WikiQuote is a good idea, I didn't think Alex Jones would have a page there but here it is. But the worst I could see is "I will STUMP your head in if you start a fight with me, you thug scum" and "Stop being weak! And when you see a threat coming down on you, deal with it!". As political speech goes, I've heard worse from very mainstream politicians. Which ones do you think are the worst there?
> I don’t understand why you’d write this response without looking into the man first.
I did. I know who Alex Jones is. But of course I didn't read every single one of his rants, I have much better ways to spend my limited time on this Earth, thankyouverymuch. I also think if somebody argues for his exclusion from all major platform, they should already have the examples of the violent calls ready, just saying "yes, he did that, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you would we?" shouldn't be enough.
> but then maybe don’t defend him?
People still can't get an idea that demanding someone to be treated fairly is not the same as liking them or defending them. I mean, we're doing this thing for millenia, the Bible (and I mean the old, Jewish one, not even the newer one) talks about just courts - for criminals, not for good nice people - as one of the basic requirements, and we still don't get it through that being just to someone and defending someone is not the same. How long will it take? Will the collective conscience in year 9000 get it?
"1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!"
Note that the second one is directly connected to Sandy Hook, since he tells everyone that it was a hoax done with the purpose of taking people's guns away. He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt. He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns, tells them that armed revolt is the proper response....
You're not demanding that he be treated fairly. Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms. You're defending him by saying you don't think he does this. That's not being just or fair, that's being counterfactual, and even worse it's coming from a position of deliberate ignorance.
OK you got this one. It's in the middle of the large and mostly incoherent rant, so I missed it, but that's encouragement of violence (even though Jones would probably call it rhetorical figure, but he should have used different rhetoric in this case). For this he does deserve condemnation. Doesn't make him a "threat to our democracy", as one not-very-smart Senator recently proclaimed.
> "1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!"
This is not a call to violence - not only nobody is trying to take our firearms, but most gun control proponents specifically and emphatically reject the suggestion that this is their goal. And even if they were lying, it's a predictive, not normative statement, about a very hypothetical situation at that.
> He's basically telling people to rise up in armed revolt.
If "they" try to "take our firearms", which nobody is doing. On the contrary, Supreme Court repeatedly recognized firearms ownership as a personal right (even though some locations have trouble recognizing it). Saying "if you do this policy, people will revolt" is a common rhetorical figure, which is very far from direct encouragement of violence.
> He tells his audience that the victims' parents are actually part of a conspiracy to take their guns,
This is despicable and loathsome. But not a call to violence.
> tells them that armed revolt is the proper response....
If his conspiracy proves true and people actually come to take his guns - which of course it won't and they won't (unless he commits a felony, which is different business).
> You're not demanding that he be treated fairly.
Yes I do. I am kind of an expert on what I am demanding, you can believe me at least on that.
> Being treated fairly would mean that if he's advocating violence he should get kicked off these platforms.
So far we've seen he advocated violence once, and even that in kinda rhetorical (though no doubt very objectionable) fashion, along the lines of "punch the Nazi" that we've heard so much recently, or one press member expressing a desire to "wring the neck" of one press secretary for not giving responses to this press member's liking. I've seen the same and way worse literally on every platform that banned Jones, with no consequence to speak of, certainly not total ban (maybe sometimes short suspension). This is certainly what should be condemned, but way below total ban. So I continue to think he was not treated fairly.
I leave you with this quote from Noam Chomsky:
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
You can’t say that his call to arms when they take our guns doesn’t count because nobody is taking our guns. Neither he nor his audience are constrained by the facts. He’s telling them that there is a large, active conspiracy to take their guns. They believe him. In that context, saying to be violent if they take their guns is a call to violence.
I don’t see how your quote applies. Inciting violence is not typically considered protected speech, and even if it is, getting kicked off of YouTube is not a restriction on one’s freedom of expression.
> You can’t say that his call to arms when they take our guns doesn’t count because nobody is taking our guns.
I didn't say it doesn't count. I said it is not a call to violence.
> there is a large, active conspiracy to take their guns. They believe him.
They may be believing him there's a conspiracy (though with people jumping around calling for repeal of Second Amendment I'd say the conspiratorial part of it is rather weak) but they can't believe somebody has already came to take their guns. For a simple reason that nobody did, they'd notice something like that. And, I don't think there was a single instance of violence caused by the fact that somebody listened to Alex Jones and thought somebody came to take their gun and reacted violently. Either Alex Jones is very bad at his job (which is not hard to believe - but then why ban him?) or maybe whoever listens to him does not interpret his message in this way?
> In that context, saying to be violent if they take their guns is a call to violence.
No, it is not. For example, I would consider if US (or any other) government starts rounding up Jews and putting them into concentration camps, violence to resist such governmental action is justified (and, I think, morally necessary, if there's no other way to stop it). This is not "calling to violence" in any sense that relates to current discussion - because nobody is actually rounded up and put into concentration camps. Confusing two situations - discussion of something that might happen (and what we want and hope to prevent much earlier than there would be even close to the theoretical situation) and what would be proper action in that theoretical case of an unacceptable infringement of the rights, and call to violence right here, right now, in our current situation (which we consider acceptable enough that our society condemns calls to violence) - is completely erroneous.
> Inciting violence is not typically considered protected speech, and even if it is, getting kicked off of YouTube is not a restriction on one’s freedom of expression.
Simultaneously kicking him from all major platforms is clearly designed to limit his freedom of expression and suppress his message (as much as non-governmental bodies can). You can argue that it is a good thing, but if you argue this is not the goal you are either very naive or willfully ignorant. And one count of rhetorical "incitement" we've seen so far can not be a reason for such action. People routinely say same and worse things online and do not get banned from everything (some even get hired to work in major newspapers).
It is clear that Jones was banned not because of one or two occasional (and very rare if in all his very prolific expression so far we've found one or maybe, maybe two such instances) references to violence. But because of his despicable character and his despicable message. It is clear that a lot of people consider silencing him be a good thing, a desirable thing to happen.
After all, nobody is forced to download his stuff from Apple or go to his pages on Facebook. If somebody wanted to just ignore him, it's very easy to do - I did it for decades without even trying a little bit. But people don't want to just not hear him - people want him silenced. And thus my quote is very relevant.
> I don’t understand why you’d write this response without looking into the man first.
I did. I know who Alex Jones is. But of course I didn't read every single one of his rants, I have much better ways to spend my limited time on this Earth, thankyouverymuch. I also think if somebody argues for his exclusion from all major platform, they should already have the examples of the violent calls ready, just saying "yes, he did that, trust us, we wouldn't lie to you would we?" shouldn't be enough.
> but then maybe don’t defend him?
People still can't get an idea that demanding someone to be treated fairly is not the same as liking them or defending them. I mean, we're doing this thing for millenia, the Bible (and I mean the old, Jewish one, not even the newer one) talks about just courts - for criminals, not for good nice people - as one of the basic requirements, and we still don't get it through that being just to someone and defending someone is not the same. How long will it take? Will the collective conscience in year 9000 get it?