Vimeo removes Infowars content

The Hill ^ | 08/12/18 | Jacqueline Thomsen

[semimojo]

Jim doesn’t have the power to cut your life off completely from society.

If FB or Twitter can "cut you of from society" then you have bigger issues than I can help you with on this forum

[DiogenesLamp]

The intent of the constitution is that speech be not censored. It never occurred to the founders that any organization besides a government would ever be capable of such a thing, but had they considered it, they would not have allowed private companies to control public speech.

Even if you disagree with my understanding of Constitutional intent, as a practical matter, we cannot tolerate this.

If we do not make this practice illegal, we shall all be undone eventually.

[semimojo]

When Jim controls millions of accounts and dominates a significant portion of the communications systems in a particular market, then I will demand that his ability to censor be prevented.

Good luck with your demand.

Do you have a Constitutional principle to back it up?

[DiogenesLamp]

If FB or Twitter can "cut you of from society" then you have bigger issues than I can help you with on this forum

You do not grasp this. Facebook has now become quite common for business usage. Cutting a business (such as Inforwars) off from it's public, will have real and costly financial implications for any business that is so designated as a pariah.

Like it or not, there are now businesses depending on Facebook for a significant portion of their customer contact.

[Sir Gawain]

You can find him on BitChute. RonGibson channel posts all the shows on there plus the channel infowars is there.

Hopefully soon to be on DTube and real.video Mike Adams site.

[Sir Gawain]

One of the crazier things is Youtube banned David Knight’s Real News channel which had zero strikes against it. And LinkedIn banned Alex LOL WTF so ridiculous.

[semimojo]

It never occurred to the founders that any organization besides a government would ever be capable of such a thing, but had they considered it, they would not have allowed private companies to control public speech.

OK, looking past the claim that Diogenes Lamp knows what the founders considered, there were private newspapers and phamplets in that day which they chose not to regulate.

Are you advocating that we should only allow public (government) institutions to control public speech?

[Sir Gawain]

Meanwhile Vimeo and YouTube will host all kinds of vile Hollywood music videos that simulate murder and other things, and even promote those videos as trending.

[semimojo]

Cutting a business (such as Inforwars) off from it's public, will have real and costly financial implications for any business that is so designated as a pariah

And who's fault is that?

The company that provides a free platform for those who conform to its TOS or the business that pays nothing yet doesn't want to conform to the TOS?

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you have a Constitutional principle to back it up?

I do. Two in fact.

The intent of the founders is to prevent censorship of speech. Their belief was that the threat to freedom of speech would emanate from government, but it is clear to me that they would have objected to it just as strenuously if they had considered this threat to have possibly come from any other source.

There is also this principle of Eminent domain. If the public need for something is sufficient, private property can be commandeered for public use.

I believe the public need to have uncensored communications wherever large numbers of the public go to communicate, is so crucial to our system of governance, that we must use the power of eminent domain to force large communications companies to carry all traffic.

There is a third point that is only indirectly a constitutional point, but very directly a practical point.

If private corporations are permitted to censor speech, then how are we to prevent government from quietly pressuring them behind the scenes to do the government's bidding?

Remember that Youtube video the Obama government pressured youtube into removing? (the one made by that guy who was the scapegoat for the Benghazi fiasco.)

When government need merely pick up a phone and tell a company they don't like some particular "speech", how many companies will tell them to go F*** themselves?

Make it public law that they cannot censor, and the government can't apply behind the scenes pressure to get them to do it.

[wardaddy]

Tech progs flexing muscle

Unanswered

[wardaddy]

It’s not the samething

[DiogenesLamp]

OK, looking past the claim that Diogenes Lamp knows what the founders considered, there were private newspapers and phamplets in that day which they chose not to regulate.

And not a one of them could have controlled the market.

Are you advocating that we should only allow public (government) institutions to control public speech?

I am advocating that we should use the power of government to inhibit companies from censoring speech as if they were a government that had such a power.

We cannot allow political speech to be censored in a market dominated by a single large communication companies, or a collection of them which collude to do such a thing.

If they solicit public content, they should be held to the same standards of the government. They should serve everyone who sits at their lunch counter.

[wardaddy]

Hear hear freepers cN be so daft

[semimojo]

...but it is clear to me that they would have objected to it just as strenuously if they had considered this threat to have possibly come from any other source.

Good that it is clear to you but unfortunately the Constitution they drafted says "Congress shall make no law..."

If private corporations are permitted to censor speech, then how are we to prevent government from quietly pressuring them behind the scenes to do the government's bidding?

Sorry, I think Jim should have the right to ban people.

[DiogenesLamp]

And who's fault is that?

Who's fault is it that they didn't own a railroad back in 1880?

The company that provides a free platform for those who conform to its TOS or the business that pays nothing yet doesn't want to conform to the TOS?

First of all, you keep using that word "free" and nobody is referring to a "free" anything except for you in an effort to boost your rhetoric.

Second of all, these "terms of service" are not being enforced equally, they are being enforced capriciously and with shifting meanings.

Say anything bad about homosexuality, and that is now called "hate speech" and they can kick you off for using "hate speech" with them of course using their own subjective and personal preferences as to the meaning of the applicable terms.

What is going on here is in fact "Calvin Ball."

There are no commonly understood or defined terms, and they can manipulate their "terms of service" by manipulating what their terms mean at every subjective whim.

[semimojo]

They should serve everyone who sits at their lunch counter.

"FR is open to conservatives and conservative activists. And even narrower than that, FR is open to pro-God (our one true Judeo-Christian God), pro-life, pro-family, pro-America, pro-constitution, pro-gun, pro-borders, constitutionally limited-government conservative patriots. Marxists, fascists, antifascists (antifa who, in fact, are actually fascists), communists, totalitarians, anarchists, socialists, national socialists, democrat socialists, liberals, progressives, mass murderers, baby murderers, abortionists, homosexualists, globalists, glowbull warming hoaxers, open-borders pushers, amnesty pimps, God-haters, Jew-haters, anti-Semites, big government pushers, gun grabbers, border jumpers, criminals, racists, revolutionists, callers for violence, democrats, rinos, establishment GOPers (but I repeat myself) are not welcome on FR."

Jim Robinson, 8/9/2018

Tell it to Jim.

[Garth Tater]

"My positions is that if you are in the communications business, you must be forced by law to serve every customer that sits at your lunch table

So Mr. Robinson can't ban anyone he chooses? Once you carve out an exemption for Jim's site they will buy themselves a bigger, better set of exemptions for themselves - along with all sorts of new rules to go along with the exemptions. Rules that they won't have to follow, but Jim will

They are masters of the game, and they have all the money to play it. It's better to just stick with the basics, like keeping our freedom to associate or not associate with whoever we please -- well okay, how about we try to keep what's left of that freedom?

This banning frenzy we are seeing might actually be a good thing for us. The more they reveal of themselves the more people they drive away - people that are the natural customers of free and freedom loving solutions that will be popping up to serve them.

[semimojo]

First of all, you keep using that word "free" and nobody is referring to a "free" anything except for you in an effort to boost your rhetoric.

No, "free" isn't just a rhetorical device in the real world.

It means that neither me, nor you, nor Alex Jones pays anything to place our content on Facebook.

[GraceG]

[ Jones certainly has a few coins. It is not that expensive to set up a server farm of a few machines to deliver his own content. ]

Mike Adams ( the health ranger ) has started “Real.video’ to host and there is always bitchute.