Alex Jones and Infowars gets 'disappeared' - are we headed in the right direction?

[CapnAwesome]

For people who make the "private company can do what they want argument"

I wonder if you feel the same way about the NFL kneeling protests. Why or why not?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, why wouldn't I? They did, too..didn't they? The "private company can do what they want" isn't an argument when it comes to Freeze Peach, Social Media, and Gay Frogs.... it's literally a description of the reality of the law, lol.

The first amendment simply does not apply to private corporate policy, and certainly contains no compulsion that a company be forced to print x. The latter, is explicitly what the amendment prevents. If twitter does not want to digitally print Jones shit...they can't be forced by the government to do so. The domain is their property, the content is their freedom of speech and press, a boycott is the right to peaceably assemble.

We need to bring civics back.

[Fake Messiah]

For people who make the "private company can do what they want argument"

I wonder if you feel the same way about the NFL kneeling protests. Why or why not?

Sure and they do it. Take Oscars - you can't make political statements I mean you get booed or ignored if you do it.
That's why NFL players are doing it so that people would talk. But also difference is that before NFL game an anthem is played and that is not a private property.
And also if players were doing some hate gesture like Nazi salute then they would be in big trouble which is why conservatives are trying to paint them as such.

[robvalue]

I see, thanks guys.

So I suppose this is rather similar to the "selling cake" example. I'm assuming that if Twitter was found to be banning people because they were gay, that this would be classed as illegal discrimination? Or does it work differently due to the nature of the service?

If the government were to get involved and force Twitter not to ban people except when they deem it appropriate, then they'd be entitled to do the same on our forum, and any private platform, I assume. If they wanted it to become part of basic rights and "freedom of speech", they'd need to make it a public service, as far as I can see. And they can't just claim stuff, that would be a scary situation. Maybe they can, I don't know.

[EvolutionKills]

I see, thanks guys.

So I suppose this is rather similar to the "selling cake" example. I'm assuming that if Twitter was found to be banning people because they were gay, that this would be classed as illegal discrimination? Or does it work differently due to the nature of the service?

If the government were to get involved and force Twitter not to ban people except when they deem it appropriate, then they'd be entitled to do the same on our forum, and any private platform, I assume. If they wanted it to become part of basic rights and "freedom of speech", they'd need to make it a public service, as far as I can see. And they can't just claim stuff, that would be a scary situation. Maybe they can, I don't know.

Being a racist is not a protected class, so racists have no special protections or privileges. So while you can't deny service to someone for being gay, or black, or a woman, you can deny service to someone if they're being belligerent, or disruptive, or overtly racist. No baker needs to make a Swastika cake, unless they have a history/policy of making other pro-racist/fascist cakes, but then refused to serve Nazis for some reason.

[robvalue]

Absolutely, I am just not sure if protected classes apply to something like Twitter accounts. My guess is that they would, but I don't know.

[EvolutionKills]

Absolutely, I am just not sure if protected classes apply to something like Twitter accounts. My guess is that they would, but I don't know.

They would. But Alex Jones posses the straight flush of privilege that is being white, male, and CIS gendered. Twitter absolutely can kick him off for spreading hate speech, misinformation, or defamation (calling victims of mass shootings 'crisis actors'). Being a stupid, conspiratorial, dipshit isn't a protected class.

[robvalue]

Okay cool, thanks Yes, I wasn't implying it in any way applies to this knob.

[Pat Mustard]

This is a side question, not directly related to AJ et all, for those in the know:

Say a social media platform decides to ban someone who hasn't violated the TOS. Let's say they don't even try and pretend that they broke the TOS, but just ban them, stating whatever reason, or perhaps none at all. Is this legally allowed? I assume the answer depends on the fine print of the TOS itself, for which I'm not particularly familiar for any of these platforms, hence the question.

Most private platforms have a general "for any reason" provision in their terms and conditions of joining.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It is in the public domain.