This makes for some rather painful reading.

As stated if you watch clips from his trial he goes back and forth on his opinion of Sandy Hook. He states he's apologised to the parents whom his conspiracies targeted but then states he still thinks it was all a hoax and that he won't apologise again.

Now call me cynical but that doesn't really sound like an apology does it? Note he also livestreamed Info Wars whilst the trials verdict was being delivered. He mocked the process and didn't show an ounce of contrition for what he'd done.

I haven't, not have I ever made anything up about him. Both of the above are facts and in the public domain so I welcome you to do your own research. Note I have also never encouraged others to do anything bad to him so I really can't take any of your criticism seriously.

The only reason Alex Jones would say anything, on a live stream with Elon Musk, or anywhere else would be if it benefited him in some way. Once a liar and purveyor of conspiracy theories to the gullible, always one. He has shown no remorse at all.

Let’s see him offer to donate all he earns from selling rubbish to the consumers of the garbage on InfoWars to those he wronged, giving up his extravagant lifestyle and living simply until his debts are paid off. Then maybe we might think he has undergone a conversion to the good side. Currently he is doing all he can to avoid those debts whilst continuing the high life. So don’t hold your breath.

Defending someone like Jones on a free speech argument is to totally misrepresent the meaning of free speech.

It doesn’t mean you are free to say whatever you like, wherever you like. It means you are free to say whatever you like that is lawful to say. The laws of slander and libel restrict the telling of lies. The laws against hate speech, incentivising violence or disturbing the peace restrict other speech.

Even where anarchy exists there are restrictions. Upset the powerful and you will end up with more than a fine. Absolute freedom of speech is a myth. It cannot exist. Especially because of people like Alec Jones.

We enjoy much more freedom than most. It is ironic that those who profess to believe in absolute freedom of speech also support some who greatly restrict it. Orban being an example. Criticise Putin in Russia and you risk jail or worse.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I want to address the point that a certain poster makes about free speech.

He of course supports significant speech restrictions on opinions he doesn't agree with. I don't, short of the old traditional norms known in America....it's far from perfect but it avoids authoritarianism and is a safeguard against tyranny.

The Biden administration seek to manipulate and disregard that law when it favours their side of course....being the type of people they are.

Nevertheless people have mocked and criticised the powerful in both America and the UK since I can remember and long before it....So his point doesn't hold true....it's only now with the sickness of the politics he supports that this picture is changing.

So to accuse me of not supporting free speech when he's far worse is typical of the guy. Regardless, I don't know what he's referring to in the Orban situation, where people's ability to speech is restricted so I can hardly comment.

As for the situation in Russia I have criticised that several times. However, the same situation exists in Ukraine, yet that strangely goes without criticism so I regard this concern as pretty selective.

I heard the other day that more people were arrested for comments online in Britain than in Russia...So if I heard that correctly it speaks to the somewhat rose tinted glasses some people wear.....Let's not forget that a woman was arrested for praying silently outside an abortion centre in this country....an act he fully supported on here....as he did all the civil liberty restrictions imposed during lockdowns....people literally not being allowed to meet in a park.

So forgive me for regarding his comments on anything to do with freedoms as little more than a poor taste joke.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2023 4.45am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course social media companies shouldn’t decide who has free speech or not. That’s not their role. It’s ours, via our elected representatives. The role of the social media companies is to abide by any laws that our representatives enact.

Requiring the social media companies to monitor content to ensure it is lawful is a necessary requirement in today’s world. You cannot just allow a free for all and leave it to individuals to sue. The court system is already clogged to breaking point. It is also so costly that many otherwise worthwhile cases don’t reach court simply because of the cost. The only effective way to establish any kind of regulation is at source. Then if people feel they are being unreasonably excluded they can sue, or find an alternative platform.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Let me be very clear. I don’t support “significant restrictions on speech I don’t agree with”. Such speech I want to see defeated by better speech. I don’t want to see this argument banned. I want it defeated by a better argument.

What I accept and understand is that an absolute right to free speech is a myth. Not because of any views of mine but because of the views of us. We have decided, because of the need for a functioning society, to restrict the expression of certain things in certain places. Libel, slander and hate speech being examples.

Bringing in “the Biden administration “ into this argument, alongside every other is nonsensical. They will be cited as the reason we have lost 4 times on the bounce at home next!

Mocking and criticising the powerful is perfectly ok. Indeed it is important to do so. Just so long as it doesn’t slander, libel, incite or otherwise break the law. Freedoms only exist under the law. Nothing is above it.

Claiming not to understand the reference to Orban is either disingenuous or ill informed. Take your pick. Journalists and others have suffered in many ways.

[Link]

Ukraine wasn’t mentioned because Ukraine hasn’t been defended.

I have no idea how many people have been arrested for online comments in Britain, but it cannot be many as I cannot recall a report. Nor how many in Russia but I suspect that’s either because such information is suppressed by the state controlled media or that transgressors receive rather more severe punishment.

Of course I supported the arrest of a woman who deliberately disobeyed a limited restriction order in order to gain publicity for a cause. Much like I support the arrest of Yaxley-Lennon for doing exactly the same thing. Such orders are issued reluctantly and only when the rights of others are under threat.

So forgive me for regarding his comments as hypocritical nonsense. Freedom of speech is alive and well. Provided it remains lawful. Laws being things that we decide as a society and, once decided, apply to us all.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Hate speech in the UK now includes an autistic teenager saying a policewoman looks like her lesbian nan.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.