Nope, because you play Calvinball. You use freeze peach as both a sword and shield arbitrarily at your convenience.
Maybe von_internet can advise on what we need to do to set up the UP Field of Honour - he seems the sort of gentleman who may have had experience in this area.
1 Like
I said that the public campaigns to get a person dropped by a platform are campaigns of censorship. Itâs perfectly legal do do so, just as it was perfectly legal for Tipper Gore and the religious right to engage in the same sorts of campaigns against music and video games and whatever else drew their displeasure. The tactics seems largely analogous, they were pressuring record labels and other companies not to distribute this or that.
So I think itâs accurate to label these campaigns as censorship. Do you agree that Tipperâs crusade against rap music was a censorship effort?
2 Likes
Sure itâs obviously too sweeping a statement but the context matters.
My point is, what value is there asking a guy who literally believes lizard people are running the government about politics.
If you want to platform him to talk about living with delusions then fine that seems reasonable.
Arenât you always morally chastising us about stuff like making light at anti-vaxx idiots dying of covid? But no sympathy for what Jones has put Sandy Hook families through?
Itâs basically targeted harassment. He knew what he was doing and he knew the harm it would bring to those families, who had already been through the worst thing imaginable.
To the extent Joe Rogan allowed Jones on, but only under the condition that Jones not talk about certain things - isnât that censorship as well. Are you ok with Rogan censoring Jones?
Of course I have tremendous sympathy for those parents. I hope they made Jones pay them a bunch of money for recklessly defaming them. Donât know the details of that verdict but I know jones was found guilty.
The amount hasnt been settled yet, but he will be paying them a bunch of money. Hopefully it is in the range of tens of millions.
1 Like
Two people agreeing to what theyâre going to discuss isnât censorship. A third person insisting on what they can or cannot talk about is censorship.
Clearly the best way to deal with societies problems is to allow terrible things to happen and then richly compensate lawyers to counter sue each other afterwards. We have built the perfect society, cancel political theory guys its a wrap.
1 Like
- Too much free speach. Crack down!
- Too much crack down! We need more free speach.
- Mmm, just right.
0 voters
The legal regime for freeze peach is pretty close to right. What we do have is a crisis of bullshittery and bullshit defenders/tolerators in this country.
People, voluntarily, should have nothing to do with Alex Jones and that shouldnât even be close to controversial.
2 Likes
My favorite example is Theo von bringing up wooden shirts as a joke and Joe not getting it and making Jamie look it up. He has Jamie look up obvious jokes.
I agree with you on his path. He became a standup through persistence not through being funny.
One vote for, âMmm, just right!â Noted.
Its inconceivable to me that the legal framework for controls on misinformation and that were created before the 21st century are going to be âjust rightâ for dealing with misinformation in the internet/social media age. Thereâs just no way. Thatâs like highway traffic laws unchanged from on the rules for how horse buggies shared the road in the 1800s.
3 Likes
What modifications do you suggest?
Pretty simple regardless of technology, can say what I want unless I knowingly (public figure) or recklessly (private figure) lie about somebody. I am in favor of societal pressure to ostracize behavior that is shameful but that is different from throwing people in jail or fining them substantial amounts of money with the threat of jail.
The current laws only work if the person talking is rich. Jones is only going to be punished for the Sandy Hook stuff since he has money to collect against. If he were poor (or had his assets better protected), he could lose but suffer no consequences.
The other problem is that platforms can allow Jones to spew his vile with no consequences. Not sure what the best solution is, since there are benefits to protecting the platforms from legal liability as they canât be expected to police everything. Maybe expanding so that the platforms are on the hook legally for any revenue (profit?) that the content creator generated for them (so if someone successfully sues Jones for defamation they could collect against the platforms for all the revenue Jones has ever generated for them).