Alex Jones who was a political analyst and conspiracy theorist on the website InfoWars was always known for his strange and non-standard views he put forth to his users. For instance, on the the Joe Rogan Experience, he stated that many people in the high-paying government positions were in an "inter dimensional war" with aliens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo7EoL9OAxY
He has continually pushed for people to buy his products which he claims are miracle products that will perform amazing feats. For instance, he pushed forth that his vitamin supplements cure COVID-19.
I could write forever about the craziness of Alex Jones. However, after all of his craziness that he's put forth, one got him in trouble more than anything. After the school shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown Connecticut, he proposed conspiracy theories that claimed that none of the students ever died and that the entire incident was a hoax to create gun legislation. One family sued him and the result was the media platforms teaming together to ban him from their platforms. These are products such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Alex Jones is not allowed to use any of these products for his own personal use. His accounts were banned and deleted.
The conversation that gets brought up is whether or not this is inherently infringing on his free speech. Should private companies that have large platforms like this have the right to deplatform him? Or are these platforms at liberty to determine who can use their platform period. This brings up a conversation of liberty vs neoliberty; essentially whether economic liberty trumps personal liberty.
Are the media platforms allowed to do this? Are they infringing someone's free speech by doing this?
While I don't agree with Alex Jones' deplatforming, it seems like private forms of online media are legally allowed to select whom they wish to host. Ultimately, a social media company can decide to prevent a user from accessing their service for any reason they please (so long as that reason isn't deemed illegal discrimination). Most of these companies have codes that are meant to protect users' rights; still, these codes are company-specific, so employee(s) that violate these company codes won't necessarily face consequences for their actions.
ReplyDeleteWhile I ultimately believe that these companies have the right to withhold accounts from individuals, I've also concluded that it would be beneficial to create new legislation that specifically addresses the online interaction of companies and consumers in the United States, as law makers don't seem to know how to handle speech on the internet. I intend to write more on this subject in a future post.
This issue is difficult for me to approach because I am very affected by Alex Jones's speech and find it extremely insensitive and hurtful. I think about the parents of these children and understand, at least as much as I can, the pain and anger this likely caused them. However, I think that while Alex Jones should have the right to speak his opinions, social media companies should have the right to create platforms based on their own values. These are private companies, and as much as Alex Jones deserves the right to speak, so do the companies reserve the right to keep their platforms viewed in certain lights. While I don't know to what extent I'm committed to these opinions, they're the best I can come up with for such a tough and sensitive situation.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he should be deplatformed because he as the right to say whatever he wants. The important thing is that people are smart; they aren't going to believe a word he says, though he has a write to say these words. No one else on the planet thinks Sandy Hook is a hoax and he changes no one's mind. He just makes himself look ridiculous, which is his right. I hope everyone can see through "miracle" products, and if they haven't by now, maybe it's good they order one and learn for themselves, not that I want Alex Jones to profit in any way.
ReplyDelete