[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by melonpapes

yeah its only every major electronic/internet payment handler and the credit card companies used to make the majority of these electronic/internet payments but you can still write alex jones a western union money order or stuff a 20$ in an envelope and hope it makes its way to him

you see, taking away the money he uses to run his platform isn't literally sewing his mouth shut (even tho the next step is likely not allowing him to purchase a domain or server to run his site on regardless of who funds it but heyyyyy da frogman is done for guys!)

Originally Posted by devonin

I mean the claim that he is being censored or stopped from saying whatever he wants by not being able to get money from people via a private service is absurd.

I don't get any money via paypal at all, and I can say all the same things he does.

Are you guys deliberately ignoring that Alex Jones was deplatformed on YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, etc. etc. ??

Originally Posted by devonin

I mean...grocery stores have already had the right to refuse service to anybody for any non-discriminatory reason. They could -already- not sell to somebody whose politics they didn't like. So that slippery slope you're trying to show us has been running perfectly non-slippery for a very long time.
A private company reserves the right to control its private spaces.

He can say anything he wants on any platform that will have him. He is not guaranteed a platform or network beyond those available to all of us through the public arena.

Yeah what the companies have done is totally legal and fine, but it's not good.

If all he has left is an actual soapbox in a public square to stand on, he's still not been censored and his right to free speech has not been taken away.

It has become considerably more difficult for him to spread his message. The fact that a few companies have the power to control speech that much is not.. good for free speech.

I get that the centrist liberal position wants to obsess over "Your beliefs are only strong beliefs if you apply them in the cases where you don't want to" and anybody who cares about freedom of speech is obliged to care about the freedom of speech of everybody, not just people who say things we like. And yes, absolutely. 'Free speech for all' means for all, not just non-assholes.

Yeah

But BOY can you still support his free speech (which has not actually been impeded in any way whatsoever by being removed from any number of private platforms, because that is not how free speech works or has ever worked)

I feel like this is ignoring the power of the companies that banned him.

without also pushing so hard to want to force people to help support the gross and harmful consequences of his exercise of speech.

I don't understand what this means.