Alex Jones..

[bigmike20vt]

i agree there is a grey area........ but surely no one thinks that making highly hurtful / offensive accusations against specific people without offering a shred of evidence to back up said comments is pretty clear cut, esp when there is a pretty likely chance that some nut jobs will take what you say as gospel and act upon it?

 

[Freakbro]

i agree there is a grey area........ but surely no one thinks that making highly hurtful / offensive accusations against specific people without offering a shred of evidence to back up said comments is pretty clear cut

I think the reaction and hatred of Alex Jones is basically as if he shot the kids, he just put some dumb theory out there because that's what he does and a lot of people are happy to hear him say dumb **** for essentially purely entertainment purposes.

Seems you are wrong mike, people do think that making highly hurtful / offensive accusations against specific people without offering a shred of evidence to back up said comments isn't pretty clear cut, as it's all ok if it's for eNtErTaInMeNt!

 

[Screeeech]

Seems you are wrong mike, people do think that making highly hurtful / offensive accusations against specific people without offering a shred of evidence to back up said comments isn't pretty clear cut, as it's all ok if it's for eNtErTaInMeNt!

And that's the fun thing about today, you can make a ton of money instantly by just making a load of stuff up for shock value, in a way that's never been possible up until a decade or so ago.

The legal systems are so slow and out of touch, that it takes them years and years to actually get someone into court to pay for the damage they cause. If you have no morals and don't care - it's totally worth the risk for someone like Alex Jones.

 

[Dis86]

I guess that's because people seem to expect a hard definite line on an inherently subjective issue.

Precisely. Thats why I'm against laws based on someone being offended or feeling something.
Prime example at work some daft mare decided it was a good idea to leave a designated footpath, walk under a suspended load with no PPE. When multiple people shouted at her to get back on the path she put a complaint in with the police claiming she'd been spoken to in a threatening manner.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

But the problem is the limit at which those consequences occur.

What does that actually mean.
You think the limit is too low or too high or what?

I guess that's because people seem to expect a hard definite line on an inherently subjective issue.

Right, and context can matter as well.
And time can matter, eg a one off comment saying X may pass by and make little impact, but X repeated over and over may start to make people believe it.
"It must be true, otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to keep saying it" type comments

 

[Werewolf]

Precisely. Thats why I'm against laws based on someone being offended or feeling something.
Prime example at work some daft mare decided it was a good idea to leave a designated footpath, walk under a suspended load with no PPE. When multiple people shouted at her to get back on the path she put a complaint in with the police claiming she'd been spoken to in a threatening manner.

And I suspect the police looked at it and threw it out.

The other option is for the police to dismiss everything they don't think is important without looking into it, and then you get pretty much all the big abuse scandels since the inception of the police, and thousands of murders that would never have been investigated.

 

[Dis86]

And I suspect the police looked at it and threw it out.

The other option is for the police to dismiss everything they don't think is important without looking into it, and then you get pretty much all the big abuse scandels since the inception of the police, and thousands of murders that would never have been investigated.

They are obliged to investigate.

 

[Freakbro]

They are obliged to investigate.

You'd hope said conclusion to the investigation would be to tell the snow flake to not be so stupid in the future, do as she was supposed to and then she won't get shouted at!

 

[chroniclard]

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.

Your example quoted "current societal fads" influencing what the companies show. You are disagreeing with yourself.....

 

[bigmike20vt]

Precisely. Thats why I'm against laws based on someone being offended or feeling something.
Prime example at work some daft mare decided it was a good idea to leave a designated footpath, walk under a suspended load with no PPE. When multiple people shouted at her to get back on the path she put a complaint in with the police claiming she'd been spoken to in a threatening manner.

i think being offended by what a person says, vs being accused baselessly and publicly by someone of committing a despicable act 2 separate issues (despite both likely causing offense).... if i listen to a comedian and am offended, then i agree there should be no law broken.

indeed if i knowingly go to a comedy club and get directly picked on by the comedian then i would strongly lean to actually going to those places is almost an acceptance of that possibility, you dont go and watch Jim Davidson or Frankie Boyle and not know what to expect.... or at least if you do, then the mistake is kind of on you. (I am not against forced advisory notices for adult material like that, indeed there may be, i have not been to a comedy store type place for decades)

but me publicly accusing someone of what is not only a crime but a despicable act with nothing to back it up, is a completely different thing than offending them by a possibly tasteless joke or me offending them by being rude by shouting at them to stop them potentially being in the next Darwin award. (imo of course)

if we were to say freedom of speech has no exceptions (and i am not saying you are suggesting this) then that would mean preaching hatred and encouraging terrorism is fair game as well, after all they are only words.

 

[Werewolf]

They are obliged to investigate.

Yes

And that's the point, they investigated and then presumably threw it out, which is exactly their job, but if the threat had been something real there may have been action required. The police don't know if it's a real threat to someone's safety which they shouldn't ignore (consider the number of instances where they did and someone got hurt, then the police get vilified for not investigating), or something actually serious.

It's a waste of police time, until it isn't.

 

[potatolord]

Seems you are wrong mike, people do think that making highly hurtful / offensive accusations against specific people without offering a shred of evidence to back up said comments isn't pretty clear cut, as it's all ok if it's for eNtErTaInMeNt!

Alex Jones is a professional troll, and has been for years.

Attacking grieving parents, accusing them of lying and faking the deaths of their own children is despicable.

The fact that he has turned this into a huge money-earner, and is now trying to hide his wealth, makes it even more disgusting.

I can't say I am a fan.

 

[Craterloads]

He was alright back in the day with his illuminati / bilderberg stuff, was harmless conspiracy stuff.

He took a dark turn somewhere along the line and completely lost it when trump came along.

Hopefully he gets everything he deserves.

 

[Dis86]

You'd hope said conclusion to the investigation would be to tell the snow flake to not be so stupid in the future, do as she was supposed to and then she won't get shouted at!

The police attended rather sheepishly.

Yes

And that's the point, they investigated and then presumably threw it out, which is exactly their job, but if the threat had been something real there may have been action required. The police don't know if it's a real threat to someone's safety which they shouldn't ignore (consider the number of instances where they did and someone got hurt, then the police get vilified for not investigating), or something actually serious.

It's a waste of police time, until it isn't.

No, the point is there is a difference between feeling threatened and being threatened. At no point did the woman say she was threatened, just she felt it.

 

[Irish_Tom]

He took a dark turn somewhere along the line and completely lost it when trump came along.

Audience capture I think, and an attempt to stay relevant. Trump and Covid seem to have sent quite a few of these internet celebs off the deep end.

Rogan, the Weinsteins, JBP, Lex Friedman, Maajid Nawaz, Ben Shapiro, Dave Ruben, Russell Brand, etc.

You may argue that some of the above were nuts to begin with, but they all now appear to be parodies of their former selves.

Sam Harris seems to have kept himself relatively stable but moving to a subscription model for his podcast I think has both reduced, and acted as filter for, his regular audience.

It’s a shame, as I enjoyed keeping up with the IDW back when they first came to prominence but now I have very little time for any of them.

 

[Pudney]

Precisely. Thats why I'm against laws based on someone being offended or feeling something.
Prime example at work some daft mare decided it was a good idea to leave a designated footpath, walk under a suspended load with no PPE. When multiple people shouted at her to get back on the path she put a complaint in with the police claiming she'd been spoken to in a threatening manner.

All laws or criminal laws, e.g. are you against slander/libel laws as well?

 

[Dis86]

All laws or criminal laws, e.g. are you against slander/libel laws as well?

They're not about feelings, they're about facts.

 

[Pudney]

They're not about feelings, they're about facts.

Erm, are you sure?

 

[Dis86]

Erm, are you sure?

Yes...its literally in their definitions. They are falsehoods. Things that are not factual.

 

[Pudney]

Yes...its literally in their definitions. They are falsehoods. Things that are not factual.

Well, no. If I said “you are a doctor” that would not be defamation even though it is factually incorrect. Defamation requires “serious harm” to your reputation based on what “right thinking reasonable members of the public” would think.