5 ms·

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
      What evidence do you have that he knowingly stated that falsehood at the time of saying it?
- wvenable 7y ago
  Lets be clear with terms here; I wouldn't call for an exception to "free speech" even for Alex Jones. He has every right to say whatever he wants short of outright threats, etc. But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform for which to broadcast his speech.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    I'm glad you brought up the platform distinction because I've also been thinking about that one. I could deny Alex Jones a soapbox in my yard, because it has little value and there are plenty of others. If there are only two soap boxes in the world and I coordinate with the owner of the other box to silence somebody, then I have become functionally indistinguishable from the government for the purpose of free speech, thereby taking on the same duty they have to not shut it down.
    - wvenable 7y ago
      Not even the government has to provide you with a soap box -- so being functionally indistinguishable from the government makes no difference. If you cannot find a platform, can't buy one, can't build one because nobody will work with you then tough shit. We talk about how developers shouldn't work on projects that are morally questionable but here you are suggesting that they must because a platform must be provided. That sounds so much worse to me. How would that even work?
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        Well, the Soviet Constitution promised every comrade a printing press... To speak to your market freedom point, imagine a community of racist business owners who all refused to sell to an outsider. If every business owner was equally racist, the outsider would be forced to leave, even if there was no law stating that they couldn't live in the neighborhood. Markets have an answer to this - any defector will make more money. However sometimes everybody stays racist and no defector emerges. The community is acting like a de-facto evil government even though there is no legal system supporting it nor any democracy legitimizing it. I'm really not sure what to do when that happens. I'm as against forcing business to do business as you are.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
He didn't say: Mr and Mrs So and So need to be attacked. But he repeatedly painted a picture of a staged event where the participants were doing it to in order to take away your fundamental rights! They are lying to you! They want to take your freedom! I'm not willing to let that happen! People, America as we know it is about to die, and we can't let that happen! (weeps crocodile tears) Then when it became known that many of the parents were being followed and harassed, Jones tacitly approved it by not telling the harassers to stop.
throwawaywego 7y ago
There is an ongoing lawsuit against Jones. The lawsuits contain unproven claims of harassment. There is no direct inciting, and the indirect inciting claims are half-baked. There is a class action lawsuit office looking for a pay day, so they benefit by keeping Jones in the news. All people factually saying that Alex Jones incited harassment against the parents, are parroting a non-concluded court case PR campaign ("OJ did it!"), and much like these behemoth companies, are playing judge, jury, and executioner. They most likely haven't seen a clip of Alex Jones inciting, or when they have, it is taken grossly out of context. Remember, when CNN was targeting Jones for weeks, going through his hours of video, and noting anything they found controversial. "Alex Jones is transphobic, which is against Youtube TOS, but Youtube does nothing". Alex Jones was talking about "public library drag queen reading hour". He said these drag queens looked demonic and that it is not normal to normalize this for little kids. Now, just recently, someone ("a Trump supporter") showed up with a gun to these reading hours. Two possible conclusions: "Alex Jones is a transphobe and incited his followers to violently get rid of them". "Alex Jones practices unpopular, but legal, free speech, and they try to punish him for what any of his million followers might do that is against the law". I am leaning heavily towards the latter and it is a downright shame that the first conclusion is drawn by many, without doing any deeper research. Imagine what you could do if you knew that many people would go for the first conclusion, regardless of the facts?
markdown 7y ago
These poor parents had to move multiple times and go into hiding because Alex Jones' followers kept harassing them.

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
    What evidence do you have that he knowingly stated that falsehood at the time of saying it?
wvenable 7y ago
Lets be clear with terms here; I wouldn't call for an exception to "free speech" even for Alex Jones. He has every right to say whatever he wants short of outright threats, etc. But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform for which to broadcast his speech.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  I'm glad you brought up the platform distinction because I've also been thinking about that one. I could deny Alex Jones a soapbox in my yard, because it has little value and there are plenty of others. If there are only two soap boxes in the world and I coordinate with the owner of the other box to silence somebody, then I have become functionally indistinguishable from the government for the purpose of free speech, thereby taking on the same duty they have to not shut it down.
  - wvenable 7y ago
    Not even the government has to provide you with a soap box -- so being functionally indistinguishable from the government makes no difference. If you cannot find a platform, can't buy one, can't build one because nobody will work with you then tough shit. We talk about how developers shouldn't work on projects that are morally questionable but here you are suggesting that they must because a platform must be provided. That sounds so much worse to me. How would that even work?
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Well, the Soviet Constitution promised every comrade a printing press... To speak to your market freedom point, imagine a community of racist business owners who all refused to sell to an outsider. If every business owner was equally racist, the outsider would be forced to leave, even if there was no law stating that they couldn't live in the neighborhood. Markets have an answer to this - any defector will make more money. However sometimes everybody stays racist and no defector emerges. The community is acting like a de-facto evil government even though there is no legal system supporting it nor any democracy legitimizing it. I'm really not sure what to do when that happens. I'm as against forcing business to do business as you are.

tasty_freeze 7y ago

He didn't say: Mr and Mrs So and So need to be attacked. But he repeatedly painted a picture of a staged event where the participants were doing it to in order to take away your fundamental rights! They are lying to you! They want to take your freedom! I'm not willing to let that happen! People, America as we know it is about to die, and we can't let that happen! (weeps crocodile tears) Then when it became known that many of the parents were being followed and harassed, Jones tacitly approved it by not telling the harassers to stop.

throwawaywego 7y ago

There is an ongoing lawsuit against Jones. The lawsuits contain unproven claims of harassment. There is no direct inciting, and the indirect inciting claims are half-baked. There is a class action lawsuit office looking for a pay day, so they benefit by keeping Jones in the news. All people factually saying that Alex Jones incited harassment against the parents, are parroting a non-concluded court case PR campaign ("OJ did it!"), and much like these behemoth companies, are playing judge, jury, and executioner. They most likely haven't seen a clip of Alex Jones inciting, or when they have, it is taken grossly out of context. Remember, when CNN was targeting Jones for weeks, going through his hours of video, and noting anything they found controversial. "Alex Jones is transphobic, which is against Youtube TOS, but Youtube does nothing". Alex Jones was talking about "public library drag queen reading hour". He said these drag queens looked demonic and that it is not normal to normalize this for little kids. Now, just recently, someone ("a Trump supporter") showed up with a gun to these reading hours. Two possible conclusions: "Alex Jones is a transphobe and incited his followers to violently get rid of them". "Alex Jones practices unpopular, but legal, free speech, and they try to punish him for what any of his million followers might do that is against the law". I am leaning heavily towards the latter and it is a downright shame that the first conclusion is drawn by many, without doing any deeper research. Imagine what you could do if you knew that many people would go for the first conclusion, regardless of the facts?

markdown 7y ago

These poor parents had to move multiple times and go into hiding because Alex Jones' followers kept harassing them.