One of the newest hot-button debates surrounding free speech in America is that of controversial talk show host Alex Jones’ content being removed from a plethora of streaming services such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Spotify, as well as the deletion of his social media platforms. Many on the left and center say that this was a necessary evil to prevent a fringe, hateful message from being disseminated while many on the right say that Silicon Valley’s ban on Jones’s content constitutes a violation of Jones’s First Amendment rights. In this article, I will deconstruct the arguments of the latter.
In order to put the argument that many on the right and center-right are making into perspective, we must first analyze what exactly the First Amendment entails. A common and yet flawed perception of the First Amendment that a sizeable portion of the public hold is that the amendment means that no speech can be prohibited by anyone. But this is not what the text of the Constitution states. In the First Amendment, it is written that, from the horse’s mouth, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” * Nowhere in the First Amendment does it dictate the rights of private individuals to regulate the speech of others on their property, be it physical or digital. And with advertisers increasingly wary of placing content on platforms like YouTube and Facebook in no small part due to the plethora of fringe political content on both sides that the sites offer, it’s not hard to see why these platforms decided to pull the plug on Jones, who– among other hijinks on his show– has organized a harassment campaign against the parents of elementary-school aged children slain in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Therefore, banning Alex Jones from using their platform to propogate his message is more akin to a restaurant manager removing a patron shouting racial slurs from the premises than the Orwellian style censorship that Jones and his followers would have you believe it is.
But, you might be asking yourself, if platforms like YouTube are going to remove a well-known talk show host from their platform, they had better have good reason for doing so, right? Well, say what you will about Jones, but the bans on his accounts were certainly not without good reason. Among many escapades, Alex Jones has recently seeked to make the addresses of a couple whose 6-year-old son was slain in the Sandy Hook massacare after the same couple sued Jones for defamation regarding his coverage of the incident, in which he called children slain in the massacare and their parents “frauds” and “crisis actors,” a term used by conspiracy theorists to describe people they believe to be government-hired actors used in “false flag” attacks. Alex Jones has also pushed the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, a theory that alledges that 2016 Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton and former president Barack Obama are running a satanic child sex cult out of the basement of a Washington, D.C. pizza parlor (No, you did not read that wrong). Jones only apologized for pushing the Pizzagate theory after a man from North Carolina stormed into Comet Ping Pong and Pizzeria (the parlor Jones accused of holding the trafficked children) with a semi-automatic rifle and opened fire, causing thousands of dollars worth of damage and forcing people eating and working at the time to flee, fearing for their lives. To add insult to injury, the gunman confessed to being motivated in no small part by Jones’ coverage of Pizzagate. Add to this the numerous documented instances of Alex Jones listeners showing up to the homes of Sandy Hook parents to harass and, in some instances, threaten violence against them, and it begins to become very clear why many major social media platforms have elected not to give Alex Jones a platform.
Like many, I was alarmed when Count Dankula was arrested and ordered to pay a fine by a U.K. court over his video of his pug doing a Nazi Salute, not because I approved of his speech, but because it set a worrying precedent for the future. And while I cringe at internet personalities using hate speech as an easy way to generate clicks and views, I think our intelligence agencies have better things to do than arresting children for using racial epithets on first-person shooter games. But Alex Jones is not like the examples I have provided-there are documented instances of his speech causing real world harm to parents of school shooting victims and part-time pizza parlor employees alike, along with him refusing to back down from these theories after people turn his words into action.
That is why I urge free-speech activists not to make Alex Jones their martyr-not only because his speech has led to real world harm, but also because he himself does not believe in the concept of free speech, as evidenced by the cease and desist letters he often sends to people and publications who criticize him. Simply put,Alex Jones should not be a martyr of the free speech movement because of the way his speech has hurt others and his own disbelief in the concept of free speech.
Andrew Kelly is a recent graduate of Benicia High School who will be attending Diablo Valley College in the fall.
Sharing is caring!
Andrew I sure hope you saw Gov. Cuomo of New York and his very hateful speech about America. This guy is a Governor. What say you. Should he be banned. Should Rush Limbaugh be banned? Should Woopi Goldberg be banned? There are many that spew speech some do not like but if they are on the left it seems to be OK. Again Andrew what say you. Give me an example of someone on the left that should be banned.
I’d say a good metric is, “Someone on the left who claims the parents of Sandy Hook victims are actors and the children are fake”. Anyone fit the bill?
What left leaning person said that. I do not follow the person Andrew is talking about and would agree that the statement is a very way over the top comment. But we also must remember over the years many people have said things that are very questionable . In most cases they are over and out. The public usually decides on that.
Alex Jones, the subject of the piece, is the one who made the claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting never happened, and was in fact a ploy made by leftists to further their gun control agenda. Since then, Jones’ followers have repeatedly harassed the parents of the shooting victims, calling them liars and frauds. To answer your question “What left leaning person said that.”, I think the answer is “Nobody public”, so I don’t think there’s much point to bring up anyone else, be it left or right, since Alex Jones is indefensible, regardless of political leaning.
I think what’s interesting Andrew never spoke up about the comedian who held up a severed head of the President Donald Trump. He is not the only one. It apparently did not hurt her career. Why is that? Simple because she is a far left leaning Socialist Liberal. Anyone should be able to figure that out. Speak in very vulgar, nasty, hateful and even worse than that terms of President Trump if you are from the left and it goes unreported or even talked about. Just ask Madonna .Very disgraceful. I am no fan of Jones as I said.
Photo controversy backlash:
In May 2017, Griffin subsequently was dropped by Squatty Potty as a marketing spokesperson.[63]
On May 31, 2017, CNN fired her from its New Year’s Eve broadcast with Anderson Cooper.[64]
CNN said in a statement prior to announcing her termination, “We found what she did disgusting and offensive. We are pleased to see she has apologized and asked that the photos be taken down.”[57] Cooper said, “For the record, I am appalled by the photo shoot Kathy Griffin took part in. It is clearly disgusting and completely inappropriate.”[65]
All of her remaining scheduled tour dates were canceled by their respective venues,[66] and then U.S. Senator Al Franken from Minnesota disinvited Griffin from a promotional event for his upcoming book.[67] U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto from Nevada announced she is going to donate the $1,000 received from Griffin to charity.[68]
On October 28, 2017, Griffin uploaded a YouTube video titled “Kathy Griffin: A Hell of a Story”, detailing the backlash she received for the Trump photo controversy.[69] She claimed she was under a federal investigation by the Justice Department for two months and on the No Fly List during that time. She also said she was put on the Interpol list, the Five Eyes list, and had been detained at every airport during her Laugh Your Head Off World Tour
Huh? You mean Kathy Griffin? She lost a huge amount of work and was greatly impacted for that publicity stunt.
Only at first. She is back now. The left loves her.
Lee, Funny when whataboutism comes back and gives one a nice little nip on the rear.
B.B. I think you made a fine point already when you stated that the court of public opinion knows no political boundaries.
Sorry Thomas you are wrong again.
Almost never. But thanks for sharing.
You first.
This:
“Fans Are Calling for Pearl Jam’s Radio Station to Be Canceled Due to Trump Corpse Controversy”
good
Hey, Bob
My argument is not that Alex Jones should be banned from social media because many find his speech reprehensible-my argument is that he should be banned from social media due to the real world acts of violence that his speech has caused.
Name the “real world acts of violence that his speech has caused” that linked directly to him. Questionable
The shooting at a he pizza parlor thanks to infowars propaganda of a Clinton child porn ring? The threats to parents of the little children killed at Sandy Hook?
“A common and yet flawed perception of the First Amendment that a sizeable portion of the public hold is that the amendment means that no speech can be prohibited by anyone.” Andrew, you have hit the nail so firmly on the head with this comment. I can’t believe how many people can not grasp this concept. There are those that are now suggesting that websites, such as YouTube, Face Book, etc., should become public utilities. As such, they would be subject to constitutional rules, including those concerned with free speech. What say you?
I would disagree with that, because by definition a public utility is a service that is impossible to find anywhere else, along with Social Media not being outright necessary to sustain life. New social media sites replace old ones all the time-remember MySpace? Also, regulating Social Media as a public utility would make it even easier for the government to gain access to private information on it’s citizens.
I agree, who wants the PUC to oversee social media?
However, you err a little when you say a public utility is a service that is impossible to find anywhere else. The concept of public utility is that of an organization that is given a monopoly on the supply of said service. Granted, the end result is that the public must use their services (ie, can’t find anywhere else). The distinction is only that the government may remove the monopoly grant to allow competition. It is a clear distinction when looked at broadly. The (failed) USSR granted monopoly to all sorts of their infrastructure (which is why they had crappy cars among other things). We in the USA have granted monopoly to phones-then took that away (so the Bells went away); we’re doing it again with power so PG:&E is dealing with solar panels, wind farms, et al. trying to stay alive.
I assume you might mean if you are the only Doctor for 100 miles that could be classified as a monopoly. If the liberals had their way they would insist another Doctor practice in the area and then use Socialism to control the price. I do not believe in censorship unless government guidelines prevent it. It appears to me the public is able to put much of what they want on-line. We see it right here in this on-line posts. Fake names, wrong information, residents trying to control content of paper, it goes on and on. In a very liberal city, county and state you will be attacked if your are a conservative. Believe me I get it all the time. I actually like it because I then no folks are reading my comments. I also know that a councilmember has e-mailed me and he was told not to respond to me. Guess what he foes not. Followed orders. IS THAT A FORM OF CENSORSHIP, YES IT IS. Why has’nt Birdseye responded to my e-mail on her web page. She is running for office. Ralph Dennis does respond to me and I respect him for that fact. None of this is new and it will go on and on.
Sorry, Bob, wrong again.
explain
Good one.
waiting for your explanation not just two words. I love it when we have this wonderful dialog.
Alex Jones is an easy target to select based on his extremism, as the examples attest. Personally I have no issue with any social media banning him, as they are indeed private entities.
What is of more concern though is the increase in ‘shadow banning’ (or similar controls). The practice of controlling content or access to websites or people who are simply putting forward conservative POV’s. Dennis Praeger and his Praeger U being one recent example. Praeger is a moderate conservative, yet by definitions established by far left extremists, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, essentially any conservative is classified as hateful.
I believe it is Google that uses the SPLC’s list of “hate Groups”, as a guideline to control any group listed. The list is arbitrary, defined only by the SPLC and there is no appeal (that I am aware of) if one is placed on it,
I think using a metric like SPLC is lazy, although I imagine groups like Google don’t care, unfortunately. However, at the same time, if I were to try to produce liberal matrerial and attempt to get Infowars or Breitbart, or even Fox News to show it, they’d likely shut me down on the spot, and understandably so. Alex Jones has no want or need for my opinion. Similarly, those who own and manage Facebook or YouTube also get to choose who they show. They may be a larger platform, but I think if Infowars became a household name, they’d still be selective of who and what they show, and all social media, as long as they are privately owned, non-government agencies, hold the right to choose who they present.
Who is the judge? Who judges whether certain speech is dangerous? Offensive speech should be banned? How do you define offensive?
Slippery slope. Very slippery. Very dangerous.
Much left wing talk I find offensive and dangerous. Should we ban Maxine Waters from social media?
If you own the social media, sure! Your alternative assumes that the government should have the power to decide what content people can display on websites they own.
Slippery slope indeed.
Nope. Missed my point. No entity can effectively judge, especially the government. Free speech is the absolute cornerstone of our democracy. That means we have to accept offensive speech.
So how does that work, exactly? If I email Fox News or CNN and send them something I wrote, you’re saying it’s undemocratic for them to deny me access to showing it on their page? Can I put my opinions on any website I like? Or is it only certain ones?
Why does everyone take things to extremes? Free speech is a good thing–within reason. Freedom to provide a service to all is a good thing…within reason. The cake baker in CO who won his case since he didn’t want to make cakes for same sex marriage…he had his reasons. Google will post your videos on YouTube, but better not infringe on a music overlay or any number of other things they won’t allow. A service provider “should” be able to provide or withhold service based on his/her policies–at least that’s the way I see it. Freedom is about doing what you want-as long as you aren’t hurting someone else, right? That’s my definition of reasonable. I’m sure there are extreme cases that need adjudication and then you start getting into someone else’ idea of reasonable.