Alex Jones..

Roar87 said:
You're a clown, stick to the topic instead of attacking the poster. I don't watch Alex Jones except the episodes where he's been on Joe Rogan, which is a handful of times in the past 5 years, I take what he says to be mostly silly and look at it as purely entertainment which is what anyone with any sense would do. I think the Sandy Hook thing was dumb, it was a dumb thing to say and he apologised for it over 3 years ago. I defend him saying dumb things because the ability to say dumb things and not be in prison is what seperates countries like ours from those of China, Russia and North Korea. It's a pretty straight ideological stance.
Click to expand...

I letting the clown thing slide for now, I have RTMd that. If they deem it as acceptable I will tell you what you are. (You won't like it)

However yet again you show, unfortunately, that same right leaning wrong think

Its fine for people to say what they want about others, even when its complete nonsense and has the risk of inciting idiots to do bad things.
BUT when someone applies a fraction of that to you you get your knickers totally twisted up.
 
wesimmo said:
Freedom of speech, especially when you use it to knowingly spread lies that cause hatred and harm, does not mean freedom from consequences. Hopefully they'll bend him right over when they sentence him.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech precisely means no legal consequences, tbh.

But free speech needs to be defined within boundaries of using speech to incite harm. And that includes libel or slander.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I letting the clown thing slide for now, I have RTMd that. If they deem it as acceptable I will tell you what you are. (You won't like it)

However yet again you show, unfortunately, that same right leaning wrong think

Its fine for people to say what they want about others, even when its complete nonsense and has the risk of inciting idiots to do bad things.
BUT when someone applies a fraction of that to you you get your knickers totally twisted up.
Click to expand...

They don't know the meaning of hyprocrisy.
 
cheesyboy said:
Freedom of speech precisely means no legal consequences, tbh.

But free speech needs to be defined within boundaries of using speech to incite harm. And that includes libel or slander.
Click to expand...

The definition is such a tricky one.
Personally I believe you should be able to say anything to anyone, if you choose to say things that are illegal, or incite an event etc then you should be willing to face the consequences
 
cheesyboy said:
Freedom of speech precisely means no legal consequences, tbh.

But free speech needs to be defined within boundaries of using speech to incite harm. And that includes libel or slander.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I meant 'should not'. And yes it's a tricky line, but someone knowingly lying to make money and causing the harm he has should absolutely not be protected.

Plus, as has been noted already, certain posters get very upset when you point out the truth about their failings, imagine how they'd react if I started spreading the word that they like touching up goats.
 
Ahleckz said:
Delicious. We’ve got Roar, a call centre agent and right wing nutter versus Raymond, a consistently sensible poster, with legal training.

My money is on Roar to get upset about words, cry about personal attacks, and throw his toys out the pram all whilst defending peoples right to use whatever words they want, dishing out personal attacks and ultimately taking his ball home.

Who’s opening the book?
Click to expand...

I work in Resource Planning as I've stated multiple times.
 
regardless of views, is no one here uncomfortable with their job even being an issue? maybe due to a bias i have due to the blue collar family i come from (dad may not have been academic but he worked his ass off far more than most (defo more than I and i am proud of him) but call centre worker, resource planning, Doctor or brickie, makes naff all difference to the validity of opinion imo. (unless it is a specific topic arguing with a professional of that topic)

(massive segue here but i have a proper bee in my bonnet that you need someone "trust worthy" or "qualified" to vouch for photo on passport..... like a teacher, preacher or doctor.... that really grinds my gears.. am sure anyone without a criminal record is capable of signing a photograph for likeness (sorry for segue)
 
bigmike20vt said:
regardless of views, is no one here uncomfortable with their job even being an issue? maybe due to a bias i have due to the blue collar family i come from (dad may not have been academic but he worked his ass off far more than most (defo more than I and i am proud of him) but call centre worker, resource planning, Doctor or brickie, makes naff all difference to the validity of opinion imo. (unless it is a specific topic arguing with a professional of that topic)

(massive segue here but i have a proper bee in my bonnet that you need someone "trust worthy" or "qualified" to vouch for photo on passport..... like a teacher, preacher or doctor.... that really grinds my gears.. am sure anyone without a criminal record is capable of signing a photograph for likeness (sorry for segue)
Click to expand...
It’s not about job, it’s about someone completely unqualified going into debate with someone who has a much better understanding. There’s so much nonsense online and people saying things as fact so I thought I’d point out one side is debating in good faith and actually has a detailed understanding of legal principles and doctrine whereas the other does not.
Now, if our resident right wing nutter (not a personal attack because he’s confirmed he is this) wants to correct me and tell me has an LLB then I’ll correct the record. However, I’m fairly sure he’s just arguing based on his feelings and opinion rather than actually understanding the issues at hand.

I agree we shouldn’t look down on job titles and roles, and appreciate it may have looked like that but hopefully the explanation above clarifies.
Hell, I’m a glorified car salesman albeit my title is much grander!
 
bigmike20vt said:
regardless of views, is no one here uncomfortable with their job even being an issue? maybe due to a bias i have due to the blue collar family i come from (dad may not have been academic but he worked his ass off far more than most (defo more than I and i am proud of him) but call centre worker, resource planning, Doctor or brickie, makes naff all difference to the validity of opinion imo.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting point, I'm a software/network automation engineer with absolutely no legal training - but a lot of experience in working for some of the big US tech companies and I learnt one big thing from that experience. These companies value customer experience over absolutely everything else imaginable, that might not mean much to you, but they absolutely obsess over customers and giving the customer what they want.

How is that relevant? When it comes to the social media companies I think it becomes very relevant. As you probably know - social media companies primarily make their money from selling your data to advertising companies, who in turn make money from customers buying their stuff, so you have the users of the platform, then the customers of it; the advertising companies.

The customers are essentially controlling the whole show, if they see their advertisements mixing alongside users posting things which they find "unpalatable" depending on the current societal fads; because they're the paying customer - they hold a lot of sway in dictating what's allows vs what's not allowed on the platform. Because the social media platform is a private system owned by a private company, they construct their own terms and conditions, ergo; they can allow or censor just about anything they like, within the confines of law of the country in which it's operating. (obviously these laws differ drastically from country to country)

The thing I struggle with a little, is that these social media companies have such an enormous critical mass of users (billions) that the rules of who sees what, are essentially being dictated by advertising companies, not the traditional institutions like courts or governments and those rules are driven by one main metric; money. I personally don't think it's very healthy for society to have an industry deciding these things, based purely on it's own business interests, or in the case of cancerous garbage like TikTok - what a foreign government wants you to see. (that's a different topic entirely) :)

In the final analysis, when awful Alex Jones has to pay out $$$$$$$$ to the families of Sandy Hook - I'll be playing the world's smallest violin, and as somebody who doesn't use social media at all - none of this affects me. I guess I just feel a hint of trepidation when I see kids swarming around these platforms, and they're being re-educated on what's good/bad by frankly - whoever has the most cash..
 
Raymond Lin said:
Except it didn't mitigate him at all.
Click to expand...

Anyway back to the topic, the damages haven't yet been awarded, I'm not an American lawyer specialising in US Constitutional Law but I'm pretty sure the guy quoted in the article below is:

“Jurors could say (Jones’ defamatory statements) is actually something we don’t want to punish very hard,” said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.
Click to expand...

www.nbcdfw.com

Is Alex Jones’ Trial About Free Speech Rights?

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words “Save the 1st” scrawled on tape covering his mouth.
www.nbcdfw.com www.nbcdfw.com
 
cheesyboy said:
Freedom of speech precisely means no legal consequences, tbh.

But free speech needs to be defined within boundaries of using speech to incite harm. And that includes libel or slander.
Click to expand...
Not the legal definition.

It means the government cannot stop you from saying something except under specific conditions. It doesn't mean you have a right to a platform paid for in any form by another, nor that you are free from private entities and individuals taking action against you when you cause them harm.

Jones has been calling the grieving families actors and liars for years causing them direct harm, and encouraging his followers to abuse them, the families have taken the legal actions that allow them to seek redress against him for the harm he has caused to their reputations and their daily lives. It's worth noting that under US law it's much harder to prove libel or slander than in the UK (hence why some people will try and get such cases heard in a UK court if there is any option to do so), but Jones has done a slap up job over the years of meeting the criteria for it and for it to be malicious and planned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
Screeeech said:
It's an interesting point, I'm a software/network automation engineer with absolutely no legal training - but a lot of experience in working for some of the big US tech companies and I learnt one big thing from that experience. These companies value customer experience over absolutely everything else imaginable, that might not mean much to you, but they absolutely obsess over customers and giving the customer what they want.

How is that relevant? When it comes to the social media companies I think it becomes very relevant. As you probably know - social media companies primarily make their money from selling your data to advertising companies, who in turn make money from customers buying their stuff, so you have the users of the platform, then the customers of it; the advertising companies.

The customers are essentially controlling the whole show, if they see their advertisements mixing alongside users posting things which they find "unpalatable" depending on the current societal fads; because they're the paying customer - they hold a lot of sway in dictating what's allows vs what's not allowed on the platform. Because the social media platform is a private system owned by a private company, they construct their own terms and conditions, ergo; they can allow or censor just about anything they like, within the confines of law of the country in which it's operating. (obviously these laws differ drastically from country to country)

The thing I struggle with a little, is that these social media companies have such an enormous critical mass of users (billions) that the rules of who sees what, are essentially being dictated by advertising companies, not the traditional institutions like courts or governments and those rules are driven by one main metric; money. I personally don't think it's very healthy for society to have an industry deciding these things, based purely on it's own business interests, or in the case of cancerous garbage like TikTok - what a foreign government wants you to see. (that's a different topic entirely) :)

In the final analysis, when awful Alex Jones has to pay out $$$$$$$$ to the families of Sandy Hook - I'll be playing the world's smallest violin, and as somebody who doesn't use social media at all - none of this affects me. I guess I just feel a hint of trepidation when I see kids swarming around these platforms, and they're being re-educated on what's good/bad by frankly - whoever has the most cash..
Click to expand...

They are being driven by what society thinks is good or bad, not driven by what the advertiser/customer/company sees as good or bad.
 
chroniclard said:
They are being driven by what society thinks is good or bad, not driven by what the advertiser/customer/company sees as good or bad.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree; Pretty much all of society unanimously agrees that junk food advertising aimed at kids on social media is bad, but the advertiser (or influencers, or whoever) gets insane amounts of revenue from it - so they do it, and they'll continue to do it until a goverment steps in and forces them to stop by writing laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom