I too am hot and smoked out (literally coughing as I type this) from ongoing fire storms on my near horizon, but it seems you don’t need me to explain my point to you. You understand it, just disagree with it. As you say, the problem is the danger posed by how arbitrary these denial of access decisions could be. Again, I am not saying the decision to deny access in this case was wrong, only that it does (and should) raise important free speech issues. If a social media platform as influential as Facebook or Twitter was owned by a Trumper, and decided to deny access to a militant exponent of climate change on the grounds that it was associated with policies the outcome of which would weaken and threaten America’s national security, I would not be mollified by the claim that his speech was not really being limited because he could still post his ideas on a GoDaddy web page and email his friends about it.
Now, I have not read the terms of service for Facebook closely - perhaps they define “hate speech” (or whatever the reason being used to deny Jones access) adequately. All I am saying is, the judgement about the justification of denying him access has to rest on the adequacy of the criteria being used (and whether these were made clear prior to the presentation of the dangerous ideas in question). I am also saying that the strength of passion and size of the majority of those opposed to the ideas tells us nothing about whether banning (or discriminating against) the expression of those ideas is justified. This is a free speech issue, whether or not denying him access to FB is justified. I would rather live in a world where people like Alex Jones can spread their filth than a world in which people with unpopular and even offensive ideas are not allowed free access in the common (even if not public) square. It would be nice if those were not the only two choices, and it were possible to only ban people as horrid as Jones without most other unpopular speakers - but I would like to see the case made that this is what has happened, and not just accept it because I happen to detest Jones. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:16 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > I admit that I am overheated and my lungs are full of smoke and my head > aches, but I still need you to explain to me how Jones’ free speech rights > have been denied him? He still streams, he still has an app (why iTunes > didn’t ban that, God only knows), he still has Twitter (posted today, > Jack’s reasoning for that one lacks all logic), and even if you stripped > him of all access to technology, he’d still be breathing scampi in > somebody’s ear whether they wanted to listen to him or not. > > Free speech is an issue when somebody is denied the same access as > everybody else. He wasn’t denied access; he was given it and abused it, > violating the respective TOS of several media outlets who banned him. You > can argue that suspensions due to TOS violations tend to be almost > arbitrary if not capricious in nature, but Jones wasn’t banned for trivial > reasons, and even if he was, if those reasons fell within the parameters of > TOS violations, that’s that. It still doesn’t strip him of any rights. > Jones does not have the right to a Facebook account; nobody does. Same with > YouTube. And most people need to be dragged kicking and screaming to > Pinterest, so his removal from that one doesn’t seem to be worthy of the > ACLU stepping in. > > The question is one of access (both in who is allowed to post media and > how many people could potentially view the media), but I don’t think there > is a clause in the first amendment guaranteeing private businesses must > grant access to all. Nevertheless, social media did grant Jones access, but > they took it away. Again, did they do so due to mounting public pressure or > merely as part of their much hyped sweep of “fake news”? Debate that all > you want; I’m not seeing a slippery slope here. > > To Tom’s point, there is also nothing legally forcing digital media to > coherently organize media or label it as BS or verified or whatever... it > does seem as though that is what the public wants, so some sort of (I > hesitate to use the phrase) ratings system will probably be utilized at > some point, as well as modifications or restrictions to the algorithms > determining “similar” media. But Alphabet and the others have to tread > lightly, because once they are more directly in charge of the oversight of > content posted on their digital media, issues of corporate liability are > raised; such changes will occur slowly, and I suspect much of it will lack > transparency. > >> >> > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
