Nothing brings people together like a crisis, sometimes it’s awfully funny the people that will come together. So when I saw that the ACLU was coming to the defense of Alex Jones I couldn’t help but shake my head.
If you don’t know the story Alex Jones is the voice if Info Wars. He’s a conspiracy theorist who has firmly pushed the limits of rational thinking, but he has his audience and it’s a big audience. Even Trump was on his show at one point.
A month ago, he got banned from just about every internet outlet available. YouTube, iTunes Facebook he was banned everywhere.
Now this was a pretty controversial move. A lot of people were unhappy about it saying it’s an attack on free speech. I think it’s discrimination but I’ll get to that in a second.
Well the director of the ACLU which is politically speaking right about opposite of Info Wars he comes out and says that this is a dangerous precedent.
I think for the ACLU it’s very dangerous because the ACLU is just as irrational as Alex Jones their just irrational from a different political perspective.
He makes one good point he says this policy of censorship can be misused and abused. But that’s not the issue. The issue is was Alex Jones discriminated against for his political views?
These media companies said Alex Jones was banned for hate speech. What about the BLM protesters that were walking around calling cops pigs and to fry em up like bacon? There videos weren’t banned. And you’ve seen a ton this kind of stuff. Who’s deciding what’s hate speech?
It’s very interesting to me how these rules get made and how the decision is made what’s allowed and what’s not allowed.
I'm saying this didn't have anything to do with hate speech but that for one reason or another he was chosen to be shut up. And, that's the problem. It's political weaponry and I base it on the hypocrisy. Why are some people shut up and other people who are equally or more radical allowed to continue?
Here's an example of what I'm talking about, one cop can walk into a burger joint and denied service for the color of his uniform and it’s happening on a regular basis, but a guy wearing a dress walks into the same restaurant at the exact same time and in a lot of places it’s illegal to refuse him service. It’s a violation of anti-discrimination laws that are popping up in a lot of places.
Now you see this kind of thing going on at a White Castle and it ends up being entertainment on You Tube. What if it’s a very high-end restaurant where they have a dress code and a guy walks in a dress and they turn him away? There’s be a lawsuit.
I’ll give you a very specific example. There have a been a few stories were some big chains wouldn’t make cakes for cops. A gay couple wants to buy a cake and it goes to the Supreme Court.
So, you have this politicization of personal choice. These attempts to force rules on people and businesses. My question is, when does it cross the line from censorship to discrimination? And, if sexual orientation, or sexual preference is protected why aren’t political views protected?
Here’s the problem as I see it. A choice has to be made. Either everything and anything is acceptable, or you have to let people make the choice for themselves. Allowing that choice naturally means censorship. What else can you do, ban bias?
How can you say this is allowed but something else isn’t? Especially when it comes to political views. How is that conservative commentators are banned but socialists have free reign?
The whole thing creates a real pandoras box. Do you tell the BET channel that they are required to run KKK ads? Or, do you tell say to a Christian blog that they are required to run pro-Muslim ads? Do you say to Christian Mingle they must allow homosexuals to create profiles? It goes on and on.
There’s no way you can ever solve this without a complete infringement on freedom and incredibly complicated laws. Even if you made the argument that there can be discrimination but there can’t be bias how does that even get defined? If Christian Mingle allows Jews but not Muslims is that a bias? Are they allowed to make that choice?
There’s a different more logical choice as I see it. See, in the case of say Christian Mingle there are other choices. There are dating sites for Jews and Muslims, probably other religions as well.
In the case of Facebook and Youtube there’s not a lot of other choices. That I think really gets to the heart of the matter. These internet companies have gotten too big that there’s not really any other choice. There’s Twitter and Vimeo but how much market share do they really have? When 90% of certain traffic is coming through one channel there isn’t much other choice. When that one channel shuts out a particular group of people it effectively silences them.
As much as I would agree that business need to have the freedom to choose people shouldn’t be silenced. When that happens the government has a duty to step in and act. In this case I think the proper course of action is for regulators to break up these companies that control the market. It’s the only way to balance freedom and choice.
Maybe instead of shutting people up they should focus on making more sense. Whatever happing to convincing people with logic and reason?
By Christopher Scott, Copyright 2018