iTunes ditches podcasts from controversial InfoWars creator Alex Jones


#1

I’m curious what this hate speech was. Did Apple actually quote the offending words? Or is this another slander by a leftist corporation? And saying someone uttered hate speech is most definitely slander. Jones should sue and get a big settlement if there was no hate speech.

I don’t listen to Jones so maybe he did utter hate speech. But Apple being a leftist corporation which promotes all manner of immorality I’d not be surprised if this is a lie.

A decent corporation would quote the offending words. Otherwise it is a vague charge. Vague charges are what people make when they are lying and don’t want to be held accountable.


Behind the Google-Southern Poverty Law Center relationship
#2

That link produces an error when I click on it. I did find a story at The Verge about it.

Update - later on I was able to pull up the story at the link

According to this story Spotify also removed his content from their service. He gets strikes on YouTube regularly too. But strikes on YouTube expire and his managed not to acummulate enough at a time to result in being completely removed as of yet.

That amounts to rebroadcasting a hateful message. If Alex wants to know why his podcast was removed he can ask (assuming Apple hasn’t already told him). If he wants the rest of the public to know why he can share. If someone doesn’t mind being subjected to his content they could go listen to his most recent show of conspiracy theories.

He’s also known for broadcasting unsubstantiated and what appear to be fabricated declarations especially about recent events. I’ve heard his content. He seams to just make things up. His comments on Chobani yogurt take the cake. But his assertions about making frogs gay are pretty well known.


#3

An alleged hateful message. If Jones’ sues Apple for libel, and I think he should, then Apple will be forced to document what they consider ‘hate speech’. It is in Apple’s best interest to offer quotes of offending content so that they can demonstrate a consistent and accurate policy to avoid being sued for first amendment violations.


#4

I asked someone else about these. They told me Mr. Jones has been getting attention lately because of his repeated violation of the policies of some of these digital publishers and their failures to remove his channels as per the policies.

If someone wanted more insight to what Apple consider’s hatespeech I’d suggest reading through the content guidelines before taking a dispute to court.

Apple has a great legal team. I think they can make a good decision about the best interests of the company. I’ve read some of the legal correspondence that Apple has sent to individuals and it is both incredibly polite while intimidating at the same time.

Apple isn’t the government. This isn’t in the realm of first amendment violations. There appears to be a trend of taking companies to court for what they claim to be first amendment violations and those individuals getting informed of the same thing. The most recent example of this is Prager v Google. Though there are cases involving Twitter, Facebook, and others that have ended the same way. The first amendment gives both Alex the right to make his unsubstantiated claims and gives Apple the right to not promote them. A first amendment violation is governmental interference.


#5

I hope he loses his current court battle and his ridiculous counter suit.

What an evil jerk to cause families to suffer after losing their children.

And his supplements are nothing more than snake oil.


#6

When you make an allegations you have to be specific. You can’t just say ‘hate speech’. Apple is claiming to consider specific words hate speech. They don’t have to make this public, though they should so that people can see clearly what they consider ‘hate speech’. If Jones sues them they’ll be compelled to. That is why I hope he sues them.

Sure it is. A federal judge recently ruled Twitter is a public forum and that because of this President Trump could not block users. With the modern expansive view of rights this wouldn’t seem to be something Apple can do.


#7

Anyone who goes to jail, loses their children.


#8

I think they were saying that since President Trump was using Twitter as an official method of communicating, HE (President Trump) could not block users. I don’t think they were saying Twitter couldn’t block users of Trump’s Twitter feed.


#9

The judge did not rule that Twitter was a public forum, she ruled that Trump’s Twitter account was a public forum.


#10

Déjà vu. Almost 3 months ago…

Later in that conversation you expressed incredulity that I had read the reading while not reading the ruling yourself. If you really want to know what the arguments were in that case a link to the ruling is in that thread. But whether you read it or not the case does not show that Apple’s decisions on what podcast they decide not to advertise to be in the realm of first amendment violations. The thread can be found here.

Correct. They only ruled on his actions. If Twitter chose to block someone absent of the influence of the government it is not a first amendment issue.

There’s no obligation to do so. But no one here has knowledge to share on what Apple has told Mr. Jones or Infowars.


#11

This is in reference to children that were shot and killed. I think you may have other events in mind.


#12

It follows that if Trump’s Twitter is a public forum then Twitter itself couldn’t block users. It is a bad ruling which is why the natural consequences don’t make much sense.

Twitter would itself have to be a public forum in order for any account on it to be a public forum. The ruling was to specifically allow other people to reply to the president. So everyone’s account on Twitter must be a public forum. Again, it is a bad ruling which is why the natural consequences of hit don’t make sense.


#13

It doesn’t. The actual text of the ruling addresses this.

Nope. Also addressed in the ruling. Rather early on in the text.


#14

It certainly follows from reason. The opinion might ‘address it’ but the opinion is novel and poorly reasoned.


#15

As of yet have you actually read the ruling?


#16

Why would I waste my time? Why would it matter?


#17

Have you actually read it?


#18

No. I thought that was clear from ‘why would I waste my time’?


#19

One can infer an answer from that, but it is not an actual answer to the question. I wanted a clear and unambiguous answer and not my own inferences before concluding that you are expressing opinions about the ruling that are uninformed by the actual ruling. I remember where the previous discussion on such opinions went. So I don’t have any further questions on your disposition and the inferences that you are making.


#20

Has strong opinions on court ruling; thinks it’s a waste of time to actually read court ruling.

:roll_eyes:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.