Alex Jones and InfoWars against the world

Alex Jones, the face of alternative media outlet Info Wars, has been suspended from multiple social media outlets, including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Info Wars and Alex Jones are no strangers to controversy. Jones is known for spinning some of the most absurd conspiracy theories of our time. Some of these theories are absurd and are only offensive to those who see his theories as insults to their intelligence. However, some of Jones’s theories venture into dangerous waters that have real-world consequences.

Jones has run into unworldly amounts of backlash and legal trouble for his recent theory regarding the events that happened at Sandy Hook in 2012.

Jones’ hijinks have even prompted major social media outlets to restrict Info Wars from broadcasting on some of the internet’s biggest platforms. The online community has become divided on this issue.

Some believe that the restrictions on Jones are a violation of free speech. However, others are saying that because YouTube, Facebook and the likes are private platforms, they have the right to remove Jones and Info Wars from their sites.

Free speech is a monumentally important right that we have in America, one which is constitutionally protected and has been evaluated by the U.S. Supreme Court on multiple occasions. The debate nearly always becomes a question of which party you agree with and if you choose to defend a purely free-speech stance or a more limited stance. So the question is begging to be asked, regardless of how you feel about Jones, is the restriction on his media a violation of free speech?

Before answering that question, it’s important to acknowledge that social media sites are not public utilities and, for the time being, these sites are privately owned and operated.

When social media users create accounts, they are prompted to read and agree with the site’s terms and conditions. Thus, if someone feels they have been removed without being in violation of terms and conditions, then that person should be allowed to dispute the claim.

However, in the case of someone like Jones, he is more than likely violating some rules and conditions on one or more sites.

With all of this being said, this does not absolve these sites from criticism for their own practices. For example, Twitter has received criticism for their own limiting practices. Which have previously included removing political users without reason, especially conservative voices, to reports of shadow banning. Shadow banning is a tactic that bans users from posting without alerting them that they have been banned, essentially meaning that the user can still project but there is no audience to hear what they’ve said.

YouTube has also been accused of limiting free speech by means of demonetization, vague guidelines on controversial topics, and a lack of communication between YouTube staff and content creators.

At the end of the day, popular social media sites have attacked the principle of free speech but have not actually violated any laws.

Though Jones is likely in violation of a plethora of real rules.

The First Amendment right to free speech is a constitutionally protected principle which should be applied universally. However, this amendment is only limited to the government persecuting its own people.

The proper way to fight against free speech violations from large corporations, in my opinion, is to hit them where it hurts by boycotting their company and therefore harming profits.

Photo Credit/ Wikimedia Commons