Apple Removes Five of Six Infowars Podcast Series From iTunes Directory

[thisisnotmyname]

That is not even remotely close to same thing, this is about an Apple site controlling content on their site. So no you're still wrong this is not a 1st issue. You might want to read through the full info before claiming this as your example, cause again it's not even close to the same thing.

I knew what I was citing. As I stated from the beginning...

Sure, the first amendment doesn't apply to private institutions in MOST CASES, but it has been held with physical locations that the first amendment does apply to "public square" situations. e.g. shopping malls can be forced to accept the right to assemble and speak.

In Marsh it was decided that the first amendment was applicable to private property. In that case it was a "company town," the court ruled that they were in effect operating as a municipality and thus were subject to the same protections of free speech. That set precedent that first amendment protections apply to the "public square" regardless of whether that physically exists on public or private property. That was later built upon by the Warren court to apply to other private property such as malls (I can look up the case if you really want me to but again I don't make things up). There have also been various state supreme court rulings to the same end (I know California ruled in favor and I think Colorado as well, I'm sure there were others).

It's a fact.

 

[jwhitnah]

That is not even remotely close to same thing, this is about an Apple site controlling content on their site. So no you're still wrong this is not a 1st issue. You might want to read through the full info before claiming this as your example, cause again it's not even close to the same thing.

Has anyone tried to use "Marsh v. Alabama" in the way he suggests? Are you an attorney?

 

[Omega Mac]

A lot of people need to read the 1st amendment. Apple is not the government, thus they can censor whatever they feel like, they don't have to justify it.

Zoom out, context.

It's a broad scale assault marshalling many large tech companies all moving to shut down and deplatform a customer in virtual sync.

How did that happen?

Day to they they are market competitors. What now, have the formed some kind of corporate police? You know what that is don't you... that's actually the definition faxscisim, but hey since words don't mean what they use to lets move on from this uncomfortable reality.

The odds of coincidence are zero. You might say it looks like market rigging, that is the behaviour of a cabal.

Figure it out. It's not hard.

 

[Frank Dalton]

It’s not, nor has it been difficult for the countless other folks you’ve disingenuously asked this question of.

Prove it. I have asked nobody else that question.

Just cut to the Breitbartian talking points and save everyone time.

Just admit you’re a silly troll and spare us.

 

[DanielDD]

If you want to play this game then you need to read the entire list, including the second column of additional primary documents as well as the litany of documents that can serve as substitutes for a lack of primary identification.

These documents are two constricting to cover all US citizens, hitting disproportionately at poor people. The only documents that everyone can get their hands on are the birth certificate and the social security number. There is a problem, though: this specific combination is not enough to apply for a state ID. Surprise surprise.
The devil is in the details, my friend.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Funny, imagine how it would read in the history books. Much of the country believing in complete verifiable lies, reaching unrest as people who are sick of those spreading verifiable lies start to attack the source. Meanwhile, a foreign power is verifiably trolling the population with verifiable lies with the goal of creating civil unrest that could lead to situations exactly like that. And for now, you'll blame the left.

but how it goes down in the history books depends on who wins.

(just some dark humor folks, I don't believe we're heading for civil war)

 

[widgeteer]

Prove it. I have asked nobody else that question.

Yeah, that sounds likely.

“Politics!?? What...what is this...WORD??”

 

[Frank Dalton]

These documents are two constricting to cover all US citizens, hitting disproportionately at poor people. The only documents that everyone can get their hands on are the birth certificate and the social security number. There is a problem, though: this specific combination is not enough to apply for a state ID. Surprise surprise.
The devil is in the details, my friend.

I am open to this line of reasoning if you can supply evidence that this is actually a problem. Is there anyone in Texas that has had great difficulty obtaining state ID and supplying this combination of documents?

 

[Omega Mac]

Let's look at Texas as an example. In order to obtain a State ID you need one of the following documents: a valid U.S. passport, U.S. military ID card, driver's license, U.S. Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Naturalization.

- People born in the US are unable to obtain the latter two.
- Only people that go to the military have a military card.
- Poor people may not have driver's license, much less a passport.

Let's not forget that voting restrictions are not only about voters IDs. There is enough evidence that even courts are striking down these measures.

So get yourself a passport. What's the problem?

The rest are convenient and probably based on the fact they may have had to prove identity initially using a, wait for it, passport!

All citizens of a country are entitled to a passport. The US surely is not different.

 

[Frank Dalton]

Yeah, that sounds likely.

“Politics!?? What...what is this...WORD??”

The thread history is not difficult to search. You want to make silly accusations, back them up. Or is rising to such an occasion simply too deep of a request for a troll?

 

[Omega Mac]

Yes, and we can criticize it.

... because, wait for it, you have 1st Amendment rights, aka Freedom of speech.

You're welcome.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Trump voters: How DARE you call people who put children in cages just for being brown, nazis! Don’t casually throw that word around!

Also Trump voters: How DARE you not agree that it’s Nazism to not be able to download Alex Jones’ podcast on iTunes!

Wow. How terribly uninformed

 

[definitive]

27 pages of same people arguing and repeating same thing over the course of an entire day, trying to out-virtue signal one another. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Frank Dalton]

27 pages of same people arguing and repeating same thing over the course of an entire day, trying to out-virtue signal one another. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What else is the Interwebs for?

 

[mudslag]

I say the same about CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times (now hiring more anti-white racists), Washington Post, Huffington Post.

They all peddled the preposterous lies about WMDs in Iraq. They built up public support for a war and we know the consequences of that.

All of them were propagandists for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Read the Wikileaks emails -- those outlets are heavily-DNC controlled. They fired people who reported Hillary passing out and questioning her seizures and health issues.

You mean the media reported what they were told by the gov? A Republican controlled gov at the time. How do you jump to Clinton in the same breath about issues a decade apart?

All of them are causing real-world damage by propagating Trump/Russia word association, making up "anonymous sources" that turn out to be lies, and willfully underreporting and ignoring the deep corruption at the FBI that led to the witch hunt investigation.

Anonymous sources have always been used, it's not some magical unicorn that just started showing up when Trump came into power. ALL media, left and right use them, you just happen to have an issue with it because they speak out against someone you support. It's funny how you whine about made up anon sources when so many of those stories ended up being true. The left wing media must have a magic 8 ball that predicts so many Trump screw ups.

 

[DanielDD]

I am open to this line of reasoning if you can supply evidence that this is actually a problem. Is there anyone in Texas that has had great difficulty obtaining state ID and supplying this combination of documents?

We are dealing with democracy. Therefore, any action that may eventually restrict voting rights must be carefully examined. If republicans really wanted to solve voter fraud, they could propose creating a voter ID for every US citizen. They do not do that. They hide under photoed documents that all require proof of identity (that list of documents that may be too constricting).
Besides, this is not the only mean by which they can restrict minority voting rights. They can restrict early voting, gerrymandering, and so forth. It is worth noting that US courts have shut down republican measures, citing potential voting rights violations.
And yet, they refuse to even acknowledge that these measures may contribute to this very problem.
So, it is not difficult to understand what is going on here.

So get yourself a passport. What's the problem?

The rest are convenient and probably based on the fact they may have had to prove identity initially using a, wait for it, passport!

All citizens of a country are entitled to a passport. The US surely is not different.

Still requires proof of identity (check the brochure above)

 

[Sora]

No, I'm not wrong. I believe it was Marsh v. Alabama that set the initial precedent and that was subsequently expanded to property owned by a shopping mall (can't remember the case on that one). Both of those were SCOTUS but then there have been multiple state supreme court rulings affirming free speech rights on private property despite objections of ownership when those properties are considered to be "public square" (primarily shopping malls). I'm not Alex Jones, I don't just make up facts.

Now, I could also see a compelling argument building on these rulings that there is a digital equivalent to the public square and internet platforms that are normally open to the entirety of the public and of sufficient size and reach would have to adhere to that same doctrine.

Marsh v. Alabama, was a case decided by the SCOTUS in which it ruled that a state statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town.

Again - this was the state (government) trying to chill the speech of a citizen. Not a private company.
Great case though.

And the second case was Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, where the SCOTUS distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in the Marsh v. Alabama case, and further noted that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for 1A free speech rights to apply within in it. In other words, the Court concluded that the respondents could have distributed their handbills on "any public street, on any public sidewalk, in any public park, or in any public building." Therefore, respondents were not entitled to exercise their free-speech rights on the privately owned shopping-center property.

This is in direct opposition to what you wrote. Thus affirming what i have written ad nauseam, that free speech cannot be chilled by private companies. Because it would infringe upon their rights as entities to conduct business.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

The government being responsible for 9/11/2001 is true. It is not a conspiracy theory.

Be a patriot. Not a blind sheep.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

 

[mudslag]

Has anyone tried to use "Marsh v. Alabama" in the way he suggests? Are you an attorney?

No but Id love to see someone try to use a service provided to limited users, you know those with Apple DRM devices to claim a 1st issue. I got a $100 that says you're dead wrong.
[doublepost=1533595547][/doublepost]

I knew what I was citing. As I stated from the beginning...



In Marsh it was decided that the first amendment was applicable to private property. In that case it was a "company town," the court ruled that they were in effect operating as a municipality and thus were subject to the same protections of free speech. That set precedent that first amendment protections apply to the "public square" regardless of whether that physically exists on public or private property. That was later built upon by the Warren court to apply to other private property such as malls (I can look up the case if you really want me to but again I don't make things up). There have also been various state supreme court rulings to the same end (I know California ruled in favor and I think Colorado as well, I'm sure there were others).

It's a fact.

Again not the same thing so what your talking about does not in anyway relate making any argument about this point moot.

 

[Frank Dalton]

We are dealing with democracy. Therefore, any action that may eventually restrict voting rights must be carefully examined.

This is absolutely true. 100% agreed.

If republicans really wanted to solve voter fraud, they could propose creating a voter ID for every US citizen. They do not do that. They hide under photoed documents that all require proof of identity (that list of documents that may be too constricting).

I'm open to all suggestions on the issue. A special voter ID could be a good idea. I'm actually not necessarily wedded to the idea that this is a huge problem at all, I've just personally always found it odd that I can just walk into a polling station, verbally provide a name, and they just cross me off a list in a book of names they have. Who is to say my grandfather didn't die last year and I'm using his name to vote? Is this a statistically significant problem? Probably not. But should this be something I can get away with? Absolutely not. One citizen, one vote.

Besides, this is not the only mean by which they can restrict minority voting rights. They can restrict early voting, gerrymandering, and so forth. It is worth noting that US courts have shut down republican measures, citing potential voting rights violations.

Gerrymandering comes from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Glockworkorange]

We are dealing with democracy. Therefore, any action that may eventually restrict voting rights must be carefully examined. If republicans really wanted to solve voter fraud, they could propose creating a voter ID for every US citizen. They do not do that. They hide under photoed documents that all require proof of identity (that list of documents that may be too constricting).
Besides, this is not the only mean by which they can restrict minority voting rights. They can restrict early voting, gerrymandering, and so forth. It is worth noting that US courts have shut down republican measures, citing potential voting rights violations.
And yet, they refuse to even acknowledge that these measures may contribute to this very problem.
So, it is not difficult to understand what is going on here.



Still requires proof of identity (check the brochure above)

How about people just get state IDs or drivers licenses? If voting is that important, go get an ID.

People, it’s not hard. Unless you think minorities are not bright enough to obtain a silly state ID.

 

[widgeteer]

The thread history is not difficult to search. You want to make silly accusations, back them up. Or is rising to such an occasion simply too deep of a request for a troll?

This one's better and spot on accurate:

A subtle form of trolling involving "bad-faith" questions. You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party. If your bait is successful, the other party may engage, painstakingly laying out their logic and evidence in the false hope of helping someone learn. In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party, and have no intention of truly entertaining their point of view. Instead, you react to each piece of information by misinterpreting it or requesting further clarification, ad nauseum.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sealioning

 

[Glockworkorange]

This is absolutely true. 100% agreed.



I'm open to all suggestions on the issue. A special voter ID could be a good idea. I'm actually not necessarily wedded to the idea that this is a huge problem at all, I've just personally always found it odd that I can just walk into a polling station, verbally provide a name, and they just cross me off a list in a book of names they have. Who is to say my grandfather didn't die last year and I'm using his name to vote? Is this a statistically significant problem? Probably not. But should this be something I can get away with? Absolutely not. One citizen, one vote.



Gerrymandering comes from both sides of the aisle.

Getting a state ID is not hard. This is all a farce. Truly. If you believe it is a real hardship to obtain a government ID, I have some swampland in FL to sell you.

 

[Frank Dalton]

Getting a state ID is not hard. This is all a farce. Truly. If you believe it is a real hardship to obtain a government ID, I have some swampland in FL to sell you.

I'm not convinced either. But if someone can show me hard numbers that this is prohibitively difficult, I am all ears.

 

[mudslag]

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

They don't need to, it can make the beams hot enough to lose structural integrity.