respected the dedication. These days if you want to believe in chem trails it's just a simple search term, click, and copypasta away. We've automated the production of conspiracy theorists. > We can't ban our way out of this problem. We aren't. Alex Jones still has a website with 10 million monthly visitors. He has a radio show and publishes books. I'm assuming that if Facebook, YouTube, or even I wanted to publish something on Alex Jones' website, he would "censor" us. I'm not even suggesting that we should try to "solve" the problem of conspiracy theorists. I'm suggesting that companies should have the right to free speech. If YouTube doesn't want to host the garbage ideas of Alex Jones, they should go right ahead and ban him. If Alex Jones' doesn't want to host Facebook's content or my content on his website, he should feel free to ban us. Where is the actual problem?