Bill Maher Blasts Liberals over Alex Jones Censorship: ‘Supposed to Be for Free Speech’
Ben Kew 18 Aug 2018 Breitbart News
Liberal comedian Bill Maher defended InfoWars host Alex Jones on Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, arguing that self-described liberals should be in favor of free speech as it is a core American value.
Discussing Jones’ removal from social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and others, Maher appeared to disagree with his audience and fellow panelists about whether censoring him was a step in the right direction.
" I’m going to talk about free speech for a minute because Alex Jones, who is not my friend, who tells crazy lies about me, is thrown off Twitter, I think, and Facebook and a few other platforms,” Maher said, prompting applause from the audience.
“Well, if you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech,” Maher contended. “That’s free speech for the speech you hate . That’s what free speech means.”
“We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country,” he continued. “Either you care about the real American . . . or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak.” . . .
Behind the Google-Southern Poverty Law Center relationship
griz . . . .
He can speak. He can lie about the murders at Sandy Hook all he wants.
Maher isn’t sticking up for Jones here because of Jones.
Maher is sticking up for Jones here because of you.
Maher on this issue, understands the principle.
griz . . .
And so what do you do for those that get suspended or banned around here?
I put up threads like this one defending you.
griz . . . .
Putting up threads defending the right to lie . . .
Well you are not talking about me then.
(That would be a lie to say that I am “defending the right to lie”).
But back to the thread topic, Maher isn’t “defending the right to lie” either.
griz . . .
You must know about Alex Jones’ lies about the Sandy Hook murders
Only from you guys here.
I’ve never seen a Jones show (although with all the hoopla, if they re-instate him, I may watch a couple of his shows just to see what you are talking about at this point).
But my point griz, is Maher isn’t “defending Jones right to lie”
But he IS defending Jones right to be heard.
Don’t get so worried. You can go on public forums and defend the Sandy Hook people. Maybe they will come out of YOUR defense BETTER.
But if you shut him off, the precedent is to shut everyone off you don’t agree with.
If I showed you CNN reporting an inaccuracy and said it is a “lie” would that mean CNN should be banned too?
Good wins out over evil when a real discussion can take place.
Let the Government break up these giants. That is long overdue.
Then the people themselves can make these decisions.
I trust the people, for the most part, will make the correct decision. I do not trust the tech giant oligarchy.
I didn’t watch a lot of Alex Jones but I don’t like the idea of social platforms banding together to censor someone.
I didn’t see him refer to the Sandy Hook tragedy as using child actors but that does seem to be over the line.
For me, my view of Alex Jones was that he was a cross between a news presenter and a comedian with an over the top bagging of left wing views.
I remember watching the episode where he was trying to present Hillary Clinton as possessed because she was sitting with a group and everyone had flies buzzing around them but not Hillary and that it was reported that she had the distinct whiff of Sulphur emanating from her body. I thought that was hilarious.
For me the Left side of politics has presented news in a biased way for a very long time. I saw the Alex Jones show as an over the top parody of that but reversing the roles.
For me it was part humour, though as mentioned the Sandy Hook reports sound like they crossed the line.
I don’t know how many other times I would think he had crossed the line but if not, or only a couple, I don’t think it warrants a banning and this gives me a very negative attitude towards YouTube and all the rest of the involved social platforms.
So why does this man deserve the right to use other’s property
Because he is an American. (Even if we don’t like him)
Because to defend Jones is to defend you. (This goes waaaay beyond Jones griz)
Because what the tech giants have, was the work of a lot more than tech giants.
The tech giants could never have built what they have without the publics taxes for research etc. LONG BEFORE tech giants were even thought of.
Are you thinking of anyone in particular?
Jones always gave Maher good material for his show and Maher will never have to
worry about being censored by the left, but I am glad he is defending Alex Jones to some extent. I never listened to Alex Jones or watched Info Wars, but I watched a few clips on you tube. I can understand why some of his claims outraged people - especially the Sandy Hook claims.
I didn’t know Road Warrior was suspended, but there have been several
over the summer.
There is a badge for being suspended?
Oh, okay. Thanks for the info. In the old format on CAF, it would say suspended or banned under the username which was much easier than searching through usernames if you notice someone missing for awhile.
Do you really think that a single person pointing out that Jones is a liar would influence mentally ill people?
What I “really think” is that Jones should have been left alone by the tech giants or taken-on in the realm of ideas.
Now Jones is going to run around telling his millions of followers that . . . , guys who think the way you think, cannot compete with him in the areana of ideas.
Why not prove him wrong by engaging in the ideas griz?
griz . . .
Being American doesn’t give him the right to use other’s property to lie.
I am disappointed griz. Disappointed you would again use the fallacy of equivocation to defend your thoughts.
I think you can do better than this in the “ideas department”.
Aren’t a lot of these subjects, ones on Jimmy Kimmel and Netflix just popular media? This really isn’t world news imo, like say an earthquake in the South Pacific or flooding in India or war in Syria.
I agree with Bill.
Usually (not always) when I’ve seen someone suspended the offending message(s) are also deleted; unless one was a witness to the activity prior to the suspension and recognizes that there are portions of messages or entire messages gone then it’s just not known.
Personally, I applaud Facebook, etc. for their actions against Alex Jones. I am glad they did it. But in justifying this to those who support Alex Jones and his right to “be heard,” I can’t rely on my feelings or on trying to prove that the posts are a lie. Those posts being a lie are not the operative criterion. The right of Facebook to do what they did is the operative criterion. It is not a free speech issue.
You’re confusing infrastructure with content delivery. It’s like claiming I have to suffer a white supremacist in my living room because taxpayers paid for the road outside my house.
niceatheist . . .
You’re confusing infrastructure . . .
I am not confusing infrastructure at all.
Part of the tech “infrastructure” was the old fortran courses and calc one, two, and three and vectors and matricies classes taken by college kids way back when etc.
These were supplemented by tax payer dollars.
Many other examples could be sighted.
The tech firms built “upon the shoulders” of these giants.
Without all of this, there are NO “tech giants”.
You know it. I know it. And every reader here knows it.
You can artificially exempt “content delivery” for yourself, but I will not be fooled by such invented distinctions of yours.