Fair enough. Although I fear this case will do nothing to stop them.
Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?
- Thread starter existentialist
- Start date
Fair enough. Although I fear this case will do nothing to stop them.
editor
hiraethified
And let's not forget how our very own Badger Kitten suffered at the hands of 7/7 conspiracy cunts.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I'll agree with that. The amounts awarded are within the "cost of doing business" realm when you have a net worth in the hundreds of millions.
Spandex
A crazy bulbous punchbag of sound
A half-baked thought:
Back when I was a lad 'freedom' seemed the preserve of the 'left', the 'alternative'. Freedom from stupifying conservative social mores, freedom to dress how you want, be who you want, say what you want, have sex with who you want, take what drugs you want.
We wanna be free, we wanna be free to do what we wanna do
And we wanna get loaded and we wanna have a good time
A lot of young people were drawn to 'alternative' culture, to left leaning politics by the do what you wanna do ethos, the social liberalism (even if class based politics was often absent).
Thirty or forty years later social liberalism is dominant. Young liberal/soft left types I know are all about identity politics, using the right language, you should say this, you can't say that. They can appear to people outside of their bubble po-faced and censorious. The right are now the ones going on about freedom; the freedom to offend, to attack 'wokeness', to react against social liberalism. They've taken the language of freedom that used to be underpinned by ideas of peace, love, unity & respect and use the same arguments, only underpinned by aggression, hate, division & contempt.
The right promote the idea that they are the alternative, that they are about doing what you wanna do. Liberals have struggled with this, reacting to 'free speech' reactionary provocations with 'you can't say that' or serious faced lectures which do nothing to disprove notions that they're killjoys telling people what to think. The right have tried, with some success, to claim the concept of 'freedom' for themselves.
I think Alex Jones' popularity has been built on this kind of don't tell me what to say freedom of thought - freedom from the constraints of decency or reality; opposed to and a reaction against the socially liberal consensus, which neo-liberal states have adopted in a top down way.
Like I say, this is a half-baked thought and I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but the last few pages of this thread have made it pop into my brain...
Back when I was a lad 'freedom' seemed the preserve of the 'left', the 'alternative'. Freedom from stupifying conservative social mores, freedom to dress how you want, be who you want, say what you want, have sex with who you want, take what drugs you want.
We wanna be free, we wanna be free to do what we wanna do
And we wanna get loaded and we wanna have a good time
A lot of young people were drawn to 'alternative' culture, to left leaning politics by the do what you wanna do ethos, the social liberalism (even if class based politics was often absent).
Thirty or forty years later social liberalism is dominant. Young liberal/soft left types I know are all about identity politics, using the right language, you should say this, you can't say that. They can appear to people outside of their bubble po-faced and censorious. The right are now the ones going on about freedom; the freedom to offend, to attack 'wokeness', to react against social liberalism. They've taken the language of freedom that used to be underpinned by ideas of peace, love, unity & respect and use the same arguments, only underpinned by aggression, hate, division & contempt.
The right promote the idea that they are the alternative, that they are about doing what you wanna do. Liberals have struggled with this, reacting to 'free speech' reactionary provocations with 'you can't say that' or serious faced lectures which do nothing to disprove notions that they're killjoys telling people what to think. The right have tried, with some success, to claim the concept of 'freedom' for themselves.
I think Alex Jones' popularity has been built on this kind of don't tell me what to say freedom of thought - freedom from the constraints of decency or reality; opposed to and a reaction against the socially liberal consensus, which neo-liberal states have adopted in a top down way.
Like I say, this is a half-baked thought and I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but the last few pages of this thread have made it pop into my brain...
Dom Traynor
Tino Pai
I don't know why people are engaging with convicted pedophile Knotted in this thread.
Dom Traynor I'm obviously not going to file a lawsuit against you but I have said I support the right of moderators to moderate. Did you really have to go there mate?
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
What's the problem with him going there?
JimW
支那暗杀团
First Amendment specialist finds Jones' behaviour perplexing but no quotes about how this puts us on top of a slippery slope:
apnews.com
How Alex Jones' bombastic behavior impacts him in court
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones bulled through the first of several trials against him that could decimate his personal fortune and media empire in his usual way: loud, aggressive and talking about conspiracies both in and out the courtroom.
apnews.com
It's pretty clearly frivolous "to make a point" so it's not exactly a huge deal but I don't think that subject matter is the matter of comedy he thinks it is.
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
I don't think it's funny, I don't think Dom Traynor is trying to be funny. Obviously he is making a point, it's almost as extreme as Alex Jones saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
At least twice you didn't answer this - you've finally answered it and you're quite correct, it wouldn't be legitimate free speech - so why should what Jones spewed out be protected under free speech?
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
It's a lie,
But:
So this twice you have been unhappy about other people's free speech toward yourself. If I get this right, someone can lie as long as the subject of that lie is not you?Knotted said:
If not please explain the rules of free speech in reference to saying lies about you and why this shouldn't apply to everyone else.
I do think that the general consensus of the last few pages is not that the problem was Alex Jones calling Sandy Hook a hoax, but the way he went about it, the incitement, his villification of the parents etc.
I have said I don't believe free speech is an absolute. I've even given qualified defence of defamation laws. So this is all a bit boring.
The problem with this pile on is that it means I'm now dominating the discussion, and really I'm quite happy to take a step back, and let others speak. We're sort of at the fruitless stage now.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
But you have defended one of the most despicable people in the world's right to free speech and that lying is fine. As soon as lies are pointed at yourself it's a problem and you start backtracking and complaining about others' right to free speech. so I repeat my last question: please explain the rules of free speech in reference to saying lies about you and why this shouldn't apply to everyone else.
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
Well maybe you should have considered that when you first posted without reading the thread.
You have caused this and now its getting hot in the kitchen you want to leave?
My position was laid out in the very post. There's questions of defamation, there's questions of harassment and incitement and yes we can certainly consider those. My understanding is that the trial hinged on the claim that Sandy Hook was a hoax. This should be protected under free speech. He was even made to state in court that it wasn't a hoax. I find this alarming. You should too.
I don't mind staying but I'm conscious that I'm now dominating the thread.
David Clapson
Well-Known Member
Please someone apply all these arguments to Fox News. Their lies have caused more harm to more people. They've helped to incite riots, murders, oppression, prejudice, hate...
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
That he was made to tell the truth in court to the jurors is alarming?
That would be fine if we were talking about events he was involved in. It's not like he would be saying he did something when in reality he did something else. This is a take on news events. That a court can demand under penalty of perjury that you take a certain position on news events is indeed alarming.
edit: I am reconsidering wrt to Yuwipi Woman 's posts
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
You're fine with holocaust denial? Just a 'take' on news events?
I'm not "fine" with people calling Sandy Hook a hoax. But as it happens I do think holocaust denial should be legal. Free speech issues aside, its illegality hardly stops it.
editor
hiraethified
Same could be said for Facebook and other social media giants. They're a despicable bunch or profiteers.
editor
hiraethified
Makes people think twice before posting up harmful lies designed to inspire hate and violence though.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
But this isn't just Holocaust denial (can't believe I wrote that) as a single thing or position. To continue the analogy, it's that plus encouraging harassment and attacks on anyone that says they had someone murdered in the Holocaust, and then some specific individuals have had their lives ruined by these attacks and harassment, and someone has encouraged and enabled that from the very start for money and political capital. To then say, 'Oh it's free speech to be able to deny that happened' is massively missing the point.
Similar threads
