The Banning of Alex Jones – Election Interference? Free speech?

Questions and Concerns

  • Is the banning of Alex Jones by various social media sites a reflection of our own hypocrisy, at least with regard to our federal government’s attempts to use unsubstantiated claims of “interference” to further escalate tensions between Russia and the U.S.?

Argument

  • Arguably, this is not the type of “election meddling” requiring the involvement of the U.S. government. Alex Jones is an American citizen whose rights are protected under the Constitution.
  • Retaliation against Alex Jones is most likely driven by individuals who dislike him.

Ramifications

  • Although people may believe that they are successfully stifling Alex Jones, it may inadvertently result in more people becoming interested in what he has to say.
  • Evidently, Alex Jones attracts millions of unique visitors each month. Such censorship may actually solidify or even boost his popularity.
  • Regardless of whether one disagrees with Alex Jones, he nonetheless has the right to say what he wants to say, controversial or not.
  • As U.S. citizens, it would be in our collective best interest to defend his First Amendment rights. Defending his rights defends our rights.

Solutions to Online Censorship of Free Speech

  • Rather than involve the federal government, constitutionalists can begin creating their own social media sites based on free speech.
  • A number of social media sites are currently receiving government benefits. Eliminate those benefits to ensure that U.S. citizens’ right to privacy are not infringed by the federal government, as stipulated and protected under the Fourth Amendment.