22 ms·

I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech includes ideas I vehemently disagree with (even hate speech). However, when speech incites physical violence

I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech includes ideas I vehemently disagree with (even hate speech). However, when speech incites physical violence and can be viewed as a legitimate threat, then it needs to be shut down. Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free speech should be censored.

beaconstudios 8y ago
so then those people should be banned. A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers unless they called for those actions to be taken.
- berbec 8y ago
  So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.
    - mcphage 8y ago
      > Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
      - humantiy 8y ago
        Its not even a "plausible deniability." Anyone who listens to Jones knows he speaks over over the top and is hyperbolic. Yes "Battle rifles" can be taken as literally, however in the article they state against the media without quoting the full video/statement. It's hard to take it literally that people will get their battle rifles and attack the media (an object). The media isn't a person so its is reaching. what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks. Media Matters posted a clip of the video in question. https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack. I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned. I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.
        mcphage 8y ago
        > The media isn't a person so its is reaching. The media is made up of people.
        humantiy 8y ago
        I agree that it is and I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. I'm sure there are more examples makes up media but these are just some I can think of. These things of course are created by people but there is a difference between attacking the people and attacking a platform/object or ideas. I can't speak for him (nor would I want to), but I think that is the question of what he means. It looks like Twitter decided it was inciting violence toward people and/or violated their rules and suspended him.
- kamaal 8y ago
  >>A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers Which is why politics is such a dangerous minefield to traverse. Sure you are never going to have absolute of anything, but certain ideologies are inherently violent in nature. And sooner or later some lunatic will do bad things in your name. Free speech only means you are allowed to say things, it doesn't mean you get immunity from the consequences of your speech.
sparkzilla 8y ago
When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all. In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. Alex Jones has indulged in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know he has not called for violence or anyone's death. If we apply your rule, then how do we deal with the many death threats against President Trump by ordinary people and even celebrities. Are we to ban their preferred newspapers, TV and YouTube channels too? After all, where could they have got such an idea? If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.
- krapp 8y ago
  >In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, and the premise is codified in law throughout the world. >If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media. The fact that the standard exists and that media also exists would imply that your definition of 'consistent application' isn't relevant.
  - sparkzilla 8y ago
    There is no legal standard by which a broadcaster who doesn't incite violence can be held accountable by their followers who commit or threaten violence.
    - kthejoker2 8y ago
      Brandenburg v. Ohio and Dennis v. United States provide a pretty clear legal standard for this: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 Twitter, of course, is not the State and can do what they want. But if the State censored or in someway punished Jones, they would have to demonstrate that his speech constituted "inciting" "imminent" "lawless action." And there have been several cases since which have focused mostly on the "imminent" part.
shf123 8y ago
So Sandy Hook is the reason we can't have guns and we can't have free speech? Yet you expect me to believe its not a deep state psy-op? Which it was, and if you workaholics could spare two hours of your life and look into it, you would come to the same conclusion.

beaconstudios 8y ago

so then those people should be banned. A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers unless they called for those actions to be taken.

berbec 8y ago
So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...
    - humantiy 8y ago
      Its not even a "plausible deniability." Anyone who listens to Jones knows he speaks over over the top and is hyperbolic. Yes "Battle rifles" can be taken as literally, however in the article they state against the media without quoting the full video/statement. It's hard to take it literally that people will get their battle rifles and attack the media (an object). The media isn't a person so its is reaching. what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks. Media Matters posted a clip of the video in question. https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808 In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack. I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned. I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.
      - mcphage 8y ago
        > The media isn't a person so its is reaching. The media is made up of people.
        humantiy 8y ago
        I agree that it is and I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. I'm sure there are more examples makes up media but these are just some I can think of. These things of course are created by people but there is a difference between attacking the people and attacking a platform/object or ideas. I can't speak for him (nor would I want to), but I think that is the question of what he means. It looks like Twitter decided it was inciting violence toward people and/or violated their rules and suspended him.
kamaal 8y ago
>>A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers Which is why politics is such a dangerous minefield to traverse. Sure you are never going to have absolute of anything, but certain ideologies are inherently violent in nature. And sooner or later some lunatic will do bad things in your name. Free speech only means you are allowed to say things, it doesn't mean you get immunity from the consequences of your speech.

sparkzilla 8y ago

When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all. In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. Alex Jones has indulged in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know he has not called for violence or anyone's death. If we apply your rule, then how do we deal with the many death threats against President Trump by ordinary people and even celebrities. Are we to ban their preferred newspapers, TV and YouTube channels too? After all, where could they have got such an idea? If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.

krapp 8y ago
>In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, and the premise is codified in law throughout the world. >If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media. The fact that the standard exists and that media also exists would imply that your definition of 'consistent application' isn't relevant.
- sparkzilla 8y ago
  There is no legal standard by which a broadcaster who doesn't incite violence can be held accountable by their followers who commit or threaten violence.
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    Brandenburg v. Ohio and Dennis v. United States provide a pretty clear legal standard for this: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 Twitter, of course, is not the State and can do what they want. But if the State censored or in someway punished Jones, they would have to demonstrate that his speech constituted "inciting" "imminent" "lawless action." And there have been several cases since which have focused mostly on the "imminent" part.

shf123 8y ago

So Sandy Hook is the reason we can't have guns and we can't have free speech? Yet you expect me to believe its not a deep state psy-op? Which it was, and if you workaholics could spare two hours of your life and look into it, you would come to the same conclusion.