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
One thumbs-up button wasn't enough for this. So brilliantly concise. Well done.
[doublepost=1536524319][/doublepost]
You're welcome to be intentionally dense, but I think you know full well what he meant, especially considering what was said afterward.
About the government/law enforcement not being allowed to restrict their access to certain websites.
If the webmasters of those sites choose to block them, thats a completely different matter,
Always unfortunate to find out that someone you know and care about is severely lacking in critical thinking skills. Had to go through it multiple times myself.
If they'd just ask why people like Alex Jones say what they do, and really think on it, it becomes clear why he's not worth the time of day.
But the constitution has more power than a corporate policy IMO. Read again: "a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." To me this can be argued in court.
It's not a matter of legal and illegal; it's a matter of Apple not wanting to do business with InfoWars and/or Alex Jones. Apple's under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide a platform to InfoWars for spreading the garbage which they spread, and no court is going to force them to do business with any common grifter.
[doublepost=1536524805][/doublepost]
It can be, and it'll lose.
Yep, AJ had a chance to speak and listen and to speak again... in the constraints of the rules set by Apple.
I'm sure you could find others saying similar thinks in amore civilized way that not have been banned.
Cos when you argue "everything has to go", then I demand the right to post pr0n into channel targeted at primary school students
In your own words, tell me exactly what I have said in my post that you quoted.
Yep, AJ had a chance to speak and listen and to speak again... in the constraints of the rules set by Apple.
I'm sure you could find others saying similar thinks in amore civilized way that not have been banned.
Cos when you argue "everything has to go", then I demand the right to post pr0n into channel targeted at primary school students
I'm not arguing about putting porn in schools, or on religious sites. My point is the Supreme Court seems to think that the first Amendment applies to online, as well as in the person " Packingham v. North Carolina". If It's true AJ's content was deplatformed and is constitutionally protected, then that means these companies violated his 1st amendment right.
In a unanimous judgment issued in June 2017, the Court ruled the North Carolina statute unconstitutional, and that social media — defined broadly enough to include Facebook, Amazon.com, the Washington Post, and WebMD — is considered a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech.[1]
Yes, freedom of association.
However, private companies are frequently required to do business with people they don't want to do business with, based on their beliefs.
That's why there are anti-discrimination laws.
A private webmaster can choose to block users as they fit. Have you ever been suspended here? You don't have a 1A right to post here.
I'd just like to expand on this from above.
There is zero case law to suggest that the App Store or any platform like it is a "public forum" which would support a First Amendment argument that Apple cannot suppress expression on the App Store.
Unless and until that happens—and I'll eat a hat if it ever does—the App Store is Apple's turf with which they can do as they please, as long as they're not engaging in anticompetitive behavior or otherwise violating any laws.
To which protected class does InfoWars—a company—belong? What about Alex Jones? Are they being discriminated against for being members of a protected class?However, private companies are frequently required to do business with people they don't want to do business with, based on their beliefs.
No, they're not. That's why I said "any common grifter."
Yes, freedom of association.
However, private companies are frequently required to do business with people they don't want to do business with, based on their beliefs.
Is Alex in a protected class? He's already claimed he's a performance artist. I don't recall that being a protected class.
Lose on what grounds? TOS violations? Twitter won’t even provide a copy of their TOS to public with out a court order. So the public has no idea what is written in Twitters TOS. Plus Twitter can change their TOS as they see fit when ever they want to, just to protect them self.
https://twitter.com/en/tos
Now if you want to argue that Twitter selectively enforces its TOS (which it has the right) then you have a valid complaint.
Quoting, Incase anyone missed it or chose to ignore it.
It was argued here, last night, by another person.
And there is this article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...er-really-censoring-free-speech/#26304d3e65f5
I’m still processing the information.
Your turn.
[doublepost=1536526908][/doublepost]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...er-really-censoring-free-speech/#26304d3e65f5