You’ve probably heard by now that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, host of the satellite radio series InfoWars, has finally been banned from Apple, YouTube, Spotify, and Facebook for hate speech.
And straight, white dudes are peeing their pants.
Jones has touted so many homophobic, xenophobic, racist, sexist, antisemitic, absurd, outlandish, and downright hateful conspiracy theories over the years that we’re not even going to waste our time going over them all.
We will, however, share this photo of him eating huevos rancheros in a random office room whilst shirtless:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
After news broke that Jones was being yanked from pretty much every major platform that he used to promote his bullsh*t conspiracy theories, the hashtag #FreeAlexJones and #FreeInfoWars began tending.
Like we said, straight, white dudes are peeing all up in their pants...
So neither Youtube or Facebook gives any concrete reason why they banned Alex Jones. Absolutely ridiculous and total censoring of free speech. #FreeAlexJones
— Chris Kato (@ChrisK8o) August 6, 2018
#FreeInfowars
Absolutely disgusted by @YouTube actions. Regardless of what you think of Jones (I like him), hundreds of hours worth of interviews with CREDIBLE guests were removed. We’ve just been restricted from accessing educational content.— Cris ??? (@Cristian_AOS) August 6, 2018
F acebook
A pple
G oogle
S potify#FreeAlexJones— Andrew I. (@aaandrewDI) August 9, 2018
#AlexJones #AlexJonesShow #InfoWars #FreeInfowars #FreeAlexJones I don't watch infowars, pop in once in a while to see what's he's up to. But if they can ban infowars, THEY CAN BAN YOU TOO. this is how it starts. It's called incrementalism. you are all in for a rude awakening.
— DigBick333 (@DigBick333) August 6, 2018
Congratulations Silicon Valley fascists, you’ve just made Alex Jones the forbidden fruit of the Internet. #FreeAlexJones #FreeInfoWars
— BanTheBBC (@BanTheBBC) August 6, 2018
Next came the #FreeAlexJones memes…
And then they started taking pictures of themselves with duct tape over their mouths and the word “censorship” scribbled across it as a show of solidarity:
Related: The Angry Straight White Male Crowd Stood By Trump. Now They Reap The Rewards.
Lacuevaman
the idiot still has twitter
misterjack
Ugly, ugly people.
Kangol
He’s a very sick man, as his ex-wife recently reminded everyone. Sure, he has the right to spew his racist, misogynistic, homophobic deranged crap in the public sphere, so if he wants to stand on a soapbox in the blazing sun in a public park in Texas and deal with the consequences, fine, but private corporations can nix his dangerous verbal vomit, especially when he allegedly foments violence and attacks the grieving parents of children slaughtered in massacres by gun fanatics. Free speech ? unlimited speech to spur violent attacks against others.
brianlange
It’s not that I endorse Alex Jones It concerns me thatv2 or 3 companies can lock someone out…scary
shakes_head
They’re called company guidelines and literally every single corporate entity has them. Stop with the theatrics…
MacAdvisor
Shakes_head, some people see things as they are and say that’s just fine. Other see things as they could be and suggest that would be better. I’d rather not have corporations deciding approved speech.
PinkoOfTheGange
in a world that a baker can refuse service for the cut of your suspect protected class jib, what dos on expect?
DCguy
I love THIS fake “Concern” that so many troll accounts pretend to have.
Does it also “Concern” you that restaurants can kick you out of you pee at your table? Or that pools will kick you out of you take off your bathing suit while swimming?
Kieran
First they came for Alex Jones, but I didn’t speak up because……
Juanjo
To Miss Kieran and the rest of the rolls expressing fake concern, “First they came for Alex Jones, but I didn’t speak up because the theme of that poem is that people should speak and act against people peddling the very hatred and lies that Alex peddles”. Alex can speak out all he wants. The government has not arrested him nor shut him down. They have not threatened him with prosecution if he continues to speak. He has the exact same freedom to speak under the constitution as anyone else has. And when he speaks everyone else, including the businesses granted “personhood” by the Supreme Court, also have the freedom for speech to criticize him or prevent him from speaking in their homes, in their businesses, or using their business property.
jjose712
They are not very good with photoshop.
And frankly that shirtless pic of Jones was totally unnecessary (now i have to wash my eyes)
HMFan
Sorry, jjose712, but no amount of bleach and hydrogen peroxide will make my eyes clean enough…
paul dorian lord fredine
nobody is restricting his free speech. he can grab an apple crate and go spew his crap on any corner as long as he’s not inhibiting right-of-way. but he can’t go into a walgreens (as an example) and begin ranting like a lunatic (i.e. behaving like himself). they have every right to chuck his ass out. all those that dumped him are private companies with policy standards. don’t obey, get kicked out. the only thing he’s worried about is loosing the revenue from selling his crappy supplements. well, he can get that apple crate and pass the hat if he needs the money.
MacAdvisor
Walgreens does not hold itself out as a public forum for discussion where as social media does. It is the modern equivalent of the town square. I am far more worried about what these corporations may decide is approved speech than what Jones may say.
PinkoOfTheGange
No it is the modern equivalent of a newspaper that allows the users to contribute, but maintains editorial control.
Or should they allow pornographic content?
MacAdvisor
Social media is no more the modern equivalent of a newspaper than it is the modern equivalent of a hot dog stand. Newspapers were specifically written by the staff of the newspaper. Most of the content on Facebook is not written by its staff. Yes, newspaper did print hand-selected letters to the editor for publication, but, again, Facebook and the like hardly review and edit postings to select a few good ones for posting. Facebook is much more equivalent to the town square of yore, where they would not allow pornography either.
Why are you so interested in handing a corporation the right to censor?
thma19115
@@@@@@@@@@@@!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@@@@@
I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…
dfsssssss
…..????????????Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here
Juanjo
MacAdvisor – that’s a great opinion but let me know when you find actual law that supports your claim.
DarkZephyr
Its annoying when people like this do not grasp the true meaning of “Free Speech”.
Kieran
Give us the “true meaning” Only “approved” speech is free?
GentlemanCaller
Exactly. People think that the First Amendment means they have a right to say what they want, where they want, with no consequences, and that anyone who has a platform has to let them use it any way they want. That’s NOT what the First Amendment means; it means the GOVERNMENT can’t prohibit you from speaking; Facebook, Twitter, your employer, the grocery store–they can shut you up as much as they want. So stop it with the whiny rightwing entitlement tantrums.
MacAdvisor
Except no one here has suggested this is an example of a First Amendment violation, but that a free speech violation. As corporations with major operations and headquarters in California, these social media companies are bound by Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), a US Supreme Court decision affirming the California’s Supreme Court’s decision in the Pruneyard Shopping Center, fittingly located in Campbell, California, right in the heart of Silicon Valley, once it had opened its space to the public could not censor speech under the California Constitution. The Court recognized many once public spaces where open discussion could take place were being supplanted by privately owned spaces, such as shopping malls. I think the decision could easily be extended to cover social media spaces where the public is invited in to discuss topics of the day. The goal in a democracy is to allow for as much speech as possible, not to protect your delicate little ears from hearing something offensive. If one has even the tiniest understanding of the history of gay rights, the protection of free speech is what allowed us to reach the point we have today. To turn control of what is allowable speech over to corporations is the most foolish move we could possible make. If corporations silence this jack@ss today, then they can silence us tomorrow.
Shall we allow AT&T and other corporations to decide they don’t want to give bandwidth to Queerty, so you can’t actually reach the web site? Allowing others to be silenced is not the way to freedom.
DarkZephyr
@MacAdvisor,
I was not responding to anybody’s comments on here with this post. Otherwise this would have been under one of those comments. Shockingly I was actually responding to the people featured in the article, and at least one of them *was* whining about free-speech. all of that other stuff that you’re throwing my way has nothing whatsoever to do with my post. Regardless of anything that you are saying, I still find it annoying when people like the above misunderstand the meaning of free speech. Your words here do not change that fact. It’s still very annoying.
DarkZephyr
@Kieran while what you said has little to do with what *I* said, the answer is actually yes. There ARE certain forms of speech in the United States that are not approved and can land you in legal hot water.
From uscourts.gov (note that this is not an exhaustive list of what is or is not protected by the First Amendment):
” Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).”
@MacAdvisor, I think you would benefit from reading the above as well. If the US Court system has the right to set policies for what is and is not protected or “free speech”, then you should have no problem with corporations setting their own policies as well. Unless you are an inconsistent person. I mean when we join social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, etc. we all have to agree to their policies and terms of service before we join. So its not like we are going into it blind and without free will and its not like their “invitation” to use their services to discuss and communicate is some kind of deception. We all have the freedom to disagree and not join these services. Alex Jones had to agree to these sites’ policies and terms of service as well. If he was unaware of what was permitted and not permitted then that is his own fault for not reading the TOS before he agreed to them. You are coming off like somebody who doesn’t believe that corporations should be allowed to set up their own terms of service or their own policies.
Juanjo
MacAdvisor might do well to actually read the decisions he quotes. Pruneyard applies to an actual physical location and only certain portions of the location. More to the point the court ruled that the property owner CAN apply certain rules to anyone attempting to speak there so long as the rules are applied equally to all wishing to speak there. In a later case involving Costco who imposed very strict rules on people seeking to solicit signatures etc [after a series of brawls at Costco locations] the court upheld the rules which including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone stores, a rule that no group or person could use Costco premises for free speech more than 5 days out of any 30, and the complete exclusion of solicitors on the 34 busiest days of the year. In 2012, the Cal Supreme Court stated in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8, that the Pruneyard case applied to shopping malls only and only to malls which had specific areas set aside for people to congregate, meet, converse etc – essentially malls with large atriums with seating, plazas, and/or food courts.
The case does not apply to an online entity at all. But if it did, the court has ruled the freedom to speak is limited by the owners’ terms of use or service which they cite were violated by Alex Jones.
Juanjo
Kieran – US Constitution, Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
QueerTruth
I’m not going to defend that gross moron… BUT I find the “fragile, straight, white” language in this article to be juvenile, narrow-minded pigeon holing. And that’s lame… so try to aim higher. Please don’t sink down to their level.
TheBigOne
Have a martini, darling. Comrade Jones and his minions call people like you and I far worse.
DarkZephyr
I do agree with you to a point QueerTruth, but I also disagree to a point as well. A lot of the nonsense that Alex Jones spews is racist and homophobic. These men are part of a demographic that does not have to bear the brunt of Jones’ dangerous hate speech, so they are less inclined to have empathy for those among us who ARE harmed by it. In that respect, Queerty pointing out their race and sexuality does make some sense.
QueerTruth
theBigOne/DarkZephyr,
My point was and is not about AJ whatsoever…. I am happy to see him shut down.
My point is about the author’s tone and direct attack against albeit tongue and cheek to a very specific group of people, which is also an inaccurate description of AJ’s followers. His followers are not just men, or straight men, or straight white men. AJ has lots of different followers, many of whom are bigoted buffoons from all walks of life. More importantly, most “straight white men” think AJ is a disgusting moron, which he is. So, as I said, pigeonholing “straight white men” is the same offense that AJ and the likes commit daily. Is it at the same level? No, of course not. But very simply discriminating someone based on their gender/race/sexual preference is what this is all about.
AIM HIGHER
Paco
After he is carted away in a straight jacket, like society used to do to the loons, then you may have an argument. Until then, he needs to stop whining and build his own platform to disseminate his craziness with.
MacAdvisor
While the companies may have a right to stop Mr. Jones from participating on their site, I think doing so is a bad idea. First, the best antidote to bad speech is more speech correcting it, not silencing it. Second, these places are the modern equivalent of the village square and I don’t like the idea of a private corporation having control over the ideas shared there. While today it is someone we dislike, tomorrow it could be an important LGBTQ voice that is silenced. I stand with Patrick Henry, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” The most power right we have is the right to speak freely. We are only as free as those in chains amongst us.
Paco
No one is stopping him from speaking his lunacy. No one is under any obligation to give him or anyone else a megaphone. A modern equivalent of a village square would be a public owned platform. Not a private one. He has access to the internet. How far he wants his voice to travel is up to him by building his own soapbox to use in the public square.
PinkoOfTheGange
He, or anyone, is free to access the internet still.
Want to make some money? Start a hosting service in Poland for the likes of Alex and Storm (Trooper) Front.
A public square? Really? The internet maybe but these platforms are like private event spaces.
o.codone
“First they came for the communists, and I said nothing —
Because I was not a communist”.
You know the rest. Book burning, censorship, concentration camps. When will they come (again) for us? This is a bad idea. The first amendment is meant to protect all speech, especially unfavorable speech.
PinkoOfTheGange
Has he been banned from the internet?
Should the porn producers have unfettered access to YouTube?
MacAdvisor
Pinko, how long before the corporations that now control the Internet do ban him from it? Now that we don’t have net neutrality, AT&T, Comcast, and the ilk are free to shut down whatever site they like by simply throttling the connection speed.
Aranos
Slander is a civil wrong and punishable by law. It is NOT free speech. That is what morons like you never get. Your’re free to say whatever you want. But your not free to incite violence or spread lies about others. And there’s a good reason for that.
P.S. How to unsee that shirtless pic? Yikes!
TheBigOne
That’s quite a collection of wife-beaters.
djmcgamester
Free speech has never, at any time, meant you could say absolutely anything you want. Imagine if I used my “free speech” to tout conspiracy theories in the classroom? Presented it as real news? Imagine if I shouted “fire” in a theater when there isn’t one? (FYI, that’s illegal.)
MacAdvisor
djmcgamester: How many times must I write one is perfectly free to shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater? Do you people spend even so much as one effing minute understanding what you write? Do you enter every discussion like a tabula rasa, free from any knowledge on the subject you comment on? The reference is to Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), a now superseded US Supreme Court case where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in *falsely* shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic (emphasis added).” Note the important restriction of “falsely” yelling. One may yell fire in crowded theater if, indeed, there is a fire. Shouting “fire” under such circumstances in NOT illegal. Thus, yelling fire is not, per se, illegal.
Free speech does have restrictions, mostly time, manner, and place. That said, we, as a society, are perfectly capable of compelling corporations that control social media to not censor postings of those with minority beliefs. I greatly question the wisdom of granting these corporations the power to control speech that we do not grant our government. I firmly believe anything that can be said in public at the local town square should be fair game for a comment.
truckproductions
Yeah and I bet each one of these fools protesting censorship now were all for censorship back when we couldn’t even say the word gay on TV and talking about gay marriage would lead to protests and bans. Bunch of entitled fools.
MacAdvisor
They are indeed and absolutely fools, but they nevertheless are entitled to be fools. Thus, yes, they are a bunch of entitled fools.
Redmage
First I have to say.. The whole “trash white males, especially if they are straight”, is pure garbage, and I am beyond sick of it. You don’t raise anyone up, by trying to tear someone else down. Im not white, nor do I need to be to find this trend to be just evil, and wrong.
Secondly, yes Alex Jones is a bit of a nut, they crack on him all the time on Glenn Beck, though sometimes he is on to something.. Main point is, nobody should be cheering for this. Agree with him or not, this is wrong, and tomorrow it could be you, that’s how it always goes.
Kangol
Glenn Beck is more than “a bit of a nut,” you do realize, right? He’s also a racist, someone who announced on air that he wanted to kill a famous filmmaker, claimed President Obama’s support for funding for stem cell research equalled Nazi eugenics, mocked the families of 9/11 victims, mocked the people who were devastated by Hurricane Katrina, celebrated people whose homes were being destroyed by California wildfires, insulted the lone US Muslim Congressperson (who is a strong supporter of LGBTQ people), nuttily compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler, and even admitted on air that he was on the verge of “moral collapse.” This is who you’re listening to? Yeah, OK.
Uncv1
Free speech issue aside, If a cake shop owner is allowed to refuse to bake a cake because of religious freedom or Hobby Lobby can deny employees certain health care benefits all in the name of religious freedom, why can’t social media companies deny access to someone who goes against the religious premise of loving all and treating everyone with respect. The religious right can’t have it both ways.
DCguy
The Republican idea of “Free Speech”.
Anybody who is conservative must be given free access to slander and harass anybody they want to on any corporate platform and nobody can do anything about it.
Nobody is stopping Jones from speaking. The guidelines were very clear, he violated them.
The fact that there are so many troll accounts panicked about this shows that apparently this struck a major blow.
HMFan
Man! Despite “global warming,” we seem to be having a virtual BLIZZARD! Look at all the little snowflakes out there!
dustynlee
I’m surprised this article didn’t point out the irony that these homophobic right-wing nut jobs are ripping off the NOH8 Campaign.
Johnny5
People like Alex Jones are mere indicators of the deep underground river of homophobia that exists in this country. LGBTs are the most targeted group for hate crimes in America. I have a credit card knife
I carry with me just in case. In my opinion every gay person should have a self defense tool with him/her. I just read about a guy that fought off a gay bashing with a pen.