Liberal inquisition: the persecution of Alex Jones

[Kyriakos]

Bottom line: Maybe water is really turning the frogs gay, given they want to silence him so much.

Alex did start by being anti-Bush (W). So it's not like he was always a figurehead for the republicans (or a part of them).

[Cyclops]

...I don't see how IW is morally worse then any other media outlet. He says false and misleading things, but so does CNN, BBC, MSNBC or any other outlet. Only difference being that IW were always outspoken in their anti-war stance, and I do view propaganda of war as something that is far more offensive then anything that IW ever said. Not to mention that we saw "progressive" media basically becoming the leftist version of Stormfront, with them spouting every conspiracy theory about Trump as proven fact.

This is the nub. Twitter says he was banned for rules violations, not morality.

Bottom line: Maybe water is really turning the frogs gay, given they want to silence him so much.

Maybe we're the water, and maybe the frogs are really the Constitution, and maybe gay is really Communist.

[Harith]

Bottom line: Maybe water is really turning the frogs gay, given they want to silence him so much.

Did I mention that Jones sells water filtration devices?

Stock up fkizz, you dont want to end up a weak city dwelling cis-gender marxist liberal corporatist.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Poor wittle Alex Jones. He now only has his own website alone to conduct his campaign of harassment against grieving families.

How will we sleep at night, knowing that his followers only have ONE website to which they can flock and hear the words of their human garbage of a talking head?

Also that is a lie. People have found his beliefs disgusting and abhorrent long before Hilary lost. Why you feel like everything leads back to "the left" is hilarious and still kind of sad, dude. Find another angle...this is boring.

It sounds like these companies finally had enough of his conspiratorial and banned him. That is their right. As it would be anyone else's right to ban someone for the...er...."Russian conspiracy"...cause the idiotic ramblings of Sandy Hook truthers and the ongoing investigation into the overall 2016 campaign are on the same playing field . Also the case with Twitter is hilarious because the CEO was on Jones' side until Jones started blasting both him and his company. Guess Mr. Jones didn't have the brain cells to conclude that MIGHT lead to him to losing the last of his allies. Not surprise on that one.

Pretty much the end of the discussion. Any more arguing about it is a waste of time and bytes, because Jones is the very definition of a pile of human excrement. He is not worth defending as his actions and words cross the line into harassment and defamation. I do hope to see him get crushed in court and hopefully be driven out of business...or at the very least have to depend on selling his "supplements" to survive.

I do enjoy these daily dalliances into the posts/head demons of Basil though. Maybe one day they will ACTUALLY have something of substance rather than just mindless shrieking over "dem libruls", but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

Your insistence that individuals should be censored based upon the content of their speech, and in your erroneous opinion the limited nature of that censorship, is extremely disturbing to every principle of classical liberalism.

The fact that this action is deplorable to every concept of liberty aside: this actually has legal consequences beyond a website's mere will to ban a user because it means that a website can be considered a publisher of data as opposed to a mere platform for media. Platforms are neutral, publishers are not. If a website begins to sift through content on a basis of choosing which content to publish, it will be liable for all the content published. As of right now, sites like twitter, youtube, and facebook are not publishers. If they persist in this vein they will be deemed publishers which will expose them to liability for that which they choose to censor or promote. The legal consequences or this are minimal unless we're talking about copyright, but the economic consequences are broad. Alex Jones is hardly the first example of these sites' censorship or demonetization of conservative outlets, it has actually been going on for years to other commentators who are far, far less radical than Jones.

if I were you I'd refrain from being so outright celebratory over Alex Jones' ban unless you're willing to declare that you are gleeful that any right than center viewpoint is being outright censored by supposed neutral non-publishing sources like twitter, facebook, and youtube. The implications of this for anyone who values being able to say what you want to say without penalty is obvious despite what your political viewpoint might be at this moment. I say this as one who finds the message in question ridiculous.

[Gaidin]

As I said. If you want something done. Pass a law, so that they are using company policy backed by law.

[sleepyx732]

Back when I was 16 or so (so 8 years ago), I had actually listened to Alex Jones for a good 3-4 months. Shocking stuff; Recording devices in your fridge, deploying the military on the streets, the water is killing you (heh), the government did 9/11, child sex cults, you name it. Good enough to make anyone want to blow their brains out. Then it's republicans are bad but democrats are evil, an endless bombardment of water filter promotions and other merch, or 'resistance attire' and even crazier then what's above. At the end of the day I decided 'that' wasn't worth it, not for me and certainly not for him.

I have to agree with other posters here that this is a horrible precedent to set, and I hope that we can all take a little time to reflect on what exactly it is we think we are doing here. We shouted his name from the roof tops, we forced his viewers to cut out the middle man and go to the source directly, and we made him a martyr. From what I hear his ratings were going down the gutter before we kicked off this little venture, so this really seems like a lose-lose-lose situation to me.

[sumskilz]

Bottom line: Maybe water is really turning the frogs gay, given they want to silence him so much.

Did I mention that Jones sells water filtration devices?

Stock up fkizz, you dont want to end up a weak city dwelling cis-gender marxist liberal corporatist.

This is the reality behind what he was talking about:

Atrazine is a herbicide of the triazine class. Atrazine is used to prevent pre- and postemergence broadleaf weeds in crops such as maize (corn) and sugarcane and on turf, such as golf courses and residential lawns. It is one of the most widely used herbicides in US[2] and Australian agriculture.[3]...

Atrazine's effects in humans and animals primarily involve the endocrine system. Studies suggest that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that can cause hormone imbalance.[7]

Atrazine has been found to act as an agonist of the G protein-coupled estrogen receptor 1.[24]...

Atrazine contamination of surface water (lakes, rivers, and streams) has been monitored by the EPA and has consistently exceeded levels of concern in two Missouri watersheds and one in Nebraska.[25] As of 2001, Atrazine was the most commonly detected pesticide in US drinking water.[6][7]:2 Monitoring of atrazine levels in community water systems in 31 high-use states found that levels exceeded levels of concern for infant exposure during at least one year between 1993 and 2001 in 34 of 3670 community water systems using surface water, and in none of 14,500 community water systems using groundwater.[26]...

Atrazine has been a suspected teratogen, with some studies reporting causing demasculinization in male northern leopard frogs even at low concentrations,[47][48] and an endocrine disruptor.[49] A 2002 study by Tyrone Hayes, of the University of California, Berkeley, found that exposure caused male tadpoles to turn into hermaphrodites – frogs with both male and female sexual characteristics.[50] A 2003 EPA review of this study concluded that overcrowding, questionable sample handling techniques, and the failure of the authors to disclose key details including sample sizes, dose-response effects, and the variability of observed effects made it difficult to assess the study's credibility and ecological relevance.[51] According to Hayes in 2004, all of the studies that rejected the hermaphroditism hypothesis were plagued by poor experimental controls and were funded by Syngenta, suggesting conflict of interest.[52] A 2005 Syngenta-funded study, requested by EPA and conducted under EPA guidance and inspection, was unable to reproduce Hayes´ results.[53]

The EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel examined relevant studies and concluded in 2010, "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies".[10] It recommended proper study design for further investigation. As required by the EPA, Syngenta conducted two experiments under Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) and inspection by EPA and German regulatory authorities, concluding 2009 that "long-term exposure of larval X. laevis to atrazine at concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 100 μg/l does not affect growth, larval development, or sexual differentiation".[54] A 2008 report cited the independent work of researchers in Japan, who were unable to replicate Hayes' work. "The scientists found no hermaphrodite frogs; no increase in aromatase as measured by aromatase mRNA induction; and no increase in vitellogenin, another marker of feminization."[55]...

A 2010 Hayes study concluded that atrazine rendered 75% of male frogs sterile and turned one in 10 into females.[58][59]

In 2010, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) tentatively concluded that environmental atrazine "at existing levels of exposure" was not affecting amphibian populations in Australia consistent with the 2007 EPA findings.[60] APVMA responded to Hayes' 2010 published paper, that his findings "do not provide sufficient evidence to justify a reconsideration of current regulations which are based on a very extensive dataset."[60]

A 2015 EPA article discussed the Hayes/Syngenta conflict to illustrate both financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest. The authors concluded, "Statements by Hayes and Syngenta suggest that their scientific differences have developed a personal aspect that casts doubt on their scientific objectivity".[61]...

In 2012, Syngenta, manufacturer of atrazine, was the defendant in a class-action lawsuit concerning the levels of atrazine in human water supplies. Syngenta agreed to pay $105 million to reimburse more than one thousand water systems for "the cost of filtering atrazine from drinking water". The company denied all wrongdoing.[2] [62][63]

Atrazine

The takeaway, atrazine is a feminizing endocrine disruptor. It's not a good thing to have in your drinking water. If it's actually significantly affecting frogs, it's making them trans not gay. The EPA's disagreement with Hayes could look like a conspiracy to suppress the truth, if one were so inclined to see the world that way.

[Kyriakos]

^ "suspected teratogen"...

That is rather horrifying. I suppose it means that it can lead to massive deformities in unborn children/fetuses?

While it may be funny to focus on "turned the fogs gay" etc, it shouldn't make one dismiss all claims of chemicals (often used illegally/stealthily) causing very serious - up to life threatening - side-effects.

[Aexodus]

Rogan kinda brings up a couple things here, like how Jones was originally anti-bush/anti-right, he did some good things like the IMF protests and Bohemian Grove

[Heathen Hammer]

This is the nub. Twitter says he was banned for rules violations, not morality.

So he was banned for allegedly violating some rules, but literal terrorist groups still have platform there.

[Henry of Grosmont]

Your insistence that individuals should be censored based upon the content of their speech, and in your erroneous opinion the limited nature of that censorship, is extremely disturbing to every principle of classical liberalism.

The fact that this action is deplorable to every concept of liberty aside: this actually has legal consequences beyond a website's mere will to ban a user because it means that a website can be considered a publisher of data as opposed to a mere platform for media. Platforms are neutral, publishers are not. If a website begins to sift through content on a basis of choosing which content to publish, it will be liable for all the content published. As of right now, sites like twitter, youtube, and facebook are not publishers. If they persist in this vein they will be deemed publishers which will expose them to liability for that which they choose to censor or promote. The legal consequences or this are minimal unless we're talking about copyright, but the economic consequences are broad. Alex Jones is hardly the first example of these sites' censorship or demonetization of conservative outlets, it has actually been going on for years to other commentators who are far, far less radical than Jones.

if I were you I'd refrain from being so outright celebratory over Alex Jones' ban unless you're willing to declare that you are gleeful that any right than center viewpoint is being outright censored by supposed neutral non-publishing sources like twitter, facebook, and youtube. The implications of this for anyone who values being able to say what you want to say without penalty is obvious despite what your political viewpoint might be at this moment. I say this as one who finds the message in question ridiculous.

This is an excellent post. I'm surprised people are missing wider implications of censorship. Regardless of how they feel about Alex Jones (myself, not a fan... to say the least).

Or is camp partisanship so strong that they refuse to?

[Aexodus]

Quick question, do social media platforms get tax breaks in some form?

[fkizz]

Did I mention that Jones sells water filtration devices?

Stock up fkizz, you dont want to end up a weak city dwelling cis-gender marxist liberal corporatist.

His brand, "Infowars", already implies there will be lots of disinfo around. The idea is that he is the drill sergeant and instructor for you to learn how to spot disinfo and whatsoever.

So the way his channel is branded gives him protection from claims that are only half true. Because the purpose the namebrand trains itself to is to train you up to spot deception.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Quick question, do social media platforms get tax breaks in some form?

Not really, but they are protected from copyright liability under the theory that they are not publishers of media and are unbiased/non selective in what sort of media gets uploaded. Their policies which tend to discriminate based on the content of speech cuts against this. As soon as this facade collapses, these entities will no longer be afforded those protections from liability and could mean massive legal exposure. Personally I tend not to care because the evidence that google, youtube, twitter, and facebook have overwhelmingly leaned left and opposed even mainstream conservative entities leaves me unimpressed.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not really, but they are protected from copyright liability under the theory that they are not publishers of media and are unbiased/non selective in what sort of media gets uploaded. Their policies which tend to discriminate based on the content of speech cuts against this. As soon as this facade collapses, these entities will no longer be afforded those protections from liability and could mean massive legal exposure. Personally I tend not to care because the evidence that google, youtube, twitter, and facebook have overwhelmingly leaned left and opposed even mainstream conservative entities leaves me unimpressed.

What evidence is that?

So he was banned for allegedly violating some rules, but literal terrorist groups still have platform there.

Such as?

[Prodromos]

Such as?

https://twitter.com/HamasInfoEn

[Pontifex Maximus]

What evidence is that?

Federal law.

[The spartan]

The takeaway, atrazine is a feminizing endocrine disruptor. It's not a good thing to have in your drinking water. If it's actually significantly affecting frogs, it's making them trans not gay. The EPA's disagreement with Hayes could look like a conspiracy to suppress the truth, if one were so inclined to see the world that way.

So Jones is wrong, it isn't making frogs gay.

[PointOfViewGun]

https://twitter.com/HamasInfoEn

Let's go with that example as it's a valid issue. Who decides which group is a terror organization and which isn't?

Also, does Hamas use that account to tweet messages that go against Twitter's rules like Alex Jones did?

Federal law.

How can federal law be evidence of "Google, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook having overwhelmingly leaning left and opposing even mainstream conservative entities"?

[Heathen Hammer]

Such as?

Hamas, Islamic Front, FSA, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. You know, guys who go around Syria and Israel killing civilians and beheading people. But that's okay, they did not violate any Twitter rules.