Sure, but I'm not the one who lumped those two together. That quote in the article says the conservative critics are the ones jumping to use Jones' ban as evidence of anti-conservative bias. The "critics" are self-identifying as Jones' allies. That is a red flag in my book since many of Jones' views don't deserve respect.

I think the Democratic Socialists of San Francisco deserve no respect; and their policy advocacy will only lead to higher rents, more homelessness and more despair.

But I'm not going to take their ability to use the internet away. In High school I really hated NetNanny - I'm not sure why so many people are so determined to become NetNanny.

No one took away Alex Jones' ability to use the internet. They took away his ability to use their platform to spread his message after violating their TOS.

He is free to start his own Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech.

While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine)

The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.

> Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech.

I agree!

> The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.

I also agree!

However, I personally believe that if corporate censorship has a meaningful impact on the freedom of speech in a society then the fundamental problem is the amount of influence said corporation has on that society. The issue is the size and influence of the private entity - society-altering censorship is just a more visible manifestation of the root problem.

Alex Jones is not respected by most conservatives (even the hypothetical person who agreed with every single one of his views would still think that his delivery was a bit hammy). If conservatives are rallying around him, it's based on the idea that as soon as the least defensible person is gone, the least defensible person becomes whoever used to be the second least defensible, and so on, and so on...

It's almost the mirror image of the NRA strategy of saying, "don't ban any guns," because if you ban only the worst guns then a new set of guns becomes the worst guns, until you've banned every gun.

There is a poem by Niemoller that seems relevant[1]. The point of the poem is that if you don't speak up against actions taken against groups, you may not have support when action is taken against you.

What is going on appears to be people standing up and saying "enough". Which is good. If they are hauled away and fired, well, then not so good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

This is not the first time I've seen somebody attempt to align this quote with groups that sympathize with other neo-nazi sympathizers (I mean, knowingly or not). If this group is allying themselves with Alex Jones, then I would hesitate attributing this quote to their cause.

This quote was explicitly about the nazis. [Utilizing it this way] It seems to do Niemöller a disservice, IMO.

I sympathize with people are shut out of civil conversation just for holding views on the other side of the spectrum— that shouldn't happen. Allying with Jones was either a crucial mistake for optics here, or outs the real beliefs inherent—that they're not just wanting to discuss conservative policy.

Banning Alex Jones from FB being a core piece of evidence that somehow FB is anti-conservative doesn't sound to me like concern over civil conversation. Jones was banned for inciting violence against innocent parties amongst other things.

This is not the first time I've seen comments construed to mean something completely opposite from what was intended. This seems to be the argumentation tactic of this time.

The poem was specifically about purging targets not aligned with the thought processes of those in power. When you leverage your power to come for the next group, and take them out of play with ostracization, ridicule, etc., or in the case of the actual nazis, murder and genocide, then you have abused your power and made other groups outside your group afraid.

This is the uncomfortable truth of the poem.

I personally cannot stand AJ and his kooks. But I am against deplatforming, as kooks tend to self-identify, and I want to know exactly where they are and what they are doing at all times.

I wasn't criticizing you. I just wanted to add clarity.

I likewise don't think Jones or his ilk deserve a free spot on primetime television or editorial column in a major newspaper or journal, nor do I think any media network owes it anyone to the extent that they need to provide them with a platform. Seems more in that camp to me.

Now that we're here, I do disagree with using the poem to defend the ideological kin of those he was discussing. If the group hadn't listed Jones amongst their list of the prosecuted then this wouldn't be a point of concern for me, and I'd think you had a point by employing the poem.

I think we're getting off the subject of the main thread, and the discussion surrounding your latter point is another separate and rather large one. I'm not sure we'd get very far here. But cheers.

> incitement to violence

good point, do you feel this way about people who say 'punch a nazi'?

Yes. I don’t support the use of violence, and those who commit violent crimes should be prosecuted.

That being said, there is a very real difference in scale between a punch and assault with a lethal firearm.

I can't speak for the OP, but I think "punch a Nazi" is totally unacceptable.

A related example: Antifa.

When a group expressing an extreme ideology begins to use violence against those who oppose it, is it acceptable to use violence in retaliation?

Historically, the answer is "after a while, yes". But it's a slippery slope towards becoming that which you oppose.