Alexi Jone$ is being Sued by "Crisis Actor" Sandy Hook Parents

[Kristy]

Jone$ the Putin puppet just like slave FORD's creepy college professor guy

"National security experts have asserted that RT is a propaganda arm of the Russian government. A report by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence argued that RT played an influential role in the 2016 presidential election, sowing distrust in Hillary Clinton while portraying Donald Trump as a martyr. Ones' reliance on RT to provide his audience with content while perhaps surprising, is hard to view as shocking. The conspiracy theorist was an early supporter of Trump and often makes claims that frame the U.S. government as a force for evil."

Story here, artards:

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/infowars-peddled-stories-from-a-russian-propaganda-outlet-for-years/?utm_campaign=crowdfire&utm_content=crowdfire&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#14817097-tw#1510369047512

[Nitro Express]

That was pretty fucking retarded. When F A T fucks like Jone$ push a propaganda of violence towards others based in nothing more than racism and bigotry then it is no longer "free speech" but hate speech whose intent is to harm others. This is why his (4Chan) rhetoric was pulled. A "free environment" is not to be polluted with the filth Jone$' spews. His F A T ass (and those stupid enough to follow him) have no care for consequences; this is about control and power based in lies.

All banning Alex Jones did was help promote the guy even more. Hillary made a huge mistake by verbally attacking Alex Jones during the campaign. She legitimized the guy because she saw him big enough to be a threat worth attacking. If you really want to take someone down in the world of public opinion, you ignore them. You don't give them the time of day. Facebook, Google, Apple and all the others just gave Infowars more promotion and Facebook is on the way out. Apple and Google now look like censorship bullies and now the public is talking about corporations being a threat to free speech. Hate speech is a slippery slope. The American people in the past realized free speech also meant protecting speech you didn't like and even stuff that was offensive. They realized putting up with it was better than losing free speech all together. Who cares about Alex Jones and Infowars. Never heard the guy say anything racist. He has some out there conspiracies but then you hear the same sort of stuff on Coast to Coast AM.

[FORD]

There's a difference between political speech and slander.

If you want to say "Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim member of the Illuminati whose wife is a man and who was out to enslave the entire population on behalf of his gay frog alien overlords" then it's ridiculous as all Hell, but it should be protected as free speech, because there's very little chance of it causing any harm to anybody.

But when you say that 6 year old children whose bodies were literally cut in half by the gunfire of a brain dead mutant (armed by his deranged meth head mother) were "crisis actors" and that their parents are also "actors" and as a result, your deranged audience threatens the lives of those parents.... or when you claim some pizza place in Washington DC is the headquarters of Hillary Clinton's secret pedophile sex dungeon, and then some deranged InfoWhores fan shows up with an AR-15 to shoot the place up - only to find out that there not only isn't a pedo cult in the basement....THERE'S NOT EVEN A FUCKING BASEMENT..... well now we are talking real damage done to people. And a legitimate threat to human lives caused by Alex Jones's slander.

I don't believe he should be entirely silenced, but he definitely needs to be held accountable when he crosses the line into libel & slander. And if acts of terrorism and violence are committed in the name of his libel & slander, then he should be charged with that as well. But as long as he's just peddling weird political speech to sell his vitamin products, who gives a shit. As I've said before, it's often good comedy... and that's why I have to consider the theory that he's really Bill Hicks as a semi-serious possibility. But if that's the case, I suspect Bill is going to be looking for a new character soon. So look for "Alex" to die mysteriously.... probably in a bizzare Illuminutty NWO gay frog assassination plot

[Terry]

All banning Alex Jones did was help promote the guy even more. Hillary made a huge mistake by verbally attacking Alex Jones during the campaign. She legitimized the guy because she saw him big enough to be a threat worth attacking. If you really want to take someone down in the world of public opinion, you ignore them. You don't give them the time of day. Facebook, Google, Apple and all the others just gave Infowars more promotion and Facebook is on the way out. Apple and Google now look like censorship bullies and now the public is talking about corporations being a threat to free speech. Hate speech is a slippery slope. The American people in the past realized free speech also meant protecting speech you didn't like and even stuff that was offensive. They realized putting up with it was better than losing free speech all together. Who cares about Alex Jones and Infowars. Never heard the guy say anything racist. He has some out there conspiracies but then you hear the same sort of stuff on Coast to Coast AM.

The thing about it is...Alex Jones is easily ignorable.

He wasn't on some state-sponsored or state-run media platform, and as citizens it isn't compulsory that we listen to what he has to say.

As to him pushing the Sandy Hook Truther hoax, and PizzaGate and whatever other easily disprovable conspiracies he has propagated...to be sure, Jones shouldn't be singling out Sandy Hook parents for harassment. There should be consequences for Jones saying those types of things that amount to singling out individuals for harassment and advocating his listeners to do something about it. However, I think Jones has a right to say those things. He shouldn't have the expectation of saying those things consequence-free. The old adage of falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, etc. Listeners of Alex Jones have their own choices to make when they hear what he says. It's not as if Jones is some master hypnotist who can delude otherwise sane people to go physically harass Sandy Hook parents, or mesmerize some guy to shoot up a pizza parlor if the guy wasn't already imbalanced.

There are a lot of assholes out there. Assholes who say whatever pop into their heads, and assholes who believe whatever they are told (be it by Fox News, or whoever) without doing their own research. And assholishness isn't the sole province of right wingers, either. And this assholishness didn't start with Alex Jones. Or Donald Trump.

Beyond all of this, though, these social media platforms are private companies. As such, they all retain the right to remove speech or images as they see fit, subject to their terms of service. That these companies are using public utilities to convey their services makes some of the debate not as clear as it otherwise might be in terms of ethics vs. legality. As an individual, you have access to these platforms like everybody else as long as you don't violate the terms of service. Jones did, was told he did more than once, kept doing it anyway, and was either yanked or downsized. Now, Jones gets to play the martyr to his deluded listeners (and I'll flat-out state that anybody who could listen to five consecutive minutes of Jones and consistently agree with the rambling, at best semi-coherent, screamed ranting of the man is probably mentally susceptible to believing just about anything anybody says...which is willful delusion by definition).

Again, I have no use for the guy, but the best way to deal with him is marginalization via ignoring him. Don't feed the trolls. In the case of the Sandy Hook parents, they're suing him. There is a legal process available. I'm not minimizing the anguish Jones has helped cause by his rhetoric, and hopefully he will have to pay some sort of legal price for it. But, he should still have the freedom to communicate that rhetoric. And people should still have the freedom to listen to it and make up their own minds about what it means to them.

[Nitro Express]

What you are going to see happen is there will be more platforms. It just won't be YouTube anymore. YouTube used to be the platform for everyone. It will be good. We need more diversity on the internet. Facebook, Apple, and Google became the big brandnames and started getting full of themselves. They need more competition. I'm for anyone having free speech as long as it's not kiddie porn or snuff films. Go ahead and offend all you want. I can choose to watch you or not. I would rather make that choice myself than have someone else do it for me. Big brother can go fuck himself. Hey I don't like the Westboro Baptist Church and what they do. I think making their kind of ruckus at soldier funerals is disgusting but I will fight for their right to do it. It beats being scared to death to say something wrong and be dragged off to some gulag. I would rather have some assholes protest my nephew's funeral if he gets killed serving his country.

[Terry]

It comes back to who has a monopoly on wisdom and therefore has the ability to censor information/words/ideas, thus denying us the right/ability to judge these things for ourselves. The freedom to access information is part of what defines a democracy. We've already "allowed" so many restrictions on where we go and what we do in terms of some activities being acceptable or lawful and others not: are we now going to allow others to determine what we think?

[Nitro Express]

It comes back to who has a monopoly on wisdom and therefore has the ability to censor information/words/ideas, thus denying us the right/ability to judge these things for ourselves. The freedom to access information is part of what defines a democracy. We've already "allowed" so many restrictions on where we go and what we do in terms of some activities being acceptable or lawful and others not: are we now going to allow others to determine what we think?

Our institutions are also proving themselves to be untrustworthy. A good example is the accounting firm Aurthur Andersen. They had this so called stellar reputation and they got caught falsifying audits. Well they are still operating under a changed name. It used to be investment firms would say, oh your mutual fund is not insured like a bank account but if you lose your money it's the end of us because our reputation will be ruined. Yeah right. They fail and the politicians bail the failed firm out and they just change their name and go on. So the big question here is who do you trust? I think this is the major question. Nobody trust anyone anymore. Our institutions are failing. Then of course the public can't agree on who is trustworthy or not and they get in these huge fights over everything. It's really quite dysfunctional.

[Terry]

Our institutions are also proving themselves to be untrustworthy. A good example is the accounting firm Aurthur Andersen. They had this so called stellar reputation and they got caught falsifying audits. Well they are still operating under a changed name. It used to be investment firms would say, oh your mutual fund is not insured like a bank account but if you lose your money it's the end of us because our reputation will be ruined. Yeah right. They fail and the politicians bail the failed firm out and they just change their name and go on. So the big question here is who do you trust? I think this is the major question. Nobody trust anyone anymore. Our institutions are failing. Then of course the public can't agree on who is trustworthy or not and they get in these huge fights over everything. It's really quite dysfunctional.

Or the Big Three credit rating agencies knowingly giving A, AA and AAA ratings to all those bundled tranches of shit mortgages in the years leading up to the bubble popping a decade ago. Essentially taking money to provide their then still credible stamp of approval on these financial products, and after the bubble burst their literal excuse was that "we just provide ratings, and the ratings we provide shouldn't be taken as gospel by anybody, because we make that disclosure" rather than admit what they did, and admit that the reason they were able to do what they did was because they HAD such a stellar reputation because the common perception was they didn't allow their rating standards to be compromised by payoffs from the financial institutions they were supposed to be dispassionately rating.

To be sure, these various failed institutions are comprised of people. When the institutions fail or go under, plenty of the employees go find work at other firms within the industry that didn't fail or go under. Because to that mindset, it isn't a crime to misrepresent, or lie when overreaching out of greed. It isn't even particularly a crime to get caught, as evidenced by the large settlements virtually all of those firms made (while publicly admitting no wrongdoing, of course) when caught breaking the law again and again.

Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you a king.

[Seshmeister]

Our institutions are also proving themselves to be untrustworthy. A good example is the accounting firm Aurthur Andersen.

There are basically only 4 accountancy firms auditing all the big businesses. If that wasn't bad enough the same 4 companies also do billions of dollars of consultancy work for the same companies so the conflict of interest is spectacular.

I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist but of course all these big businesses include all the media companies so you aren't going to hear much about this huge issue any time soon...

[Terry]

There are basically only 4 accountancy firms auditing all the big businesses. If that wasn't bad enough the same 4 companies also do billions of dollars of consultancy work for the same companies so the conflict of interest is spectacular.

I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist but of course all these big businesses include all the media companies so you aren't going to hear much about this huge issue any time soon...

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the connections with what you're referencing, because the conflicts of interest are right out in the open and the patterns of these accountancy firms/ratings agencies soft-pedalling in exchange for fees has been brought to light again and again, along with the relative lack of interest by major media outlets (who only reported on these transgressions because the consequences became potentially calamitous to the point where they couldn't be ignored: once the crisis "passed" the tv media went back to doing what it does best, which is surface fluff).

[Nitro Express]

There are basically only 4 accountancy firms auditing all the big businesses. If that wasn't bad enough the same 4 companies also do billions of dollars of consultancy work for the same companies so the conflict of interest is spectacular.

I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist but of course all these big businesses include all the media companies so you aren't going to hear much about this huge issue any time soon...

Not to mention big business bribes the politicians at such levels there really is nobody regulating them. The regulators tend to be former employees of big business. so it's all become a joke. In many cases regulation is used to put competitors out of business. We really are at a point where big business is more powerful than the government.

[FORD]

Now Alex thinks he's Rosa Parks or some shit like that.....

[Kristy]

Attica! Attica! Attica!


LOL "Chicoms"

[Seshmeister]

Wow comparing twitter banning Infowars for a week for harassing the parents of murdered children to the segregation of black people in the US in the 1960s.

This character Jones plays on TV is a real cunt.

[Kristy]

By the way, is Jone$ scaling it down? Looks like it. What happened to all his monitors and shit? Maybe those lawsuits are taking its toll on this sad, F A T fuck.