August 13, 2018 at 4:59 pm #183438
Youtube, Vimeo and Facebook are some of the outlets that have boycotted him over his rants.August 13, 2018 at 6:40 pm #183439
And here is a take on how radio responds to Jones now that the App Broadcasters are going after Jones.
By John Garziglia)Alex Jones, a self-described libertarian and paleoconservative and publisher of the infowars.com website, is broadcast on 114 radio stations. Recently, his content was removed by YouTube, Facebook and Apple. Is there a case to be made that radio stations should likewise question his broadcast content?
This article will not delve into a discussion of the various theories and conspiracies that make up a portion of Alex Jones’ content. That is for others. Rather, the question for FCC licensees is that, when three major social platform aggregators remove content, should radio stations take notice and likewise assess the prudence of carrying the same content?
As private companies, YouTube, Facebook, and Apple, have every right to remove or refuse content consistent with their own policies. By doing so, however, each may be entering into a difficult line-drawing exercise. While the removal of Alex Jones content may be defended on a truth and veracity basis, the question becomes where the line is drawn.
The social media giants have certain established policies for their content. Some of the claimed policy violations resulting in their various take-downs of Alex Jones’ content include policies against child endangerment, hate speech, bullying, harassment, glorifying violence, and using dehumanising language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants.
It is worth noting that there are significant laws against child endangerment, bullying and harassment. When such conduct occurs either on social media or the old-fashioned way using mail or personally-delivered threats, it is hoped that law enforcement authorities will quickly step in. Indeed, that is the brightest line – when content is illegal or is fostering illegality, the content should not be broadcast.
Which brings us to Alex Jones and similar radio broadcasts – should they stay or should they go? Certainly, no radio station licensee wants to broadcast content that endangers children, or is bullying or harassing.
Radio station licensees may have a legal and regulatory exposure far beyond that of social media platforms for scurrilous content. Radio stations may be exposed to a full panoply of legal actions, as well as a variety of other causes of action, for harmful content. Both social media and radio stations could find themselves in the cross-hairs of a lawsuit if questionable content incited violence or otherwise provoked illegality.
A radio station with an FCC license to serve the public interest has an obligation to itself and to its listeners to offer information and viewpoints that stand up to a test of integrity that each licensee itself initially establishes. Therefore, radio stations must be especially sensitive to changing social mores as to what constitutes beyond-the-bounds programming.
The broadcast content offered by radio personalities seeking self-aggrandizement and notoriety for cutting-edge programming, conspiracy theories, and falsehoods, can be theater-of-the-mind, or can be a wasteland. The challenge for each radio station licensee is determining when provocative radio programming goes over the line of marginally-acceptable content to become intolerable and dangerous.August 15, 2018 at 10:45 am #183451
Infowars is a nutty site, but so is DailyKOS or Democratic Underground. When do they get censored?August 15, 2018 at 10:31 pm #183455
Yes Alex Jones has radio affiliates too and one of them is facing an FCC fine.August 17, 2018 at 1:15 am #183466
<p>http://www.kut.org/post/alex-jones-penalized-twitter</p><p><br data-mce-bogus=”1″></p><p>Now Twitter has suspended Alex Jones for similar reasons.</p>August 17, 2018 at 9:12 am #183467
https://www.mystatesman.com/business/austin-pirate-radio-station-flagship-for-alex-jones-faces-15k-fine/IKeK5Z5IUjegmfqznULCLN/ Yes Alex Jones has radio affiliates too and one of them is facing an FCC fine. http://txlr.netWhat a joke… I saw this story in the news yesterday and decided to dig deeper. Apparently someone in the Austin Texas area was transmitting a pirate radio station with Alex Jones programming for many years. The headline said it was an Alex Jones “flagship” station… such a complete lie. AJ had nothing to do with this station, but that was not how it was reported. The FCC merely came and shut down the pirate radio station, which is what they’re supposed to do. AJ may be a nut, but I still haven’t heard the specifics as to why all these social media platforms conspired to shut him down on the same day. Why not let the people decide themselves? You can listen to his program and realize that he makes up much of these conspiracies without any merit. Many of these social media platforms are building a bad reputation of selective censorship… shadow banning.August 17, 2018 at 12:28 pm #183468
Crazy Monkey was not crazy with his comments. I noticed the same thing. All this biased crap is really getting on my nerves.August 17, 2018 at 1:09 pm #183469
Crazy Monkey was not crazy with his comments. I noticed the same thing. All this biased crap is really getting on my nerves.This is exactly where the term “fake news” comes from. You can even see that the deceptive headline of the article was changed from “flagship station”, because it wasn’t. It had nothing to do with Alex Jones, but yet that’s how it was reported to make him look bad. It didn’t take really any research to find this out. It just goes to show that “journalists” aren’t doing their job and asking the right questions. I think it’s deliberate. I’m not a fan of AJ. I think there are many other talkers who actually use logic, but this guy seems to be an easy target.August 17, 2018 at 8:16 pm #183470
Some of the boycotts you are seeing here is traced to a lawsuit over the Sandy Hook rants Alex Jones has been accused of doing.
Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones intentionally destroyed evidence as pressure steadily mounted from pending defamation lawsuits and “growing public indignation,” according to a court motion filed Friday by families of Sandy Hook murder victims.
Jones and his Infowars media group face lawsuits for claiming that the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school mass killings in Connecticut were staged by the government and that the 26 people slain were fictitious creations in an elaborate hoax.
The latest court action against him, filed in Travis County, Texas and first reported by the New York Times, alleges that Infowars “intentionally deleted a variety of social media pages and video content relating to the Sandy Hook shooting.” Lawyers for the Sandy Hook families discovered the intentional destruction of evidence earlier this month, according to the court motion.
The pages and the videos were being sought as evidence against Jones in the ongoing defamation cases. Jones had been informed by lawyers for the plaintiffs that he was required by law to preserve the information as part of standard evidence rules in court cases, the motion said.
Relevant evidence has been lost,” lawyers for the families said in the court filing. “As pressure mounted . . . Mr. Jones chose to destroy the evidence of his actual malice and defamatory conduct.”
Infowars did not respond to an email sent by USA TODAY, seeking comment on the allegations.
Jones, who also has claimed that survivors of the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting were actors, has been increasingly under fire. Twitter suspended the personal account of Infowars for one week Tuesday for violating the social media company’s rules against inciting violence.
YouTube, Apple, Facebook remove ‘Alex Jones Show’
The social network said in a statement that Jones’ account “currently has limited functionality.” Jones was told the account would regain full functionality seven days after the removal of a tweet with “a broadcast in violation of our rules.”
The decision was made after Jones tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others.
In the latest court filing, lawyers representing families of two Sandy Hook victims asked a judge to impose punitive sanctions, possibly a fine, against Infowars.
Leonard Pozner, who lost his 6-year-old son in the shooting and joined a lawsuit against Jones, said his family has suffered threats and harassment after Jones’ claims. The threats have come from other conspiracy theorists who told Pozner his son never existed.August 21, 2018 at 11:31 am #183485
I don’t deny he is a nutty guy. So is the guy running DailyKOS or Democratic Underground. But they run around unhinged and untouched.
The civil suit is appropriate, by the way.September 6, 2018 at 8:52 pm #183665
Update Alex jones has his accounts removed by Twitter over the Infowars Broadcasts.September 7, 2018 at 11:35 am #183671
QUOTE From Crazy Monkey: The headline said it was an Alex Jones “flagship” station… such a complete lie.
Journalists are their own worst enemies when they do stuff like this. I don’t trust much they say on controversial topics as it seems that journalists are more interested in pushing their agendas then in reporting the facts… unless the facts back up their agendas.
Reasonable radio talk show host Dennis Prager commented that he found Alex Jones Sandy Hook assertions to be utterly without merit and despicable, but broadcasters, and others, need to be concerned about censorship of even people like Jones because like Pastor Neimoller said during the purges against free speech in Germany during the 1930s … “First they came for the Jews. Since I wasn’t a Jew, I did nothing. Then they came for the Gypsys. Since I wasn’t a Gypsy…, But then, finally, they came after me, and there was no one to take up my cause”. Prager used that because he’s seen some of his cogent, and respectful, content censored in the wake of Alex Jones being banned. The most ridiculous one is/was the placement on the YouTube restricted list of a Prager University video about why Baseball is America’s Game. Prager believes some of his content is restricted because the powers-that-be simply don’t agree with the thrust of the content. Now, since these are private companies, they can do what they want, but is this sort of thing good for the country when they have built a big communication tool based on the idea of freedom of speech and expression? Of course, there has to be some rules and regulations, but putting simple “market-place-of-ideas” content on a restricted list seems to be more of a case of the gate-keepers trying to hinder ideas and opinions that they don’t agree with, thus not allowing freedom (of speech) to ring.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.