For those who are actually curious about what was said in the video Media Matters posted a clip that should provide some context:
Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
91–100 of 110 posts
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#92Now if only they'd do the same for spam, scams, malware, etc... you know, the actual stuff that hurts the platform. I don't support Infowars but I'd take it any way over "Hai this is @EloanMusk2499 and I am giving out free cryptocurrency - just click this link or send 1BTC to this address and you'll get 10BTC in exchange!!!".
I think the problem is technical and not moral.
Alex Jones threatened lifes, and the banhammer is easy to give to one single user. What about new user that are doing so many accounts a hour with different (guess private) proxy, etc?
I hope that twitter is addressing that problem with stronger anti-spam measure, but it doesn't really relate to Infowars.
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#93Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#94Earlier 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…
that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous.
plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of political conflict.
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous. plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actu…
> should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes
Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched!
Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened?
I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes".
[this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 is…
> The media isn't a person so its is reaching.
The media is made up of people.
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous. plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actu…
> should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched! Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened? I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"ge…
That's just my poor writing skills - I meant that someone calling for political battle may not actually be inciting lynching or shooting the media or whatever, but speaking in metaphor.
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You are mistating the 3/5 compromise, which does not define the worth of a slave as 3/5 of a non-slave. Your version makes it sound as if it would be better if dishes were fully counted for apportionment, when that would be worse.
The compromise gives additional representation to the free citizens of a slave state equal based on 3/5 of the number of slaves, but if voting power is worth, then it is saying that worth of those who enslave is enhanced by the number enslaved. The slaves themselves, though, are not recognized having any worth.
The only sense in which the 3/5 compromise makes a slave worth 3/5 of a non-slave is that it makes the marginal increase in voting power a free citizen derived from an additional slave in the state 3/5 of what they receive from a disenfranchised non-slave. (IOW, Jim Crow and it's modern successors are 67% more politically effective for the disenfranchisers per disenfranchised person than actual slavery under the 3/5 compromise.)
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#99I'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…
The refusal to promote the voices of others is as much a part of free speech. Facebook is not the town square just because people used it that way.
Re: Twitter Suspends Alex Jones for Seven Days Over Tweet
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, an…
There is no legal standard by which a broadcaster who doesn't incite violence can be held accountable by their followers who commit or threaten violence.
Brandenburg v. Ohio and Dennis v. United States provide a pretty clear legal standard for this:
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
Twitter, of course, is not the State and can do what they want.
But if the State censored or in someway punished Jones, they would have to demonstrate that his speech constituted "inciting" "imminent" "lawless action." And there have been several cases since which have focused mostly on the "imminent" part.