Recently, I saw a video of Alex Jones (InfoWars) trolling Marco Rubio (Sorry.. Little Marco, as the president would say).

Don't really agree with Alex Jones being censored in the media, but what do people think about Alex Jones these days?

Total nutjob.

Life_Nerd

Total nutjob.

But he wasn't like that correct? I remember around 2012, I used to watch some of his videos and if anything, those videos sparked curiosity. Coverage was about Bilderberg meetings, World banks, Fed. Reserve, etc.

I stopped watching for a few years, then I watched some of his stuff again and man! He seemed way off.... Sandy Hook never happened, daemons, gay frogs.

I shouldn't be so harsh. He does spark a lot of thought but really "some" of it seems to be so far fetched I cant help but think his is creating controversial content just to line his pockets. Wacky all the way to the bank.

Must be all those supplements he’s feverishly pushing on his webcasts ... Alex a nut job ?... yeah 110%, and climbing.

showing a preference will only get you into trouble, 90% of everything is crap...

I think he has the right to be heard like any other citizen! I don't watch nor listen to him but this is wrong.

Jgatorman

I think he has the right to be heard like any other citizen!

I think he is plain crazy. I have the right to say it

Stratus
Raptor 50V2
T-rex SE
T-rex CDE
T-rex 250 SC
Kyosho M24

1st Amendment Free Speech

Interesting how someone/anyone can have their right to free speech taken away from them. It has always been that the people with money can get their voice heard. Now, as the web may be almost the only way to publish and reach a massive audience our free speech rights are diminished by someone with no right to silence us.

Alex Jones is a bit out there (maybe far out there) but he should have a voice. It seems as the web powers that be have summarily snuffed his voice without due process of any sort. It will be interesting how this plays out. I am sure that this is not the last we will hear of Mr. Jones.

"Free speech" doesn't apply to anything you spout on whatever platform. Here's a helpful illustration:

J. B. Jones

too much politic blows my mind, then it take a week of hard drinking to get it straight again so I don't watch politic bologna and mustard shows,
but I watched a show or two of Alex Jones, I thought the shows were OK, well one show was on guns, it was OK, that was some 3 years ago,,, but then I saw a show he did on UFOs,,, OK, the guy down the street is an Alien from another planet, he walks around, his UFO is in his basement and they are going to take over Earth, 5 minutes of that and I shut the show down, wow, the guy is truly a Ham Bone

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

Watch at YouTube

Jim
Buzz Buzz Buzz

Aliens.. hmmm.. fake moon landings.... hmmm...
I wonder if he is a flat-earther?

Heli_Splatter

Now, as the web may be almost the only way to publish and reach a massive audience our free speech rights are diminished by someone with no right to silence us.

although I agree with the premise... the issue is actually very complicated... No one took Alexs right to free speech away, not really. they simply banned him from their platform... which is in essence a business, and ALL online businesses have the right to refuse service etc based on their user agreement. You know that annoying user agreement 99.99% of us dont bother reading when setting up an account or installing software also known as a EULA? yeah that one. the one we just click yes to and hit "agree". Well guess what folks, you just signed that your "rights" on that platform are determined by whatever the business say it is and often in that agreement they can make changes on the fly.. all they do is send you an email saying they updated it.

Granted these platforms dominate many facets of how we get information, and therefore they can effectively control content. But the individual right to free speech is not taken away by the government... its disallowed by a company, organization or group that owns the platform. And nowhere does it say they have to allow you in there... paid or otherwise.

This is where the whole issue of NET neutrality came in a few months ago... who will control the internet. Control the internet and you control what people read, write, hear, say and see... and you've effectively circumvented the first amendment without taking it away. the government can simply say, "Alex, you can buy a radio station, and broadcast your crap all you want.. as long as it is FCC compliant" or "you can print and sell your magazine... if you can afford it" and "you can have rallies as long as cities approve your permit."

so it appears that "rights" are becoming more and more contingent on supporting systems built by both private individuals and government agencies...

besides... Alex does have his own website... he can host it himself if he bought the hardware... but as long as hes riding on the back of a private entity (or even a public one)... they say what you can put on it.

showing a preference will only get you into trouble, 90% of everything is crap...

RM3

Heli_Splatter

Now, as the web may be almost the only way to publish and reach a massive audience our free speech rights are diminished by someone with no right to silence us.

although I agree with the premise... the issue is actually very complicated... No one took Alexs right to free speech away, not really. they simply banned him from their platform... which is in essence a business, and ALL online businesses have the right to refuse service etc based on their user agreement. You know that annoying user agreement 99.99% of us dont bother reading when setting up an account or installing software also known as a EULA? yeah that one. the one we just click yes to and hit "agree". Well guess what folks, you just signed that your "rights" on that platform are determined by whatever the business say it is and often in that agreement they can make changes on the fly.. all they do is send you an email saying they updated it.

Granted these platforms dominate many facets of how we get information, and therefore they can effectively control content. But the individual right to free speech is not taken away by the government... its disallowed by a company, organization or group that owns the platform. And nowhere does it say they have to allow you in there... paid or otherwise.

This is where the whole issue of NET neutrality came in a few months ago... who will control the internet. Control the internet and you control what people read, write, hear, say and see... and you've effectively circumvented the first amendment without taking it away. the government can simply say, "Alex, you can buy a radio station, and broadcast your crap all you want.. as long as it is FCC compliant" or "you can print and sell your magazine... if you can afford it" and "you can have rallies as long as cities approve your permit."

so it appears that "rights" are becoming more and more contingent on supporting systems built by both private individuals and government agencies...

besides... Alex does have his own website... he can host it himself if he bought the hardware... but as long as hes riding on the back of a private entity (or even a public one)... they say what you can put on it.

Wow..
My opinion only. This post right here is a well thought out post addressing the complexity of free speech and free markets. I completely agree with the post. It's a complicated issue, and I think RM3 did an excellent job at highlighting the issues while staying true to some principles (1st amendment & free markets).

Here's quick question for other readers. See if you can find the words "democrats", "republicans" or "Trump" in his post. That's because he's discussing the issues.