Alex Jones

Twitter Caves, Bans Alex Jones. For a Week. Sort Of.

The conspiracy theorist's account has been restricted for seven days.


Lucas Jackson/REUTERS/Newscom

Controversial Infowars founder and host Alex Jones has been hit with a lite ban from Twitter.

The social media platform took action Tuesday to restrict the conspiracy theorist's account for seven days. That means he can't tweet, retweet, like, or follow. He still has access to his account and can see the tweets other users post.

Twitter's move against Jones comes the week after it was criticized for not banning him. Other major internet platforms—including Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple—had completely unpublished and/or removed his professional pages and podcasts. As Reason's Zuri Davis noted at the time, all four companies stated that Jones' inflammatory statements about Muslims, immigrants, members of the LGBT community, and other groups violated their terms of service.

Twitter, though, decided to keep letting Jones use its platform, with CEO Jack Dorsey explaining that "he hasn't violated our rules. We'll enforce if he does."

So why did Twitter finally decide to move against Jones? According to BuzzFeed's Ryan Mac, Jones had tweeted a video from Periscope (which is owned by Twitter) in which he called on his followers to have their "battle rifles" ready to defend against the mainstream media, Antifa, and others. That likely violated Twitter's policies prohibiting users from inciting violence.

Jones responded Wednesday morning in a video posted to Infowars' official account, which was not restricted.

"We have been so careful even to follow [Twitter's] anti-free speech, kind of university SJW rules, and so a video about Donald Trump needing to take action against web censorship, that is flagged and then gets us suspended for seven days," he says. "I guess Dorsey is toying with us, or his people are."

Dorsey et al. may indeed be toying with Jones, but their most recent action against the right-wing host likely won't placate those who thought Twitter should have banned him in the first place. Of course, as a private company, Twitter is under no obligation to listen.

Partisans on both sides of the aisle want digital speech they don't agree with be restricted and/or banned. But it's impossible to please everyone. And by picking and choosing who they censor, Twitter and other internet platforms are likely to make the problems of polarization and information bubbles even worse.

NEXT: The FDA Declares War on Yet Another Drug: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. all four companies stated that Jones’ inflammatory statements about Muslims, immigrants, members of the LGBT community, and other groups violated their terms of service

    Fifth Column had a good take on this last week. The guy’s treatment of some of the Sandy Hook victims seems like more than enough of a reason to kick him off these services, Twitter included. The guy sounds like a real piece of shit, and pieces of shit have the same rights as anyone else, but if it were my privately owned social media service I’d kick him off for that stuff alone.

    1. you can’t be held responsible for what others do. In Jones’s case he peddles retarded conspiracy theories, that other people react to. he didn’t personally harass any Sandy Hook victims nor did he tell people to harass Sandy Hook victims that I’m aware of.

      1. According to what I heard on the 5C he was putting out enough personal information about victims for people to find and harass them even after they had to move multiple times, and continued to peddle his crazy conspiracy theories. It doesn’t have to rise to the level of being legally responsible for harassment to be incredibly shitty and worthwhile of being kicked off these social media platforms.

        1. I’ve heard that as well, but I’ve never seen anything to confirm to substantiate that claim. But yes if he did that that is completely reprehensible. The only thing I can find is his lawyer requesting they publish that information with the courts.

          1. nevermind it says he did with the pozner family.

    2. Fair enough. He’s not exactly a sympathetic figure.

      Sooo, Jeong and Farrakhan?

      It’s not a Pandora’s Box they should be opening I reckon.

      1. Look, Farrakhan is a great guy he just wishes there were zero Jews on Earth.

        Yeah, I doubt we’ll see him Twit-banned. Go figure.

        Maybe, just maybe, if 24/7 News organizations didn’t make a media feeding frenzy of shooting victims Jones wouldn’t know who they are? Or is this ‘victim blaming’?

        You’ll note that most people aren’t critiquing media platforms for putting Hogg front and center, even while he receives death threats and SWAT attacks.

        Jones may well be crazy, but the media outlets that put these kids front and center in their narrative may be worse given that their use of these children is considered a good and welcome thing. Which, perhaps somewhat ironically, is what guys like Jones latch onto.

        1. Maybe, just maybe, if 24/7 News organizations didn’t make a media feeding frenzy of shooting victims Jones wouldn’t know who they are? Or is this ‘victim blaming’?

          I wouldn’t say it is victim blaming, I just think it’s misplaced blame. People ought to be able to advocate for policies without having to move several times because they are being harassed and their personal information is being published online.

  2. He still has access to his account and can see the tweets other users post.

    How can I feel safe?

  3. canary in the coalmine.

    1. That coalmine was already breached when Scott Horton, Daniel McAdams, and Peter VanBuren were banned from Twitter for not parroting groupthink. Beltway libertarians are only going to care about speech that’s popular. They’ll make a hub bub about kneeling football players, but will not give a shit when anti-war libertarians are banned from Twitter.

      They don’t care about a “culture of free speech”. They care about maintaining their position as controlled opposition.

      1. They don’t care about free speech. They don’t care about being opposition. They don’t care about being nice.

        They care about making money. Underneath the rules and TOS is a simple idea. If you make Twitter such a shithole that it drives away users, you’re gonna get banned. That’s how business works.

        You don’t like it, Gab is where the shithole posters are gathering.

        1. In theory that’s how business work. In reality people do things for a myriad of reasons that sometimes have nothing or everything to do with maximizing profits because we are irrational beings not inputs into an economic model. Just like in theory the gov. protects a citizens rights.

          1. Nobody is suggesting twitter can or can’t do anything they are free to do anything just like I’m free to point out they are shameless hypocrites and assholes for banning people.

        2. Progressives like Chandler Bing think that anti-war activists like Scott Horton, Daniel McAdams, and Peter VanBuren are “shithole posters”.

          1. I don’t know them at all. I don’t think they have rights to Twitter.

          2. I’ve never seen a SJW as whiny as someone who doesn’t like how Twitter runs its business.

            1. A consumer has every right to criticize a business.

              1. Only a nincompoop would take issue with someone who promotes free markets to behave as a rational market actor. What exactly do you believe free markets are? We’re not pro-business, we’re pro-market

            2. It’s like you tried to fit a weak troll attempt and a demonstration of your extra chromosomes in the same post.

        3. “They care about making money. ”

          Well, Twitter nevef has so maybe that’s an indication that they don’t k ow what the fuck they are doing at all.

  4. Partisans on both sides of the aisle want digital speech they don’t agree with be restricted and/or banned.

    Not that I necessarily disagree, but you could at least toss a linked example in there.

    1. Those links would just lead to banned content

    2. That includes the valiant libertarians, too. Pretty much everyone wants to shut someone else up.

      Mind you, Reason doesn’t want the government to do it but if the morally-outraged mob or the market conspire to suppress an unpopular point of view then that’s cool.

      1. Well, want and acknowledge the right would be two different things, the second which is what I hope would be coming out of Reasoners’ pie holes.

    3. >>>Partisans on both sides of the aisle

      conservative activists!

    4. I believe Peter Suderman said he was pretty close to advocating for gov. regulation to prevent this in the last reason round-table podcast.

      1. Where does that opinion fall on the partisan divide?

    5. There are no examples. SJWs get to post their ever-so-fun “Punch a Nazi!” memes/exhortations to violence with impunity.

      All business rights, market forces, private/public/whathefuckever considerations aside, as a fucking sane human being I hate to see platforms as powerful as Twitter, Google, FaceBook, etc., be so blatantly mendacious with regard to “even-handedness”.

      Fuck them, whatever they “have the right” to do.

  5. Gee thanks, Twitter. Now how will I know which DC pizza joint has a thin crust, pepperoni and onion with extra piss from a 7-year old girl.

    1. Ask a local priest

      1. Where can I get a child bride? Ask an imam?

        1. You can ask a priest about that too.

          1. Sorry. I forgot that you were a selective religious bigot

          2. Weird, I did that and they indicated they had no idea.

            I asked the Imam, and they said Iran would be a good place to start. Oddly, they also asked if I have any cousins in Pakistan.


      2. Is that where you get your underage sexual partners from?

    2. “Now how will I know which DC pizza joint has a thin crust, pepperoni and onion with extra piss from a 7-year old girl.”

      Order a Podesta. They’ll give you directions. Possibly a map, even.

  6. When are they going to take down open communists calling for revolution or simply advocating for ideas that will require theft and murder to enact?

    1. When it’s in their business interests to do so.

      1. Now do the NFL

        1. When they get threatened by the President as an organization.

      2. That’ll do troll, that’ll do.

  7. Partisans on both sides of the aisle want digital speech they don’t agree with be restricted and/or banned.

    But only one side is going to actually get it’s way.

    1. This pox on both their houses thing is dumb imho, in this particular case. Call me when the republicans who could actually do something about this, ie put forth a real retarded policy goal articulating this, and I’ll agree. Meanwhile in the real world between fringe cons trying to own the libs and the fringe libs trying to own the cons who actually has the most scalps?

      1. I believe the score is James Gunn vs too many to count all though I’m open to being wrong.

        1. Twitter communists routinely use very similar language to what Alex Jones got banned for. The funny thing about institutional power is the left have convinced themselves they don’t have it.

  8. Partisans on both sides of the aisle want digital speech they don’t agree with be restricted and/or banned. But it’s impossible to please everyone.

    Not impossible: Ban *all* “digital speech”.

  9. Twitter and Facebook can fuck off and die.

    1. dilly dilly.

    2. You must really hate the free market, huh?

      That content neutral platform that you just know everybody wants keeps failing to appear.

      1. In what world are these bans in any way related to “the market”?

        1. Jones had a following. There were enough crazy people who listened to him that the market had already made a choice. And since you couldn’t convince people to stop listening to him, media companies and politicians demanded that these platforms silence him. None of this has anything to do with the market.

          1. ^He’s right you know

          2. How do the media companies make decisions?

            I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with tree farket.

      2. “Hi I’m Happy Chandler and I ignore that the government is involved in shit”

  10. Just remember, beltway libertarians will sell out anyone for respectability. That’s the takeaway. This has nothing to do with Alex Jones, since Scott Horton, Daniel McAdams, and Peter VanBuren were also kicked off of Twitter for nothing more than questioning prevailing group think.

    It’s good to be controlled opposition

    1. I mean in fairness this has everything to do with Alex Jones. Just as banning Scott Horton, Daniel McAdams, and Peter VanBuren has everything to do with banning them.

    2. So, a group of Media outlets are coordinating their efforts to shut up a nutty loon who claims the shadowy powers that run our society want to shut him up?

      And they think this will marginalize him?

      1. Maybe they’re aware of the Streisand Effect, but they don’t care, because they just want to make themselves look good for trying.


      Enemy of progs who want war with Russia because Trump.

      How things have flipped.

      1. So, the enemy of precisely….nobody?

        1. Only a prog isn’t familiar with

          1. Why should I be? I don’t listen to Democracy Now, either.

            I was pointing out that the number of progressives pushing for war with Russia is, within the margin of error, zero.

        2. “Hi I’m Happy Chandler and I like lying about stuff because the truth embarrasses me”

          1. Never had a stalker before. Not sure whether to be flattered or just sorry for you.

  11. Finding out that private hate speech censorship is banning Alex Jones is like finding out that stopping Russian troll democracy stealers is banning Jesus vs. Satan memes.

  12. You’d think with all of these people believing that there should be a platform that lets you post whatever miserable shit you like, the market would provide something to fill this gap.

    Maybe you guys are looking for 8chan? It’s pretty nice this time of year.

    Shouldn’t the market fix this? Why does the market need to be regulated to protect racists of your preferred stripe?

    1. Chandler Bing: You believe in free markets, right? So why are you criticizing a private business? Can you BE anymore of a hypocrite

      Me: What you just said is retarded on so many levels. As a consumer I can criticize business for their practices all that I want. That is what the free market is all about

      1. I never said you can’t criticize a business. You can. However, the people who are whining about this are a much smaller segment than the ones who are happy he’s gone.

        I was just saying that so many people here are convinced that all the tech companies are wrong. The markets aren’t fixing it. That means either the free markets don’t work or people don’t want what the whiners are looking for.

        1. “The markets aren’t fixing it.”

          The market is working just fine. You just don’t like the fact that people are listening to him. Too bad. Don’t read them then.

          I’m old enough to remember when liberals (which no longer exist) complained that WalMart wouldn’t stock CDs with parental warnings. Or when conservatives complained about talk radio and we all said “then turn the knob”.

          Yes, progressives like yourself don’t believe in tolerance and love censorship. Agreed

          1. “when conservatives complained about talk radio”

            I specifically mean shock jocks like Stern and Imus back in the day

            1. I think the sane among us realize you’re probably not talking about Mark Levin or A.M. in general since it would be bizarre for conservatives to complain about themselves ^_-

        2. “I never said you can’t criticize a business. You can. ”

          No, you just posted about a dozen times and what whined about the criticism.

          I’ve never seen a Trump supporter whine as much as you about anything ever.

        3. “The markets aren’t fixing it.”

          Are you actually retarded? The government has made it clear they want to regulate this sector.

          1. You think they’re worried about this?

            They know nothing will get passed, and if it does, it won’t hold up in court.

          2. It’s sad for ANYBODY when the government is too subtle for you to understand what it’s doing.

            FedGov: “Dang. We’d LOVE to regulate the content on social media plaforms, but we’ve got that pesky First Amendment.”
            Google/Twitter: “Yeah, that’s a shame. Too bad there aren’t a few companies totally in control of those platforms who AREN’T constrained by the First Amendment, but who are willing to be VERY obliging when confronted with regulatory proposals.”

  13. If the logic of the Second Amendment violates Twitters’s TOS, then fuck Twitter.

    Oh, and if the logic of Federalist Papers No. 29 violates Twitter’s TOS, then Twitter can go fuck themselves because of that, too.

    “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss . . . . Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped . . . .

    If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

    —-Federalist Papers, No. 29

    1. The Second Amendment shortens that down to, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

      From where I’m standing, that’s more or less what Alex Jones said.

      They don’t have the First and Second Amendments in Canada, the UK, or Australia–and it shows. Everything from libels laws to gun control are different in the U.S. than the old British Commonwealth because of the First and Second Amendments. In other words, the First and Second Amendments aren’t just the legal guarantor of our liberties–they’re what make us American. If the logic of the Second Amendment is unacceptable to Twitter, then Twitter is un-American.

      P.S. Fuck Twitter.

      1. little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms,

        I don’t think this has been achieved, at least outside the National Guard.

        1. The point was that people need to own their own weapons so that they can become proficient in their care and use.

          There are plenty of civilians who are familiar enough with their AR-15s to give the oppressive army of a dictator plenty of trouble. Didn’t you see what the insurgency did to our army in Iraq? They didn’t have APCs, jet fighters, or helicopters either.

          As proficient as average Americans are with the use of their own weapons, they might make the Iraqi insurgency look like amateurs. Regardless, there is still a huge difference between “regular” army and “irregulars”, and the difference still amounts to training and the proficiency of the fighters in question with their weapons. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to reduce that difference, and it’s still serving that purpose.

          1. Tactics are also at least as important.

            Iraq doesn’t exactly show a success. Through terrorism, they managed to kill a few thousand Americans while suffering hundreds of thousands of deaths. A large portion of those casualties were from IEDs, not guns.

            The closest analogy to what was in the quote, especially about discipline, is the National Guard.

            1. The insurgents managed to make huge chunks of the American people realize that being there wasn’t worth the cost of staying.

              If you don’t think the American people being armed and proficient with their weapons makes them more formidable in a resistance scenario, then you’re just being silly.

              1. Resistance to what? The US Army?

                1. The leftist mob you idiot. Antifa’s dreams of taking their fight to the street and people’s homes is a sad joke because this country is so well armed. I have dozens of relatives out West who have been dreaming of the day they get to shoot a bunch of dirty hippies trying to break into their homes. Disarm the public and those threats become very serious. The left hates an armed public because an armed public can’t be terrorized into doing what the left demands.

                2. There’s no point in replying to HC, the initials they chose clearly indicate a troll as does their total lack of anything approaching consistency or logic.

                3. “Resistance to what? The US Army?”

                  When I wrote that, “There are plenty of civilians who are familiar enough with their AR-15s to give the oppressive army of a dictator plenty of trouble.”, I meant the oppressive army of a dictator. Why is that hard to understand?

                  BYOB is on to something, here, but the problem isn’t just consistency or logic. It’s also willful obtuseness and pretending to be stupid.

                  If what you wrote doesn’t match his preconceptions, somehow what you’ve written is impossible for him to understand. That’s a mark of stupidity.

                  There are a tremendous number of stupid people in this world who’ve graduated from college, lucked into jobs of middling responsibility, listen to NPR on the way to work, and think they’re smart because they graduated from college, lucked into a job of middling responsibility, and listen to NPR on the way to work.

                  If being smart is actually a function of comprehending and responding to other people’s arguments in a rational way, then Happy Chandler is a moron. Don’t stop him though. That kind of person does a great job of making elitist, phony intellectuals look stupid.

                  1. It’s not that I don’t understand.

                    I’m just incredulous that people can actually believe that.

                    The idea that a bunch of guys with guns are well regulated….
                    and on, and on.

                    The idea that a 1000:1 casualty ratio is “proof” that armed insurgents (who happened to include the disbanded army) can hold off invaders….

  14. Principles versus money.
    Twitter used to have a pretty strong free speech principle. That principle ran into the market. Specifically, right wing trolls were driving away important users and their followers. That cost them money. Left wing trolls may be nasty, but they didn’t cause the same money problems, so their not in the crosshairs.

    People hate Nazis. People hate racists and sexist trolls. People aren’t really bothered by communists. That’s the market. You want to hear racists and sexists and conspiracy nuts, go to Gab or 8chan.

    1. It’s all about advertising.

      The people who pay the bills make the choices, and the people paying Twitter are the advertisers.

      Advertisers want content that isn’t offensive to anybody and will reach as large an audience as possible. That’s why broadcast TV is boring as hell, and HBO is full of titties. That’s why when kids were listening to Slayer and Black Flag, commercial radio was playing the Eagles and Whitney Houston. That’s why Twitter can’t suffer the likes of Alex Jones anymore. It’s because the advertisers need to sell vanilla to hit as large an audience as possible.

      P.S. Fuck commercial radio. Fuck broadcast television.

      1. The beauty of online advertising is that you can target your ads. Since these platforms have practically limitless space, they don’t have to have as broad an appeal as the broadcast companies with only 3 hours of primetime. It’s more like basic cable, but even more so. Basic cable had Mad Men and Breaking Bad.

        There’s plenty of nasty crap out there. Most of it nobody sees. Once things go more widespread and break into polite company, they get complaints.

        1. The ads may target people individually, but the content was accessible to everybody.

          Meanwhile, the advertisers don’t want to be subject to the wrath of the SJWs because their ad somehow ends up on someone watching an Alex Jones video–watching him because they hate him and they enjoy being outraged.

          Targeted advertising targets people–not content. That’s a big problem for them.

          1. Advertisers can choose keywords. If the content includes a keyword, their ad will show.

            So, your complaint is that the SJWs are better at using the free market?

            1. A market that serves advertisers isn’t serving the consumers–it’s serving the advertisers. Giving consumers free advertising is a great model for maximizing profitability, but, no, the content made for the lowest common denominator in society is not of the highest quality.

              If the market for Taylor Swift’s music on streaming services isn’t as popular or profitable as a newly recorded performance of La traviata from the Met, no, that doesn’t mean Taylor Swift writes better music than Verdi. And if you don’t understand that or imagine that free market libertarians think Taylor Swift’s music is fundamentally superior to Verdi because it sells better, then you need to go educate yourself.

              Meanwhile, the fact is that models where content is created for paying consumers (rather than advertisers) does a better job of approximating consumer tastes. This is in no small part due to the fact that the price signals of consumers are more accurate than the price signals of advertisers. Again, if you don’t understand why that is, go educate yourself.

              Don’t expect me to educate you. I’m not getting paid for this.

    2. I think you’re making shit up. This is a very poor business decision for each platform because it significantly amplified the profiles of the competing alternatives you mention. Remember, MySpace was huge once; a better platform can always replace an old and stale one given enough time and impetus.

      1. Then get to work on it!

        One thing that gave Facebook an advantage was the real name policy, which made it less of a shithole than Myspace was.

        1. “Then get to work on it!”

          What part of the overtures toward regulation do you not understand?

    3. I visited one of the social media sites billed as one of the alternatives to Facebook (forget which one it was though). All I had to do was go to the front page, which had a selection of I’m presuming “popular” or “trending” comments, and I swear, it was about 3/4ths full of (a) outright racist/Nazi crap, (b), insane Alex Jones/Qanon style conspiracy bullshit, or (c) clickbaity crap like “Watch Jordan Peterson DESTROY The Left!!!” That was all it took for me to decide not to join. And quite frankly I imagine this will be the reaction from lots of people who visit those places.

      1. Yeah. I saw the same thing.

        To be fair though, Twitter is full of Russia fever dreams from mainstream reporters. So this really doesn’t have anything to do with conspiracy theories. It has to do with the *wrong* conspiracy theories.

        If this is about restricting people who spread false information or absolutely ape shit crazy conspiracy theories than Louis Mensch and Seth Abramson would have been banned a long time ago.

        1. Don’t take my word for it, just ask the conservative publications like Slate and Vox



          1. I wish Reason would just be honest about what’s going on, but to be fair, they are incredibly shitty at fostering a “culture of free speech” that they so desperately care about when it’s popular to do so

        2. Nobody got banned for conspiracy theories, but nice try!

          1. [Citation needed]

          2. Then what was he banned for?

            1. He doesn’t know, nor does anyone else, he’s just sure it wasn’t conspiracy theories.

            2. ‘Hate speech’.

      2. Yeah I saw that too but I still made a gab account on principle — I CHOOSE to support businesses that champion free speech, even if I don’t think the Jews are behind it all.

      3. Yeah I saw that too but I still made a gab account on principle — I CHOOSE to support businesses that champion free speech, even if I don’t think the Jews are behind it all.

  15. To Alex Jones’ larger point, I hope the elitsts on the coasts understand the environment they’re creating.

    On the one hand, they want to force people to bake wedding cakes in violation of their religious convictions, force nuns to finance their employee’s fornication as a part of ObamaCare, publicly ostracize people for what they say, etc.–all of which clearly violates the First Amendment.

    On the other hand, they act like it’s amazing that anyone would think they need to arm themselves because the left wants to take over the country and shit-can our most cherished rights–even as the left is doing everything they can to disarm the American people.

    Alex Jones doesn’t need to build some elaborate conspiracy theory to make people connect dots they’d never put together otherwise. If you don’t want the American people to think you want to trash their First Amendment rights and disarm them, then there are easy ways to avoid that. For instance, you could stop trying to trash our First Amendment rights–even as you try to disarm the American people.

    1. “On the one hand, they want to force people to bake wedding cakes in violation of their religious convictions, force nuns to finance their employee’s fornication as a part of ObamaCare, publicly ostracize people for what they say, etc.–all of which clearly violates the First Amendment.”

      Are we talking about progressives or Gary Johnson now? I get so confused

      1. Me too. Am I the only one who thinks Johnson running for Senate in New Mexico is going to hurt the Democrat? I don’t see where Johnson offers the Republicans anything. But if you are a Democrat and want your open borders and forced gay wedding cakes but are not down with the war socialism of the rest of the party, Johnson is really your guy. The dingbat that the Libertarians ran for VA governor a few years ago that wanted a mileage tax and the state to monitor everyone’s driving to enforce it ended up hurting the Democrat in the election. I think Johnson will likely do the same in New Mexico.

        1. He’s pulling votes from the Republican according to polling. Voters just remember him as the Republican governor and they see libertarian, which conservatives are vaguely familiar with and not repulsed by.

          Nonetheless, though, Johnson won’t be any more worse than a generic Republican from NM

          1. I am starting to reconsider the “liberaltarian” experiment. Progs have taken over the Democratic party and gone so bat shit crazy that the Democrats have become to the too crazy and evil to vote for under any circumstances party. That is a very bad thing. You need to have a competing party that is at least sane and won’t do too much damage or there is no way to hold the Republicans accountable for anything. Libertarians culturally share a lot more in common with Democrats than they do with Republicans. A Democratic party that was a Gary Johnson type “we love gays, Mexicans and pot” social liberalism combined with some sanity on economic policy would be okay. It at least would make the Democratic Party sane again. And it would give Libertarians more clout than they ever had in the GOP. That might be worth the cost of throwing some of their economic beliefs and things like gun control over the side, which the Reason and CATO Libertarians don’t seem to care that much about anyway other than “free trade” which the Democrats seem to endorse these days anyway.

            1. You need to read libertarian publications outside of Reason and CATO.

              Also, it’s silly to believe that no Republicans endorse the same “bake the cake” mentality. Johnson is really just a moderate Republican. He’s Tim Pawlenty who also likes pot. His primary problem isn’t that he’s too “progressive”, it’s that he’s too “conservative”.

              Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit and beltway libertarianism is progressivism going just over the speed limit, but still within the five mile and hour leeway.

              1. A standard Republican is not a better alternative to Gary Johnson, “Bake the cake” and all

                1. A standard Republican is not a better alternative to Gary Johnson, “Bake the cake” and all

                  If you think that, then you should love the “Mexicans, pot and ass sex” Democratic party that the liberaltarian movement is trying to create. If you hate the GOP, you should be happy to see the Libertarians join forces with the moderate Democrats.

                  1. It isn’t the immigration, pot, and butt sex that bothers me.

                    It’s the abandonment of free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

                    They’re not moving into the space where the honest liberals used to be. They’re abandoning the same space that the honest liberals abandoned.

              2. Beltway conservatism is that. But beltway movement conservatism is dead as a doornail. The GOP pretty much belongs to Trump and his populist conservatism. The old limp wristed lose with dignity and worship the global markets conservatism is dead. It is just a mopping up operation at this point.

                If the beltway libertarians and the country club Republicans joined with the moderate Democrats, they could maybe bring the Democratic party back to a place of sanity.

    2. On the one hand, the left wants to trash our First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

      On the other hand, they don’t want us to think they’re trying to trash our First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

    3. They also want to force restaurants to serve black people and let them drink at the water fountain and sit anywhere on the bus. The nerve!

      Nuns were never forced to cover birth control.

      1. Sure. But discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin is not the same as discriminating against them because of their behavior and choices. We discriminate against people who refuse to wear shirts and shoes too and against people who don’t have the money to pay.

      2. “Nuns were never forced to cover birth control.”

        They absolutely were.

        1. The technicality that Chandler Bing is going to use is that “their insurer was required to pay, not the nuns”. Which occurred after originally requiring the nuns to pay. At which point, after a lawsuit, the federal government said “ok, sign this piece of paper and we’ll just force your insurer to pay”. “But, we’ll still be paying for it, because we pay our insurance company and our premiums will likely increase as a result to compensate for this.” the nuns said.

          But, let’s play the game of pretending like things are free

      3. Yes believe it or not, the right to free association is respected here.

        “They also want to force restaurants to serve black people and let them drink at the water fountain and sit anywhere on the bus. The nerve!”

        Why is that necessary? You’re the fucking retard crowing about markets, why is this different for you suddenly?

        1. Why is that necessary?

          Because it is always and forever fantasy 1955 with Progs where there is a racist waiting to jump out of the bushes and put black people back into the ghetto. Even in 1955, it wasn’t necessary. People like this dipshit have this idea that Jim Crow was a set of laws that made it legal to discriminate. No, Jim Crow was a set of laws that made it illegal not to discriminate. It was illegal to serve both races. The states that had Jim Crow did so because it was the only way to keep the market from forcing integration. Somehow the need to change laws that required people to discriminate was used to justify laws that destroyed the right to free association.

  16. “Zuri Davis noted at the time, all four companies stated that Jones’ inflammatory statements about Muslims, immigrants, members of the LGBT community, and other groups violated their terms of service.”

    What’s so amazing about this point and the article that it’s linked to is that no examples are ever provided.

    Faith alone

    1. And what is an “inflammatory statement” anyway? I honestly have no idea what that means. He clearly didn’t say anything insulting or bigoted or they would have called it that. You tell me what an “inflammatory statement” is because I don’t see how it means anything other than “we don’t like the speaker but he didn’t actually say anything wrong”.

    2. Also, have they banned anyone for saying “inflammatory” statements about Christians, Republicans, White Males, Heterosexuals, Rural Americans, etc. Because I can go on my Twitter feed now and find at least one of those fairly easily.

      1. One of them is a member of the NYT editorial board. Nothing Alex Jones has said is any worse or more hateful than the hundreds of tweets Sarah Jeong put ou.

  17. I am starting to think Jones and paying these platforms to ban him. Jones has gotten more free publicity and I bet more visits to his website in the last week than he has in the last three years combined I bet. Jones is playing these idiots perfectly.

    1. ^ This.

      It would be difficult for Jones to have planned a more effective advertising campaign if he had tried.

      1. Fun fact, for a long time I thought Jones was part of the lunatic left. I think most people had no idea who he was or if they did paid any attention to him until all of this.

        1. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I know a few people that avidly watch Jones and the reason all of them do so is because he’s hilarious. They don’t believe a word of what he says, they just like watching him shit himself and turn red.

          I imagine that’s something like 80% of his viewership.

  18. Anyone find it weird that a bunch of platforms ban Alex Jones at the same time? It’s almost like someone is coordinating activities heading into the midterm elections.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.