Apple removes Alex Jones and Infowars podcast from iTunes

[zantax]

@madasheck

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Cratic3947

@Jezcoe

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.

[madasheck]

@zantax

@madasheck

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Cratic3947

@Jezcoe

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.

No, it’s not since leaflets can be tossed in the garbage and are in essence dead. Podcasts and webpage have a longer life. He still has the right to go write a book and publish his garbage in print.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@madasheck

@Cratic3947

Large corporations censoring the people and libs love it…Amazing!

@Call_me_Ishmael

What the hell are libs going to do? Rarely did I see a conservative (old timey or new) reference Infowars. It was always libs.

Libs … do you feel like you lost some little bit of joy?

Yeah, you two go ahead and try and blame liberals. No one else is.

Hey…I’m not blaming anyone. I just said you libs are gonna lose a good whipping boy.

[zantax]

@madasheck

@zantax

@madasheck

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Cratic3947

@Jezcoe

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.

No, it’s not since leaflets can be tossed in the garbage and are in essence dead. Podcasts and webpage have a longer life. He still has the right to go write a book and publish his garbage in print.

No sorry, if they invite the public at large to distribute speech on their private business site I see no reason that they cannot have free speech protections forced on them the same way that mall did. Go read the ruling if you haven’t already.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@madasheck

@zantax

@madasheck

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Cratic3947

@Jezcoe

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.

No, it’s not since leaflets can be tossed in the garbage and are in essence dead. Podcasts and webpage have a longer life. He still has the right to go write a book and publish his garbage in print.

No sorry, if they invite the public at large to distribute speech on their private business site I see no reason that they cannot have free speech protections forced on them the same way that mall did. Go read the ruling if you haven’t already.

Then go fight for that.

I disagree with that ruling.

[zantax]

Settled law, stare decisis

[Steel-W0LF]

I think this could be a problem, but I am unsure as to the solution…

The problem is that in today’s day and age, even though they are private companies, social media is a huge way many people communicate.

It would be like back in the “Bell” days of telephones if the phone company was deciding who you were allowed to call, and when you were allowed to do it.

[goodbyte]

@Jezcoe

Then go fight for that.

Seems a weird case to use as defense anyway. The hippy California Constitution is actually more broader than the US Constitution’s first amendment.

[party-free]

@zantax

Ask Pruneyard shopping mall

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74

I don’t think this case would stand as precedent for a number of reasons. Besides the fact that the mall was allowed to make “reasonable recommendations,” (which, in my opinion, includes having the option to remove from your platform a man who claims that the children who died at Sandy Hook were child actors), but the breadth of the internet, versus the Pruneyard case being about states being able to broaden their rights beyond the constitution (provided they don’t violate the constitution). I find the idea that the highest court in the land would find that privately hosted web space on the internet can be compelled to host content that it has determined violates its own guidelines a bit unlikely compared to what was found in Pruneyard case, especially given that Jones has been spreading his own content with ease long predating the explosion of social media.

[sglazier456]

Infowars has been banned from all major platforms along with Ron Paul and it seems Drudge is next and maybe foxnews

[NebraskaFootball]

@sglazier456

Infowars has been banned from all major platforms along with Ron Paul and it seems Drudge is next and maybe foxnews

Okay? What’s your point?

[Auto129]

Jones’ fans should boycott social media.

[Keyser_Soze]

It’s a long overdue move by the companies that allowed Alex Jones to spread hate and lies.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[sglazier456]

The point is the Left in big tech are censoring conservative voices. even if you do not like Jones or drudge or Ron Paul they are being censored for supporting Trump. None of the statements put out gave any specifics. Yes they are private companies but they also holdmonopolies. Monopolies that we should boycott. Oh I forgot to mention Apple whacked him too

[NebraskaFootball]

@sglazier456

The point is the Left in big tech are censoring conservative voices. even if you do not like Jones or drudge or Ron Paul they are being censored for supporting Trump. None of the statements put out gave any specifics. Yes they are private companies but they also holdmonopolies. Monopolies that we should boycott. Oh I forgot to mention Apple whacked him too

Not a fan of capitalism I guess? What are you suggesting should be done about it? You mention boycotting these sites. Is that what you are asking people to do? Anything more?

[Keyser_Soze]

Alex Jones and Ron Paul have NO right to use the social media platforms to spread their hate and lies.

If they want to do that, then they should join the highly successful Conservapedia and build their own platform to spread lies and hate.

[JayJay]

Are you sure you want to be comparing FoxNews and Drudge to InfoWars?

Hell…even most ardent leftists would agree there’s a huge gulf there.

[PizzaReverend]

Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plaugis the Wise?

[dantes]

When it comes to content, there are monopolies on the internet.

It’s what makes it so great.

[JayJay]

Oh wow- now you actually want to CLAIM Alex Jones as a conservative voice?

Hoo boy! Even most ardent conservatives wouldn’t do that.