Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

skrebbel wrote: post #2

I'm curious about how this is happening in America, of all places. As a European, I've always wondered (with a certain hint of jealousy, I might add) at the USA's absolute freedom of speech. People like the Westboro Baptist Church would've certainly been blocked from protesting here in the Netherlands. At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themse…

> As a European, I've always wondered (with a certain hint of jealousy, I might add) at the USA's absolute freedom of speech.

The USA does not have absolute freedom of speech, it recognizes free speech as a fundamental right which means speech restrictions are evaluated under the “strict scrutiny” test.

> At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West.

First, this is factually inaccurate: private parties throughout the West have controlled what speech they will choose to repeat, convey, relay, and associate themselves with under standards much more restrictive than those being applied by the controversial platforms today, which are controversial precisely because of how much extreme speech they choose to relay on their platform.

But, second, there is no paradox between the US’s strong notion of free speech and US private entities being selective about speech they will participate in: the strong free speech protection in the US has always included protecting the right of private actors to choose what speech they will participate in, not merely as a legal principle but as an essential theoretical underpinning of the right.

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

sparkzilla wrote: post #80
happytoexplain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all. Absolutism is poison.

Tell that to the Founding Fathers.

You mean, in many cases, the people that wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they weren't free speech absolutists.

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#83

Post by dragonwriter »

empath75 wrote: post #17
poisonborz wrote: post #11

This whole ordeal is a good example how f'd up the current internet infrastructure is. For a decade or so it just seems like the beginnings of a megacorp-ruled Blade Runner-ish world. While companies have all the right to have control over whatever on their platforms, there just isn't a well known unfiltered, unmoderated, "real" spot on the internet anymore that is known to all - just some niche spots requiring techn…

Who is going to quit Facebook so they have access to more nazis and whack job conspiracy theorists?

Nazis and whack job conspiracy theorists.

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#84

Post by dragonwriter »

berbec wrote: post #78
teamk wrote: post #6

Its pretty insane that public businesses are forbidden from discrimination on most grounds (political views, religious views, etc) of who it employs, or who can enter their business, but its perfectly fine for FB, Google, Apple, Twitter, etc., to completely control the content of the conversation on their platforms. It doesn't make sense that as a baker I can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or as a Restaurant ow…

The baker won his case at the SCOTUS. [1] Is being allowed to reenact Jim Crow something you really don't understand why you cant do? 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colo...

> The baker won his case at the SCOTUS.

For overt bias-in-process reasons related to the state administrative adjudication of his particular case, not because the result otherwise would have violated his rights.

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#85

Post by mcphage »

beaconstudios wrote: post #77
berbec wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?

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.

> 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-word...

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#86

Post by mcphage »

sparkzilla wrote: post #80
happytoexplain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all. Absolutism is poison.

Tell that to the Founding Fathers.

The ones who said "All Men Are Created Equal", but really just meant landowning white males? And who explicitly defined the worth of a slave to be 3/5 of a non-slave?

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#87

Post by mcphage »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #51
beberlei wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 90s and early 2000s you had to search for the nieche content as well or know where it was located. Hundrets of different phpBBs or other forums hidden from "uninitated" people. The simplicity of central platform just has all the users going there, because they don't want to search for hours to find communities to participate in. infowars is still available at infowars.com, they just can't use the platform and…

> infowars is still available at infowars.com ... Until the CloudFlare CEO decides that he wants to virtue signal too (like he already did with Stormfront). Or until Microsoft decides to boot them from Azure (like they already did when Gab.ai had a post they didn't like). Or until the DNS is revoked... which has already been done by government agencies.

> Until the CloudFlare CEO decides that he wants to virtue signal too

> Or until Microsoft decides to boot them from Azure

Welcome to the Open Market. If they don't want to do business with a company, that company is free to look for another vendor that will.

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#88

Post by ForHackernews »

Jacqued wrote: post #35
ForHackernews wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is also a protected category, for what it's worth. Nevertheless, many people disagree with allowing a religious loophole to discriminate against gay customers.

That means you can't be discriminated against on the basis of your religion, not that you can discriminate against other people because of your religion though, right? Just like eg. being gay does not allow you to discriminate against black people. I know it's more complicated in practice because the problem is political and other factors come into play.

It's hard because some longstanding religious practices would now be seen as discriminatory. For example, many branches of Islam teach that it is not permissible for unrelated members of the opposite sex to touch.

If a Muslim man is punished by his employer for not shaking hands with women he meets in his work, is that religious discrimination? Or is he discriminating against the women because of their sex (also a protected class)?

Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet

#90

Post by humantiy »

mcphage wrote: post #85
beaconstudios wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

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

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.

Post reply on HN