The War Against InfoWars and Free Speech

The War Against InfoWars and Free Speech

The War Against InfoWars and Free Speech

I never in my life thought I would be writing a post defending Alex Jones and InfoWars (no, I’m not linking to that vat of conspiritard slime – feel free to go find it yourselves). But here I am, defending their right to spew whatever foul sewage that happens to spill from their facial anuses, and I probably will need a shower in boiling Listerine to wash off the filth.

If you haven’t heard already, Facebook recently removed several InfoWars pages for violating their terms of service and posting what Facebook monkeys claim is “hate speech.” Apparently Jones and his merry band of psychos were posting negative stuff about everyone from trans*insert whatever here* to people of color.

And if you haven’t heard already, criticizing anything or anyone the left considers “marginalized” will immediately get you labeled a hater and tossed off your soapbox.

“Since then, more content from the same Pages has been reported to us — upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies,” Facebook wrote in its blog post.

It’s not just Facebook. Apple and Spotify have both removed InfoWars content for violating their policies, leaving only one podcast available to their audiences.

“Podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming,” an Apple spokesperson said. “We believe in representing a wide range of views, so long as people are respectful to those with differing opinions.”

To be sure, Alex Jones is an attention-whoring, fetid yambag and a bully who exploits others’ tragedies for profit. That foul pig and his tiny army of froth-flecked fuckwads wouldn’t exist without tragic events such as terror attacks and mass murders to latch on to like rabid leeches, and I doubt anyone, but the most flaming conspiritard assholes would disagree with that assessment.

Also, I will say up front – before any of you hop on my booty like Oprah on a baked ham: Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and any other private entity has the absolute right to ban any content they want at any time.

That said, we have a problem.

We have a problem with hypocrisy and with an uneven application of existing regulations to wage a war on those whose words we don’t like and whose actions we find abhorrent. We have a problem because when we take away the mike from repulsive assholes, we leave ourselves wide open to that same mike being ripped out of our hands when inevitably a sufficient number of grievance mongers finds our words offensive.

Make no mistake – Facebook, Twitter, and the like are controlled by the howling social justice zealots eager to ban anything with which they disagree and silence the voices of dissent, and their hypocrisy is deep and glaring.

As far as I can see, Facebook and the rest are engaging in exactly the type of behavior the left sought to prevent with their net neutrality push. Net neutrality advocates want internet service providers to be neutral conduits through which digital content flows. Net neutrality is important, the left claims, because people have limited options for internet service, and therefore the government must force providers to give equal time to all content – regardless of demand. Yeah, I hate net neutrality.

Because what if *GASP!* someone can’t access their statist wailing easily enough?

As much as the big-government leftists clamored for net neutrality, because dog forbid a (leftist) voice be silenced, it’s certainly instructive to see them not raise a peep in protest when the biggest and most powerful media platforms silence the voice of those with whom they disagree – even a repugnant creep such as Alex Jones.

Isn’t that limiting people’s access to information? Isn’t that what the left ardently opposed with its caterwauling about net neutrality? And yet, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., which right now essentially have a monopoly on information, are only too happy to silence Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, and even rational, moderate conservative voices. Other platforms certainly exist out there, but they don’t have the resources to create a platform like the giants, and that’s not FAAAAAAIR!

*Takes off hypocritical leftist hat*

Oh, I get it! It’s only limiting access to information that the left hates, so it’s OK!

If you’re going to advocate government control over the flow of information, such as net neutrality, you’d better start applying these standards to your own business practices, which Facebook, Twitter, and the others do not – no matter how much they protest to the contrary.

They are, indeed using the largest, most powerful media platforms in the world to silence and marginalize voices with which they do not agree. And even though the FCC’s equal-time rules apply to broadcast outlets because the airwaves have somehow become “public” infrastructure, it can certainly be argued that if the left claims the Internet is a public resource, much like the airwaves are, those rules should apply to Facebook, Twitter and the rest.

The equal-time rule was created because the FCC was concerned that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates.

If the left doesn’t think that social media outlets influence the outcome of elections, then why are they so ass-achingly butthurt about the Russians mucking about on the platforms, spreading their disinformation, and supposedly influencing our elections? Shouldn’t they scream loudly when opposition voices are silenced?

I guess it’s only a problem if they perceive their ox being gored.

As Stephen Green astutely observed, this is, indeed, a culture war. Those with the power to influence the flow of information are – for the most part – leftists and they have waged a war on the ability of their political opponents to communicate their message.

But truly egregious offenders are a relatively small group, and by forcing those of us – even flaming buttplugs like Alex Jones and InfoWars – into the same camp of those whose voices are silenced, they’re multiplying our numbers and our strength.

I get the feeling they’re not going to like the outcome.

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

10 Comments
  • Nina says:

    I have never ever liked Alex Jones and the crap he spews. But we have a First Amendment that provides ALL of us our Freedom of Speech, even if we disagree. We ALL have Freedom of Speech, even if we don’t like the language used. And if our Freedom of Speech is stifled in one place, what is to say it can’t happen elsewhere based upon the whims, feelings, or judgement of someone else based upon their own personal criteria. History shows that never ever ends well. We are in a culture war. Sometimes we ARE going to have to fight fire with fire because playing nice has landed us where? right where we are now.

  • Rodney Stanton says:

    “Free Speech” has only been for America haters since 1950! Maybe before but I was not ablate understand America hate in 1949

    Like the Constitution of the USSR the 1st Amendment is nice on paper. but in America it has been a joke since 1950!

  • […] What they say – The War Against InfoWars and Free Speech – Victory Girls Blog […]

  • cthulhu says:

    It’s all about the monopolies. Break each of the social media companies into 5 separate entities with identical accounts but different owners, banning policies, AI, and advertisers, and they’d soon sort themselves out. Would BassProShops advertise with gunbanners? Err…..

  • SDN says:

    “Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and any other private entity has the absolute right to ban any content they want at any time.”

    Not and retain their “common carrier” liability exemption under CDA 230, they don’t.

  • […] he and his were physically attacking, he hits like a girl.  I’m very much in agreement with this post in regards him, and what is going […]

  • Emmanuel Goldstein says:

    Do tell us more about how you never censor comments. I’m sure the irony wouldn’t be lost on a perfect grammar and English genius such as yourself.
    Do more social issues please since that is always a winner for the republicants. Oh and don’t fear Cortez it isn’t her fault she’s thirty years younger and a million times hotter than you will ever be.
    Maybe her grammar and English isn’t perfect. How tolerant of you.

    • Nicki says:

      Are you retarded or is your tinfoil hat too tight?

      This post doesn’t even mention Cortez. And it’s not her grammar and English that are the problem, but rather her complete lack of understanding of economic and foreign policy. And I say this as someone whose first language was Russian and second language was French.

      Dumbass.

  • Eskyman says:

    “Also, I will say up front – before any of you hop on my booty like Oprah on a baked ham: Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and any other private entity has the absolute right to ban any content they want at any time.”

    TimeWarner provides my phone service, as well as my internet. So it’s OK by you if they terminate my phone account because I said something they didn’t like?

    That’s a problem for me, and for anyone who believes in freedom of speech regardless of platform.

    The only answer to speech you disapprove of is more speech. Maybe it would help if you recite, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”

    Oh, I forgot: that is an old adage, so it may have been written by a white man; therefore it’s hate speech and should be banned!

    • Nicki says:

      Dude, WTF are you derping about?

      a) There are laws against telephone companies terminating your service based on what you say or eavesdropping on you.

      ii) They wouldn’t have the resources to do that even if they wanted to.

      3) The First Amendment freedom of speech prohibits GOVERNMENTS on every level from federal to local from silencing you, but you are not entitled to a platform provided by private entities to spew whatever you want.

      And lastly, who said anything about a white man here? You’ve veered off into something no one ever said on this site. Take a valium.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram