InfoWars Banned from Facebook and iTunes

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care if you believe me or not. You are lying if you claiming that the 1st Amendment was violated. Well either that or you are just plain ignorant to how the Bill of Rights works.

The USA is owned by corporations. The money.. The politicians.. The government.. The entire country actually. It has been invaded in a way that circumnavigate the original principles on which it was founded and here is you defending that invasion.

Enjoy your propaganda.

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've made my point clear. Alex Jones isn't entitled to having his product hosted on Apple's services. Trying to spin this as a free speech issue is dumb and really shows you don't respect Apple's rights.

It is a free speech issue. Do you or do you not care for free speech? Or is a trillion-dollar corporation's right to censor a user more important?

No. It really isn't. Jones is still 100% able to express his opinion.

a reply to: purplemer

Yeah ok. *eyeroll* You go be Jones' lawyer and try that defense in a court of law and see how far it gets you.

originally posted by: coffeebeernsmokes
a reply to: fleabit

Funny, I don't recall anyone openly calling for that and I'm a regular visitor. If there are it likely makes up a very small perentage.

Plenty of people said they would be fine with it. Many outright said they should be shut down. Regardless, many more said nothing.. nothing at all, when Trump made his outrageous comments about how a free press was treasonous.. an enemy of the people.. should be shut down. Refuses to let certain networks attend press conferences. Why not? If censorship and free speech is such a big deal to them, they should have been outraged, yes? Hmm.. it's amazing how rights and free speech only really matters to someone.. if it affects them and their beliefs.

Pure and utter hypocrisy, and why I won't take anyone even remotely serious over their whining about Alex Jones. Because clearly, free speech and censorship don't ACTUALLY matter to them, as they said nothing when a much more serious breach by the government itself presented itself.

The problem is the ATTENTION that Infowars is receiving NOW , this attack was clearly systematized.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've made my point clear. Alex Jones isn't entitled to having his product hosted on Apple's services. Trying to spin this as a free speech issue is dumb and really shows you don't respect Apple's rights.

It is a free speech issue. Do you or do you not care for free speech? Or is a trillion-dollar corporation's right to censor a user more important?

No. It really isn't. Jones is still 100% able to express his opinion.

Yes. It really is. He has been systematically censored on a variety of platforms.

a reply to: fleabit

Trump made his outrageous comments about how a free press was treasonous.. an enemy of the people.. should be shut down

Where did he say that? Oh yeah, he never did.

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've made my point clear. Alex Jones isn't entitled to having his product hosted on Apple's services. Trying to spin this as a free speech issue is dumb and really shows you don't respect Apple's rights.

It is a free speech issue. Do you or do you not care for free speech? Or is a trillion-dollar corporation's right to censor a user more important?

No. It really isn't. Jones is still 100% able to express his opinion.

Yes. It really is. He has been systematically censored on a variety of platforms.

Except his own. Ergo, not silenced.

When bouncers kick the mouthy drunk out of the bar for continuously stepping over the line (breaking the rules), and he gets kicked out of everywhere in the area for the same, are the bars all equally guilty?

No, they're exercising their rights to keep their business as they wish -- within their established rules of etiquette. Mouthy bro isn't banned from drinking, he just has to find somewhere else to do it & be a dick. His own abode suffices, he can invite friends to join him.

Same idea with Jones, SM being the online bars and his website being his house. People know where he lives, they're free to join him there for a "drink" as they please.

Does anyone have any theories of who the character he says he's playing may be? My guess is Gene Hackman's submarine cmdr from Crimson Tide. Besides similar voice/demeanor, they both had that compulsion of taking off their hat and scratching their head vertically.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've made my point clear. Alex Jones isn't entitled to having his product hosted on Apple's services. Trying to spin this as a free speech issue is dumb and really shows you don't respect Apple's rights.

It is a free speech issue. Do you or do you not care for free speech? Or is a trillion-dollar corporation's right to censor a user more important?

No. It really isn't. Jones is still 100% able to express his opinion.

Yes. It really is. He has been systematically censored on a variety of platforms.

Except his own. Ergo, not silenced.

When bouncers kick the mouthy drunk out of the bar for continuously stepping over the line (breaking the rules), and he gets kicked out of everywhere in the area for the same, are the bars all equally guilty?

No, they're exercising their rights to keep their business as they wish -- within their established rules of etiquette. Mouthy bro isn't banned from drinking, he just has to find somewhere else to do it & be a dick. His own abode suffices, he can invite friends to join him.

Same idea with Jones, SM being the online bars and his website being his house. People know where he lives, they're free to join him there for a "drink" as they please.

Funny, and when the same bouncers allow their drunk friends to stay and break the same rules and even cross the line farther than the person they just kicked out its hypocrisy.

Plenty of videos on youtube right now that push hatred and division much more than any of Alex's videos and they are still there for all to see. But that's your far left brother's so the same rules do not apply.

Just did a quick youtube search and found one right in my very own city. Alex never spewed anything close to the despicable rhetoric in the video below. Yet there it stays for all to see on Youtube. The hypocrisy of leftist makes me sick to my stomach.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've made my point clear. Alex Jones isn't entitled to having his product hosted on Apple's services. Trying to spin this as a free speech issue is dumb and really shows you don't respect Apple's rights.

It is a free speech issue. Do you or do you not care for free speech? Or is a trillion-dollar corporation's right to censor a user more important?

No. It really isn't. Jones is still 100% able to express his opinion.

Yes. It really is. He has been systematically censored on a variety of platforms.

Except his own. Ergo, not silenced.

When bouncers kick the mouthy drunk out of the bar for continuously stepping over the line (breaking the rules), and he gets kicked out of everywhere in the area for the same, are the bars all equally guilty?

No, they're exercising their rights to keep their business as they wish -- within their established rules of etiquette. Mouthy bro isn't banned from drinking, he just has to find somewhere else to do it & be a dick. His own abode suffices, he can invite friends to join him.

Same idea with Jones, SM being the online bars and his website being his house. People know where he lives, they're free to join him there for a "drink" as they please.

Of course they can do what they want. It's their business. The question is whether it is right or wrong, not whether they can or cannot.

Is it right or wrong to refuse service to someone because of what they look like? It's their business and they can refuse service how they wish. The customer can go get the service elsewhere. The question is whether it is right or wrong to do so.

Infowars Official App Jumps To Number 4 — Dominates CNN, NYT, ABC

Streisand effect.

All he has to do is rebrand and resell.

But we all know his face.

a reply to: Konduit

This is what CNN have reacted to today... now tweeting at apple to ban the app. Ah, CNN, the protectors of the media, who are so upset when they are just criticised. Pfft.

a reply to: fleabit

Clearly you are not versed in the fine arts of propaganda otherwise you wouldn't be making such a case. The political landscape is very volatile right now and are you going to tell me that CNN et al aren't pouring fuel on the fire of the political divide? What perecentage of news and guests that comes out of that organization would you consider credible?

Are you going to really admit that CNN has more credibility than Jones? Jones has never supported "hate speech" nor have I seen any evidence of it. What this boils down to is people in positions of power simply not liking what he has to say.

Of all the accesible filth content circulating on the webs you are going to justify Jones being the first on the chopping block? Not only is this a freedom os speech matter, it would appear more disturbingly people don't have their moral compasses aligned.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about you try this one on for size...

China regulates speech in America!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

More speech, not less. That should always be the policy. We don't have hate speech laws in the US so what does it matter if someone is accused of it?

It's kind of sad that so many people are ok with corporations silencing people... And it's mostly the same people that think corporations are evil incarnate.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Indeed. How long ago was it this site was pro-anti corp. Not long, and it was the vast majority! Mind you, this site has become a political quagmire since.

People change, opinions change, times change. To see so much support for huge corporations is the antithesis of what this site originally stood for.

Perhaps this all illustrates and magnifies the unwillingness dor people to think as individuals.

originally posted by: coffeebeernsmokes
a reply to: Dfairlite

Indeed. How long ago was it this site was pro-anti corp. Not long, and it was the vast majority! Mind you, this site has become a political quagmire since.

People change, opinions change, times change. To see so much support for huge corporations is the antithesis of what this site originally stood for.

Perhaps this all illustrates and magnifies the unwillingness of people to think as individuals.