InfoWars Banned from Facebook and iTunes

a reply to: interupt42

Net neutrality was a regulation implemented by Obama. Also, how is net neutrality censorship? It forces ISPs to provide equal access to any given website on the internet.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Once the issue of public accommodation is decided in the courts for the internet, we'll have a final answer on this topic.

So you need a court ruling to decide whether or not you believe in private property rights?

By the way, public accommodation is a different argument than setting and enforcing Terms of Use/Service for a private internet entity.

No. No it isn't.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Once the issue of public accommodation is decided in the courts for the internet, we'll have a final answer on this topic.

So you need a court ruling to decide whether or not you believe in private property rights?

By the way, public accommodation is a different argument than setting and enforcing Terms of Use/Service for a private internet entity.

No. No it isn't.

Of course it is. Public accommodation is about having your services/site available to all that have the means or desire to use them.

Terms of Use/Service is a matter of private property rights that lays out the terms in which the use of that property is acceptable, or unacceptable.

What we are talking about her is a matter of conduct in regards to Terms of Use/Service and not public accommodation.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Question. If Apple has to provide a platform for AJ's podcasts, can we make it so Infowars has to provide a platform for Rachel Maddow content?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Question. If Apple has to provide a platform for AJ's podcasts, can we make it so Infowars has to provide a platform for Rachel Maddow content?

That makes absolutely no sense. You're going to have to type slower because I'm not understanding you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I understood it. Read it again slowly.

a reply to: DBCowboy

makes sense to me.

Apple has freedom of speech as well (or, a company's owners). Alex Jones has no right to subvert that speech.

If a company cannot be compelled to make a gay cake, then they certainly cannot be compelled to broadcast someone's content.

Next Sunday I am going to just start preaching during sermon. Since freedom of speech extends as a requirement beyond government to ensure. Maybe a sermon on the joys of whatever it is church goers hate the most.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well you've been whining throughout the thread that Apple discontinuing AJ's podcasts is censorship, so that must mean you want to force Apple to carry his podcasts. So I figured turnabout is fair play. If we are talking about forcing Apple to carry AJ's podcasts then we should for AJ to carry a liberal voice.

At the end of the day, the Constitution is clear on the matter and as long as the government isn't doing the censoring then there is no issue. Lest you end up with situations like the one I described above.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

Net neutrality was a regulation implemented by Obama.

Also, how is net neutrality censorship?

its not and have never said it was. censorship IS removing net neutrality principles . Obama did the right thing with net neutrality at the time.

My point is that you are being hypocritical if not a bit of a blind party loyalists by supporting one form of censorship but not another because its backed by your party.

You can't be for net neutrality principles that prevent censorship then be for censorship.

a reply to: interupt42

Were did I say I was ok with Apple doing this? Didn't I already tell you that I don't use Apple products? I don't like that company. I just support their right to carry the content they wish to carry.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The pitfalls of monopoly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

I just support their right to carry the content they wish to carry.

So why don't you support the Telecoms right to give you access to the content/site they wish to give you access too?

a reply to: Lysergic

What does Apple have a monopoly over?

a reply to: interupt42

Because I believe that internet access should be a public utility, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Apple choosing only the content they want to carry is the main reason i won't buy apple products.

You are right...they have the right. Its the worst thing to happen to computing ever, IMO. Its them asserting ownership over your device after you purchased it. That may be something that could be legislated against, but i doubt it will as it creates more tax revenue.

Still...its their right. Buncha assholes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Apple v. Pepper

a reply to: Lysergic

What does app availability and purchasing have to do with Apple's choice to support certain podcast content or not? If they don't have a monopoly with the issue at hand then your point is moot and a red herring.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yeah. I have a lot of issues with the way Apple does business; I have for a long time now. This is just another one to add to the pile. However, this issue is just like defending nazis wanting to have marches through town. It's a protected right. I may not like the decision but I will defend your right to make it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nothing, I just hate apple.

AJ up # creek without an oar.

At least he got AM radio and supplements.

edit: nice gay edit you did there.

Gay cake : they should have the rights as business owners to do what they want.

Actual person who spews hate removed from a public platform: this is bs! This is censorship! How can a private company do this!


No wonder people don't take us ACTUAL conservatives serious anymore

I swear