Apple removes Alex Jones and Infowars podcast from iTunes

zantax · 2018-08-09T04:15:12.464Z

madasheck:

zantax:

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

You are all over the place my man.

Jones has a right to free speech.

He doesn’t have a right to someone else’s platform.

It really isn’t hard.

I’m right where I have been. The left no longer supports free speech that much. You keep proving it with silly excuses of why it’s OK he was censored.

Your definition of free speech is has shifted to include something that was never intended.

The right to use someone else’s platform.

It is you that has changed what supporting free speech means.

Not me.

Might not be quite that simple.

from Supreme Court | Washington Examiner

While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.

However, the justices’ shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.

Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.

In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California’s Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.

Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old “Main Street” — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property.

So there is precedent for constitutional right to speech being imposed on private business.

And this refers to printed material being distributed. It’s not the same as having podcasts available continually.

Yes, it’s materially the same, speech protections aren’t reliant on the form the speech is in.

Keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. To put it simply, there have been posts removed here because the mods felt they were objectionable. Same applies to Facebook, YouTube and Spotify. Not to mention you sign an agreement when you come on board any online site telling you to play by their rules. Your speech isn’t being infringed in their view, and according to their rules, they’re not. You may feel differently, but it’s their rules.

I wish a mod would comment on how this discussion relates to this board.

This forum and YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are not remotely in the same category. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called the new American town square given its tiny audience. As for TOS agreements, you can’t legally sign away your constitutional rights, referring here to state constitutions such as California’s. I showed you the precedent of the court upholding requiring a private business to allow speech that it did not want to and there is no reason at all the same cannot be done to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube using that precedent.

madasheck · 2018-08-09T04:17:01.002Z

zantax:

madasheck:

zantax:

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

You are all over the place my man.

Jones has a right to free speech.

He doesn’t have a right to someone else’s platform.

It really isn’t hard.

I’m right where I have been. The left no longer supports free speech that much. You keep proving it with silly excuses of why it’s OK he was censored.

Your definition of free speech is has shifted to include something that was never intended.

The right to use someone else’s platform.

It is you that has changed what supporting free speech means.

Not me.

Might not be quite that simple.

from Supreme Court | Washington Examiner

While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.

However, the justices’ shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.

Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.

In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California’s Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.

Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old “Main Street” — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property.

So there is precedent for constitutional right to speech being imposed on private business.

And this refers to printed material being distributed. It’s not the same as having podcasts available continually.

Yes, it’s materially the same, speech protections aren’t reliant on the form the speech is in.

Keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. To put it simply, there have been posts removed here because the mods felt they were objectionable. Same applies to Facebook, YouTube and Spotify. Not to mention you sign an agreement when you come on board any online site telling you to play by their rules. Your speech isn’t being infringed in their view, and according to their rules, they’re not. You may feel differently, but it’s their rules.

I wish a mod would comment on how this discussion relates to this board.

This forum and YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are not remotely in the same category. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called the new American town square given its tiny audience. As for TOS agreements, you can’t legally sign away your constitutional rights, referring here to state constitutions such as California’s. I showed you the precedent of the court upholding requiring a private business to allow speech that it did not want to and there is no reason at all the same cannot be done to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube using that precedent.

Then go ahead and intentionally post something in violation of the TOS and see where it gets you.

Jezcoe · 2018-08-09T04:17:26.229Z

zantax:

madasheck:

zantax:

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

The Purge of Infowars

You are all over the place my man.

Jones has a right to free speech.

He doesn’t have a right to someone else’s platform.

It really isn’t hard.

I’m right where I have been. The left no longer supports free speech that much. You keep proving it with silly excuses of why it’s OK he was censored.

Your definition of free speech is has shifted to include something that was never intended.

The right to use someone else’s platform.

It is you that has changed what supporting free speech means.

Not me.

Might not be quite that simple.

from Supreme Court | Washington Examiner

While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.

However, the justices’ shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.

Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.

In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California’s Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.

Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old “Main Street” — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property.

So there is precedent for constitutional right to speech being imposed on private business.

And this refers to printed material being distributed. It’s not the same as having podcasts available continually.

Yes, it’s materially the same, speech protections aren’t reliant on the form the speech is in.

Keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. To put it simply, there have been posts removed here because the mods felt they were objectionable. Same applies to Facebook, YouTube and Spotify. Not to mention you sign an agreement when you come on board any online site telling you to play by their rules. Your speech isn’t being infringed in their view, and according to their rules, they’re not. You may feel differently, but it’s their rules.

I wish a mod would comment on how this discussion relates to this board.

This forum and YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are not remotely in the same category. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called the new American town square given its tiny audience. As for TOS agreements, you can’t legally sign away your constitutional rights, referring here to state constitutions such as California’s. I showed you the precedent of the court upholding requiring a private business to allow speech that it did not want to and there is no reason at all the same cannot be done to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube using that precedent.

Take it to court.

I wish you luck.

Until then… your argument is nothing more than speculation.

You do not have a Constitutional right to someone else platform.

Nor should you.

zantax · 2018-08-09T04:18:01.292Z

JayJay:

1st Amendment does not apply here, dude.

Please explain why you think it applies to privately held companies.

I already linked to it being enforced against a mall. The constitution doesn’t say private companies can’t discriminate either it says the government can’t. So, can they?

zantax · 2018-08-09T04:18:58.034Z

Tell that to the mall who was forced to allow people to distribute pamphlets.

Yakshi · 2018-08-09T04:19:08.443Z

I had never heard of Alex Jones before I came here.

zantax · 2018-08-09T04:19:30.235Z

Me either.

Jezcoe · 2018-08-09T04:21:00.885Z

zantax:

Tell that to the mall who was forced to allow people to distribute pamphlets.

No, I think it was a dumb decision.

I also think it isn’t the best thing to hang your argument on.

I am honestly surprised that your position on Net Neutrality would mean that you support a fairness doctrine for the internet.

Who would have thunk it?

Yakshi · 2018-08-09T04:23:12.092Z

Wasn’t that case about the California Constitution?

If so, aren’t states allowed to provide more rights than the Constitution does if they choose?

JayJay · 2018-08-09T04:25:54.495Z

They allowed people to gather signatures.

Not remotely the same thing as forcing online hosting services to host all kinds of content.

Especially since you can create your own website and distribute your own content…a la settingnup yourbown “public square”.

Barriers to entry are not remotely the same as trying to build your own shopping mall.

CanadianJudo · 2018-08-09T04:26:08.677Z

You give Apple/Facebook/Youtube/Tweeter express right to remove your content for any reason they see fit when you agree TOS.

JayJay · 2018-08-09T04:31:28.552Z

Not to mention, had the students gotten rowdy and disruptive and in people’s faces, the mall could have thrown them out.

Just like violating the ToS of your hosting service.

madasheck · 2018-08-09T04:42:49.196Z

Much as I despise using Wikipedia as a source, the last paragraph on the decision is of interest here. In later years, the decision, though not overruled, was narrowed.

On December 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of California reaffirmed Pruneyard but narrowed its applicability to the facts of the original case.[18] The entire court concurred in Associate Justice Joyce Kennard’s holding that Pruneyard applies only to “common areas” of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure, but does not apply to any other open portions of shopping centers merely intended to facilitate the efficient movement of shoppers in and out of tenants, including concrete aprons and sidewalks which shoppers simply walk across as they move between parking lots and big-box stores. In other words, the court effectively immunized most (but not all) strip malls and shopping centers from Pruneyard, except for those with areas analogous to public gathering areas such as plazas, atriums, or food courts. Miriam Vogel, a former Court of Appeal justice who argued for the shopping center tenant (Kroger subsidiary Ralphs), characterized the decision “a great victory for retailers as far as putting another nail in the Pruneyard coffin.”[19] However, the decision was not a complete loss for free speech advocates, as the court separately upheld the right of a union to protest on the employer’s premises under the state Moscone Act by a 6–1 majority (the majority, though, was badly split as to why).

en.wikipedia.org

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379). The underlying dispute began in November 1975, when a group of high...

madasheck · 2018-08-09T04:45:42.398Z

More on the decision from another source. Most states didn’t follow the California ruling.

Fortunately, there is good news for shopping center owners in most states. Except for California, which still follows the rationale set forth in the Pruneyard case, and several other states such as New Jersey, Massachusetts and Colorado, which have adopted versions of the Pruneyard rationale, the majority of state court decisions since Pruneyard have protected the rights of private property owners to enact regulations governing political protests, demonstrations and similar activities at their shopping centers and have held that individuals and groups do not have the unfettered right to enter private property for the purpose of picketing, demonstrating or conducting similar types of activities.

https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/rights-of-shopping-center-owners-to-regulate-free-speech-and-public-discourse/

party-free · 2018-08-09T11:59:45.274Z

zantax:

I already linked to it being enforced against a mall.

I’ve already explained to you why, for a number of reasons, it’s horribly unlikely that ruling would apply in the situation of Jones/social media.

madasheck · 2018-08-09T13:12:30.401Z

party-free:

zantax:

I already linked to it being enforced against a mall.

I’ve already explained to you why, for a number of reasons, it’s horribly unlikely that ruling would apply in the situation of Jones/social media.

And also that it was a state court ruling and most of the other court jurisdictions didn’t agree with it, so it only applied in certain areas not nationally.

party-free · 2018-08-09T13:22:52.524Z

Yep-that was one of the things I mentioned. The ruling zantax is citing largely deals with the abilities of states to enforce rights as long as they don’t conflict with the 1st amendment. I believe the breadth and scope of the internet and online social media means that the ruling he’s citing would not be used as precedent.

It’s also interesting to see someone generally right-wing forcing speech/expression in places of business…which is strange, considering we just had some recent discussions about, say, bakers not being compelled to “express” their beliefs through baking cakes and the like.

Grimalken · 2018-08-09T14:00:22.020Z

zantax:

This forum and YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are not remotely in the same category. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called the new American town square given its tiny audience. As for TOS agreements, you can’t legally sign away your constitutional rights, referring here to state constitutions such as California’s. I showed you the precedent of the court upholding requiring a private business to allow speech that it did not want to and there is no reason at all the same cannot be done to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube using that precedent.

Playing the devil’s advocate here…

Why, if you want the free speech to have a wedding cake made, for Jill & Jennifer’s marriage, should everyone must be forced to bake it, but YouTube has a say in denying customer requests?

Why is a baker unable to decide who has a platform of free speech, and.or commerce, but YouTube and Facebook do?

Obviously there are stark differences between baking a cake with your message or theme, and posting the same thing on YouTube and Facebook. But why is is only that YouTube can decide to not serve you because they disagree with the content of your product on an personal level, but a baker has to respect whatever customers walking in off the street ask of him?

reflechissez · 2018-08-09T17:05:10.903Z

Grimalken:

Obviously there are stark differences between baking a cake with your message or theme, and posting the same thing on YouTube and Facebook. But why is is only that YouTube can decide to not serve you because they disagree with the content of your product on an personal level, but a baker has to respect whatever customers walking in off the street ask of him?

Poor analogy. The baker already bakes wedding cakes and discriminated against who could purchase them. Youtube is a marketplace that chooses which products to carry, not whom to sell them to. I’m sure there are companies that want Walmart to carry their products but Walmart is under no obligation to do so.

Grimalken · 2018-08-09T20:47:52.078Z

reflechissez:

Poor analogy. The baker already bakes wedding cakes and discriminated against who could purchase them. Youtube is a marketplace that chooses which products to carry, not whom to sell them to. I’m sure there are companies that want Walmart to carry their products but Walmart is under no obligation to do so.

Why is it a poor analogy? Both the baker and Facebook deal with customers who want to use their service to express themselves. Neither the baker, or Facebook wanted to be seen as endorsing, associating with, promoting, contributing to, or assisting those types of customers. so they refused to do business with them.

As to my personal feelings on the whole baker issue. I thought the baker had little to no standing to refuse to bake that wedding cake. Weddings don’t require a cake, and the couple would have already been married before the cake was even carved.

The problem i see, is that is seems Facebook and YouTube can deny the business of customers because they don’t like their views, and on that basis don’t wish to be associated with them, but the baker has no such choice.