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.
He’s flailing.
So, Odd because it’s leftist hate that’s got him banned. Hate is what the left stands for these days…
This isn’t a matter of free speech. No one has stopped Alex Jones from spouting his nonsense. A few companies have chosen not to associate themselves with him. Does Rush let liberals spout their rhetoric on his radio show everyday? Does Sean?
You’re missing his point.
Is this message board your platform?
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.
That’s just your excuse for accepting censorship…
Not suprised you are an Alex Jones cultist, but still pretty sick!
For someone who claims to be as smart and well learned as yourself, you have a disappointingly sad understanding of what free speech is. How embarassing.
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.
You didn’t go on the tour when you got here? I particularly liked the forum where we got free Amazon e-gift ‘cards’ . I ordered a new laptop and still had enough left over for a kindle paperwhite reader.
1 Like
Don’t worry Cratic, I am sure you can buy a hamm radio and get your fill of gay frog conspiracies and mocking of Sandy Hook, to your hearts content.
1 Like
Sounds like those California laws that tried to give abortion clinics the right to advertise abortion inside an anti-abortion clinic and on every anti-abortion clinic billboard.
SCOTUS caught you and said no.
Yep… you got me.
I as the one behind it.
Sorry.
Stop trying to couch this in terms of freeberty. No amount of Jones’ Tactical Wipes can clean that level of horse ■■■■■
1 Like
Has his official website been removed? Then he’s lost nothing. Facebook, like this website, has the freedom to do what they want.
No it hasn’t. You don’t have absolute freedom here. You never have. I don’t know what you’re complaining about.
1 Like
But of course we’ll hear a reason why that’s not true. 
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.
