Yes, entirely so, conspiracy minded bigots. But who gets to decide what can be said in public? Credit public domain

That Apple gets to decide what is distributed upon iTunes seems entirely unremarkable. We do have this concept of private property, the people who own things get to decide what to do with them. The same goes for Facebook, YouTube and all the rest. So, if they don’t want the content, buh bye the content:

Within the past 24 hours, Apple, Facebook, and YouTube have all joined in summarily banning far-right broadcaster and known conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars network from their platforms.

Think of it as an exemplar, a celebration, of those private property rights.

It’s really nothing to do with the First Amendment:

It is the oldest cliché in free speech circles that “you cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” In other words, there are limits to free speech — even under the First Amendment.

In the theater analogy, it’s the risk of causing harm, not directly, but via the panic that your statement could cause. Similar rules can apply for speech inciting violence or hatred against particular groups.

By that standard, Alex Jones and his Infowars outlet make terrible free speech champions. They have made their careers by doing the online equivalent of screaming “fire” on a daily basis.

No, there’s no government involvement here so there’s no First Amendment issue either. That says government can’t stop you saying certain things, not that you’ve got to be able to access a broadcast network to say them.

However, we do come to a much more important issue here. Who gets to decide? If it’s the owners of the networks then all is copacetic. If it’s people like this then we’re in trouble:

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., is calling on other tech companies to ban more sites like InfoWars, and says the survival of American democracy depends on it.

“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,” Murphy tweeted Monday.

No, that’s not the path we want to go down. The moment that politics decides what may be said then that’s when what may be said is determined by the politics of it. Very much why the Founding Fathers put that First Amendment in there. Here in Britain we’ve the Green Party insisting that climate change deniers shouldn’t be part of a multiple interview with them. Their right, of course it is, but think of what the Green Party thinks is a denier. Owen Jones is arguing that the BBC – paid for out of taxes recall – shouldn’t host people that Jones disagrees with.

No Senator, really, no:

No, you don’t get to decide, you’re politics, the companies get to decide themselves and alone.

For as we’ve said here before if we’re going to banish fake news, insist upon only the truth, well, whose truth? There are people out there who would ban questioning of Greenpeace’s position upon climate change. Who insist that minimum wage rises do not create unemployment. Even, whisper it, that Bernie Sanders has three homes. Once anyone outside the specific network providers themselves gets to determine what does go up then we’re in a very dark place.

That is, this is an issue of civil liberty, not democracy, and this is one of those not infrequent times when the two are in conflict. Yes, it’s even possible that the Russians used Twitter to elect Trump* but even so we’ve all got to make damn sure that our own politicians don’t get to determine what may or may not be said in public.

*No, I don’t think so, and given Hills I’d be grateful if they had

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
jghBniCSpikecookevPat Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Although I would suggest that Facebook etc. decide what their business model is. Are they a publisher that doesn’t pay its contributers or are they a neutral platform for the exchange of views?
They have the right to choose of course, but should they make the wrong choice this will eventually become apparent and their user base will be at risk.


Facebook’s user base is already at risk, through an active #DeleteFacebook movement.

The choice between publisher and “neutral platform” was the choice Congressmen asked Mark Zuckerberg to make when he gave testimony in Washington. Zuckerberg is not required to make any such choice. If he styles himself a “neutral platform,” then the First Amendment denies government the power to police his neutrality. The market will police it, as there are many alternatives to Facebook, and no barrier to establishing new ones, though you don’t get to start life so huge.


By examining the content on their platforms and passing judgement on what is acceptable, I’m wondering if those companies have just forfeited any “common carrier” protections they may have been able claim (sort of like the phone company not being liable for what is being communicated over their infrastructure). Thoughts?


By the way, Alex Jones, purveyor of conspiracy theories, has profited enormously by being the victim of an actual conspiracy of Silicon Valley moonbat social media corporations. He has also gotten many Republicans off the fence to do a rendition of “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” (No, sorry, Republicans will not defend anything to the death.)


Bit like twitter ‘accidentally’ deleted tommy Robinson and the ongoing issue of shadow banning which they deny


And “Focus” speads lies and misinformation and must be shut down. And “In Touch” spreads lies and misinformation and must be shut down. And “Labour Today” spreads lies and misinformation and must be shut down. Ok, who have we got left? Ok… “The Guardian” spreads lies and misinformation and must be shut down. “The Daily Mail” spreads lies and misinformation and must be shut down. Who’s next? “The Telegraph” spreads lies and misinformation and must be shut down. Who’s next? “The Express” spreads lies and misinformation and must be shut down. Oh, we’ve got the Truth and Truth is good,… Read more »


(apologies to Tom L.)