• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Alex Jones - guilty of "Hate Speech" crimes?

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Orphia Nay
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
54,245
Location
Australia
Reading that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a fan of Infowars leads me to ponder:

Is Alex Jones guilty of the crime of hate speech?

Wikipedia says:

In 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report titled “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes.” This report gave one of the first definitions by government on hate speech. According to NTIA hate speech is:
  • Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
  • Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.
===

Is is possible Alex Jones would ever be charged under hate speech laws?

Are there other examples of Alex Jones fans committing hate crimes?

Would laying charges create more conspiracy theories and lead to retributional hate crime?
 
The FCC could arguably yank the licenses of radio stations broadcasting Jones' swill, but with the Internet, I doubt it would have much effect. But aside from that his speech is protected against any criminal charges.
 
I wish Alex Jones would be put in prison, but his speech is probably not going to do it. Maybe if he moves to Canada?
 
Nope. And now Alex Jones is serving a valuable service, basically anyone who is listening to that grifter or giving his grifter sites page views should go on a watch list.
 
NightStar76 said:
I wish Alex Jones would be put in prison, but his speech is probably not going to do it. Maybe if he moves to Canada?
Click to expand...

Likely not, although his corporation may find themselves fined or forced to make apologies - which would only fuel Alex's "I'm standing up to the man!" schtick.
 
Border Reiver said:
Likely not, although his corporation may find themselves fined or forced to make apologies - which would only fuel Alex's "I'm standing up to the man!" schtick.
Click to expand...



Well, we could look forward to what happens the first time he tries to buy a gun in Canada.
 
It would be awesome if AJ denied the Holocaust or seriously questioned the number of victims.

He could then be arrested in Germany, France, Austria, and other nations.
 
Although the hateful speech on infowars (especially the comments section) is deplorable, I don't think that is the truly worrying aspect of the conversation going on over there. It is the threatening tone of the broadcasts, articles and comments (and the many actual threats in the comments) that concerns me. He not only fills the mind of his subjects with hate, but encourages them to 'fight back' against the 'new world order', ostensibly to 'protect their rights'(or something like that, you've heard the rants).

For example, when a police officer alledgedly violated someones rights in an article posted a few days ago, Alex ranted about 'standing up against these fascist pigs who are trying to take away your rights'. In the comments section, one man asked 'what would that cop look like with a .50 cal in his head', which was followed by many posters cheering on the statement, including one who 'dreams of it every night'. This kind of baiting goes on everyday there, Alex tells people to feel threatened by all kinds of boogiemen, and the people respond by baring their teeth and riling each other up.

All this crazy gathered in one place lets these people affirm their theories, and have them reinforced by others, leading to them believing there is some kind of consensus that their beliefs are correct. Those who do try to interject some sanity are quickly insulted, mocked and accused of having nefarious reasons for being there. Many believe anyone that disagrees with their narrative in the comments section is a disinformation agent sent to hinder the revealing of the 'truth'.

Also the name, Infowars. If there is a war going on for their minds, as they say, are those who disagree with them their enemy in a war?
 
I support freedom of speech. It's a little disappointing to see that some people here apparently don't.
 
Bishop said:
I support freedom of speech. It's a little disappointing to see that some people here apparently don't.
Click to expand...

I support free speech. I don't support hate speech however.

The rise of the Internet, and the increase in the distribution of hate speech, absolutely fuels crimes like Columbine and the Boston Marathon.

Speech sometimes has consequences. Try yelling, "Fire!", in a crowded theatre.
 
AJ is guilty of being a liar, a demogague, a snake-oil salesman, and a jerk.

None of which is illegal.
 
He is an alarmist and fear monger. Not to mention a scumbag. He shouldn't be charged with anything though. It would also give him more credibility and boost his own self-importance.
 
Last edited:
Cinnamon Life said:
He is an alarmist and fear monger. Not to mention a scumbag. He shouldn't be charged with anything though. It would also give him more credibility and boost his own self-importance.
Click to expand...

Charging him with a crime would be the greatest thing to ever happen to him.

He would become more popular than Christ himself.

Alex would be the new superstar of Conspiracy Theorist losers.
 
Bishop said:
I support freedom of speech. It's a little disappointing to see that some people here apparently don't.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As a human, he's scum, and has every right to be. As a broadcaster, he's brilliant. Basically, the Howard Stern of the conspira-tard world.
 
Oops, I was wrong to think he could be charged under hate speech laws. I should have checked if the USA has them.

Mind you, they do have the Brandenburg Test:

"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."
 
Orphia Nay said:
Oops, I was wrong to think he could be charged under hate speech laws. I should have checked if the USA has them.

Mind you, they do have the Brandenburg Test:

"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."
Click to expand...

I think he would have had to tell his audience to "get out there and place bombs at public events". Which he didn't.

I do feel creepy defending him, just to be clear.
 
The greatest gift we could ever give Alex Jones, is to take him seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom