Most of us born and raised in this great country that offered our immigrant forebears unprecedented freedoms and protections, deeply appreciate not only those gifts but the Constitutional principles on which these United States stand. Among them, the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
The issue of that guarantee’s limits is currently a thing, thanks to one Alex Jones.
Mr. Jones is an extremely popular radio program host and the proprietor of a number of websites, most notably one called Infowars. He traffics in unfounded “reports” of conspiracies and nefarious actions by government and “globalist” agents.
He famously averred that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, an assertion that resulted in threats against bereaved parents of some of murdered children. He has also propagated the notion that Democratic lawmakers run a global child-trafficking ring, and that the U.S. government was involved in both the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 attacks. He has also claimed that the moon landing footage was fake, and that NASA is hiding secret technology and the deaths of thousands of astronauts.
Mr. Jones is in the news these days because of pending lawsuits by Sandy Hook victims’ parents and others against him, complaints by former staffers of his alleged racist or anti-Semitic behavior and, most recently, because of the removal of his posts and videos from top technology companies’ media platforms.
Enter the First Amendment.
Characterizing the tech companies’ decision to not host his misinformation as “censorship,” he says the move “just vindicates everything we’ve been saying.”
“Now,” he proclaimed in a tweet, “who will stand against Tyranny [sic] and who will stand for free speech? We’re all Alex Jones now.”
No we’re not.
To be sure, distasteful opinions are legally protected in our country. In 1969, the Supreme Court held that even inflammatory rhetoric is protected unless it “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Revolting as some of Alex Jones’ rants have been, they likely fall on the permissible side of that legal ruling. But the rabble-rouser’s lament that, with the curbing of his exposure, the citizenry has been deprived of their last defense against tyranny (upper-cased, no less) is as hollow as the heads of his fans who act on his wild speculations.
In the end, though, no one is preventing Mr. Jones from promoting his untruths (or his products – the diet supplements and survivalist gear he profitably hawks between diatribes) from other rooftops, literal or electronic. The First Amendment limits only the actions of government, not private companies.
Jones, though, is also using the right to free speech as a defense against the lawsuits he’s facing.
One concerns Brennan Gilmore, a former State Department official who attended last summer’s violent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Gilmore was present when a man drove his car into a crowd of protesters, killing a woman.
“False speech does not serve the public interest the way that true speech does.”
After Mr. Gilmore posted a video of the episode and spoke about it, Mr. Jones accused him of being a C.IA. plant employed by the billionaire George Soros, and as having possibly been involved in the attack on the woman to bring about what he described as “the downfall of Trump.”
In March, Mr. Gilmore sued Mr. Jones for defamation, arguing that he had suffered threats and harassment as a result of the unfounded claim.
Do such public speculations and conspiracy theories merit First Amendment protection, even when they cause harm to others?
In a recent court filing, four law professors specializing in free-speech issues said no.
“False speech does not serve the public interest the way that true speech does,” the scholars wrote. “And indeed, there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”
For what it’s worth, Donald Trump Jr. feels differently. He reacted to criticism of Mr. Jones by asserting that “Big Tech’s censorship campaign is really about purging all conservative media. How long before Big Tech and their Democrat friends move to censor and purge… other conservatives [sic] voices from their platforms?”
Judges will decide, at least with regard to American law. As believing Jews, though, we know that there really is no hallowed ideal of “free speech.” The unique ability with which the Creator endowed us, the ability to communicate ideas, is not an “inalienable right” but a formidable responsibility. “From a word of falsehood stay distant” (Exodus, 23:7) and “Do not give false testimony against your neighbor” (ibid 20:13) comprise our duty.
Would that American jurisprudence, even as it protects unpopular opinion, recognize the import of that charge.
Share your opinion – respectfully – in the comment section below.
This article originally appeared in Hamodia.
(34) Margarita, September 30, 2018 8:32 PM
be careful
I think that you have not listened to his shows, therefore many assumptions made here are just "copy/paste" of never Trump camp. but this isn't even the main point - suppressing freedom of speech due to feelings & not debating on factual basis is the road to socialism. and just as reminder - ussr stalin was socialist, nazism is national socialism, new socialism is socialism, democratic socialism is socialism.......do we remember what socialism means for Jews and humanity?
(33) Howie, September 25, 2018 5:46 AM
A convoluted topic, well examined
This is a topic I have been wrestling with as well. I also don’t recognize a biblical “inalienable right” to free speech, but I do value that guarantee in our constitution.
As reprehensible and truthless as Jones’s arguments are, I am worried about noteworthy constitutional apologists who are leaning toward saying that Jones does not have the right to say them. That seems like a dangerous, slippery slope.
I believe that The Founders believed that such boldly untruthful statements would be sussed out by The People, and would die of their own weight... Unfortunately, I am rapidly losing any faith in The People’s ability to detect falsehood... Does that mean that the government should “protect” the people from their own credulity by outlawing lies? And if so, who gets to be the arbiter of truth and lies???
T
A dangerously slippery slope indeed...
(32) LarryB, August 24, 2018 1:51 PM
The big problem with this thinking
Setting the private company’s rights aside, The big problem is who gets to determine what’s truth and what’s false. Also, You listed four professors as specialists in free speech. I guarantee I could find 10 professors who would disagree with those four. You listed a bible verse in support of your argument. I could list a NT bible verse used against the Jewish people for centuries. Although I do not support Alex Jones in any way, I also don’t support CNN in any way either. What scares me (example) are people, govt and private, who would insist that a law be passed that would restrict support for the war against Germany WWII, whether broadcast, written, digitally or on paper, radio or television etc.. as much as I do not understand the way and whys of this world, I remember what Moses said, “chose”. Anything else takes away our responsibility to make this world a better place to live.
(31) Andrew D Teper, August 23, 2018 1:33 AM
alex jones isnt anti semitic hes always praising Israel
alex jones isnt anti-semitic hes always praising Israel even just the few times i watched his videos.
(30) Anonymous, August 22, 2018 12:11 AM
Freedom to speak unpopular political views must be protected. It is unpopular speech that is in danger of being suppressed. Alex Jones may be wrong and foolish, but tell others why you disagree instead of censoring him.
The weak and unpopular views, like independence from England, are the ones that need protection from censorship. If there had been no Tom Paine or Sam Adams, the USA would not exist.
(29) Anonymous, August 21, 2018 5:48 PM
How do we know what IS True?
The way we sort True News from Fake News is "the marketplace of ideas." Allow google, Facebook, Twitter (all of which have major government Deep State connections" and which carry a very significant fraction of the world's communications) to decide what is "true," and we have Totalitarianism--which repeatedly killed 50% of the populations during the 20th century.
Thus, your desire to avoid cognitive dissonance threatens my LIFE--and your own.
Dvirah, August 22, 2018 7:14 PM
Challenge and Demand Proof
The way to sort out the false from the true is to look for corroborating evidence that is more than just narrative. One forum for such a challenge is the courtroom. Unfortunately, not everyone has the time or the resources to make such a challenge. Scientific and historical evidence is even better, but sadly most people are not interested enough in the facts to look for them.
(28) geborah goldberger, August 21, 2018 3:36 PM
but wait
no mention of anti-ethnicity verbiage? last I heard "hate speech" IS A CRIME.
Rachel, August 21, 2018 5:34 PM
You are mistaken
Hate speech is not a crime in the US. And that’s a good thing.
(27) Anonymous, August 20, 2018 11:11 PM
Alliance
With all due respect, "conspiracies" are not always fiction. And paranoia is a normal reaction to being on the receiving end of constant lies. I understand that we have been victimized by European conspiracy theories in the past, but I don't believe we should ban conspiracy theorizing as a result. The problem is, who gets to decide what's true and what's not? I prefer a system where we get to decide for ourselves based on evidence and thinking, not having some "friendly" government decide for me what's true or not. Libertarianism is essentially a vote against top down control, and for personal freedom. I think we have something to learn from the American political tradition.
(26) Asher, August 20, 2018 10:38 PM
Activist Shlomo Gordon Responds To This Article, defends Alex Jones
Check out Shlomo Gordon's rebuttal here:
https://frumjew.com/2018/08/20/frum-jew-exclusive-activist-shlomo-gordon-responds-to-avi-shafran-defends-alex-jones/
(25) Shlomo Gordon, August 20, 2018 8:39 PM
Going to have to disagree
Sorry, Kvod HaRav, but you are incorrect. No matter which way you look at it, Big Tech is breaking the law. Here are a few examples:
1) If they are censoring the right, that means they are supporting the left. And if they are supporting the left, that means that every tweet or post from a politician on the left is being *actively* politically endorsed by these companies. So, that means you have to figure this into campaign finance. Considering that most people get their information from social media, the amount of money that this would be considered is astronomical, and Twitter is certainly breaking campaign finance laws.2) If I slander you on the phone, the phone company is not responsible. If I slander you in the newspaper, the publisher *is* responsible, as he made an active choice to publish my slander. And if I slander you on Facebook, Facebook is not responsible, because legally Facebook is a communications company, like the phone company. But this means that Facebook is not a publisher - so they are not allowed to arbitrate who gets to publish and who doesn't, and are breaking the law. Or, alternatively, if Facebook wants, they can consider themselves a publisher. Let's watch them get sued every single day for slander. One billion posts a day, how many of those are slander? One thousand? Facebook will go bankrupt in no time.3) Social media have plenty of govt connections, and the "neutral" organizations that get to arbitrate who gets the freedom of speech and who doesn't are... government, basically. Either governments themselves or partially government-funded bodies... and the collusion of course is not necessarily with "the government" of President Trump, but it is with factions within the US govt and other govts, i.e. - the government is censoring political opinions!4) Anti-trust laws. Time to bust the trusts 5) Classical liberalism is about we the people. You don't get to pretend to be all liberal to get popular then switch. 1776 will commence again!
(24) Gedaliah, August 20, 2018 1:21 PM
mindset
This is the group mindset you've helped foster Aish Torsh ... you rightly take Alex Jones to task, but your readers side with Alex Jones not you.
LarryB, August 25, 2018 1:59 AM
I disagree
Aish did the right thing. YOU may not like it that Alex Jones exists, but Aish allows those who not necessarily agree with Alex Jones, to support his right to exist. To me Alex Jones is fringe, but so is CNN. I side with Aish, let’s talk about it.
(23) Howard Lloyd Felix, August 20, 2018 4:52 AM
Free Speech
In our society people should be able to state whatever wisdom or inanities they wish. It is our job to tell the difference- the value of being well read, with the ability to research is helpful.
As the author points out Jews are held to a high standard, and wise ones do not waste time with nonsense- just gently point it out , as necessary, and move on.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink!
Henry Afamefuna Ilona, August 20, 2018 5:17 PM
You Nailed It
You just said what it is in my mind, it is through that Alex Jones is such a nutty crazy hoax seller, but there are undeniable truths in his stupidity as concerning the globalists, Luciferians and elitists and their bid for a one world government, currency, and religion, where Lucifer the prince of darkness and of fallen angels and demons, will be enthroned king despot.
(22) Carlos, August 20, 2018 2:52 AM
First amendment rights
I do disagree with your opinion, at some point you sound like the main stream media, when a public platform can make the decision onto whom they going to censor arbitrarily and just decided to shut him down because don’t like what he says and deprive his millions of fans ( I’m not one of them) but has seem also the good debates that he can bring into the public eye, I think that the media needs the Alex Jones more than the bias fake news media. By the way, check your facts about what you call conspiracy theory’s because many of those has now been call conspiracy facts.
Example Enginiers agains 911, Alex is just a megaphone for the people that holds other point of view and not just the big brother narrative. By the way President Trump is on his camp. Shalom
(21) Sharona, August 20, 2018 2:49 AM
On the one hand, I believe in free speech. They shouldn't censor him because they don't agree with him. On the other hand, you have a good point that instead of focusing on saying what ever we want, we should focus on responsibility of what we say.
PS, I would rather listen to him, than some other people
Chanah, August 20, 2018 3:26 PM
responsibility is variable
I won't disagree that watching what one says and choosing words responsibly is essential to a public figure, especially. However, I'm sure if you asked Mr. Jones, he feels he IS acting responsibly and does take responsibility for his words. That is why he is going to prepare for the suit against him in a responsible way. He is not defending himself in his programs, but waiting until he has his day in court, with legal representation. I did hear that he didn't say what he is being charged with saying, that his words were misconstrued. And though I'm not a "fan", I do think it's a good thing that someone is asking the politically incorrect questions about critical events. There is certainly much corruption in the world today, and the official conclusions of the government are not necessarily the true ones.
(20) Jim Chaim Roberts, August 20, 2018 12:44 AM
The slippery slope of censorship
I had never heard of Alex Jones before this incident, but I believe that the censoring of anyone whose views do not correspond to yours by any form of media, including social media, is a violation of the first amendment. Dennis Prager who represents a much more reasonable point of view, albeit conservative, is also being blocked by Facebook and YouTube. If this is allowed, it won't be long until only one point of view will be permitted. Perhaps Facebook should then change its' name to Pravda.
(19) David Levine, August 19, 2018 11:40 PM
Free Speech Will Out The Falsehoods
Al Smith once said that the answer to the problems of democracy is more democracy. The answer to the problems of free speech is more speech. I support the lawsuit against Jones by the parents of Sandy Hook School but I'm against the arbiters of the internet censoring speech because they ALL have more than a tendency to censor legitimate conservative voices. (Their latest outrage was keeping the advertisement for Diamond and Silk's new movie "Dummycrats" off Facebook.) So, let the ideological wars of the internet go on and let a million flowers bloom.
(18) Anonymous, August 19, 2018 11:12 PM
Internet Tech Companies?
Wondering where the line is for the tech company giants like Twitter, Youtube and Facebook? Yes, they are not the government but neither are the thousands of other companies held to 'truth in advertising laws'. There is a proven bias present and active in these establishments and because of their impact on the general public they have a responsibility that is no different than the public utility companies and their duty to their customers. But, as the case has historically shown - the bias is only allowed to go one way. Hmmm....wonder why?
(17) Rachel, August 19, 2018 7:42 PM
Rights of different parties
Jones has the right to spin his nonsense, and publishers, whether digital, video or print, have the right to refuse to carry his nonsense. The government employee has the right to sue Jones for claiming he works for CIA and possibly participated in the attack. If Jones has evidence of either assertion, he can present it in court and thus be found not to have slandered/libeled the other party. Likewise, if he believed it to be true based on other facts, Jones might still not be liable for falsely accusing them man. However, our legal system is based in decisions reached via the admissible evidence. It appears that Jones seized on the fact that a federal employee reported on what he saw at Charlottesville to make the leap that this man was possibly complicit in what occurred, including the maiming of several people and the murder of Ms. Heyer. If Jones has evidence that will demonstrate he is right, I will revise my opinion of him. At this time, I don’t think he is credible because so much of what he says is blatantly false. Furthermore, during divorce proceedings when his wife asserted his public statements as evidence that she was married to a dangerous person, Jones replied that much of what he says is for entertainment purposes, not to be taken seriously. Satire only works if reasonable people understand that is the intent. Jones makes no attempt to demonstrate to his audience that he is a satirist, so he should not be able to use that excuse in defending against lawsuits. I’m not sure why someone brought up Trump in these comments. I can understand why people would vote for him either out of economic self-interest, his support for Israel, or because they were tired of the status quo. Conflating Trump with Jones is very unfair to Trump, who has been as appalled by school shootings, 9/11, etc as the rest of us. It’s unfortunate he has not done more to distance himself from the alt right and their fellow travelers
(16) Sara Judkovitz, August 19, 2018 7:27 PM
on prisonplanet.com he supports Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer
He supports ad reports Jewish activists in Austarlia ans Europe= reports the atrocities done to them in Europe as well as Corbyn anti semitism . hard to believe he is anti semitic. When Coery Booker his anti israel colors- ( giving Iran deal and now this -they civered that too. too many instances he reports to believe he is anti semitic or anti Israel
(15) Anonymous, August 19, 2018 7:19 PM
i go on to Prison planet every day= except shabbos
Prisonplanet.com - most honest reporting of what is going on in Europe. I do not believe Alex Jones is anti semitic.
(14) Asher, August 19, 2018 6:58 PM
Alex Jones is amazing
I am a huge fan of Alex's, and he has a huge audience. I don't think it is appropriate, nor good for the Jews, for Rabbi Shafran to attack someone just because he disagrees with him.
(13) Bob Van Wagner, August 19, 2018 5:51 PM
Falsehoods are great franchise opportunities
Falsehoods are great franchise opportunities. The greatest! Nothing provokes buisness in the marketplace more easily and energetically in human time through now.
Every major franchise-- to name a variety of 'em: Alex Jone's InfoWars, Monsanto's Roundup et related biologically IP protected products, the Deep State, the British Monarchy and Establishment, the USSR, the Papacy, the many Egyptian Dynasties etc etc is (oh and modern "political correctness" has a slew of 'em, in colors of the rainbow) are founded upon, based on one or a set of related falsegoods. "Falsegoods', aka falsehoods.
Who determines what is false, who indeed MAKES any expression a false thing?
Truth and Beauty. The two are related. How do we at our level in our spheres know what is true? As Godel suggested for algebras up to the task of proving basic arithmetic: it is also so for real life, "we kow it when we see it", but can't quite but hardlogic or words or menaingful grammar upon it! It is in the end in this life, just a feeeling.
So being one opinion vs another, one feeling's vs another's, let's not be so silly as to presume we can kashrut symbol the truth. No one's a prophet today. So we are stuck with the muck and hunt for gems in it.
And we put mud mats and scrapers at our doorways. We wash our hands, and put on clean frocks. Then we have places of peace and cleanity, sanctum santoriums, like did Superman. In those ordered places and times we have a better chance to improve out own truth filtering appartuses. Even then still with the needed help and allowances of our G-d.
But I'll not commend any "Truth as a franchise" concept in this plane outside those sanctums. No gatekeepers out there -- there cannot be, it is a fastasy that bears bitter fruit and mortal traps.
Dvirah, August 19, 2018 6:42 PM
A Standard
Facts are demonstrable, independently of viewpiont. That is the standard of political, legal & scientific truth.
LarryB, September 1, 2018 1:40 AM
That’s a nice thought
Doctors, Lawers, and Scientist disagree with what is fact all the time. Somethings are demonstratable, others are not.
(12) Anonymous, August 19, 2018 4:42 PM
Since when did questioning narratives, become spouting untruths?
I can't believe you brand things said by AJ, as false speech! We have had a literal war going on in our political world, with parts of the government, trying to get rid of our President. How can you know what has happened? These high-level bureaucrats, in government, are clearly feeling threatened by Pres. Trump or they would not be acting in this manner.
Until there are more answers, it is extremely irresponsible for you to brand AJ, as speaking all untruths. Why do you want us to be sheep, just waiting for the slaughter? Very irresponsible, with all due respect!
Rachok, August 20, 2018 7:15 PM
It's called politics.
You say; "We have had a literal war going on in our political world". That is the nature of politics. Republicans tried everything they could to disrupt the presidency of Obama. They tried to get rid of him and Clinton before him. In fact Trump is still waging war against Obama. Why should it be any different today. Your point is irrelevant.
Rachel, August 21, 2018 8:51 AM
AJ’s falsehoods
Unless you believe that 26 innocents were not murdered at Sandy Hook, AJ’s unreliability speaks for itself
(11) Anonymous, August 19, 2018 3:20 PM
No Speech should be banned
Dear Rabbi,
Wow, I was really surprised by what you stated in this article. To answer your question: ALL speech is Free.
You answer your own misgivings: ” Revolting as some of Alex Jones’ rants have been, they likely fall on the permissible side of that legal ruling."
:In March, Mr. Gilmore sued Mr. Jones for defamation, arguing that he had suffered threats and harassment as a result of the unfounded claim." What about what the press write about others? Shall they be silenced?
"Do such public speculations and conspiracy theories merit First Amendment protection, even when they cause harm to others?" Who determines what ‘hurts’ whom?
In a recent court filing, four law professors specializing in free-speech issues said no. Poor example! How many did you consult? How many said ‘yes’?
"As believing Jews, though, we know that there really is no hallowed ideal of “free speech.” The unique ability with which the Creator endowed us, the ability to communicate ideas, is not an “inalienable right” but a formidable responsibility. “From a word of falsehood stay distant” (Exodus, 23:7) and “Do not give false testimony against your neighbor” (ibid 20:13) comprise our duty."
Yes, but those who speak are not all believing Jews. So to deal with living in this unG-dly world..we must allow everyone to speak even if it offends some. Those who are offended have the courts to go to and the rule of law to determine what is permissible. Amen!... If only all would follow Torah!
Thank you.
SteveHC, August 19, 2018 3:56 PM
This is not merely “offensive” speech
“Anonymous” - For some reason you refer to Jones’ public statements regarding Mr. Gilmore as “offensive.” “Offensive” is not the issue here. In the USA - like so many other countries - when *false* statements and/or accusations are deliberately made by one against another and demonstrably cause harm to the other, the other can seek recompense through the court system for slander and/or libel. And anyone knowingly assisting in the committing of that libel or slander might also be held liable for it - and thus private firms’ refusal to participate in it is ENTIRELY justifiable and *not* some sort of unconstitutional “censorship.”
(10) Gustavo Barajas, August 19, 2018 3:16 PM
This is why democracy is an utter failure. The USA stands in a weak foundation called democracy and democracy enables and promotes selfish desires. Democracy will turn into nazism. Socrates, plato and big rabbis all agree that democracy will reveal its evilness! Even to say that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east is an insult to Judaism!!
(9) Chuck Morse, August 19, 2018 2:58 PM
Don Jr. is correct
Respected conservative commentators such as Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager are being censored. I would suggest you look into this so you can see the bigger picture. It seems clear that the attempt to censor The widely disliked Alex Jones is low lying fruit. When they come for Alex Jones we should speak up loudly and clearly so that there will be someone left when they come for us.
Anonymous, August 22, 2018 7:27 PM
Telling Lies
The real issue is not Alex Jones's opinions so much as his stating as facts things which are demonstrably untrue - quite similarly to the political Left. And the fact that other people are inspired by his lies to attack the innocent.
This is not to say that everything Mr. Jones says is a lie, but even one false statement throws doubt on all the others. If an honest mistake is made, a clarification and apology are due once the statement is shown to be mistaken.
I don't know about Ben Shapiro, but Dennis Prager usually can support his statements with legally or scientifically acceptable evidence.
(8) Anonymous, August 19, 2018 2:47 PM
This dangerous logic is not new
In William Pearl’s “ The Four Front War,” he details and documents the four battlefields that constituted the struggle to evacuate Jews from Europe in the 1940s: the Nazis, the terrain, the British and, amazingly, Jewish international leadership. It is exactly the kind of absurd reasoning that is in this article that led to many ( not all) Jewish leadership around the world not coming to the aid of our people but instead, not wanting to be on the wrong side of the powers-that-be, forfeited earnest and strategic all-out-efforts to save the 6 milllion innocents. Rabbi Shafran, forgive me, but you should be ashamed of yourself. And, shame on Aish for posting this. There are nearly 63 million people who voted for Donald Trump - many of them were Jews and many, if not most, did so because of the extreme bias of the press and the government’s over- reach and harassment of conservatives. This has absolutely nothing to do with Alex Jones’ positions on current events and everything to do with the freedoms our United States enjoy to the envy of the world.
(7) Stephanie East, August 19, 2018 2:39 PM
Grateful for Your Sound Reasonable Voice
Just a heartfelt, “Thank you.” The world is getting so weird that the voices of reason must continue to speak.
(6) Terri Kleinsmith, August 19, 2018 2:13 PM
Truth?
I agree that much of what Alex Jones says is way out there but there is truth to some of it. While I'm not sure the government itself is involved in child trafficking, there are some people in the government who are involved. This is bigger than anyone imagined. Look at the terrorist training camp in NM. The judge let these animals out on bail, the compound was bull dozed before evidence could be gathered and local law enforcement said they have been alerting the FBI about this for quite some time. Much of what is being touted as tin foil hat conspiracy theories is true.
(5) Eli, August 19, 2018 2:03 PM
Thank you for your opinion.
But, who should be the arbiter of what’s allowed to be spoken? These days, the public narrative is controlled squarely by the Left. I may not like Alex Jones, but there is so much more insanity combined with bigotry, including blatant Antisemitism, that’s spewed by the Leftists, however all of the censorship attempts, 100% of them, are directed towards the Right.
In addition, we are all adults, able to think for ourselves, and don’t need anyone (especially with an ideological agenda) to filter ideas for our consumption. To think otherwise is arrogant and patronizing.
Anonymous, August 20, 2018 7:31 PM
Not even clost to 100%
Earlier this year Facebook removed approximately 80 left leaning pages affecting some 100 million followers. Many others have been penalized. For example pages like "Police the police", "Galactic Free Press" and "Free Thought Project" are a few that have been penalized in one way or another.
Your statement that; "all of the censorship attempts, 100% of them, are directed towards the Right. " is blatantly false.
(4) Ra'anan, August 19, 2018 1:51 PM
there are far more offensive people than Alex Jones, why...
was HE shut down???
(3) anonymous, August 19, 2018 1:04 PM
Not a good thing
This internet censorship is not a good thing as it appears to be going after conservative thinkers (Dennis Prager, Candace Owens, etc.). It also appears to be happening right before the upcoming elections in November. Could this possibly be a form of election meddling? The goal of the left is to shut down all diversity of thought and like the Nazi book burnings that is a dangerous path to go on. While the left is promoting censorship of the right, other sites, including AntiFa, Farrakhan etc. have not been censored and I do think that speaks for it self.
(2) Nancy, August 19, 2018 11:51 AM
Something to consider
Just because Alex Jones is ALLOWED to make such egregious statements it does not mean he should be doing so. How would any of us feel if we were the parents of a child who had been killed at Sandy Hook? And no. I do NOT want to censor anyone. I am also not addressing any legal issues here.
(1) Dov, August 19, 2018 8:11 AM
People who wanna censor him also want to censor Zionists
which is why Aish should not advocate censoring Alex Jones. Even tho we support anti-Holocaust denial laws in Europe, they haven't earned complete American-style free speech as America has.
Also, virtually, if not all of those who wanna censor Jones, are anti-Zionists who wanna give Sarsour, etc. a platform but stop Dershowitz, Prager, Peterson, from speaking "racist Zionist" thoughts.