The Change that Banning Alex Jones and Kerry Cassidy Signals

originally posted by: toms54
Alex Jones new campign:

I know, I know. I just can't help but laugh. It's too preposterous to me to think they'd take him this seriously.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Azureblue

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I'm afraid it is you who missed the point.

You were attempting to make a point about some big brother-ish censorship trend (I get it), but you've missed the fact that both the censor-ee and the censor-er are irrelevant. So It's like a toad who only eats mosquitoes compared to a toad who eats any bug...irrelevant.

You've made the leap of faith that entities such as failbook represent some source of 'information' and/or 'news', some element of unbiased truth. The truth though is they represent nothing of the sort, they only represent themselves and their brand. It's like being mad about IBM not advertising Dell or HP.

It's not "tyranny" at all...it's competition.

If anything, failbook has legitimized axle jones more than anything else.

i think you got the wrong idea again mate. I agree with many of the comments made in this thread about facebook myself.

Whats important is the encroachment of big brother, in all its forms and our loss of a fearless media that exposes wrong doing in both business and govt of either side that is the problem.

Do you not see the manipulation of public sentiment? do you not see it as wrong?

Do not see the things happening that Dr Day said in his 1969 talk "everything is in place and no one can stop us now, speech? Only a few months ago they rolled one of the things Dr Day said would happen and that is linking health care to employment for the first time. ie, no job = less health care.

Do you not see the ever increasing regulation and control of the lives of the American people????? Do you care about this kind of thing at all? - far out!!

originally posted by: Azureblue

Whats important is the encroachment of big brother, in all its forms and our loss of a fearless media that exposes wrong doing in both business and govt of either side that is the problem.

One thing I can assure you of is that I'm definitely in your camp with big brother encroachment...it's too much. However, I don't think that's what this is...nothing is stopping AJ from using his own medium by which to reach all the audience members he did. Just like nothing is stopping you and I from creating a web site, and attempting to draw activity there.

Do you not see the manipulation of public sentiment? do you not see it as wrong?


Do not see the things happening that Dr Day said in his 1969 talk "everything is in place and no one can stop us now, speech? Only a few months ago they rolled one of the things Dr Day said would happen and that is linking health care to employment for the first time. ie, no job = less health care.

Do you not see the ever increasing regulation and control of the lives of the American people????? Do you care about this kind of thing at all? - far out!!

I see it, all of it.

Know what else I see? I see AJ, trying to do as little as possible to self-syndicate and now he's pissed because he can't use the larger networks as his soapbox...

I mean, imagine for a moment you were CEO of a privately held medium...a very LARGE one, would you want THIS as part of what you represent? Would it fit your business model?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

If you like that one, look up Paul Begley. There's another real nut for you.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Azureblue

The answer to what you're getting at, is when you roll back government control that is constitutionally protected, it is replaced with corporate control that is not. Any time you argue for the free market to work, and the government to not pick winners and losers, this is what you're arguing for. Private entities rather than those you vote for to control something. Entertainment, health care, etc...

Na sorry mate, "when you roll back government control that is constitutionally protected, it is replaced with corporate control that is not." This this is what we are faced with. Its still not acceptable because its merely a choice between 2 evils,

We should never comprise ourselves by accepting this sort of deal. That's only going along the choices they've given us.

We must remain steadfast and refuse both choices.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Azureblue

I don't think of it being censored content ie: "censorship"...but deciding what content a site wants to allow...like us here at ATS.

And it's not as though the complete and un-censored content can't be still found elsewhere.

No, thats a view that accepts that someone does and should have the right to detemrnine what we hear and see.

It should make no difference where avenue the news comes from, it should always be accurate, factual and complete.

To accept otherwise is to simply accept that both private and govt organizations have the right to report whats happening in society in a way that misrepresented, inaccurate, incomplete and biased,

This is of course is very wrong. Its simply accepting one of two choices they give you but both of which are the same choice.

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Azureblue

I don't think of it being censored content ie: "censorship"...but deciding what content a site wants to allow...like us here at ATS.

And it's not as though the complete and un-censored content can't be still found elsewhere.

No, thats a view that accepts that someone does and should have the right to detemrnine what we hear and see.

It should make no difference where avenue the news comes from, it should always be accurate, factual and complete.

To accept otherwise is to simply accept that both private and govt organizations have the right to report whats happening in society in a way that misrepresented, inaccurate, incomplete and biased,

This is of course is very wrong. Its simply accepting one of two choices they give you but both of which are the same choice.

I am not sure what you are saying here. The 1st amendment applies ONLY to the Government's interaction with the people. The government cannot and is not limiting what Jones can squawk about; Alex Jones is NOT being censured by government in any way.

The 1st Amendment doesn't have anything to say about what a privately owned network can or cannot allow on its website. Period.

Must be time for a repeat of XKCD's Public Service Announcement

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Azureblue

I don't think of it being censored content ie: "censorship"...but deciding what content a site wants to allow...like us here at ATS.

And it's not as though the complete and un-censored content can't be still found elsewhere.

No, thats a view that accepts that someone does and should have the right to detemrnine what we hear and see.

It should make no difference where avenue the news comes from, it should always be accurate, factual and complete.

To accept otherwise is to simply accept that both private and govt organizations have the right to report whats happening in society in a way that misrepresented, inaccurate, incomplete and biased,

This is of course is very wrong. Its simply accepting one of two choices they give you but both of which are the same choice.

I think we miss the point that this is a private members only participating forum...with an owner and others.

Rules and guides in society exist everywhere...so, do I believe in censorship? No, I do not.

But I do understand and believe any site, source, or forum has it's right to establish policy for itself.

I think the primary lesson all this Alex Jones social media drama has to teach us is that irony is not dead.

originally posted by: Majic
I think the primary lesson all this Alex Jones social media drama has to teach us is that irony is not dead.

That's probably a really good point.