Alex Jones' Infowars content removed from Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Spotify

[micjer]

Alex Jones' Infowars content removed from Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Spotify


https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/alex-jones-infowars-removed-online-platforms-1.4775644


Apple Inc, YouTube, Facebook Inc and Spotify all took down podcasts and channels from U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, saying on Monday that the Infowars author had broken community standards.

The sweeping moves are the broadest actions yet by internet companies that have suspended or removed some of the conspiracy-driven content.

Since founding Infowars in 1999, Jones has built a vast audience. Among the theories he has promoted is that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington were staged by the government.

Facebook said it removed the pages "for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."

Infowars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson said in a tweet that the broad takedowns amounted to censorship and were intended to help Democrats in the national election this fall.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/06/technology/facebook-infowars-alex-jones/index.html

[petrus4]

"Conspiracy," "conspiracy," "conspiracy," "conspiracy!"  Got to push that negatively stigmatised mind control keyword.

I've occasionally wondered when Alex would be hung out to dry.  Interesting that it is happening now.  I wonder whose toes he finally stepped on, in order to prompt it.

[Pimander]

I haven't looked at the story to be honest but I expect it is just calls to vilence or veiled racial slurs more than anything.  The online social media giants are trying to avoid being regulated by appearing/pretending to give a shit about something other than surveillance capitalism.

[astr0144]

I believe that Alex Jones had been suggesting that this was likely to happen for some time or  months...  and I am very sorry to have seen that it has now occurred.

If you have followed him for some years... like some of us on and off...

I think for many he had made us aware of so much of what appeared to have been going on...

Has he touched a nerve and gone too far... or one may say how had he survived if he was a legit Conspiracist against the corrupt side to the system..

Of the companies who have removed his material... they refer to a few select topics of concern against somethings A.J had included in his videos...

BUT they have removed everything of his and not just those videos that related to those few topics.. which I dont see how they should be able to pick on him like that..
especially if other people still have similar videos still on there.. or other concerning topics ones that maybe much worse than his...

Its suggested the Alex Jones helped Donald Trump get in power..

so is it the opposing Political party that has been able to persudade these sites to remove his material..

or could Donald Trump help him I wonder by putting in some complaints...

I see other people who work with A.J still have their channels in operation..
Paul J Watson for eg..



and Alex Jones still runs his infowars website..

I wonder if he has another website or channel that still has all the same content that was removed..

I know he now has a paid members website.. which that may have all those videos still on unless it had also been connected to Youtube..

Can he not have put up his material on his own website.... or a copy of it all..
and still have the same folowing. or is youtube just somehow better for hosting videos in general...  is it to do with server size for eg in terms of how many he could host..

I think this video explains more about what has happened with A.Js material..

https://www.infowars.com/the-purge/

[micjer]

I have mixed feelings toward Alex.  He did open my eyes to some topics.

He was/is a bit of blow hard at times which can border on annoying.

Time will tell where this goes, but I agree that he must have jumped on someone's toes that didn't like it.

The main issue is censorship.  Now that it has started where does it go from here.....

One wants to be careful what they put in print on the web as once it is out there it is permanent.  The day has come that phones and laptops can be searched.

[astr0144]

Yes I think after sometime or maybe too much of following... we can see the other sides of Alex that we may have issues with... and maybe with Alex's strong or loud type personality ... he can upset people at times.

In ref to the future and what happens next.. thats hard to say..

if what A.J claims becomes truth.. then it does not look good for anyone who runs such forums or websites .. or maybe even who writes on them..

But if one is that type of person... who may speak or write their views on related forums etc... then I would think that is a large % of people who it would or could become a concern to.

But yes no doubt today those in power / Govt can or could  probably monitor any of us..

Could it effect websites or forums who they decide they do not favor... then that to me is a huge issue... and who should give them the power to have say on such things to remove them...

In my opinion we need someone Like Trump to oppose this !

Otherwise someone or thing is gaining too much power over the masses to take away their free speech....


As we already know... it seems  that in many Countries now.. esp USA and UK... they seem to bring out what seem such ridulous ideas or  new rules or laws...and often seem to get away with it..

I think its often people like A.J who may make people more aware of the rights and wrongs or  alternative views on them...that followers may not have been aware of them..

I have mixed feelings toward Alex.  He did open my eyes to some topics.

He was/is a bit of blow hard at times which can border on annoying.

Time will tell where this goes, but I agree that he must have jumped on someone's toes that didn't like it.

The main issue is censorship.  Now that it has started where does it go from here.....

One wants to be careful what they put in print on the web as once it is out there it is permanent.  The day has come that phones and laptops can be searched.

[fansongecho]

Remember years back when folks were calling Alex J "controlled opposition"

I am not from the USofA but how do the Corporate's get around your Freedom of Speech Amendment ?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment  - are the Corporates violating this constitutional right ?

Yes he used to get on my t*t's and bang on a bit, and scare monger a lot (recall Jade Helm exercise) -

Wow...  so in the truth movement who's next ??

I see his website is still operational 

[petrus4]

I have mixed feelings toward Alex.  He did open my eyes to some topics.

I used to view Jones as having a lot more credibility in the past, than I do now.  I watched him become hysterical on camera a few too many times, and the worst part was that it was always about things which were generally never heard of again, afterwards.  I think he and Mike Adams have definite mental health issues; which is a polite way of saying that they are partially insane.

I am, however, inclined to believe that he was kept going by someone for as long as it was convenient, and that the fact he is being banned now, probably indicates that his usefulness to whoever was previously protecting him, has now come to an end.

[astr0144]

Yes, I think over the years there have been various suggestions about A.J..

I dont really know in detail much about Law and certainly not USA law..

But from what I can see and think that I understand from the statement made about 1st Ammendment in ref to Free Speech.. It seems to me as if who ever was involved are violating that constitutional right..

What I do not know though.. is what rights do the owners of Youtube (Is that Google) or Facebook etc have ! ... is do that have rights to ban certain things or persons that they do not like ?  Maybe they do have the rights to make such decisions..

First Amendment: An Overview

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements.

A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.   

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Then are these companies working with the likes of the CIA...

Also its possible Alex Jones also is involved in it all... its very hard to really know for sure.. or know how such people may operate or what they maybe planning..

fansongecho
Remember years back when folks were calling Alex J "controlled opposition"

I am not from the USofA but how do the Corporate's get around your Freedom of Speech Amendment ?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment  - are the Corporates violating this constitutional right ?

Yes he used to get on my t*t's and bang on a bit, and scare monger a lot (recall Jade Helm exercise) -

Wow...  so in the truth movement who's next ??

I see his website is still operational 

If A.J was legit... then I think I agree with you on some points..

As he got more established ... maybe he went too far on certain things..

He certainly showed how frustrated that he appeared to be in what he was making out ..

and maybe he was pushed over the edge with it.. as hes only Human afterall..

or if hes not legit... it may have been part of the plan..

I stopped following him as much in the more recent 2 to 3 years , so I lost touch in what  he was doing in some areas...

But yes some of his topics of concern often later did dry up and you did not hear of them again sometimes..as far as I was aware... or maybe he just over reacted too much to certain things.. or he was just going over the top to scaremonger too much..

I recall that he has had differing contacts who have either worked for him or been regular guests on his show...

Was Mike Adams the Health Ranger ?  and should we believe what he may have told us ? or was he just part of A.Js Business to sell his health products ?

In what way do you see Mike Adams having gone insane ?

But if  A.J and M.A  was legit.. selling good health products seems quite a respectable thing to do to fund or help maintain their business...

I used to view Jones as having a lot more credibility in the past, than I do now.  I watched him become hysterical on camera a few too many times, and the worst part was that it was always about things which were generally never heard of again, afterwards.  I think he and Mike Adams have definite mental health issues; which is a polite way of saying that they are partially insane.

I am, however, inclined to believe that he was kept going by someone for as long as it was convenient, and that the fact he is being banned now, probably indicates that his usefulness to whoever was previously protecting him, has now come to an end.

[ArMaP]

I dont really know in detail much about Law and certainly not USA law..

But from what I can see and think that I understand from the statement made about 1st Ammendment in ref to Free Speech.. It seems to me as if who ever was involved are violating that constitutional right..

There is no constitutional right being violated.

As the text you quoted says, what the US Constitution protects is "the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference".

Facebook and Google are not the US government, they are private companies, so they can have their own rules and ban the people that do not follow them.

What I do not know though.. is what rights do the owners of Youtube (Is that Google) or Facebook etc have ! ... is do that have rights to ban certain things or persons that they do not like ?  Maybe they do have the rights to make such decisions..

They have all the rights given by the agreement between them and all the people that agree with those conditions when they sign up to use their sites and services.

In the case of YouTube, for example, they have this on their "Terms of Service" page:

5.4 YouTube is constantly innovating in order to provide the best possible experience for its users. You acknowledge and agree that the form and nature of the Service which YouTube provides may change from time to time without prior notice to you.

5.5 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that YouTube may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Service (or any features within the Service) to you or to users generally at YouTube's sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Service at any time. You do not need to specifically inform YouTube when you stop using the Service.

On their "Community Guidelines" they have this:

If a YouTube creator's on- and/or off-platform behaviour harms our users, community or ecosystem, we may respond based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, the egregiousness of their actions and whether a pattern of harmful behaviour exists.
Our response will range from suspending a creator's privileges to account termination.

Based on those two pieces I suppose they can ban from their site anyone that, in any way, may harm their site/service in any way, including loss of revenue.

When anyone joins YouTube they agree with those conditions.

[spacemaverick]

You agree to terms of service no matter what media you may use.  The only way to have real freedom of speech is to have your own network.  And then you are still subject to government regulation no matter if it is state, local or national.  We always have some sort of regulation or law.  So, is there true freedom of speech in these times with all the electronic media.  That's just my humble opinion.

Maybe if we back to written media and sent it out via handouts or mail etc...you might have freedom of speech.  I am sure someone would be offended and turn you into a government entity.  Here in the states, it is proving to be taken away when the liberal media allows only one view which is on contravention to conservative views.  Once again, my opinion.

[zorgon]

The main issue is censorship.  Now that it has started where does it go from here.....

\
Facebook will not last much longer. There are fewer and fewer people with a brain left on there.  I only pop in to chat with a few that won't come over here...  but that number is now less than a dozen

Facebook, being a PRIVATE company, can censor anything they want any time they want. people forget that the private sector is not obligated to give you a platform to speak your mind.  Most forums are the same  but then no one ever reads the terms and conditions LOL

Alex Jone... well some of his staff have some good reports but I can't stand the guy  too much like a shady used car salesman or shyster lawyer type

[zorgon]

FREEDOM OF SPEECH



Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1949)—Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

Some points to start;

1) Freedom of speech, though declared a Human Right by the UN, is only observed in a few countries

2) Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and consequences, something most people tend to forget

3) Your right to Freedom of Speech ENDS when it impedes on MY freedoms  (ie hate speech, slander, libel, etc)

You may be free to call someone an asshole in public but you can then expect the consequences when that person punches you in the face.


From Wikipedia...

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary " for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided. With the evolution of the digital age, application of the freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavorable data from foreign countries.

[ArMaP]

Facebook will not last much longer. There are fewer and fewer people with a brain left on there.

Seeing that most people in the world appear not to have a brain I suppose Facebook will have enough members for a long time.

[Pimander]

Facefook might be useful for firing propaganda and finding out what events are on in your area but it is a stupid place to try to have a sensible discussion about anything complex.  The fact that any idiot can comment is the reason.