Writes Glenn Reynolds. Here's the footnote, which deals with something I've written about on this blog a lot over the years:
* Note that I say “free speech” and not “First Amendment.” The First Amendment only limits government, but “free speech” is — or at least until very recently was — a broader social value in favor of not shutting people up just because we don’t like their ideas or politics. As for the “private companies can do what they want,” well, that’s not the law, or the custom, and hasn’t been for a long time. It’s especially not true where the companies have, as these companies have, affirmatively represented to users and shareholders that they don’t discriminate based on viewpoints.Here's a post from last March where I collected a lot of my older posts about free speech values extending beyond the rights we hold against government.
Glenn writes "Were I Jones, I’d file an antitrust suit." Is Jones working on that? He said (via MacDailyNews):
I’ve had a lot of top lawyers call me today and say, “Alex, we need to sue Apple. We need to sue all these groups that clearly are involved in cut and dry antitrust activities, working with other companies to delist you and block you from the marketplace of ideas, so, then when they demonize you, you don’t have a way to respond to them and they can destroy you and then, with that model, move on against everybody else.”
643 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 643 of 643I have noticed that journalism in USA don't seek facts but "official words" with predilection for certain *official* and they've a following.
Just broke 600. Need to go back and read the previous page or so 400-600) to see if it was just the usual insults, or someone actually said anything of interest.
Making free speech all about this Alex Jones figure is an attempt at normalizing censorship and making free speech seem weird and vaguely threatening.
Same as foisting Trump on the Republican Party.
Undeniably, the media played a role in Trump's win. Now they're upping the ante. "How can we make free speech seem ridiculous and crazy?"
This shows what they really think about free speech. They're using their power to define this issue by painting it in the worst light possible.
Hopefully this will backfire just as last time.
the D's lost the whole south to the R's once the right keyed in on KKK dogwhistles
Democrats had the South only because of their subversion of local and state government to enforce Jim Crow. Once that benefit ended Southerners were forced to make political decisions on other criteria. Over time the Dems hostility to religion and love of centralized control became more and more overwhelming pushing more Southerners to the Republicans.
The far left hangs on the "Southern Strategy" because they need to distract from their unpopular governing philosophy and this method both tars Republicans and hides their own complicity.
Interesting article in Wired about cracks appearing in the CDA section 230 Safe Harbor: THE MOST IMPORTANT LAW IN TECH HAS A PROBLEM
The article discusses the origin of the law a bit, points out that it is a significant part of why tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, etc have been so successful, but has recently has been showing cracks in it's effectiveness. One fairly recent loss was with San Francisco suing AirBnb for essentially posting advertisements for illegal rentals.
I took a look at around 550 after we got back from the D'Souza movie. Not bad.
He sure doesn't like Democrats. I don't blame him after he was prosecuted and imprisoned for doing what Rosie O'Donnell and half of Hollywood do all the time.
Patrick Henry said...
"I believe Glenn Reynolds also coined "Make the left live by their own rules...""
He's correct there, so, if they take out Alex Jones, take out Gwyneth Paltrow. Don't try to defend Jones.
Howard said...
Since Jones banned by private companies and the free markets know best how to choke out waste and inefficiency using invisible hands, conservatives just need to bootstrap up their own google, facebook, twitter... problem solved.
8/7/18, 9:48 PM
Since you don't believe anything you just said, what really DO you think?
Antitrust has been mentioned several times in previous comments. The major law in this area is the Sherman Antitrust Act, which allows the federal govt and private parties to sue for two different types of things, with prevails civil plaintiffs being entitled to treble damages. Section 1 prohibits anticompetitive agreements, and Section 2 prohibits what is known as "monopolization", which is essentially anticompetitive behavior made possible or effective through monopoly power. The Microsoft EULA that I was asked to look at arguably ran afoul of Section 2, as well as the Clayton Antitrust Act, that prohibits tying, among other things.
Here though, we are essentially talking about an anticompetitive agreement, and, thus, a potential Sherman Section 1 violation. If I were a potential plaintiff's lawyer here, I would probably start by analogizing with price fixing, which is, essentially, an agreement among competitors to maintain artificially high prices. If any one competitor cuts his prices, he could usually expect to gain customers from his competitors who didn't. This is how a competitive market works. But if the big companies in a market get together and agree not to cut prices, or to raise them together, they can avoid this, thus generating higher profits, at the expense of consumers. In this case, if one big platform banned someone, then they and their followers could go elsewhere, taking business away from the platform that banned him. But, this doesn't work, if the major platforms operate in common, all banning him at the same time thus, the platforms can maintain market share despite their deplatforming of specific conservatives.
A smoking gun would be nice to find - for example, representatives of the various platforms agreeing in some forum to coordinate their banning of specific conservatives. But that isn't always required - sometimes the mere correlation of actions can be used to imply causation. Sometimes not - such as how airlines are able to legally coordinate prices despite high correlation. In their case, the coordination utilizes a public dance where one company may cut its prices, and watch to see if their price cuts are matched. If the price cuts aren't matched by competitors, when they don't stick, the original company cutting prices will likely raise them back up. Etc. But here, there doesn't seem to be the backing down when one company acts, and the others do not. Instead, you mostly just have them all deplatforming the same people at the same time.
It should be interesting. As I noted above, these companies picked poorly in the last election, working for, and contributing to, Crooked Hillary, and not Trump, so can't expect a lot of sympathy there. And treble damages, plus attorneys' fees make private antitrust litigation potentially very lucrative.
A correction on Twitter:
They did NOT ban or suspend Jones.
Ceo jack dorsey said yesterday thatIF he violates term of service they might but tha so far he has not.
Jones or Infowars yesterday. We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified. Truth is we’ve been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past. We’re fixing that. We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories,” Dorsey wrote in a series of tweets.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/jack-dorsey-says-twitter-wont-be-joining-the-infowars-mob-will-only-suspend-the-outlet-if-they-actually-violate-rules/
John Henry
Didn't Google apple and others run afoul of Sherman a few uears ago when they colluded to fix wages and salareis?
John Henry
He[Jones] has admitted - in court - it's all a scam. He did so to try and keep his kids because, if he didn't, he was going to lose them for what?
Crack, just for the record – could you provide a link for Alex Jones’s court admission? I’ve looked and the closest thing I can find is here and all it refers to is Jones’s on-air persona and NOT his Sandy Hook musings or any other controversial issues on which he has held forth. By that standard every politician or talking head on cable are also guilty – because of course they ALL have on-air personas.
And if you cannot provide a link does that make you a liar?
Inga posted: You people don’t have the moral right to even utter the name of Martin Niemoller after Trump’s scandal of stealing children from their parents and the hateful way you despicable people reacted to it.
Inga, you don't have the moral right to even utter the name of Donald J. Trump after Obama;s scandal of stealing children from their parents and the hateful way you despicable people reacted to it
grackle said...
"Crack, just for the record – could you provide a link for Alex Jones’s court admission? I’ve looked and the closest thing I can find is here and all it refers to is Jones’s on-air persona"
What are we talking about BUT his on-air persona?
grackle said...
"By that standard every politician or talking head on cable are also guilty – because of course they ALL have on-air personas."
You say that like there's something bad in that - what part of "Fantasyland" aren't you grasping yet? There's been a web of lies constructed. Y'all live in it - comfortably, apparently - where Ellen talks about psychics and Oprah says The Secret is science and Alex Jones rattles on about his shit and you're all crazy.
I don't see a problem with saying so, except you're also vindictive cultists who hate being told, or admitting, you can't think and are constructing a prison of insanity.
But Crack – you implied Jones lied about Sandy Hook when Jones was simply mistaken. Badly mistaken but only mistaken – not lying.
So it seems YOU were also mistaken – does that mean you are a liar?
What are we talking about BUT his on-air persona?
If on-air personas are truly what you were referring to I am wondering how you have kept your sanity – since every single time you click on a podcast or turn on a TV you are confronted with an on-air persona. From Jake Tapper to Chris Wallace on through every commercial spokesperson – they ALL have on-air personas. Everyone in media has an on-air persona. Why single out Jones?
grackle said...
"But Crack – you implied Jones lied about Sandy Hook when Jones was simply mistaken. Badly mistaken but only mistaken – not lying.
So it seems YOU were also mistaken – does that mean you are a liar?"
Bullshit. I was never so specific and can't find "Sandy Hook" in anything I wrote. (You ASSUMED I did that - a sign of weak mental skills) Alex Jones isn't mistaken about anything. He's just like Gwyneth Paltrow: show them they're wrong and they demand you "bring your A game". They're bullshit artists.
Have you ever read "On Bullshit" by Henry Frankfurt?
It's much more dangerous than mere lying,...
Why can't you guys admit you want us to live in a world of confusion? With people talking about "karma" and astrology and whatnot - as you send in the cops to maintain order among people believing nonsense.
You definitely want THAT more than a land of reason and logic.
Why can't you guys admit you want us to live in a world of confusion?
The world is especially confusing for people who believe things that aren't true. Confusion results from watching the world not conform to expectations. When this happens reasonable people review their expectations.
At least he didn't say "you people" because that would be racist.
I was never so specific and can't find "Sandy Hook" in anything I wrote.
I’m glad you have clarified because many of the comments were about the terrible things Jones has supposedly said on air about various subjects. I can think of nothing else – certainly not his on-air persona – that would bring about Jones’s castigation other than his comments on controversial subjects like Sandy Hook. I suppose that is due to my lack of imagination. I never dreamed you meant all along that you were enraged about Jones’s on-air persona.
Since you have cleared that up for me I am now wondering about your rage about Jones’s on-air persona. Since virtually every individual in the public eye has an on-air persona it seems unreasonable for you to insist that the rest of us share your anger for something so commonplace. In fact it seems kind of ridiculous to me that anyone would condemn anyone else for their on-air persona. Do you rail about Chris Wallace in the same way?
Rick said...
"The world is especially confusing for people who believe things that aren't true."
Right, like the Republican Party's 2012 autopsy DIDN'T say the party was racist - not blacks - so there's nothing they have to do but keep suggesting more cops will help. Or karma.
"Confusion results from watching the world not conform to expectations."
Right - expectations set in school - that said an education was worth something, when it would really be immediately abandoned afterwards, for a bunch of freaks in love with themselves and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
"When this happens reasonable people review their expectations."
Right. I can't expect freaks to be anything but freaks, so when they kill each other, I should salute the flag at football games.
"At least he didn't say "you people" because that would be racist."
What's that word mean?
grackle said...
"Do you rail about Chris Wallace in the same way?"
I haven't caught Chris Wallace deliberately lying to me.
Green party spoiler candidate....says his ancestors were from another planet
Wallow in an American education, People.
@Crack, sorry I went to bed too early to respond back to you. You wrote that there is an objective truth, which is mostly true. Sometimes objective truth is only obvious years later. That’s the charitable response. The less charitable response is that some people, Nancy Pelosi comes to mind, find it politically expefient to spin the truth until it’s unrecognizable.
But let’s suppose that there was some “objective” oracle we could turn to in order to know truth. Who from this commentariat would you turn to? Ritmo? Inga? Yourself? What Ritmo and Inga regard as “free speech and objective truth” is hate speech and bullshit to the rest of us. And some of your ideas are, well, cracked. Based on 30+ years as a government contractor and 45 years living in the Washington metropolitan area, I assure you that proposing the government as the arbiter of objective truth is a nonstarter.
So the choice is free speech for all, messy as it is and with nasty side effects, or censorship by people with an axe to grind. I’ll take the former 100% of the time.
Don't try to defend Jones.
I don’t know what Alex Jones wrote, nor do I care. I do not defend what he wrote; I defend his right to write it without fear of being censored.
If you dislike the dethroning of Alex Jones, then you like the chaos and fraud...
Really? Maybe I think CNN, which is more widely distributed, fits that description better than Alex Jones. CNN lies all day, revels in chaos and (unlike Infowars) is forced on travelers in airports everywhere. I’d kick ‘em ALL off social media, CBSABCFOXNBCNPRNYT, all of them. There are no real journalists among them that she’s out facts. They all parrot the propaganda or antipropAganda, whichever is their tilt. The reasons given for othering Infowars fit so many bad actors I can’t see how they can justify banning based on “lies.”
I assume that you also very much hope that Colin Kaepernick's lawsuit succeeds? Why haven't you mentioned that?
I haven't caught Chris Wallace deliberately lying to me.
Fair enough – except I need a few examples of Alex Jones deliberately lying. All I’ve seen is an on-air persona in love with conspiracy theories and outlandish ideas. But “deliberately lying?” Nothing so far but perhaps you will have better luck.
Big Mike said...
“let’s suppose that there was some “objective” oracle we could turn to in order to know truth.”
That’s not what I’m saying. I teach my friends I’m right by telling them not to trust me. I tell them to listen to what I say, and then wait until the subject comes up elsewhere, two or three times, and check me against that. They always come back saying, “You were right.”
I don’t know why the rest of you have such a hard time telling right from wrong, or true from untrue, but, I think, my life in Foster Care just gave me a really good antenna as a survival tactic - I didn’t have parents or siblings to spin lies for me, and so, had to rely on learning to read people.
We could cross reference info enough to figure out enough that Americans could at least speak coherently on our history and such things. We’re a young country. This is NOT rocket science.
I don’t know why the rest of you have such a hard time telling right from wrong, or true from untrue, but, I think, my life in Foster Care just gave me a really good antenna as a survival tactic - I didn’t have parents or siblings to spin lies for me, and so, had to rely on learning to read people.
I don’t. But I grew up in the school of hard knocks myself, and in a time when the best teachers made a point of exposing us to multiple perspectives and teaching us to sort through conflicting claims. IMAO, today’s education establishment is part of the edifice of untruth. That won’t be easily fixed and won’t be fixed soon.
Hell, I went to the library and got the Encyclopedia of Slavery - two huge volumes - and read it three times. Why it isn't mandatory reading in this country is a mystery. It's a GREAT story that makes you kinda proud, in weird ways. But, most importantly, it puts a lot of what happens today in context - when you see angry whites behaving the same way, through history, with the same arguments - then you might be humbled a little. You got your favorite blacks? Whites always have. It's never meant they were right.
Ignorance is our problem now. And we don't need ignorant cops to solve that.
Big Mike said...
"I don’t know what Alex Jones wrote, nor do I care. I do not defend what he wrote; I defend his right to write it without fear of being censored."
Jesus Christ, Man, draw the line somewhere - y'all do for blacks enough. You claim to hate crime, well, force Trump to get the Federal Trade Commission to go after him. Stop the fraud, and the lying, and putting money in the pockets of people determined to do us harm. Alex Jone is about one thing: deliberate misinformation.
My God, the Greatest Generation sure didn't raise men with any sense of responsibility to this place. They would run the snake oil salesmen out of town. No talk of free speech.
They weren't altogether fools.
Mike said...
If you dislike the dethroning of Alex Jones, then you like the chaos and fraud...
Really? Maybe I think CNN,..."
I don't know why there's no demand for a whole slew of journalists to be fired. Anyone who declared they can't be objective anymore - gone. Showboaters like Jim Acosta? Gone.
Y'all playing too nice.
"force Trump to get the Federal Trade Commission to go after him"
Man, I would love for Trump to act out the caricature the left has made of him.
Crack down on free speech
Begin malicious arrests and prosecutions
Arrest Hillary, Obama, Holder in the middle of the night...
Do it for a week end, then say "Just Kidding"
@Crack, I did draw the line somewhere. You just don't like where I drew it.
Big Mike said...
@Crack, I did draw the line somewhere. You just don't like where I drew it.
You drew the line at ripping people off.
No, I don't like that.
ullMoon said...
Man, I would love for Trump to act out the caricature the left has made of him.
Crack down on charlatans and criminals
Begin malicious arrests and prosecutions of psychics and "healers"
Arrest Hillary, Opraa, Gwyneth, JZ Knight, Shirley MacLaine in the middle of the night...
Yup. Always keep going. There's always a "worst" person on the Internet. Get rid of Alex. Then get rid of the new "worst" guy. Then get rid of the new "worst" guy after him. Then...
Once we're done, the only person allowed to say anything in public will be a single cloistered Bhikkhuni, somewhere in the Himalayas.
Damn. I think I just burned up my scroll wheel.
Yeah. I'm mystified why people were welcoming CE back with open arms.
He's not as obnoxiously stupid as Ritmo, but the result is the same.
Scroll, scroll and scroll some more.
I'm mystified why people were welcoming CE back with open arms.
I suspect people keep hoping he'll grow out of his racism.
Maybe Crack can explain this case.
The son of a police chief. Would reparations help ?
Post a Comment