Your question has been answered by multiple people on here. Please do us all a favor and stop responding until you learn how the First Amendment works.
Thanks!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your question has been answered by multiple people on here. Please do us all a favor and stop responding until you learn how the First Amendment works.
Thanks!
No. There is actual hate speech- ya kno, speech and actions rooted in nonsensical hate..and these arguments deserve no quarter. The hateful members of the far right have successfully muddied the waters and projected their hatefulness against folks that are against hate. When you give room to legitimizing items like nonsensical racism and supremacist ideologies, you also fall prey to those arguments by proxy.
Not gonna reread it with that attitude. And it seems like everyone is having a hard time understanding your point, so you should try rewording it.
Last edited:
No it doesn’t, because your answer is full of guesswork and conjecture.
“this is some dangerous slippery slope”
Yes, yes it is.
[doublepost=1536426340][/doublepost]
There is no definition of hate speech.
[doublepost=1536426390][/doublepost]
“I choose to be ignorant because you’re a meanie”
I was hoping that entire concept of a "slippery slope" died with Scalia. It's generally the argument of someone who doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Not surprising at all that it's your crutch, here.
How is this naive if I've seen it happen many times, even with people who are far more objectionable? Milo Yiannopoulos gets so much publicity just by getting banned from stuff. Edward Snowden and Wikileaks became legendary after PayPal and many others tried to kill them. Alex Jones still has his website and more publicity than ever to drive people to it. Ben Shapiro – I actually agree with this guy in many ways but find him annoying – wouldn't be very remarkable if tons of SJWs weren't protesting his speeches. Name one instance of private entities in the US successfully silencing a person with any significant following.
You seriously don’t think this will happen again? So naive. This is just the beginning.
Everyone is too busy trying to blame the Russians for election interference when the real threat is happening right under your noses.
You guys, honestly. I can’t even believe what I’m hearing.
That’s bull. In that case, we all are on a slippery slope down with no chance of recourse.
Why not just be intellectually honest, here, and say that you just want people to agree with you?
That's what you're looking for. All of us understand what you're saying. We just disagree with you vehemently. Get that through your skull.
I happen to agree this is not a first amendment issue. The question really isn't whether Apple has the POWER to ban Alex Jones. Of course they do. That's such a dodge and that is a question nobody is asking.
The question is whether they should be in the business of culling this kind of content. And please, this is not "child porn" or porn or anything like that. It's abrasive political speech and goofy conspiracy theories. If you think Apple is justified in blackhole'ing this content, just say so. Just own it. You're a book burner. Be proud. Please stop telling us Apple has the right to do it. We know it.
Also, I always find it interesting how the left all of a sudden finds a new respect, love and understanding of the First Amendment when they agree with the content being censored. These are the same people by the way that insist the NFL players have "their free speech" and shouldn't be punished for kneeling during the National Anthem.
Lol.
Merriam-Webster disagrees.
hate speech
noun
Legal Definition of hate speech
: speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)
Yep, exactly. Both you and that guy have been violating the anti-insult rules on MacRumors, so I'm not going to waste my time... my ignore list now has 2 more people, and it only had 1 before.
There is a massive amount of posting on here that disagrees with that. We've seen how many folks in here talk about this as a First Amendment issue? It's clearly not, yet the vast amount of ignorance on that front is what is driving the conversation.
I am perfectly fine with Apple blocking whomever they want from utilizing their platform as it is well within their rights as a private entity.
Those of us that understand how the First works also disagree with those on the left who name drop it with regards to the kneeling issue.
That’s the point. You will never even hear of the successful ones because you know, that’s how censorship rolls. There are plenty of things that you will never even hear about because the media silence it.
For example, there are many massacres that happen daily, worldwide that you don’t hear about. Many assassinations, many slaughters. You will never hear about them because of media censorship.
There are many citizens of all countries that are killed by illegal immigrants daily that you will never hear about. Go searching for them and you’ll find them, but they are initially censored.
It's a very misused argument but sometimes one that works. The Bill of Rights has lots of reasoning backed by that, particularly in the 1st, kinda the 2nd, and the 4th. The guy you're responding to seems to just be upset about Alex Jones getting banned because he believes him, so I'm not bothering anymore.
“I’m just here making my own little echo chamber, one person at a time”
Okay, here's what I would do if one of my Gay Liberal Atheist Communist Black heroes was banned from social media:
1. I would question why it was done. I would want to see specific reasons for the banning, whether they did things that broke the established rules of the site or if they were banned simply out of disagreement.
2. If they are said to have broken the rules, I would look at what they posted to see why the content was supposed to have broken the rules and assess the judgment of the social media platform. E.g. Were they harassing people? Sending death threats? Calling for violence?
3. If I agreed with the judgment, I would move on. If I disagreed with the judgment, I would start a dialogue about what social media's role in public discourse should be. I would ask questions like:
a. Has social media become so pervasive that they should no longer qualify as "private"? Should the government play some role in monitoring and regulating the behavior of a social media platform's content oversight? Should there be a state-owned social media platform that never censors anything unless it's actually illegal?
1. I would question why it was done. I would want to see specific reasons for the banning, whether they did things that broke the established rules of the site or if they were banned simply out of disagreement.
2. If they are said to have broken the rules, I would look at what they posted to see why the content was supposed to have broken the rules and assess the judgment of the social media platform. E.g. Were they harassing people? Sending death threats? Calling for violence?
3. If I agreed with the judgment, I would move on. If I disagreed with the judgment, I would start a dialogue about what social media's role in public discourse should be. I would ask questions like:
a. Has social media become so pervasive that they should no longer qualify as "private"? Should the government play some role in monitoring and regulating the behavior of a social media platform's content oversight? Should there be a state-owned social media platform that never censors anything unless it's actually illegal?
The problem is that it only works when it is correctly addressing an actual right. Too often its utilized (as it was by Scalia in far too many dissents) as a crutch when there's no real legal argument to rely on. We always had fun when talking about slippery slopes back in law school. I think it ends up as a law school meme most of the time.
Then how do you know? And I was asking about a famous person who wasn't censored before but suddenly got banned, which is what you were asking about.
Wishy washy definition, open to interpretation. There are many examples of ‘hate speech’ that fit this criteria hosted by apps that still remain on the App Store, on Twitter, on YouTube, on twitch, on Facebook.
Yeah totally, my echo chamber of (the entire population) minus (3 people who have no argument and just call others names).
You’re right but it’s not so easy. The big tech companies are essentially a small group who control the overwhelming majority of the information we see. I don’t care that they blocked Jones. I’m fine with it. He’s a huge jerk who’s usually wrong and that’s almost universally accepted even among conservatives I’ve talked to. I don’t however want to see a hive mind mentality start calling for the censorship of all opposing viewpoints to those of the big tech/entertainment companies.
Computer tech can fall into anyone's hands very easily, so I'm not concerned. If it became a problem, enough people with such skills could build alternative platforms. There is 4chan, for instance. Similarly the right to bear arms is going to really become inalienable as 3D printing takes off, despite banks' attempts to defund gunmakers.
The Internet itself is a different story. Natural monopolies make it very hard for competition to exist, and with no net neutrality, those big tech corps can _really_ silence people. But it's been ruled that ISPs have a right to free speech and can therefore choose which content to serve. So that and the monopoly thing are why I think it should be a public utility.
Last edited:
Because I tend to visit many outlets and don’t get my information from mainstream media, and ya constantly see gaping holes of mass media censorship.
[doublepost=1536427615][/doublepost]
Your question has been answered by multiple people on here. Please do us all a favor and stop responding until you learn how the First Amendment works.
Thanks!
I don’t really care about your dumb American politics, but since you love it so much maybe you should think long and hard about why you have Donald Trump as a president.
Thanks!