Apple removes Alex Jones and Infowars podcast from iTunes


#341

I have since opened access to otb for all. It’s an entertainment topic.


#342

Why is it that our staunchest constitutionalists don’t understand the constitution?


#343

Really? Alex Jones being banned from social media platforms,and a discussion about whether or not that violates rights, is an entertainment topic?

I politely disagree.


#344

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.

Forcing a private service like Facebook to allow InfoWars content on IT’S OWN PLATFORM would be in breach of FACEBOOK’S First Amendment rights. Don’t like it? Get a really really smart visionary Conservative to start a really popular social media service. They can ban all the libs they want.


#345

Until the fcc regulates these platforms, it’s a private entertainment group issue.


#346

Alex Jones would disagree. :slight_smile:


#347

I disagree with the move, but only because it legitimizes his claims of censorship.


#348

He doesn’t need much of an excuse to build a case for outrage. That’s what he does. If it legitimizes it to anyone, it’s his following and so what? They already think the whole “deep state” is down on him.


#349

Does this make sense to you?


#350

In the minds of liberals, its probably racist too. :wink:


#351

I have to admit that I’ve grumbled about it more than once. And I’ve had posts of mine removed recently that I’ve scratched my head about. But it’s not MY show nor is it YOURS. We have to play by their rules.


#352

Millie Weaver?

A “journalist”?

The same Mille Weaver who thinks if a company is publicly traded, that means they’re a public company and therefore are bound by the 1st Amendment?

THAT Millie Weaver?


#353

I can think of a couple big reasons some people might support Millie Weaver…


#354

1st Amendment does not apply here, dude.

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


#355

Right wingers are easy.


#357

Of course it makes perfect sense.


#358

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.


#359

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


#360

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.


#361

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?