[The New Yorker] Alex Jones, the First Amendment, and the Digital Public Square

This is a disingenuous argument. "Go make your own YouTube" is not a viable alternative. Hell, "go post on a different video sharing site" isn't even a viable alternative.

We have to come to terms with the fact that our public discourse and general communication is now controlled by only a handful of entities. In some cases even fewer than that.

Our society depends very heavily on the Big 4 social media platforms to connect people and spread ideas. This is the beauty and problem with tech. It will give you amazing new tools, but nobody wants to use the second best tool. Everything ends up coalescing to a singular point.

I'm deeply torn on the whole "public utility/town square" thing. But regardless of where you fall on it we can't go on fooling ourselves that corporate censorship (no matter the reason) on these platforms is nbd.

If anything this is bringing me to a point of supporting a government backed social media platform that has one rule, "don't break the law".

 

I think many of us have confused "free speech" with being entitled to have our voices on megaphone. My rights are not being violated because my voice isn't blasted on a privately owned platform so millions can hear my message.

Crowder can dabble in the free market of ideas and see if his own privately hosted content can take off. He has the right to do that. Private citizens who own shares of Google have the right to not have a platform they own host content they disagree with.

We are not entitled to have our message heard by millions. If you want your message to be heard by millions, be charasmatic, create your own hosting site and see what the market gets you. No government should stop Crowder from doing that. That would be a violation of the first amendment if that happened.

Now we can have a discussion of whether we want YouTube to be a video hosting site that dumps edgy bigoted content and becomes stale and whether the product of YouTube would decline because of it. That is a valid concern. Will youtube start sucking because too much content is being removed? Good question and I guess we'll find out. If too many believe Youtube is being too restrictive and bland, people will leave and find something else better.

But framing this as a freedom of speech argument is disingenuous.

 

Let us have a handful of corporations control our speech. This will end well. End thread. I for one welcome my new corporate overlords.

 

You are exercising speech right now. Because millions aren't hearing it, doesn't mean it is being violated.

Also, why the **** does Youtube have to be the dominant medium to express speech? That is our own doing as a society. As a society, we can choose to read as the dominant method of receiving speech. Don't blame society's lack of reading habits with restrictive speech. Crowder can write a book and sell as many copies as he wants. It's society's fault that people would rather watch click bait videos.

 

Crowder is only one stop for this train bud... ignore it all ya want.

It is clear that socialists can't win against his likes so they censor. This is proof that the left is running scared because they couldn't handle debates and all the people beating them in the open marketplace of ideas with real arguments. They had to shut them down to win with subversive methods. This is nothing more than an angry child flipping the game board.

 

In

This has nothing to do with debates. If this had to do with exchange of ideas and fear of confronting them by liberals than the likes of Candece Owens, Rubin and Crowder wouldn't be deathly afraid of debating the likes of Packman or Seder.

These people are nothing more than grifters.

 

Thank you.
Freedom of speech is Crowder not going to jail for saying things in a public forum.
Freedom of speech never guaranteed a specific private modality (say, in the 1700's, a specific auditorium owned by a private citizen) and definitely not the "right" to earn money by speaking. The market has (almost) always determined who gets paid for their speeches or writings.

To me, unfortunately, aside from a few interesting philosophical points (with thanks to almOst_neverTriggered and DonnyMoBuckets), a lot of the complaining comes down to: dammit, there are liberals who own companies. How did this happen?

 

pakman and seder lol intellectually dishonest losers

 

I don't understand the words coming out of your mouth.

What?

 

hosting on another video sharing site is most definitely a viable alternative, there are at least 7 other sites.

It's not a viable alternative to maximize profit but that's not infringing on his rights.

Why do you ignore the fact that he is not banned and can continue to post.

 

Are you sticking your fingers in yours ears right now?
Watch how everyone else in the thread can understand except you, intellectual coward:

You think that's something to shame someone about, do you, "liberal"?

 

If this was a pro-necrophillia or pro-ISIS video would right wingers care so much about his free speech rights?

It seems that the unspoken assumption is that the righties think Nazis really aren't all that offensive. I mean, it's not like they're dirty Antifa terrorist commies or jibbering savages or anything! We all know, there are good people on both sides, right? If it was something they genuinely believed was terrible, like Muslim extremism, they'd be lining up to defend YouTube.

Publically displaying Nazi iconography has literally been illegal in much of Europe for decades, and they are still free liberal democracies. Nobody has come for all the white women yet. YouTube choosing to pull this to avoid controversy is so far away from that.

 

i see why you have trouble with your students, you are a very angry human.

Why do you keep posting that question without ever answering it?

 

Was a sincere compliment!

 

Wow...this is a really good question though as Youtube does ban these videos but no one defends them. ISIS used to be very active on social media but the companies did all they could do to kick them to the dark web.

They also treat pro-pedo videos the same way.

Now someone could counter "Well, that stuff is illegal." and should promoting genocidal ideas be legal?

 

Love how people are muddying the waters with terror groups to compare with crowder.

Also I will point this out... these social media groups are not privately owned. They are public companies and sadly get treated as people. I have long maintained the corporations shouldn't be treated as people and I still maintain that position today. These entities should not be allowed to punish individuals for political beliefs.

On the flip side let us assume alphabet co. is a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for gays. Oh you would b**** and moan then I am sure but if conservatives are targeted by corporate entities this is different.

Basically I just hear a bunch of.. "Oh won't somebody please think of the corporations!:

Yall wanna act like yall are liberal but yall soundin' like the Koch brothers lately. More evidence of how the modern "liberal" movement has turned into a fascist anti-wrong think movement.

 

I stopped reading here. You are confusing publicly traded with publicly owned. Publicly traded companies are private companies as in they aren't part of the public sector owned by the government and funded by our tax dollars such as the DOD.

Publicly traded companies are very much private entities that are owned by private citizens who hold shares of the company.

 

i just woke up shoot me. Point still stands. These are massive corporate entities and shouldn't be treated like mom and pops and definitely not individuals. Yall are just happy to see polotical opposition supressed. It is ok to admit it.

 

Is it free speech or not?

You are being hypocritical if you believe that it is okay to protect the free speech of Neo-Nazis but that we must silence the free speech of ISIS. Don't they get to partake in the battle of ideas? Both groups openly promote violence and hate.

This isn't about Crowder, this thread isn't even about Crowder. The post I quoted didn't compare Crowder to ISIS, nor did I.

The question posted is quite simple. Do you support the free speech ISIS? Do you support that free speech? It's merely a question testing the consistency of free speech absolutist.

If your response is Yes. That you would support free speech of an Islamic terror group, then I think that's a fair stance to take because you are truly principled. It is at least consistent.

If your response is no though then you have to wonder why you're accepting one terror group but ignoring the other. Why does one terrorist group get to have free speech but another does not?