The Libs got to control everything and everybody.

First The Libs came for "The Conspiracy Theorists", then they came for "The Right". Then the Libs started eating their own, like they always do ...

Tech giants Facebook, Apple, YouTube ditch controversial Infowars star Alex Jones

[www.foxnews.com]

Controversial Infowars star Alex Jones' removal from Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify over the past 24 hours, prompting even some of the bomb thrower's staunch critics to voice censorship concerns.

Jones is a notorious conspiracy theorist who has been widely criticized for a variety of outlandish and polarizing content including discredited claims about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Apple removed Jones’ podcasts on Sunday and then YouTube and Facebook both declared on Monday that he was violating their terms and policies with his rhetoric. Spotify also removed all episodes of “The Alex Jones Show” from its service. Jones quickly became one of the top trends across social media with critics celebrating that he was pulled from the tech giants and others coming to his defense -- sort of.

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell echoed many pundits, stating that, while Jones is not to be taken seriously, censoring him could result in further actions against people that aren’t accepted by the mainstream media.

“I don’t support Alex Jones and what Infowars produces. He’s not a conservative. However, banning him and his outlet is wrong.”

- Media Research Center President Brent Bozell
“I don’t support Alex Jones and what InfoWars produces. He’s not a conservative. However, banning him and his outlet is wrong. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s a dangerous cliff that these social media companies are jumping off to satisfy CNN and other liberal outlets,” Bozell said, presumably referring to recent push by CNN to have Info Wars removed from various platforms.

Bozell said that tech giants caving to CNN’s push “is part of a disturbing trend” that includes influential conservatives being muted on Twitter.

“Social media sites are supposedly neutral platforms, but they are increasingly becoming opportunities for the left and major media to censor any content that they don’t like,” Bozell said. “Conservatives are increasingly concerned that InfoWars is not the end point for those who want to ban speech. It’s just the beginning. We are rapidly approaching a point where censorship of opposing voices is the norm. That’s dangerous.”

The tech giants have said they won’t tolerate hate speech, and Jones was given the boot as a result. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro wrote that much “of what Jones and his employees say is absolutely rotten pig excrement,” but added that the term hate speech is too ambiguous.

“Trust in social media is declining nearly as fast as trust in media overall. There’s a reason for that. And it’s not because social media tolerates voices like Jones,” Shapiro wrote. “It’s because they don’t tolerate voices like Jones while tolerating voices who are just as bad on the political Left – and they show no signs of limiting their censorship to Alex Jones.”

Conservative strategist Chris Barron said that social media platforms are not trying to stop "hate speech" or clean up the toxic culture of social media.

“If they were, they would be hammering toxic folks on both sides. This is about silencing conservative voices. Period,” Barron told Fox News.

Many observers warned that “Big Tech” plans on additional censorship.

Media analyst Mark Dice tweeted, “Regardless what you think of him and Infowars, this is the equivalent of digital book burning and sets a horrifying precedent for mass censorship by Big Tech.”

Daily Wire reporter Michael Knowles wrote, “Conservatives should vigorously oppose Big Tech's censorship of Alex Jones. He may be a conspiratorial, frequently incoherent, shirtless vitamin salesman, but the Left sees no difference between him and William F. Buckley Jr. They're just establishing the principle to silence us.”

Yet another critic supported forums independently booting Jones, but decried want he called a "coordinated" effort.

"Alex Jones should have been kicked off outlets long ago---inciting and provoking violence is not protected free speech & outlets can kick vile creatures like Jones off if they want. BUT, this COORDINATED banishment of Jones by big social outlets creates dangerous slippery slope,” journalist Jordan Chariton tweeted.

Meanwhile, some users have taken to Twitter – where Jones still has an active account – to call for the Infowars star to be removed from that service, too.

This is amazing -

Infowars is Not Just Being Censored, Basic Business Infrastructure Now Being Stripped as MailChimp Bans Their Email

[www.thegatewaypundit.com]

Infowars is not just being censored now, in the latest Totalitarian move against the outlet, Mail Chimp and LinkedIn have also banned them from using their services.

The leftist Big Tech mob isn’t content with just censorship — they are now targeting the outlet’s basic business infrastructure.

In a statement to the far-left activist website Media Matters for America, the email service made an exception to their rule about commenting on individual users or accounts.

“MailChimp doesn’t generally comment on individual users or accounts, but we’ll make an exception today. MailChimp notified Infowars that their accounts have been terminated for violating our Terms of Service, which make it clear that we don’t allow people to use our platform to disseminate hateful content,” the statement began. “We take our responsibility to our customers and employees seriously. The decision to terminate this account was thoughtfully considered and is in line with our company’s values.”

BREAKING: MailChimp has also dropped Infowars. Jones just compared his deplatforming to being sent to an "electronic ghetto."

Infowars founder Alex Jones has compared the attacks to being sent to an “electronic ghetto.”

On Monday, Infowars was banned from Facebook, YouTube, and Pinterest as well as censored by Apple. The bans took place within hours of each other.

Banned Alex Jones *so far*—

iTunes
Spotify
Facebook
YouTube
MailChimp
Stitcher
Pinterest
LinkedIn

The coordinated attack on Infowars from liberal media and Silicon Valley has raised many concerns about who gets to be the gatekeepers of what views and opinions are allowed online.

Emboldened by Their Successful Deplatforming of Infowars — Democrats Start Push to Stamp Out FOX News

[www.thegatewaypundit.com]

On Monday Facebook caved to the leftist media mob demanding censorship of InfoWars and permanently banned their page.

Google-YouTube followed suit and also terminated the InfoWars Account.

The tech tyrants launched a coordinated attack on Alex Jones and Infowars.

But Democrats and their media already have their sights on a much bigger target

FOX NEWS–

Facebook scheduled a public event with reporters last month to promote the new Facebook Watch video feature.

The situation turned ugly when the invited “news reporters” screamed about Facebook allowing FOX News and Infowars on their platform.

Ricky Van Veen, Head of Global Creative Strategy and Fidji Simo, Director of Product at Facebook, had combative exchanges with reporters at an event to promote Facebook Watch in Beverly Hills on Wednesday. (Daily Mail)

The fact that far left “reporters” called on Facebook to ban FOX News from their platform was a new leap for the American left.

If Democrats and their mainstream media want FOX News eliminated from Facebook — the largest and most successful news organization in America today — then it is safe to say the American left wants ALL conservative publishers banned from the social media platform.

Democrat Senator Chris Murphy said as much yesterday.

And last weekend New York City communist Mayor Bill de Blasio discussed the role of FOX News on American culture and what a wonderful world it would be if there were no opposing voices to the Democrat Party’s insanity.

Didn’t Stalin do this?

As we have reported numerous times Facebook is already working overtime to eliminate conservative content from their platform.

A Gateway Pundit June study of top conservative news outlets found that Facebook has eliminated 93% of traffic to top conservative websites.




Facebook began eliminating conservative content after the 2016 election.

We have consistently seen the highest premium placed on protecting freedom of speech only when the speaker is white and conservative.

In a purely academic conversation, protecting free speech regardless of content seems to make sense. But free speech absolutism ignores the fact that, in reality, speech is not supported equally across all topics and platforms for everyone. This lens fails to consider the actual power dynamics at play and how society works in favor and support of those who uphold white supremacy and white fragility.

Often free speech concerns arise, as with Jones, in the context of those who want the freedom to express viewpoints that are not merely odious or unpopular but are also directly tied to the dehumanization and subjugation of others.

Through his lawyer, Jones has argued that he is a “performance artist” simply playing a character for money. He spends time selling random products and “supplements” in addition to spewing crazy theories and lies. He has victimized immigrants, Muslims and black Americans with conspiracy theories and misinformation, often stoking his followers to harass his targets online and in real life. Most famously, Jones is being sued for defamation by parents of a child killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The parents have had to move repeatedly because of him, and his lawyer is still trying to publicly reveal personal information about them, including their addresses. Up to now, the tech platforms said there was nothing they could do to stop him.

Commentators spill endless ink on protests against white conservatives on college campuses but raise no concerns about the harassment of journalists or death threats to progressive academics. This notion that we have to hear and defend all ideas to ensure the rights of others without any concern for the harms being done to marginalized communities is stupid.

Addressing this issue in the context of clashes between the “alt-right” and anti-fascist protesters in Berkeley, California, last year, Meleiza Figueroa wrote in The Nation, “This battle is emphatically not about free speech. This is about the ability to shape consensus in a time of rising mass anxiety and political extremism. The ‘power of framing,’ as linguist George Lakoff puts it, is everything.”

Color-blind, non-contextual or language-specific approaches to social media censoring by corporations like Twitter allows for the same consequential racial disparity. By perpetuating absolutist notions of free speech, it inherently positions hate speech by white supremacists as equal to or extremely similar to the speech and actions of marginalized communities. Whereas one might be inclined to see online censorship as separate from the laws and policies of real-life interactions, we must begin to see the ways they feed off of one another and create a persistent silencing of marginalized voices.

Springer argued that we need to shift beyond this purely academic discourse of absolute free speech and look at the real material conditions that end up reinforcing the status quo ? a status quo that disproportionately regulates and limits the actions of marginalized communities.

Considering how crucial social media platforms have become as alternative sources of building power and information, we cannot ignore how these entities determine who is permitted access. It is unsurprising that Twitter has decided to let Jones have a refuge on its platform. The site is perhaps the worst example of enabling the targeted harassment of vulnerable people while banning others for far lesser infractions. When pressured to actually do something about the hatred on the site, Jack Dorsey and his company have so far come up empty.

It is unsurprising that Twitter has decided to let Jones have a refuge on its platform.
Yet the message has been clear: They prioritize the right of people like Jones to broadcast misinformation and invective to their audiences over the right of marginalized people to be able to participate in the public discourse without threat or harassment. There is no value in this brand of free speech advocacy that will fight tooth and nail on principal for the unprincipled but stay silent about issues of platform and access that effectively deny equitable free speech to marginalized communities.

The protests over Jones’ banning aren’t about freedom of speech and making sure everyone has a say. This is about maintaining and sustaining white supremacy and power. This is about Jones and his ability to earn ridiculous amounts of money peddling falsehoods, inflaming hatred and selling junk. There is no absolute right to be a hateful grifter without accountability.

Jones and his ilk have built a media empire solely focused on maximizing wealth and opportunity without regard for the impact on society and marginalized communities. Those defending him disregard the attacks that have taken place against independent progressive voices and platforms.

Defending Alex Jones’ right to exist on commercial platforms is about protecting white fragility and a mediocre extreme. It has nothing to do with supporting the masses and our freedoms that may be compromised.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2018 11:34PM by riverhousebill.

Its no surprise this troll Jemifer suports Jones,

This out front racism has no place to hide.

Disgusting someone could back this racist moron Jones
and whine Free speech.

Ku Klux klan alive and well

Poor Alex Jones DEEP STATE OUT TO GET HIM so Sad Jenifer.
Just reading what his ex wife says the beatings ect. You sure your a women and not a bot?


“We’re at a point where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies. In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism, police-state measures that promise security, and mountains of debt that paint a picture of wealth. … No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a stormy reality and what’s behind the fantasy curtain.”

riverhousebill, its clear to me that you disagree with the First Amendment, and perhaps even the 2nd Amendment of the constitution. Are there other parts of the constitution you also disagree with?

Richard Dolan gave a good assessment of this censorship. I only listened to a part of it.
[youtu.be]

Rhb might cringe at Richard but he is an American historian

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Hate And dangerous speech is not free speech!


SHOULD THE FIRST AMENDMENT COVER RACISM AND HATE
Homepage Debates Politics Should The First Amendment Cover Racism And Hate Speech?
*Updated 2018
In America, should the First Amendment – which legally protects the freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly – be interpreted to include racism and hate speech as well? Or, should the First Amendment be understood as protecting Americans’ rights to speak and act, but within boundaries, which leaves racism and hate speech out of its protection?
Let’s examine why the First Amendment should and should not be interpreted to include racism and hate speech.


Racism and hate speech should be understood as protected by the First Amendment


Who draws the line?

If all speech is protected by the First Amendment, then there is less room for government restrictions. On the other hand, if we allow the government to regulate free speech, then we open the door for greater government involvement in every aspect of our lives. This, much like McCarthyism, which sought to eradicate values viewed as a threat to the American way of life, would wind up as a grandiose witch hunt and would likely hurt America in the long run.

Moreover, a democracy is not measured by its mainstream, law-abiding citizens. A democracy allows people to go out against its modes and norms. When we shut down what we are not comfortable hearing, that’s a dictatorship.



Why bother defending something indefensible?

It’s hard to stand up and defend the morally repugnant expressions of racists and haters. It is clear that what they are doing or saying is wrong. But, outlawing the rhetoric does not change the way people think. A look beyond the law is needed, and measures such as raising awareness, launching education programs and changing policy should be taken, to root out hate and teach tolerance.



Inciting a call to civil war

The First Amendment, as it is understood today, protects people’s right to say what they want, not do what they want. Free speech does not absolve people from responsibility for their actions. Aristotle believed that the law binds men together into a “cohesive and just community.” However, in today’s more Libertarian America, the law must be upheld as is to keep minimal order, without inciting more hatred and aggression. It is not unthinkable to assume that banning some voices by law would just make those voices fester in darkness, rather than disappear. Every action has a re-action, and excluding extreme voices might push people to a bigger clash than the one we are seeing.



Racism and hate-speech should not be protected by the First Amendment


The First Amendment should protect all

The U.S. Constitution aims to shape the American nation and give it character. It is the everlasting and timeless written spirit of the United States. Did the Founding Fathers think that racism should be included in the Constitution? It’s fairly self-evident that the answer is no. The First Amendment is not about speech, it is meant to ensure that those inhabiting America are safe and can express themselves as they see fit. American ethos is that of a melting pot; being multiracial is one of its core features. As such, all members of American society should be protected by the First Amendment – and safe from hate.



Words hurt – and infringe on our right to safety

Those who commit criminal acts are tried and sentenced. It goes without saying that those who commit hateful and racist acts or articulate slurs should be penalized as well. Hate speech is violent by nature and can cause direct and indirect physical and psychological harm. Professor Lisa Feldman Barrett of Northeastern University took a scientific approach to understanding how hate speech affects the human brain. She explained that “if words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then certain types of speech can be a form of violence.”

Words also create an atmosphere that incites physical harm, as evidenced in the systematic murdering of millions at the hands of the Nazis, made possible after propaganda laid the groundwork of hate. Some offensive remarks may seem harmless, but they can snowball into more volatile forms. Once speech reaches an extreme, it becomes too late to avoid its dangerous consequences.



A red line must be drawn for hateful speech and conduct

The purpose of law is not just to regulate bureaucracies, but also to establish common norms and values. On a dynamic issue such as free speech, where different interpretations have far-reaching implications on character and on the safety of its citizens, the law needs to take a stand. The government needs to draw a red line on principle against hatred and intolerance. The “value-neutral state,” i.e., a country which does not take a stand, as described by Jeremy Waldron in his influential book, is detrimental. If America is to remain the leader of the free world, tolerance, freedom and respect must be distinguished from hatred, racism and acts of violence.



Bottom line: Excluding racism and hate speech from the free speech protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution could cause the government to cross a line, and may actually incite more racism and hate. However, the Founding Fathers would have wanted everyone to be protected under this Amendment, and hate speech is threatening to people’s safety. How do you see it? Is the First Amendment there to protect free speech or American citizens? Should it include race and hate speech or

Quote
riverhousebill

Just reading what his ex wife says the beatings ect.

I've spent a lot of time today on google trying to find articles that Alex Jones 'beat' or just physically abused his wife. I can't find anything about physical abuse.

Please provide a link to Alex Jones physically abusing his wife.

**********

Quote
riverhousebill

Defend Alex Jones Racist, Wife beater, child abuser,

Again, I cannot find anything about Alex Jones beating - or physically abusing - his wife. And also I haven't seen anything about Alex Jones abusing his children.

Please provide a link to that.

(Don't use SPLC as a source because it's not a valid, reliable source)

**********

Also I saw his ex-wife said he was 'abusive', but not that he was physically abusive or even verbally abusive. So she was talking about emotional abuse which is subjective. Anyone can think or say anyone else is emotionally abusive if they look at them sideways, or roll their eyes or whatever. Emotional abuse does not count in this case.

"Beatings" are Physical Abuse. Prove to me that Alex Jones beat his wife or physically abused his wife.

Quote
riverhousebill

Hate And dangerous speech is not free speech!

So-called "hate" speech IS free speech and is protected under the Constitution. And 'hate' speech is subjective - who is to say what is and what isn't 'hate speech'.

[www.latimes.com]

“Hate speech is not free speech.”

This popular saying reflects our contempt for bigotry, but it's not a correct statement of law. There is no general 1st Amendment exception allowing the government to punish "hate speech" that denigrates people based on their identity. Things we call "hate speech" might occasionally fall into an existing 1st Amendment exception: a racist speech might seek to incite imminent violence against a group, or might be reasonably interpreted as an immediate threat to do harm. But "hate speech," like other ugly types of speech we despise, is broadly protected.

Quote
Prana
riverhousebill, its clear to me that you disagree with the First Amendment, and perhaps even the 2nd Amendment of the constitution. Are there other parts of the constitution you also disagree with?

Very funny Prana, selective free speech yeh

Remember way back in time political post started to be deleted?

Remember someone saying why delete why?

Someone responded because I can.

So now you are a advocate for the 1st admendment? why the change of heart?

2nd admendment you ask Prana -Im sorry but Im vegan dont like hunting or shooting people

Alex Jones’ Infowars Removed From Vimeo For Violating Terms Of Service
There’s a growing list of social media platforms taking a stand against Jones’ dubious claims.


Prana, Nobody violated Alex Jones 1st admendment rights.

Vimeo, Twitter, yahoo ect, have a right to remove jones from their sites
for Violations of their terms Just like you have censored topics on Raw Foods.com because of content. Get It ?

You only hear about censorship when a white surpremist is removed. HUM?

I hope you can take your blinders off and see your Hypocrisy.

So stop the horse @#$%& saying Im against 1st admendment rights!

Quote
Tai

Richard Dolan gave a good assessment of this censorship. I only listened to a part of it.
[youtu.be]

Rhb might cringe at Richard but he is an American historian

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Thanks, Tai. I listened to some of his opinion, also.

I didn't know there was a certificate in political ideologies. I wonder if he considers himself a conservative or libertarian or what.

"Dolan also received a certificate in political ideologies from Exeter College, Oxford."

And I think I've heard him and Linda Howe on CoastToCoast reporting on UFOs and Roswell.

Probably everybody who believes in the conspiracy theory of the existence of UFO's will be next to be censored...

Now Alex Jones say The Conservatve Purge has begun here we go more deep state


Alex Jones’ Infowars Removed From Vimeo For Violating Terms Of Service
There’s a growing list of social media platforms taking a stand against Jones’ dubious claims.


Prana, Nobody violated Alex Jones 1st admendment rights.

Vimeo, Twitter, yahoo ect, have a right to remove jones from their sites
for Violations of their terms Just like you have censored topics on Raw Foods.com because of content. Get It ?

You only hear about censorship when a white surpremist is removed. HUM?

I hope you can take your blinders off and see your Hypocrisy.

So stop the horse @#$%& saying Im against 1st admendment rights![/quote]

Quote
riverhousebill
Very funny Prana, selective free speech yeh

Remember way back in time political post started to be deleted?

Remember someone saying why delete why?

Someone responded because I can.

So now you are a advocate for the 1st admendment? why the change of heart?

2nd admendment you ask Prana -Im sorry but Im vegan dont like hunting or shooting people

The political stuff in the past was deleted because political post would always end up with people bickering and arguing and lots of bad feelings would ensue. Also, in your case, there was not just a discussion of ideas, but insulting people and criticizing the other posters, rather than the ideas. These ad hominem attacks make political post very unsafe for people. Now that the audience here has shrunken, I'm allowing political posts here again, but should these bad feeling and personal attacks continue, I will shut down the political posts again.

[youtu.be]

This is Alex supporting trump. Why was he banned? This isn't hate speech. Was it because of the sandy hook case?

I haven't watched much of Alex jones but the handful of videos were never racist. Why does RHB think he is a white supremacist?

[youtu.be]
I just found this response video of Alex. He said he apologized to the sandy hook families.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2018 06:38AM by Tai.

I visited Alex's website for the first time now. He claims Apple CEO Tim Cook spearheaded campaign to ban infowars. What is Tim Cook trying to censor?

[www.infowars.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2018 08:12AM by Tai.

Former Infowars staffers filed a formal complaint against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones alleging anti-Semitism, racism, and sexual misconduct
Michal Kranz Feb. 28, 2018, 6:25 PM
screen shot alex jones
Alex JonesScreenshot via #LoveRandom/YouTube
Conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder Alex Jones has been accused by two of his former employees of workplace harassment, racism, and sexual misconduct.
Jones allegedly called a Jewish former employee anti-Semitic names and repeatedly discriminated against a black former employee, whom he also allegedly groped.
Jones and Infowars have become influential outlets on the right, and Jones claims he has spoken to President Donald Trump several times since the 2016 election.
Alex Jones, the notorious host of the right-wing conspiracy website Infowars, has been accused of using anti-Semitic and racial slurs to refer to two of his former employees, including one woman who also claimed Jones "grabbed her behind," according to the Daily Mail.

One of the former employees, former video editor Rob Jacobson, who is Jewish, alleged that Jones bullied him repeatedly for his background, calling him anti-Semitic names like "The Jewish Individual," "The Resident Jew," and "Yacobson." The other employee, former production assistant Ashley Beckford, claimed Jones once grabbed her by her behind as he was giving her a hug, saying, "Who wouldn't want to have a black wife?"

Beckford, who is black, said Infowars was a toxic work environment.

"I also was subjected to harassment and racial slurs by Respondent's management and some peer colleagues, as well as subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile, sexually offensive work environment," Beckford said, referring to Jones.

Beckford also claimed she was called a "coon" by senior members of the staff and said she was actively treated differently than other employees because of her race.

"I was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, in comparison to my non-Black African-American peers, when it came to my salary/wages and benefits (travel), and in regards to my dress, including my hair style," Beckford stated.

Both former employees have already reportedly filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint against Jones. While Beckford had only joined the site's staff in June 2016, Jacobson had reportedly been working at Infowars for 13 years before being fired in May 2017.

Jones and Infowars emerged as powerful right-wing brands amid the 2016 presidential campaign and even helped to elect him, according to former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump, Roger Stone. They have continued to play an influential role in conspiracy circles, and Trump has reportedly used Infowars as a news source.

Jones claimed that Trump personally called him to thank him following his surprise electoral win in November 2016, and Jones said Trump spoke with him several times as recently as late 2017 and early 2018.

Infowars has pushed several prominent conspiracy theories over the years, including that the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 was a hoax, that the September 11, 2001 attacks were an inside job, and that former President Barack Obama was the global head of the terrorist group Al Qaeda.

I just found this response video of Alex. He said he apologized to the sandy hook families

Apologized WTF?


Alex Jones, Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods, Faces a Legal Crossroads
I
Alex Jones is being sued over Infowars’ spread of false claims that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., was an elaborate hoax.CreditTamir Kalifa/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated Press
By Elizabeth Williamson
July 31, 2018

719
AUSTIN, Tex. — In the five years since Noah Pozner was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., death threats and online harassment have forced his parents, Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner, to relocate seven times. They now live in a high-security community hundreds of miles from where their 6-year-old is buried.

“I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that, but we made the right decision,” Ms. De La Rosa said in a recent interview. Each time they have moved, online fabulists stalking the family have published their whereabouts.

“With the speed of light,” she said. “They have their own community, and they have the ear of some very powerful people.”

On Wednesday in an Austin courtroom, the struggle of the Sandy Hook families to hold to account Alex Jones, a powerful leader of this online community, will reach a crossroads. Lawyers for Noah Pozner’s parents will seek to convince a Texas judge that they — and by extension the families of eight other victims in the 2012 shooting that killed 20 first graders and six adults — have a valid defamation claim against Mr. Jones, whose Austin-based Infowars media operation spread false claims that the shooting was an elaborate hoax.

ADVERTISEMENT


The Pozner hearing is a bellwether in three cases, including another in Texas and one in Connecticut, filed by relatives of nine Sandy Hook victims. It comes as the social media platforms Mr. Jones relies upon to spread incendiary claims initiate efforts to curb him.

The day after the Pozner case, in the same courthouse, is a hearing in a separate defamation case against Mr. Jones brought by Marcel Fontaine, who was falsely identified on Infowars’ website as the gunman in the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February. Mr. Fontaine, who lives in Massachusetts, has never visited Florida. The Pozner family and Mr. Fontaine are being represented by Mark Bankston of Farrar & Ball, a law firm based in Houston.

You have 1 free article remaining.

Subscribe to The Times
Mr. Jones is trying to have the Pozner and Fontaine cases dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which protects citizens’ right to free speech against plaintiffs who aim to silence them through costly litigation. Mr. Jones is seeking more than $100,000 in court costs from the Pozner family. Efforts to reach Mr. Jones on his cellphone and through the Infowars email were unsuccessful. Mark Enoch, his lawyer in the case, did not respond to telephone and email requests for comment.

Mr. Jones has emerged as an avatar for a “post truth” ethos that flourished online during the last presidential campaign. He gained a national spotlight and millions of followers after Donald J. Trump appeared on his show during the campaign, praising his reputation as “amazing.” Since then, many of Mr. Jones’s bogus theories have targeted President Trump’s perceived adversaries and reflect opinions held by his political base.

Last week Mr. Jones broadcast a bizarre accusation that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, was involved in a child sex ring. In an online broadcast, Mr. Jones addressed Mr. Mueller while repeatedly imitating firing a handgun, saying: “It’s the real world. Politically. You’re going to get it, or I’m going to die trying.”

EDITORS’ PICKS

Love Filled Their Trip. On Day 369, ISIS Struck.

This Is the Way Paul Ryan’s Speakership Ends

‘Too Little Too Late’: Older Americans Are Facing Bankruptcy
ADVERTISEMENT


[What Is QAnon: Explaining the internet conspiracy theory that showed up at a Trump rally.]

Recent “most popular” stories on the Infowars website included “Marine Veteran, Man Wearing Trump Shirt Violently Attacked Near Trump Star in L.A.,” “Revealed: U.N. Plan to Flood America With 600 Million Migrants,” and “Left Protests ‘Racist’ Stand Your Ground Law After Black Man Shot in Self-Defense.”

On Friday, Facebook removed Mr. Jones’s personal page from the site for 30 days, citing “bullying” and “hate speech.” The company has yet to take any action against the Infowars Facebook page, despite pleas from Sandy Hook parents. Last week, YouTube removed four of Mr. Jones’s videos for violating its child endangerment and hate speech standards and barred him from live-streaming on the site for 90 days, though his channel remains a main source for his broadcasts.

Image
Veronique De La Rosa, whose 6-year-old son, Noah Pozner, was killed in the shooting, has had to relocate several times because of online harassment and death threats.CreditJessica Hill/Associated Press
The videos removed included one called “Prevent Liberalism,” in which a man chokes a child and throws him to the ground. Another one was called “Shock Report: Learn How Islam Has Already Conquered Europe.”

Mr. Jones and his lawyers say in court filings that the Pozner family’s suit is an effort “to silence those who openly oppose their very public ‘herculean’ efforts to ban the sale of certain weapons, ammunition and accessories, to pass new laws relating to gun registration and to limit free speech.”

That stance echoes Mr. Jones’s original false claims that Sandy Hook was staged by government-backed gun control activists. Mr. Jones’s lawyer says in court filings that Mr. Jones’s theories are opinion, which is more broadly protected by the First Amendment. He also maintains that Mr. Pozner and Ms. De La Rosa are public figures, because Mr. Pozner has created a nonprofit to combat the harm caused by online falsehoods and Ms. De La Rosa has advocated a ban on assault weapons, like the AR-15-style rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting.

If the parents are found to be public figures, they will have to prove actual malice, or that Mr. Jones knew the claims were false, but repeated them anyway.

ADVERTISEMENT


The Pozner family’s story is recounted in the court filings: In 2015, after Mr. Pozner succeeded in having an Infowars video taken down from Mr. Jones’s YouTube channel, “Mr. Jones went on an angry rant about me for nearly an hour,” Mr. Pozner said in an affidavit. Mr. Jones “also hosted a call with an obsessed fellow conspiracy theorist who issued a threat to me.”

“Mr. Jones then showed his audience my personal information and maps to addresses associated with my family,” the affidavit says.

Lucy Richards, an Infowars devotee, was arrested the next year for repeatedly threatening Mr. Pozner’s life. She was sentenced to five months in prison last year. As a condition of parole, a judge ordered that she cease consuming Infowars programming, the court documents state.

“This type of misinformation is a bit of a societal crisis,” Ms. De La Rosa said. “This isn’t someone on a soapbox in Times Square spewing nonsense. It’s someone who every day generates income from his demonstrably false utterances.”

Starting days after the shooting, Mr. Jones helped spread false claims that the Sandy Hook parents were “crisis actors” in a government conspiracy. A month after the shooting, he began broadcasting excerpts from Ms. De La Rosa’s interview with the CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, which was taped in front of the Edmond Town Hall in Newtown. Mr. Jones falsely claimed that the interview was taped in a studio before a “green screen.”

In an April 2017 Infowars broadcast titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,” according to the court documents, Mr. Jones aired the clip of Ms. De La Rosa’s interview, noting that when Mr. Cooper turns his head, “his nose disappears repeatedly because the green screen isn’t set right.” The Pozner filings include an affidavit from Grant Fredericks, a forensic video analyst and expert witness, in which he attributes the anomaly in the videotape to “postproduction compression,” common in video production, and said “no credible video professional, editor or web-content specialist would conclude” that the interview was taped in front of a screen.

In court filings responding to the Pozner suit, Mr. Jones’s lawyer says that “certain comments that he had previously made in connection with possible faking or staging events at the Sandy Hook shooting was not an accusation against the children or families, but against the media and government officials, whose actions led many to question the official version of the event.” The parents, the filing says, “isolate specific statements, take them out of context while ignoring other relevant portions, and misinterpret what was said.”

Ms. De La Rosa and Mr. Pozner will not appear in court on Wednesday, in part because of safety concerns.

Example of Prana hypocricy
Quote Homophobic slur by Prana- Obama Gay His wife a tranny




These ad hominem attacks make political post very unsafe

Does not apply to Prana yeh I get it dude.






















Maybe If Im censored here I could post on the thearte boa

Alex Jones a racist?


InfoWars is a den of racism and harassment: ex-staffers - New York Post
[nypost.com]...

Quote
Prana

Quote
riverhousebill
Very funny Prana, selective free speech yeh

Remember way back in time political post started to be deleted?

Remember someone saying why delete why?

Someone responded because I can.

So now you are a advocate for the 1st admendment? why the change of heart?

2nd admendment you ask Prana -Im sorry but Im vegan dont like hunting or shooting people

The political stuff in the past was deleted because political post would always end up with people bickering and arguing and lots of bad feelings would ensue. Also, in your case, there was not just a discussion of ideas, but insulting people and criticizing the other posters, rather than the ideas. These ad hominem attacks make political post very unsafe for people. Now that the audience here has shrunken, I'm allowing political posts here again, but should these bad feeling and personal attacks continue, I will shut down the political posts again.

I stopped posting in riverhousebill's threads and have been ignoring him since he told me to go kill myself.

He was mostly talking to himself here until I came along so you'd think he'd be grateful to have someone to debate rather than attacking us.

I know I rail against 'the libs' but no one personally on the board. I'd love to debate the various issues with a liberal. I know it's 'partisan', but that's the fun of it. It's divisive, but there are also many issues that we all can agree on. Like our dislike of Monsanto, Big Pharma, forced vaccinations, we're all anti-war probably, etc. And I don't even like Trump much or much of his policies.

No need for personal attacks.

RHB, that lawsuit of former employees doesn't sound convincing. People can allege anything. If jones was antisemitic, why would he have him on his staff for so many years? And even if he was racist, is infowars racist? Many people raised in racist environments are racist until they grow up and mature. I once taught at a black school and most of the kids were racist and I got called so many names. They changed when they got to know me.

I don't believe the conspiracy theories of sandy hook but I want the freedom to listen to all sides, such as the alleged second shooter.
Btw, regardless of Jones, masses of people on YouTube speculated on crisis actors for sandy hook. The man in this video was smiling before the interview and cried like an actor. Everyone on the internet thought it was so suspicious. Jones was big enough to sue but there are tons of videos from many individuals about this.
At 3 minutes, Robbie was smiling before his speech. Does a grieving dad look so cheerful?
[youtu.be]

Again even if Alex jones didn't talk about it, the internet went deep into this topic.
One side explored the alleged satanism in Newtown. It comes down to freedom of speech to explore ideas publicly.
[www.henrymakow.com]

These aren't grounds to ban infowars. What was?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2018 06:03PM by Tai.

Quote
riverhousebill

Quote
Prana
riverhousebill, its clear to me that you disagree with the First Amendment, and perhaps even the 2nd Amendment of the constitution. Are there other parts of the constitution you also disagree with?

2nd admendment you ask Prana -Im sorry but Im vegan dont like hunting or shooting people

2nd Amendment - I'm sorry but I'm vegetarian and I don't like being defenseless in the face of thieves, rapists, crazies, drug addicts, gang members and killers attacking me or my family, especially my children. And if they were attacking me or my family, and I had a gun, I'd shoot their asses off and thank the Dear Lord I had a gun with which to do it.

Alex Jones was also suspended from Twitter -

Alex Jones suspended from Twitter after tweet calling to end censorship

[www.rt.com]

Controversial right-wing commentator Alex Jones has been banned from tweeting after he posted a link to a video of himself calling on President Trump to “take action” against tech companies censoring his content.
Infowars Editor Paul Joseph Watson tweeted a screenshot of the notification sent by Twitter staff to Jones. According to Twitter, a tweet by Jones one day earlier was considered to be “targeted harassment,” and, as a result, the Infowars host would have his access to the social-media platform restricted for one week. Watson described the situation as “truly, monumentally, beyond stupid.”


Alex Jones has been suspended by Twitter for 7 days for a video talking about social media censorship. Truly, monumentally, beyond stupid. ????

On the same day that the Infowars website was brought down by a cyber attack.

Will this madness ever end? pic.twitter.com/hXDzH2b7rT

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 14, 2018


In the video, Jones ranted about the censorship of conservative voices by Silicon Valley tech companies, directing much of his scorn at Apple CEO Tim Cook. He called his own ban from various tech platforms a “total anti-American attack,” and called on President Trump to “do something about it.” Along the way, he bashed Democrats, criticized the mainstream media, and accused Cook of working with the Chinese government to undermine America.

Jones’ Twitter page will remain visible for the duration of the ban, but he will not be able to tweet, retweet, follow, or like.

Last week, Infowars found itself banned from the platforms of almost every major Silicon Valley company – including Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and Spotify – for violating their community standards and spreading ‘hate speech.’

Until Tuesday, Twitter was one of Jones’ last safe havens online, and CEO Jack Dorsey said that Jones would not be banned until he broke the site’s rules.

Jones’ excommunication was cheered by many in the US, including Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who called Infowars “the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies.” He demanded even more censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy.’

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.


— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 6, 2018
Jones’ supporters blasted the companies for censoring the rabble-rousing host, and former UKIP leader Nigel Farage called him a “victim of collusion by the big-tech giants.”

Whether you like @RealAlexJones and Infowars or not, he is undeniably the victim today of collusion by the big tech giants. What price free speech? [t.co]

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 6, 2018


While effectively banned from much of the internet, Jones still posted content to the Infowars website, and via the Infowars app, which has surged in popularity amid the furore. However, on Tuesday, the Infowars website went offline in what staff called a cyberattack. Upon landing on the site, visitors would simply find an error message, which was later replaced with a low-fi splash page directing them to several other affiliated sites.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2018 02:36PM by Jennifer.

Also this happened, but it wasn't censorship -

FCC shuts down Alex Jones’s flagship radio station

[thehill.com]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has shut down conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s flagship radio station.

The Austin American-Statesman reported Wednesday that the pirate radio station, Liberty Radio, was hit with a $15,000 fine and at least temporarily pulled from the airwaves.

The newspaper reported that a lawsuit filed in federal court in Austin alleged that Liberty Radio had functioned without a license since at least 2013, and had been transmitting from a tower at an Austin apartment complex.

Liberty Radio stopped airing on the radio in December, but still streams online. The FCC is charging that the station was also illegally broadcasting on an FM wavelength.

The Associated Press reported that Walter Olenick and M. Rae Nadler-Olenick were named as the defendants in the lawsuit, and the apartment complex where the station was transmitting from is linked to the pair.

The Olenicks reportedly told the FCC that they would not pay the fine and would treat any agency representatives as trespassers.

Jones, a conspiracy theorist who founded the site Infowars, has recently been banned by several platforms, including Facebook and YouTube.

Infowars and Jones's content has also been pulled from Spotify and Vimeo, and Twitter placed restrictions on the accounts for Jones and his site.

Jones has been criticized for some of the conspiracy theories he promotes. The parents of two children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have sued him for allegedly saying the massacre was staged and a cover-up was orchestrated by the parents of the children.

this is a good one First Amendment rally


"Cold day in hell": Arkansas lawmaker irked by Satanic Temple statue display at rally

The Satanic Temple unveils its statue of Baphomet, a winged-goat creature, at a rally for the first amendment in Little Rock, Ark., Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018. The Satanic Temple wants to install the statue on Capitol grounds as a symbol for religious freedom after a monument of the Biblical Ten Commandments was installed in 2017. HANNAH GRABENSTEIN / AP
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- The Satanic Temple temporarily placed a bronze statue of a goat-headed, winged creature called Baphomet at the Arkansas State Capitol during a rally to call for the removal of a Ten Commandments monument already mounted on Capitol grounds. About 150 Satanists, atheists and Christians attended the First Amendment rally Thursday. The Satanic Temple says the Ten Commandments monument violates constitutional freedom of religion rights and that the installation of their 7 ½-foot-tall statue showing the 14th century idol seated and accompanied by smiling children would demonstrate religious tolerance.

"If you're going to have one religious monument up then it should be open to others, and if you don't agree with that then let's just not have any at all," said Satanic Arkansas cofounder Ivy Forrester, a rally organizer.

The monument arrived on a flatbed truck and was unveiled at the bottom of the capitol steps, CBS affiliate KTHV reports. Meanwhile, the Ten Commandments stood behind a screened fence surrounded by caution tape.


Sen. Rapert says 'very cold day in hell' before Baphomet statue allowed on capitol grounds by THV11 on YouTube
The statue of Baphomet can't be installed under a 2017 state law that requires legislative sponsorship for consideration of any monument. The Satanist group removed the statue later Thursday.

The Ten Commandments monument at the Arkansas Capitol was sponsored by Republican Sen. Jason Rapert and installed quietly in 2017. Less than 24 hours after its installation, a man drove his car into the monument, smashing it to pieces . The same man also destroyed a Ten Commandments monument outside Oklahoma's state Capitol.

The Satanic Temple ended its campaign to install Baphomet there, after Oklahoma's Supreme Court ruled the Ten Commandments monument was unconstitutional and it was taken down.

Rapert said in an online statement that he respects the protesters' First Amendment rights, but also called them "extremists" and said "it will be a very cold day in hell before an offensive statue will be forced upon us to be permanently erected on the grounds of the Arkansas State Capitol."

There was a significant police presence at the peaceful rally. A small group of counter-protesters holding signs with Bible verses stood quietly nearby, occasionally singing Christian songs.

One speaker - a Christian minister - was interrupted by a yelling counter-protester, but police escorted the man who was holding a large wooden stick away from the stage.

The Satanic Temple wants to join a religious discrimination lawsuit against Arkansas brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. A judge has to yet rule on whether the Satanists can join the case.

Right. The Libs not only want to get rid of all Southern History (statues, monuments, names of towns/parks/schools/buildings/streets, etc.) but also all Christian History.

Libs hate Southerners and Christians/Christianity.

quote Jenifer-Libs hate Southerners and Christians/Christianity.

Is it any wonder why with christian behavor like this?
This is Christianity????

American Charged In Uganda After Racist Assault On Hotel Workers
A video shows the man striking out, using a racial slur and telling the staff they have to obey him.
headshot
By Carla Herreria
Uganda police identified the man as a U.S. citizen who claimed to be a missionary and former Marine.
YOUTUBE
Uganda police identified the man as a U.S. citizen who claimed to be a missionary and former Marine.
Uganda police arrested an older American man after reviewing a video that showed him striking out at hotel workers and using racial slurs.

The police identified the man as Jimmy L. Taylor, a U.S. citizen who claims to be a missionary. The alleged assault took place in the Grand Imperial Hotel in Kampala, the capital, according to police. Video of the incident surfaced on the internet on Friday, but it is unclear when it was filmed.

In the video, Taylor can be seen punching and slapping at the workers. He also calls them “n****rs,” tells them they have to obey him and threatens to kill them.

Police brought Taylor to Kampala’s Central Police Station, where he was charged with assault. The Uganda Police Force did not immediately return HuffPost’s request for comment.


The four-minute video begins with Taylor behind the reception desk, knocking things off tables while the hotel workers get out of his way. He follows the workers to the lobby, where he berates them and accuses them of hating Jesus.

In the lobby, the American approaches one of the workers and hits him several times as another employee tries to intervene. The workers try to calm him down, but Taylor continues to insult and attack them.

“@#$%& Uganda,” Taylor yells at one point. “I’ve come to love Uganda, I’ve come to help Uganda, but Uganda hates Jesus through this son-of-a-bitch.”

“You obey what I say,” Taylor says later. “I don’t obey you. You understand me? Open my goddamn room. N****r bitch!”

Taylor told police that he is a religious missionary and former U.S. Marine, the Kampala Post reported.

He claims the assault was due to an illness that caused him to have stress, according to the Post.

headshot