Apple Removes Five of Six Infowars Podcast Series From iTunes Directory

[thisisnotmyname]

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

thatsthejoke.gif

 

[ThisBougieLife]

Gee, we are really talking about everything here.

Next up:

Abortion
Earth: Flat or Round?
Kennedy Assassination

Stay tuned

 

[thisisnotmyname]

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

I linked it in the last response but here's the full original post I made in this thread....

I really dislike Alex Jones. I went so far as to put entries in my hosts file that point all his domains to a dummy IP so I don't accidentally click on click-bait some time and give him one extra view. And I'm a person who is slightly right of center, that tells you how much I dislike his nut-job theories, lies, and distortion.

All that said, if I were in his position I'd be going Larry Flint right now (and he probably should). 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. We're reaching (likely reached already) the point where the internet is more important to free speech than physical locations and most people get broadcast format information from other individuals in just a few major locations (facebook, youtube, twitter, insta) so if those three companies (facebook/insta both being owned for facebook) decide to lock someone out for disagreeing with their message they can silence them just as effectively as (possibly more than if anonymity is also involved) a rogue government without the constraints of the first amendment.

Someone will bring this issue to SCOTUS. If I were Alex Jones I'd want the publicity of being the one to do it.

It is relevant because it's not much of a leap to from applying to physical private locations to applying to virtual private locations. Again, if digital spaces that are nominally open to public communication get to a certain critical mass of readership you could easily make this case. Whether or not the current court agrees is another question but I could very much seeing something along these lines preceding through the lower courts and being granted certiorari in the near future, maybe not this specific case but if I were Alex Jones I'd be filing.

This is how law works, you bring a case to test the edges of precedent and clarify how the law applies to changing realities in life.

 

[Treq]

You do realize denial is not a river in Egypt....

Are you denying that the right has been maligning the mainstream media for years all while promoting their own propaganda network of Fox “News”?!

 

[mudslag]

Gee, we are really talking about everything here.

Next up:

Abortion
Earth: Flat or Round?
Kennedy Assassination

Stay tuned

Are we leaving out Bigfoot and the moon is a hologram? That makes me a sad panda

 

[brinary001]

You know how that works...two wrongs.

Yeah. Maybe you’re right. But as long as those **** stain trumpanzees are willing to watch the world burn at their mercy, I’m willing to attack them in every way I see fit as we all ride the one-way ticket into hell that they bought us.

Call it pettiness if you want but I prefer to think of it more as a coping mechanism :}

 

[Treq]

Lol. Trump is a Nazi. See, that’s where you people go completely overboard and lose all credibility. Nazi..sure. No wonder nobody takes the left seriously.

I didn’t claim that trump is a nazi. (Although he does think some are good people) I claimed he is a racist. Which he is. Although he has been running the fascist playbook point for point.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I didn’t claim that trump is a nazi. (Although he does think some are good people) I claimed he is a racist. Which he is. Although he has been running the fascist playbook point for point.

Sure, pal. Sure.

 

[341328]

You obviously don’t who what the EDL are, they are quite clearly against Islam and Muslims. My point wasn’t about one or the other it was that the EDL, UKIP and the BNP are racist, they clearly target Muslims as well as those who practice Islam.

Islam (Muslims) aren’t a race!! People who follow Islam come from many different races.

 

[mudslag]

I linked it in the last response but here's the full original post I made in this thread....



It is relevant because it's not much of a leap to from applying to physical private locations to applying to virtual private locations. Again, if digital spaces that are nominally open to public communication get to a certain critical mass of readership you could easily make this case. Whether or not the current court agrees is another question but I could very much seeing something along these lines preceding through the lower courts and being granted certiorari in the near future, maybe not this specific case but if I were Alex Jones I'd be filing.

This is how law works, you bring a case to test the edges of precedent and clarify how the law applies to changing realities in life.

Sora provided a better explanation. https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...tunes-directory.2131173/page-27#post-26325318


This is nothing like the SCOTUS example, this is in regards to a private service that isn't a open public forum. It's a paid service that isn't even open to all, you have to have a APPLE DRM capable device to even use the service. It is nothing like what you just described.

 

[widgeteer]

I didn’t claim that trump is a nazi. (Although he does think some are good people) I claimed he is a racist. Which he is. Although he has been running the fascist playbook point for point.

Steve Bannon was the Nazi. Trump just listened to him.

Although Trump talks a lot about "preserving culture"...

 

[Treq]

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.

When the republican controlled state closes most of all the dmv offices in majority democratic districts, And purge voter rolls in those districts, yeah it’s hard. Anyway, there is no real need for ids as the in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in this country. What is a real problem is voter suppression and jerrymandering by the right.
[doublepost=1533597994][/doublepost]

Sure, pal. Sure.

Go ahead, deny the truth. The right is getting really good at it.

 

[Irishman]

You are absolutely incorrect. The issue is about the ability to air opinion, not whether white people are superior or whether gay people should be able to marry. Focus.

Ummmm they just reported their quarterly earnings to investors since they are PUBLIC. Apple is a slave to Wall Street so no they absolutely cant just do whatever they want with everything.

“Anti-fasicist are good guys”
Hey buddy, they are communist scum. They damage property and have no morals. Looks like you have been brainwashed by the Marxist idelogoy.

Looks like this thread is about Alex Jones. What do you think about him?
[doublepost=1533598281][/doublepost]

Steve Bannon was the Nazi. Trump just listened to him.

Although Trump talks a lot about "preserving culture"...

And Trump's father WAS arrested at a Klan rally...

 

[Hater]

Many? How many? You make it sound like literally everyone but you came out of seeing Infinity War and started indiscriminately trashing everything. I don't think that happened.

I'd probably prefer to listen to Alex Jones' podcast than endure 3 hours of Hollywood crap, at least there might be some entertainment value in listening to the podcast.

You're making it seem like everyone who hears an outlandish podcast on ye olde internet suddenly evolves into some kind of monster killer. I mean, of course it happens, just look at the whole ISIS recruitment tactic book, but it's hardly a widespread problem.

Anyone who wants to listen to Alex Jones can do so, just not via the Podcasts. Nobody is banning Alex Jones, that's how "dangerous" his words are.

 

[Irishman]

I didn’t ask you to transcribe his videos. I asked for a quote. That should be easy enough. A quote would take less time to type than your reply. Saying the evidence is ‘in there’ isn’t providing evidence. You have to identify the specific text.

I provided you video links that take less time to click on than to formulate your reply to my reply.

 

[GuruZac]

Yeah. Maybe you’re right. But as long as those **** stain trumpanzees are willing to watch the world burn at their mercy, I’m willing to attack them in every way I see fit as we all ride the one-way ticket into hell that they bought us.

Call it pettiness if you want but I prefer to think of it more as a coping mechanism :}

Come on, I know you are better than that. I don’t see the world burning at all. I see America burning in the fires of political decisiveness fanned by a complicit media. Cope with doing something positive!

 

[Irishman]

Liberals are deeply authoritarian and love their censorship. It's what they are and have always been.

We all knew this was coming before the midterm elections. They are shook and need every advantage possible. There will be more purging of conservatives within the next few weeks and months.

Of course anti-white racism and hate speech is perfectly acceptable. Hell, it is promoted as a cultural good by the left. You have an unalloyed virulent racist just promoted to the New York Times editorial board with full privileges on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (if she chooses).

We are entering dark times, folks. I hope liberals don't regret it too quickly, because it's coming.

This thread isn't about red/blue politics. Stay on topic.
[doublepost=1533598991][/doublepost]

You come across as quite hateful. Would you advocate your own banishment from the internet?

What's your view of Jones?

 

[GermanSuplex]

So they are removing fake news. Isn't that what Trump wanted?

 

[tshrimp]

Protected from what?

Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the first amendment of the constitution. Read that and my post should make sense to you.

 

[mudslag]

Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the first amendment of the constitution. Read that and my post should make sense to you.

This is not a 1st issue, why does this need to be pointed out?

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Sora provided a better explanation. https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...tunes-directory.2131173/page-27#post-26325318


This is nothing like the SCOTUS example, this is in regards to a private service that isn't a open public forum. It's a paid service that isn't even open to all, you have to have a APPLE DRM capable device to even use the service. It is nothing like what you just described.

I'll respond to Sora as well below but they cited incorrectly. You're obviously not following my logic (not meant as a slight, perhaps I'm not communicating it clearly enough) but I do believe a case such as this will be filed and we'll see how it shakes out. You and I seem to be too far apart to debate it.

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.

This was not government trying to restrict free speech or it never would have required SCOTUS review as that would have clearly violated the first amendment and been prima facie to throw it out. This was protected speech (religious materials) taking place on privately owned property (owned by the Gulf company).

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.

No, I had to look it up, Food Employees v. Logan Valley. SCOTUS found that the protestors had a right to protest on the privately owned property of the mall. Thurgood Marshall wrote for the majority:

The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. . . . When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment "lies at the foundation of free government by free men," and we must in all cases "weigh the circumstances and . . . appraise the . . . reasons . . . in support of the regulation . . . of the rights." . . . In our view, the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty here involved took place were held by others than the public is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a state statute.

(footnotes omitted)

The district court had found that "the Mall is the functional equivalent of a public business district" and the appeals court affirmed that. I hadn't reviewed Lloyd Corp before but just did and it's tailoring its ruling to whether the mall was an applicable location for the speech being exercised. Valid point but they aren't stating the first amendment can't apply on private property and Logan Valley and Marsh do.

Individual states have taken this further as well. For example, California (Apple, Google, Facebook, and Twitter being California companies) has an affirmative right to free speech in its own constitution. The Pruneyard case went to SCOTUS and upheld individuals' right to free speech on private property as well (another shopping mall).

There's enough precedent to see that the first amendment absolutely can be upheld on private property. Not all private property but I've never stated that. Whether the precedent would extend to digital environments is something for the next court to decide but I think there's ample ground to file when an individual is excluded from expressing thoughts on an nominally open platform with sufficient reach to be considered the electronic equivalent of a public square. One could easily make that claim for Youtube, Facebook et. al.

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.

No, I stand by my analysis, you cited the wrong case. Given I've cited the correct cases now I'll assume we can move on to more philosophical rather than legal (which is documented). A private entity could definitely chill free speech. Free speech is useless if it happens in a vacuum (or say, in your own living room). It needs to have potential for an audience whether they will agree with the speech or not. This has traditionally been the public square but as the above has shown the definition of public square can change with time, from literally the square to a shopping mall and to something else entirely in an era where communication, particularly broadcast communication by individuals, is done electronically. If the primary mechanism for communication is electronic and a oligopoly of platforms all ban a particular political viewpoint then that right is under threat. Again, whether any specific court agrees with that only time will tell but that's a valid argument (and a plausible scenario) and one I think we'll see made in the near future.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Not nice, Apple, not nice .. As far as I know hate speech, as long as you don't call for violence, is protected speech just like any other kind of speech in U.S. Snowflake virus is infecting this planet fast.

Make your own platform and you can say whatever you want.

 

[Sora]

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.

I understand that it may be hard to keep up with appeals and SCOTUS cases, but the information you are posting is incorrect.

While the District Court, in the Lloyd Cord. v. Tanner relied on the Marsh v. Alabama precedent to grant relief to the petitioners that their 1A rights were violated.
However....on appeal, SCOTUS reversed the lower courts decision. In their opinion, 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.

Therefore it is inaccurate to claim that 1A protections applies to private property. I'm sure there are other states that may have extended constitutional protections on a state level, but if challenged it would fall, as the SCOTUS case is precedent setting.

If there are any lawyers present maybe they can shed more light into this domain.

 

[Irishman]

But I perceive you as being hateful. I call for you to be banned from the internet. Your logic, not mine.

You are speaking from a total ignorance of Jones. Only you can remedy that. I strongly suggest that you do.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

This sort of simplistic analysis of the last election result is exactly what will cause him to win another term. Writing it off to “racism and xenophobia” makes for a convenient talking point but not much else.

You really think he's getting a second term? I guess it's plausible but I don't find it very likely.