[Eextra953]

It shocking to me too. I can't understand how people are 'both sides-ing' this or just supporting him under some free speech argument. Free speech has limits and a court found Jones went too far and that cost him his business.

[kypro]

People have been arguing the same bogus free speech point in the UK recently because people have been arrested for saying things that are anti-immigration and offensive online.

People have free speech, but obviously that doesn't mean you are free to say things that could be considered hateful or factually untrue. If you go around tweeting hateful things about the Royal family and the courts find you guilty, don't be surprised if that costs you your freedom. It's pretty simple.

Alex is legally free to saying whatever he wants, but he had the wrong views on Sandy Hook and his wrong views hurt the families affected, therefore he deserves to lose his business.

[throw10920]

> because people have been arrested for saying things that are anti-immigration and offensive online.

What does immigration have to do with this? Nobody has a right to immigrate. Pointing out that there have been a massive influx of immigrants in the UK by any reasonable standard, that the majority of the UK population supports limiting/restricting immigration to at least some extent, that the UK does not have the resources to support the current rate of immigration, that the number of rapes in the UK has quintupled over the past 12 years, and that the rape increase coincides with the increase in immigration are all (1) factually true (2) non-hateful and (3) covered by free speech.

> People have free speech, but obviously that doesn't mean you are free to say things that could be considered hateful or factually untrue

That's literally the definition of "free speech". "Free speech" does not have clauses for "hateful" or "truthiness".

Additionally, any normal person who thinks about the problem for more than a few seconds can easily see that even if free speech did have those clauses, deciding whether things are "true" or "hateful" in general is completely impossible - it's not that hard to understand. It's also certainly not something you'd want the government deciding.

The arguments made by free speech advocates are not "bogus" - what's bogus is ignorant statements of yours that get the definition of "free speech" wrong and ignore basic knowledge about reality.

[leadingthenet]

> People have free speech, but obviously that doesn't mean you are free to say things that could be considered hateful or factually untrue.

So people don't actually have free speech.

[lesuorac]

It's really Alex Jones was alleged to pay people to harass Sandy Hook families at all hours of the day. He then proceeded to lie in court and after it become known refused to continue to participate and had a default judgement entered against him.

If I were to follow you around 24/7 for weeks shouting into a microphone is that not illegal?

[llamaimperative]

Reflexive contrarianism runs amok in these parts. It’s pretty pathetic.