8 ms·

Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a cr

Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a crackpot, but it ends when it infringes on the rights of the people Jones' audience harassing.

whatshisface 7y ago
You may be applying an uneven standard by wanting to ban the speech that turns your stomach, but not the speech that turns the Corporate Overlord's stomachs. You could argue that hacking videos encourage computer crime - the counterargument would be that there are plenty of reasons to talk about something other than to actually encourage people to do it. In fact, Alex Jones' defense in one court case he was in was that he was a satirist. At the very least, these decisions should be made in court, where the judges are elected and the proceedings are public. Of course that can't happen because the courts have already decided in favor of the speech-miscreants. What Alex Jones was doing is absolutely permitted in our society; and I think there's some wisdom in the reasoning behind why that is. There's nothing less popular than relativism in the midst of a moral outrage, but you have to bear in mind that some of your favorite things were probably at one time (and could easily become again) moral outrages. Alex Jones could just as easily have been caught "encouraging homosexuality in our children," "fomenting hate against church officials," "advocating against job creation," or anything else that the ruling party was against. You'd just have to change the names, places, and times.
- paulmd 7y ago
  The US is one of the few countries that believes in a radical, unlimited right to free speech. Most other countries, it is not tolerated, and this has not lead to a slippery slope. Claiming that the families of shooting victims are actually "crisis actors" would not be tolerated under British forms of slander/libel law; Nazi apologism/fetishism or rallying is not tolerated under German laws. These societies aren't just fine, they are actually the better for it. If you feel that Germany or the UK are dystopias where ideological dissent is brutally suppressed, well, that's just your opinion, man.
  - syberiyxx 7y ago
    Have you moved to Europe yet?
    - paulmd 7y ago
      I’ve thought seriously about it; the biggest thing holding me back being the lack of a job waiting for me there. Perhaps I could pick my German back up. Why do you think that’s relevant? In your mind, you can’t comment on something unless you’re personally involved in it? It is plainly evident that Europeans enjoy a high degree of freedom and a broad and open discourse despite the lack of an unlimited freedom of speech - and in fact often a broader discourse than occurs in the US. Slippery slopes are not in fact an automatic thing, outside external pressure. We can in fact just ban the libel and stop there. Even the US already does that, to some degree. We can just ban Naziism, tolerating it is not a self-evident moral necessity, but rather one that we as a society have decided to value. Other societies do not. To be just as crass and dismissive as you were to me - your unlimited right to say anything you want has already been breached even in the US. I assume you are moving to Somalia to pursue your maximal freedom in a Libertarian paradise?
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        > In your mind, you can’t comment on something unless you’re personally involved in it? Well, as a German, it's just another instance of Americans who don't know 5% of what is going on here, using simplifications so gross they might as well be completely fabricated memes, to sidestep actually making a solid argument. I'm fine with it, I'm not going to fight that particular windmill. But it's really astonishing how a few scraps here and there tend to make Americans experts on Germany in their mind, as a general observation. It's flattering, like being pestered by someone you aren't interested in is still flattering. > one that we as a society have decided to value Individuals decide things, "we as a society" is BS, it doesn't exist, though it rings familiar. Nazis "as a society" decided Jews and others don't "have value". You need to be more precise than that.
        7y ago
- jmkni 7y ago
  Didn't Alex Jones basically dox the parents of dead children and encourage his viewers to phone them?!
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    He wanted the parents to research it for themselves, which usually means "Google around until you see some more conspiracy websites with the same story thereby becoming even more convinced." It's not entirely clear to me that he advocated for anything bad, although I will admit I don't watch his show. I do know that some of what people are repeating is not exactly true.
homonculus1 7y ago
I'm out of the loop--was he directly inciting action against the parents?
- whatshisface 7y ago
  He was accusing the parents of aiding a conspiracy to stage a fake shooting. I can imagine being a parent who has just lost a child, only to be told that I was lying, and that my child either never existed or was still alive. It's a real ideological litmus test - exactly how turned can your stomach get before you call for an exception to free speech?
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    So he wasn't directing anybody to commit a crime? It's a deplorable scenario, but free exchange of ideas and beliefs still requires protection. The consequences of losing it are in the long-term far greater than personal grief.
    - squish78 7y ago
      He committed a wrongthink
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
      He flat out lied about the Sandy Hook massacre and slandered victims of murder. He absolutely encouraged people to "take action on their own by looking into it". You can't claim satire on flat out repeated lies. Lies are not protected speech. This wasn't about the free exchange of ideas, this isn't a disagreement on policy, it was about propogating lies to people in order to make money.
      - sadris 7y ago
squish78 7y ago
What specific action(s) did he encourage/advocate? Hate is an emotion, and an incredibly subjective one.
jstanley 7y ago
So what do you want? Do you want video hosting to be open to all, regardless of how distasteful, or do you want someone else deciding which videos are acceptable and which are not?

whatshisface 7y ago

You may be applying an uneven standard by wanting to ban the speech that turns your stomach, but not the speech that turns the Corporate Overlord's stomachs. You could argue that hacking videos encourage computer crime - the counterargument would be that there are plenty of reasons to talk about something other than to actually encourage people to do it. In fact, Alex Jones' defense in one court case he was in was that he was a satirist. At the very least, these decisions should be made in court, where the judges are elected and the proceedings are public. Of course that can't happen because the courts have already decided in favor of the speech-miscreants. What Alex Jones was doing is absolutely permitted in our society; and I think there's some wisdom in the reasoning behind why that is. There's nothing less popular than relativism in the midst of a moral outrage, but you have to bear in mind that some of your favorite things were probably at one time (and could easily become again) moral outrages. Alex Jones could just as easily have been caught "encouraging homosexuality in our children," "fomenting hate against church officials," "advocating against job creation," or anything else that the ruling party was against. You'd just have to change the names, places, and times.

paulmd 7y ago
The US is one of the few countries that believes in a radical, unlimited right to free speech. Most other countries, it is not tolerated, and this has not lead to a slippery slope. Claiming that the families of shooting victims are actually "crisis actors" would not be tolerated under British forms of slander/libel law; Nazi apologism/fetishism or rallying is not tolerated under German laws. These societies aren't just fine, they are actually the better for it. If you feel that Germany or the UK are dystopias where ideological dissent is brutally suppressed, well, that's just your opinion, man.
- syberiyxx 7y ago
  Have you moved to Europe yet?
  - paulmd 7y ago
    I’ve thought seriously about it; the biggest thing holding me back being the lack of a job waiting for me there. Perhaps I could pick my German back up. Why do you think that’s relevant? In your mind, you can’t comment on something unless you’re personally involved in it? It is plainly evident that Europeans enjoy a high degree of freedom and a broad and open discourse despite the lack of an unlimited freedom of speech - and in fact often a broader discourse than occurs in the US. Slippery slopes are not in fact an automatic thing, outside external pressure. We can in fact just ban the libel and stop there. Even the US already does that, to some degree. We can just ban Naziism, tolerating it is not a self-evident moral necessity, but rather one that we as a society have decided to value. Other societies do not. To be just as crass and dismissive as you were to me - your unlimited right to say anything you want has already been breached even in the US. I assume you are moving to Somalia to pursue your maximal freedom in a Libertarian paradise?
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      > In your mind, you can’t comment on something unless you’re personally involved in it? Well, as a German, it's just another instance of Americans who don't know 5% of what is going on here, using simplifications so gross they might as well be completely fabricated memes, to sidestep actually making a solid argument. I'm fine with it, I'm not going to fight that particular windmill. But it's really astonishing how a few scraps here and there tend to make Americans experts on Germany in their mind, as a general observation. It's flattering, like being pestered by someone you aren't interested in is still flattering. > one that we as a society have decided to value Individuals decide things, "we as a society" is BS, it doesn't exist, though it rings familiar. Nazis "as a society" decided Jews and others don't "have value". You need to be more precise than that.
      - 7y ago
jmkni 7y ago
Didn't Alex Jones basically dox the parents of dead children and encourage his viewers to phone them?!
- whatshisface 7y ago
  He wanted the parents to research it for themselves, which usually means "Google around until you see some more conspiracy websites with the same story thereby becoming even more convinced." It's not entirely clear to me that he advocated for anything bad, although I will admit I don't watch his show. I do know that some of what people are repeating is not exactly true.

homonculus1 7y ago

I'm out of the loop--was he directly inciting action against the parents?

whatshisface 7y ago
He was accusing the parents of aiding a conspiracy to stage a fake shooting. I can imagine being a parent who has just lost a child, only to be told that I was lying, and that my child either never existed or was still alive. It's a real ideological litmus test - exactly how turned can your stomach get before you call for an exception to free speech?
- homonculus1 7y ago
  So he wasn't directing anybody to commit a crime? It's a deplorable scenario, but free exchange of ideas and beliefs still requires protection. The consequences of losing it are in the long-term far greater than personal grief.
  - squish78 7y ago
    He committed a wrongthink
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    He flat out lied about the Sandy Hook massacre and slandered victims of murder. He absolutely encouraged people to "take action on their own by looking into it". You can't claim satire on flat out repeated lies. Lies are not protected speech. This wasn't about the free exchange of ideas, this isn't a disagreement on policy, it was about propogating lies to people in order to make money.
    - sadris 7y ago

squish78 7y ago

What specific action(s) did he encourage/advocate? Hate is an emotion, and an incredibly subjective one.

jstanley 7y ago

So what do you want? Do you want video hosting to be open to all, regardless of how distasteful, or do you want someone else deciding which videos are acceptable and which are not?