YouTube, Facebook, and Apple have agreed to remove the pernicious, fake content produced by Alex Jones of Infowars.
This is good news. Jones has created a brand based on lies, hoaxes, and fear-mongering. His most disgusting conspiracy theory was his claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was fake, a stage production with child actors, stage managed by the Obama administration to advance the war against guns. Jones is being sued for defamation by parents who lost children at the Sandy Hook massacre. Some have been pursued by stalkers and received death threats.
In its daily news brief, CNN summarized the story:
“Some of the web’s top gatekeepers have unleashed a serious crackdown on content from Infowars and its founder, Alex Jones. Infowars is the site (and Jones the man) that pushes baseless conspiracy theories that often create real-life damage (like the Sandy Hook hoax over which several more families this week sued Jones for defamation). YouTube, Facebook and Apple yesterday removed content from Infowars, claiming it violates their policies, such as YouTube’s barring “hate speech and harassment.” YouTube’s actions probably most damage the brand, which had multiple channels with millions of subscribers and more than a billion views.”
To learn more about Alex Jones, watch John Oliver.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Will they remove Alex Jones permanently or is this only a slap on his hand with a 30-day banishment?
I say this knowing (a) it’ll be about as popular as a skunk at a wedding and (b) it’ll get twisted beyond all recognition into saying that I support/agree with Alex Jones (which I don’t), but nonetheless….
We should all be concerned about cheering on major corporate providers like YouTube and Fakebook, etc. having the power to decide what is or isn’t legitimate “news” or discourse or whatever. I know that “censorship” technically means the government silencing speech, but considering how much power today’s corporations have, I think we should regard them with the same wariness that the Founding Fathers regarded the government, and we should be very reluctant about vesting censorship power in such corporations, even against such obviously fruitty targets as Alex Jones.
Jones represents an easy target because of how far out there he is (and, let me say, for clarity, yes, he is way out there), but it’s a slippery slope allowing either the government or major corporations to decide where exactly the dividing line is before we get too far out there. Jones’ arguments, like those of anyone else posting on the internet, should be allowed to stand or fail on their own merits. I think all but those equally as nutty as Jones can see for themselves how nutty Jones is, and we don’t need Fakebook protecting us from him.
Speaking of less popular than a skunk at a wedding around here, Glenn Greenwald (a gay man of Jewish descent, incidentally) originally made a name for himself defending Matthew Hale. He didn’t do so because he agreed with or supported Hale, but rather because a threat to Hale’s rights represents a potential threat to all our rights. It’s better to allow Hale to say his piece than to drive him and his hatred underground where it just festers, as well as the erosion of speech/press rights in general.
If you don’t like Jones or Hale or whoever (and you shouldn’t), ignore them, protest them, argue with them, whatever you feel you need to do, but don’t try to silence them. It will only backfire. Among other things, as Peter Greene has repeatedly pointed out, those who feel silenced only yell louder….
All right, I’ve had my say and I probably won’t be around for a while, so let the abuse begin….
Dienne,
Do you think that major outlets should be able to post fake videos “proving” that Sandy Hook never happened, that the children allegedly murdered are now alive and well, and that they were played by child actors?
Do you think that major media should allow those who say that there was never a Holocaust, that the Jews of Germany signed up to work happily in labor camps where they were well-fed and had orchestras and art classes?
I don’t. I believe in free speech, but I don’t believe in publicizing what are factually untrue accounts of history. Difference of opinion, go for it. Outright falsification, I draw the line.
Glenn Greenwald doesn’t get any credits with me for being a Jewish gay man. I know many. I respect them when they are diligent in fighting for truth and against injustice.
I think people and organizations should be able to put their ideas out into the “marketplace of ideas”, yes. I certainly don’t think that it should be up to Fakebook et al to decide what is or isn’t true. I think the vast majority of the country knows that Alex Jones is a nutjob. I trust that the evidence that Sandy Hook and the Holocaust, etc. did happen is far greater than the “evidence” [sic] that they didn’t. I trust the vast majority of people to be able to sort that out (and those who can’t sort it out are only going to be fired up by Jones getting silenced – it’s only going to “confirm” their conspiracy theories, at least in their minds).
As for Greenwald, truth and justice are exactly what he’s been fighting for his whole career. He’s in favor of radical transparency from the government (and maybe even the major corporations that are increasingly acting in a governmental capacity), while protecting individual privacy. He’s in favor of protecting oppressed minorities. He’s in favor of free speech and the free press. He’s opposed to civil liberties violations such as warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, rendition, and torture. He supports universal single payer, strict banking regulations and a draw-down of the American empire. He’s radically supportive of animal rights. I think you probably agree with him on 95% of his opinions, but because he, like me, is insufficiently vocal in the “I hate Trump” chorus, and because he’s willing to look with open eyes at the failures of the Democratic Party, you’ve branded him (like me) as a Trump troll/Putin puppet.
Alex Jones has millions of followers who believe everything he says. Trump called in to his show to compliment him on his great journalism.
I am a free speech extremist but I don’t believe that anyone has the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Or to demand the lynching of people they don’t like.
Or to use the airwaves to insist that there was no Holocaust and that anyone who says so is a liar.
There are rabid Trump normalizers who attack Diane Ravitch because she is insufficiently vocal on the “I hate Democrats” chorus and because she is willing to look with open eyes at the dangerous lies of Donald Trump.
Those rabid Trump normalizers chide people who are “too vocal” about Trump’s dangerous lies when – according to these rabid Trump normalizers — they should be far more vocal about the evil Democrats and stop posting so much criticism about Trump.
I don’t think these rabid Trump normalizers who keep complaining because Diane Ravitch won’t focus her hatred on the evil democrats and leave Trump alone are legitimate. There is something wrong with them. If they aren’t trolls, they are certainly repeating the troll-party line.
There are limits to free speech and rightfully so. There are very definitly types of speech that directly and immediately cause harm to others, and that harm is quite often the intended result of the speaker. Some of the harms are general such as incitement to riot, and some are particular to individuals or groups who may have already been victimized or who are already vulnerable. The FDA prevents false and misleading claims about bogus, snake oil type cures. There are absolutely some types of speech that cannot be allowed and must be stopped, and the “invisible hand” of the marketplace of ideas or the majority of a populations variable refusal to accept toxic speech are insufficient remedies for harms that should never be allowed to occur in the first place. It is not a question of who is doing the stopping so much as it’s about the how and why of whoever stops it has decided to do so. There will never be a circumstance where yelling fire in a crowded theater that has no fire is acceptable, and Jones as well as too many politicians do the equivolent of that on a regular basis.
The proliferation of crazy conspiracy theories proves that America needs gatekeepers. Much of the public is inept at sussing out dangerous falsehoods. We need educated people to filter for them. The Founders worried about the wild-eyed, uneducated mob. Their worries have been vindicated.
Let every crank spout his nonsense freely; but keep the bullhorns away from him.
dienne77
Like the parties, these providers are private entities. They set their own rules for participation. Nobody is limiting Jones access to the internet. They are limiting his access to their platforms. But as soon as I saw the Post I knew where you would be, normalizing fascists. It takes a lot to get me to agree with NYCPSP.
What a gratuitous remark.
While I don’t agree with every comment you make, Joel Herman, I proudly admit that I agree with your posts far more often than I disagree with them. It has nothing to do with you personally, however. I just find that most — but not all — of your posts make interesting and important points.
You seem to have some need to reassure d i e n n e 7 7 that you are really on her side even if you have this tiny little disagreement with her. If that makes you feel better, please feel free to carry on. It won’t change the fact that I usually agree with your posts.
Freedom of speech includes the right:
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Freedom of speech does NOT include the right:
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
What are you NOT allowed to say?
Although the vast majority of speech is protected under the First Amendment, there are some important exceptions, which means that certain types of speech may be restricted by the government and civil actions may be based upon them.
The main exceptions to free speech protection include:
What are defamation, libel, and slander?
The umbrella term “defamation” includes both libel and slander. Defamation is a statement that may harm someone’s reputation. If it is written down, it’s called “libel” whereas if it’s spoken, it’s called “slander.”
Defamation law attempts to balance the freedom of speech and open exchange of ideas without giving someone permission to run around spreading lies about another that may harm his or her reputation, ability to earn a living, etc. Note that the expression of an opinion can never be actionable as defamation; statements must be presented as fact to be considered defamation.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/free-speech-primer-what-can-you-say
Alex Jones is obviously guilty of abusing freedom of speech in the United States.
Lloyd Jehovah Wiseness played a good rroll in our history!
This article has a relation with civil rights violations!
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/united-states/jehovah-witness-facts/
Thanks Lloyd good article and professional . I just real and it’s wonderful!
Schenck v. United States was a false argument used for the wrong reasons for political purposes to support war based on lies. It actually says you can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, or something like that; however the defendants didn’t make false claims. As usual when it comes to fighting wars, it was the government often making false claims so that should be alarming, however even though I’m not supporting censorship of Jones it applies better to Jones than it did to Schenck.
This is all the more reason to oppose censorship since it’s often imposed for political reasons. I could put together a list of corporations attempting to intimidate grassroots, with some degree of success that indicates they’re a far greater threat than Jones, who rational people won’t believe. There was the McLibel suit suits against Oprah from cattle industry suits against anti-smoking advocates from tobacco, against environmentalists from oil companies and plastic bag manufacturers, and much more.
Censorship isn’t the solution.
Jones is not being censored. He can still spew his vile lies on the internet and via Sinclair and other rightwing outlets.
If I submit an op-ed to the New York Times and they don’t print it, is that censorship? No.
Facebook, Google and Apple are private companies, like the Times. They have the right to decide what content to post. They can reject Jones as the Times rejects me.
Free speech is not intended to encourage out and out falsehoods and allow slanderous accusations. Jones gets a way with it because suing him is expensive and time consuming. Too many people who have been hurt by deliberate falsehoods do not have the resources or the time to fight it in the courts. News agencies have never been required to publish every wild eyed conspiracy theory that comes to their attention. Why would you think that Facebook or Youtube should be required to carry it?
No wonder this country has massive problems. Alex Jones is a dastardly con man. No wonder Trump likes him. Two birds of the same feather. Both speak complete nonsense.
Who says there aren’t crazy people at Trump rallies? Trump supporters are actually buying T-shirts that say, “I’d Rather Be a Russian than a Democrat”. These people are terribly ignorant to believe that they’d do well in Russia. People are killed there if they don’t think the right way.
This comes from Snopes and is True.
……………………………..
Are These ‘I’d Rather Be a Russian Than a Democrat’ Shirts Real?
A photograph of two men wearing “I’d Rather Be a Russian Than a Democrat” t-shirts was taken at a rally for President Trump in Ohio.
CLAIM
A photograph shows two men wearing “I’d Rather Be a Russian Than a Democrat” shirts at a rally for President Trump.
RATING TRUE
ORIGIN
On 5 August 2018, a photograph purportedly showing two men wearing t-shirts which read “I’d Rather Be a Russian Than a Democrat” while attending a rally for President Trump hit social media:
Some viewers who encountered this image online were so bewildered by the shirt’s message — Would supporters of an American president really voice support for a hostile foreign power over their fellow Americans? — that they wondered if the photograph had been doctored in some way. The photograph, however, is real.
This picture was taken by Cleveland.com reporter Jeremy Pelzer at a Trump rally at the Olentangy Orange High School in Ohio on 4 August 2018:
Pelzer identified the two men as James Alicie and Richard M. Birchfield and reported that the two men decided to attend the rally because they had never seen a U.S. president in person.
Alicie and Birchfield offered some advice for Democrats:
The two friends from the city of Delaware said they came out to the rally because they’ve never seen a president in person before. Asked about their shirts, Alicie (left) said he didn’t understand why Trump is getting so much criticism about Russia when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama weren’t similarly scrutinized. Asked what he would tell Democrats, Alicie said, “To jump on board this train and give him a chance.”
Although some viewers may have been shocked to see the phrase “I’d Rather Be a Russian Than a Democrat” on a t-shirt at a rally for the president of the United States, this slogan can be found on a variety of products offered for sale by several different retailers.
This isn’t about Alex Jones specifically, but here’s Taibbi on the dangers of allowing Fakebook et all to decide what is or isn’t fake: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/facebook-censor-alex-jones-705766/
I would like to hear Taibbi on the subject of Alex Jones and Holocaust deniers.
Why is it that the Trump normalizers are only concerned about SOME censorship? Why aren’t they criticizing Trump for censorship or Fox News for censorship or Breitbart News for censorship?
I find it odd when fascist normalizers insist that the fascists should be beyond criticism, while the critics of fascists must be sure to present both sides as having equal weight and demand that any criticism of fascism be accompanied by explaining that it is all the democrats fault.
There is something wrong with these people and it now looks like they are acting in self-interest instead of in any desire for truth.
Dienne is not a “Trump normalizer”.
Those here who attack her as such seem to read way more into her comments than those comments suggest.
If Dienne is constantly misunderstood, she should make her points more clearly.
As one who has stepped back from these back and forths, what I see more is that some here have a preconceived notion of what/who they think Dienne is/is about and that preconceived notion (yes, I understand it comes from what she has written, but normally I don’t see at all what others here see in her responses) then clouds the reading of new posts.
I know Dienne and she certainly is no closet (or even open) reactionary right (or even just right) shill. Like me she challenges what she finds to not be right and false claims and then writes about it in attempts to clarify. For which she is sometimes personally attacked by a few here (which is not to say that she hasn’t lashed back out in frustration, as I have at times.)
Duane,
If every time that one of the beyond the norm actions of the Trump administration is mentioned, someone posts the chorus of “but it’s no different than what the Democrats do”, that is normalizing Trump.
When someone spends more time insisting that Trump is no different than Democrats than they do actually acknowledging how beyond the norm Trump’s actions are, it is normalizing Trump. Whether that is intentional or not, I do not know.
But I know that Diane Ravitch knows that Trump is very dangerous. I know that most posters on here understand that Trump is very dangerous. And I know that one poster believes that Trump is no more dangerous than the Democrats. If I am wrong about that then I will wait for that poster to explain that she does think Trump is more dangerous and different than normal Democrats. I suspect I will be waiting a long time, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. But not by you — by the person who keeps normalizing Trump.
Alex Jones is an incredibly toxic, vicious and appalling hate monger and conspiracy theory spewer. What he did against the Sandy Hook parents is beyond the pale and set the parents up for death threats and constant harassment from Jones’s crazed followers. Good riddance, there is no loss whatsoever to humanity about seeing or hearing less from this “man.” He still has his show with which to continue his assault on sanity, decency, logic and humanity. So much the worse for us.
Several of the parents and some survivors of the adults who were murdered at Sandy Hook are suing Jones for defamation. I wish them all the best.
I want them to win and bankrupt Alex Jones with a judgment so high that no matter what he earns for the rest of his life, he is only allowed to keep the bare minimum that will provide basic shelter, one room with access to a shared bathroom, and to only afford to eat at McDonald’s for the rest of his life.
The limits of free speech have been described by the example that “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire” because that would trigger a panic in which people would be hurt. Our personal freedoms end at the boundary in which exercising those freedoms causes harm to others or interferes with their freedoms. We each live in a personal freedom “bubble” that ends at the point in which our personal bubble interferes with someone else’s bubble.
Court filings show how the false statements of, for one example, Alex Jones have inflicted harm on the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook. Likewise, those who post denials of the Holocaust inflict mental anguish on Holocaust survivors and their descendants. Infliction of Emotional Anguish is a civil crime and can become a criminal act if the infliction of mental anguish leads to someone’s physical harm. Further investigation of fake news posted on social media by foreign operatives will eventually show that the fake news caused some or many voters to change their vote; that constitutes a crime against one of our nation’s most fundamental rights.
As for the social media which carry fake news, how are they different from a newspaper’s Letters to the Editor section? If a newspaper publishes a reader letter that causes harm to some other person, the newspaper is liable because it has the ability and the responsibility to screen Letters to the Editor; the newspaper cannot simply claim that it was “providing a platform.” The social media have in recent days clearly demonstrated that they have the ability to delete fake and harmful postings; the only reason why they don’t delete fake postings is because of the financial cost: The social media companies would have to do what TV stations have done for decades: Delay a post for a few seconds while it’s scanned first by a computer algorithm, and, if the post is flagged by the algorithm, then have it read by a human reader. Because of the mammoth volume of postings each minute, that would require thousands of scanning computers backed up by an army of people reading and checking each flagged post.
But, cost to the social media companies should not be the deciding issue: The cost of fake news harm to individuals and to our nation as a whole is the first and foremost criterion.
The social media experiment that has been conducted on society for the past decade has revealed the harm that unregulated social media can inflict on people and nations. That experimental period is now ended.
Social media must be held as accountable for the postings they carry as newspapers are accountable for the reader letters published on their “platform”.
Thanks for this cogent explanation. The free speech extremists all deny that speech can in any way cause harm, or blame any harm that arises on the victims, not the speech itself. FYI, making verbal threats of physical violence or other threats of other types of harm against an individual or group is considered to be assault in many cases, and is punishable under the law.
There is no remedy for stupid.
…………………………………….
New Poll: 43% of Republicans Want to Give Trump the Power to Shut Down Media
The “enemy of the people” talk is working. A plurality of self-identified Republicans say they want Trump to have the power to take “bad” media outlets out.
All told, 43 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they believed “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.” Only 36 percent disagreed with that statement. When asked if Trump should close down specific outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, nearly a quarter of Republicans (23 percent) agreed and 49 percent disagreed.
Republicans were far more likely to take a negative view of the media. Forty-eight percent of them said they believed “the news media is the enemy of the American people” (just 28 percent disagreed) while nearly four out of every five (79 percent) said that they believed “the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly…
https://thebea.st/2OP2xvq?source=email&via=desktop
One good thing to know is the GOP is the smallest of the three major voting blocks.
26% are Republican
41% are Independents
30% are Democrats
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
The Census Bureau estimated that there were 245.5 million Americans ages 18 and older in November 2016, about 157.6 million of whom reported being registered to vote.
If we go with the 157.6 million, that means
Almost 41 million are Republicans
47.28 million are Democrats
62.62 million are Independents
“All told, 43 percent of self-identified Republicans said that they believed ‘the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.’ ”
43% x 41 million = 17.63 million or 11.1 percent of registered voters. As long as we don’t give this 11.1% the power to dictate to the rest of us, they are only a lot of hateful hot air.
Alex Jones has not been banned from all social media. From cnet dot com, today:
Which [companies] still allow Jones to use their platform?
Twitter, Twitter’s Periscope, Gab.ai, Facebook’s Instagram, Google +, Snapchat, Ustream, Vimeo, Flickr, Disclose.tv, Minds, TuneIn and Stitcher.
It’s also worth noting that Google, YouTube and Apple have allowed some Infowars material to remain, such as the company’s mobile apps and at least one of its affiliated podcasts. End quote
This maniac has plenty of opportunity to spew his venom. Che peccato. I hope he is sued into penury.
In the meantime and for about the past 30 years, liberals/progressives have been systematically purged from talk radio. Talk radio is more than 90% far right wing flame throwers all over the country. This is no accident or happenstance. After Reagan abandoned the fairness doctrine and Clinton allowed for media monopolies to flourish, right wingers and conservatives dominated the media, guaranteeing that we would hear nothing good about universal health care or unions, for example.
Citizens should never, ever trust representatives of paid speech to defend free speech.
And so the slippery slope of censorship escalates again.
I don’t like Jones or watch his show either, but would prefer to see people debunk his flawed arguments. I think it was Brandies who said something like “the solution to flawed speech isn’t censorship, it’s more speech.”
Of course there should be some discussion about why people believe his incredibly bad lies. Philip Greven and Alice Miller have both provided some good research into this; a leading cause to why they believe him is their early childhood upbringing which often involves emotional and intimidating child rearing tactics often accompanied by child abuse or corporal punishment to teach children to believe what they’re told and go along with the program.
These same tactics also teach children to solve their problems with the same violence and intimidation used to educate them. This is why the states that still allow corporal punishment in schools and presumably use it more at home have higher murder rates, on average than those that don’t and they have more support for wars based on lies and vote for politicians that betray the interests of the working class. They have more pollution, income inequality and poverty etc.
Diane I know you’ve spoken against corporal punishment in schools but discussion on this doesn’t get nearly as much attention as it deserves considering the importance of it. I hope you’ll consider speaking on it more, since you get far more attention than most of us.
Another problem, is that on a few rare occasions, Alex Jones has actually gotten a few things right, or close to being right, although he usually screws things up. During the Boston Bombing he was one of the few people warning about the danger of marital law, which didn’t get as extreme as that since then but it has been forgotten, and could happen, since the subject has been buried instead of resolved.
Once again the same child rearing tactics lead to escalating violence that caused terrorism or active shootings, but that wasn’t discussed.
When the government and six oligarchies controlling most of the mass media and a few more platforms controlled by billionaires dominate the press they have an enormous propaganda advantage enabling those they approve of to get much more attention, so yes this does qualify as some form of censorship.
But they enabled Alex Jones to gain a major advantage while marginalizing many others who are still being marginalized, including me, and frankly you. You get much more attention than me and many others but the MSM doesn’t allow you to get nearly as much attention as Bill Gates when he pushes Charter Schools, nor do they allow Susan Linnn & Juliet Schor to get much attention when they criticize how advertising is used for indoctrination, and the list goes on.
I still don’t like Jones but they’re censoring him in one way and elevating him as the victim in another enabling him to get much more attention and the other victims of their censorship are far more important.
Zack,
I am a zealot for free speech. Read my book THE LANGUAGE POLICE.
However, free speech applies to public spaces. No private entity has any obligation to let anyone say whatever they want. I was never invited to refute the lies and propaganda in “Waiting for Superman,” when it was having its festival on national TV. Rhee, Duncan, Klein and Gates were invited to appear on Morning Joe. I was not. Nor was anyone else who might criticize their lies about teachers and public schools.
I have been rejected by the NY Times repeatedly to refute their many opinion pieces and editorials praising charter schools. That is their right. The NY Times is privately owned.
Jones has no right to spew his lies on Facebook, Apple, or any privately owned entity. He has plenty of access to the public airwaves and to the Internet, which he will use to continue to spout conspiracy theory and sell supplements.
There is no First Amendment right to be published or broadcast by a private organization. If there were, I would have my own show on a major TV network and I would publish in the NY Times instead of writing a blog.
If someone makes a documentary about how German and Polish and Hungarian Jews were happy in their work camps at Dachau and Auschwitz, I hope no reputable TV station runs it. The Nazis made a propaganda film about a camp called Therisienstadt, which had its own inmate orchestra, so they could show the International Red Cross how well the Jews were treated. The IRC never inspected Dachau or Auschwitz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_(film)
Excellent explanation, Diane!
From AUGUST 7, 2018
Why the INFOWARS Purge is Nothing to Celebrate
by JP SOTTILE found at: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/07/why-the-infowars-purge-is-nothing-to-celebrate/
“I am a free speech absolutist by nature. Short of purposefully screaming fire in a crowded theater with the intent of causing mayhem … I just like having it all out there … from the wackiest religious tripe to the most virulent racist poison. For me, it’s better to see it exposed in the sunlight than to have it driven underground where it collects bacteria and followers … followers who can secretly live double lives until it is too late.
I say turn over the rocks and let them scurry around. Or goad them into the light to willingly reveal who and what they are … let them mark themselves with their own words so we can keep an eye on them while they do whatever it is they do to prop up their fantasies. Doing otherwise is a tacit admission that you don’t trust the facts or the veracity of your ideas. Don’t concede the debate by being unwilling to take it up.”
Just some more food for thought.
If Alex Jones sends me his garbage, I won’t post it.
I also would not post Holocaust deniers. When many members of your family were burned in the ovens, it makes you callous towards those who say it never happened.
Must be the way the Sandy Hook families feel.
I understand your position.
One can only debunk such idiocies so often before any further debunkings end up being a legitimizing factor for such nonsense. And there is no shortage of those debunkings as it is so why give those insanities any more time of day?
I linked the article because I thought it is germane to the discussion here and thought others might like to read a bit more.
I appreciate everything you write, Duane, whether or not I agree
Here is some good news!! There are more tapes of the Orange IDIOT! Another person who has been close to tRump says that he exhibits mental decline. I’m not happy about the fact that he exhibits such behavior but I am happy that it is coming out into the open.
…………………………
Omarosa Secretly Recorded Trump and Played the Audio for People, Sources Say
A source confirmed with The Daily Beast that the ex-Trump aide’s secret recordings do exist, and that she has played them for people.
…Part of the book documents what she describes as Trump’s “mental decline.” The president, she claims, “rambled. He spoke gibberish. He contradicted himself from one sentence to the next.”…
https://thebea.st/2OV1bzh?source=email&via=desktop
This is good news.
…………………………
Tribune withdraws from Sinclair’s $3.9 billion media merger plan
By Washington Post Staff
August 9 at 6:33 AM
The move comes after the Federal Communications Commission raised “serious concerns” about the deal which originally would have reached roughly 70 percent of U.S. households.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
GOOD!!! Sinclair is totally unacceptable to respectable journalism.
………………….
From TheHill.com: Tribune backs out of Sinclair merger
Tribune Media has backed out of its proposed $3.9 billion merger with Sinclair Broadcast Group and said it will be filing a lawsuit against the broadcasting giant for allegedly breaching their merger agreement.
In an announcement early Thursday morning, Tribune blamed Sinclair for the regulatory roadblocks that the deal has encountered at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Last month, the FCC voted unanimously to subject the merger to an administrative law proceeding, a taxing and time-consuming process that was expected to kill the deal.
“In light of the FCC’s unanimous decision, referring the issue of Sinclair’s conduct for a hearing before an administrative law judge, our merger cannot be completed within an acceptable timeframe, if ever,” Tribune CEO Peter Kern said in a statement….
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/401029-tribune-backs-out-of-sinclair-merger
Social media has only allowed ourselves to look at ourselves in the mirror. We may not like what we see but it is our selves in living color. All the hate, racism, sexism all wrapped up in these speakers. They couldn’t be successful if there wasn’t a evil,sick audience for them.
Americans don’t like what they see, then change it. However when there is so much money to be made off of being ugly we cant expect anything to change.
Beata,
Please contact me.
It will be interesting to see what opinion writers say on August 16. Journalists are now getting vicious hate mail. Read what a NYT opinion columnist says he received. It is pure garbage. Trump is a disaster who is bringing out the hidden elements that exist at the bottom of society.
What a wonderful person! He can’t take any criticism, lies repeatedly and attacks the media if they don’t praise his sorry self.
……………………………………….
Not the enemy of the people’: 70 news organisations will blast Trump’s attack on the press
CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR.
Last updated 05:42, August 13 2018
…Trump labelled the news media “the enemy of the American people” a month after taking the oath of office. In the year that followed, a CNN analysis concluded, he used the word “fake” – as in “fake news,” “fake stories,” “fake media” or “fake polls” – more than 400 times. He once fumed, the New York Times reported, because a TV on Air Force One was tuned to CNN.
And last week, at a political rally in Pennsylvania, Trump told his audience that the media was “fake, fake disgusting news.”
Now, the editorial board of the Boston Globe is proposing that newspapers across the nation express their disdain for the president’s rhetoric on August 16 with the best weapon they have: their collective voice.
The rally calls for the opinion writers that staff newspaper editorial boards to produce independent opinion pieces about Trump’s attacks on the press. So far, according to the Associated Press, 70 news organisations have agreed – from large metropolitan daily newspapers like the Miami Herald and Denver Post to small weekly newspapers with four-digit circulation numbers.
…”The problem, of course, is that there is war on the press being conducted by the president of the United States and his supporters. To say otherwise would violate a different commandment. Yes, it’s imperative to keep your cool. It is equally imperative to state what is true.”
Others have argued that there’s a moral imperative to speak up because Trump’s rhetoric can result in more than words being hurled toward journalists…
“What’s clear is that Trump has made it a verbal open season on journalists, many of whom have felt the sting one way or another,” columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in The Washington Post on June 29. “For all of us ink-stained wretches, the hate mail is more vicious than ever. The death threats more frequent.
Last week, New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens described Trump’s anti-media words as “incitement” and shared a threatening voice mail he had received from a blocked number:
“‘Hey Bret, what do you think? Do you think the pen is mightier than the sword, or that the AR is mightier than the pen?’
“He continues: ‘I don’t carry an AR but once we start shooting you f – ers you aren’t going to pop off like you do now. You’re worthless, the press is the enemy of the United States people and, you know what, rather than me shoot you, I hope a Mexican and, even better yet, I hope a n – shoots you in the head, dead.'”…
Trump must fear what is surrounding him. There are plenty of leaks mainly because nobody can stand to be around him for very long. They relieve tension by ‘leaking’ news. Gland NDA’s aren’t enforceable.
……
Trump Confirms He Had Aides Sign NDAs
August 13, 2018 at 6:16 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard
“President Trump appeared to acknowledge on Monday something his aides have declined to confirm for months: that his White House had aides sign nondisclosure agreements,” the New York Times reports.
“For months, officials in the West Wing have refused to confirm reports… that aides were ordered to sign nondisclosure agreements, which legal experts say are essentially unenforceable for government employees.”
“Mr. Trump, who strives for control over his environment, has for decades demanded that people sign such agreements. Former West Wing officials have said that while they were enacted, members of the White House counsel’s office signaled that they could not be enforced, and that they were being executed to reassure Mr. Trump.”
Carol,
I suspect many of those surrounding Trump are thinking about their future and how to protect themselves and what is left of their reputation. Probably lots of people secretly taping conversations. Into CYA mode.
I agree. How many more tapes will surface? [I don’t test. CYA…good thought.]
acronym for “cover your ass.”