Free Speech

Alex Jones Has Been Banned... Let's Check If Free Speech Still Exists

Spoiler: It does.

By  
on

(Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images)

Well, it’s been 24 hours since Facebook, YouTube, and Apple banned and removed content from Infowars chieftain, Alex Jones.

Since Facebook, YouTube, and Apple are not government entities, Jones and his legion of followers recognized the authority of the “marketplace of ideas” and vowed to start their own, aggrieved-whites-only tech company to continue to promulgate Jones’s messages of hates and lies.

Just kidding. From the New York Times:

In a message posted on Twitter on Monday, Mr. Jones said: “The censorship of Infowars just vindicates everything we’ve been saying. Now, who will stand against Tyranny and who will stand for free speech? We’re all Alex Jones now.” He railed against the tech companies on his live show on Monday, which was streamed on the Infowars website, saying their moves were part of a leftist agenda in advance of the midterm elections. “I told you this was coming,” he said to viewers.

My main takeaway from that paragraph is: “Alex Jones still has a website!” I’ve been listening to these First Amendment extremists for 24 hours and they’ve been telling me that banning Alex Jones is on the road to tyrannical censorship… and now I find out that Jones is still able to communicate his ideas without fear of police or military reprisal? Just what kind of pre-Enlightenment, inquisition-based regime are we running here?

Let me test these old free speech waters and see if it’s still even a thing:

Sponsored

“Donald Trump is a white supremacist and the people who voted for him are either racist or comfortable enough with racism to make the distinction meaningless.”

[Looks out window, checks for helicopters.] Okay, that was political speech, the most protected kind of speech. Let’s try it with a deeply unpopular opinion:

“En Vogue was a better group than Destiny’s Child and TLC combined, Cindy Heron was every bit as talented and beautiful as Beyonce, and if you don’t know who I’m talking about you need to get the hell up off my lawn.”

[Ducks.]

Hmm… it doesn’t look like free speech is under attack. Instead, it looks like a few tech platforms decided they would no longer let Alex Jones manipulate their services to spread lies and misinformation. This isn’t the government burning subversive content. This is the bartender saying, “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”

Sponsored

Normally, this is where I would rail against the free speech establishment for continuing to support a liar and racist. But aside from Jones’s lawyer, most First Amendment heroes are on board with the deplatforming of Alex Jones. I’ll take this post by @Popehat as indicative of where the Overton Window is centered on this:

It’s interesting that the free speech crowd isn’t fully debasing themselves for Alex Jones, because they did for Milo. When Milo Yiannopoulos got banned from Twitter, there was enough free speech outrage to briefly power the Sun.

(I should note that @Popehat was not laying down in front of a tank in front of Milo. His particular position is consistent when it comes to social media. But other organizations, including the ACLU, came out for Milo.)

Twitter, by the way, hasn’t banned Jones (yet). So it’s fair to assume that Twitter at least found Milo’s content more inappropriate and damaging than Jones’s content. Yet Milo was treated to a martyrdom tour through the press while most people just seem to be waiting for Jones to finally go away.

What’s the difference between the two? What’s changed between 2016, when Milo was banned, and today?

From where I sit, Milo’s shtick was mainly focused on denigrating black people and other minorities. Alex Jones made the mistake of going after white people who lost their white children. The violence suggested by Milo was always supposed to be directed towards racial minorities. The violence suggested by Jones occasionally catches white people trying to enjoy a slice of pizza.

Alex Jones is an active threat to democracy. Milo was just trying to ethnically cleanse our democracy.

And in America, First Amendment advocates will often just assume that it’s okay for black and brown people to bear the brunt of white free speech. Milo is the price minorities are supposed to be willing to pay for the gift of being allowed to publicly protest racial oppression. That’s the bargain we’re supposed to be willing to make. “Oh, you have to let Milo racially harass people on Twitter or else… you can’t have Martin Luther King.” It’s just another false choice the culture tries to impose on minorities.

But when you use your “free speech” to harass and frighten white people, and their children, well THAT is too great a cost for free speech. What does a Sandy Hook victim get in exchange for bearing Alex Jones? Nothing. Nobody tells white people, “You have to let Alex Jones speak or else we’re cancelling the Bruce Springsteen concert.” Nobody tells white people that their ability to peacefully gather in public is contingent upon their willingness to be victims of alt-right conspiracy theorists.

We treat Alex Jones like he is harassing innocent people. Milo was treated like he was harassing black people. And that’s why Milo was defended while Jones is shunned.

Of course, I can hear the Alex Jones defenders now saying, “Yeah, FREE MILO TOO!” Obviously, I go in the other direction. I’m happy Twitter banned Milo, and I’m happy Facebook et al banned Jones.

And I’m happy free speech still exists. I do not need tech platforms manipulated to promote conspiracy theories in order to enjoy the free and robust exchange of ideas.

Apple, Facebook and YouTube Remove Content From Alex Jones and Infowars [New York Times]

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Topics

, , ,