Deplatformed: How Private Companies Silenced Alex Jones
By Tyler Huff
When you hear the name Alex Jones, what do you think of?
Many of you would probably think of conspiracy theories, right? That’s what he’s most commonly known for. He claims to not be a conspiracy theorist and many articles/news stories have tried to determine what he is. One answer has come up: Alex Jones is a salesman. His site, Infowars sells everything from doomsday prepper food stocks to general survival gear to supplements, and even everyday products like toothpaste. What sells doomsday prepper products? Conspiracy theories.
I’m a conservative and to me it’s pretty obvious that Alex Jones is well-versed in the “theoretical conspiracy” field.
I peeked into the conspiracy theory world, only for a moment, and another word came up: Shill. It is defined as:
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
But I don’t think Alex Jones is a shill. I firmly believe that he believes what he says.
What exactly is ‘deplatforming’ ?
’Deplatforming’ is a relatively new term, defined as:
No Platform, sometimes deplatforming, is a form of boycott where a person or organisation is denied a platform to speak. Some organisations have No Platform Policies.
So basically, it’s when you take away someone’s stage that they speak on. Facebook and YouTube, Jone’s two largest platforms recently banned him and removed his page and channel, respectively. Twitter, on the other hand, placed his account in read-only mode for a week in response to what they determined to be a violent tweet.
While all of these companies are private and thusly have the right to ban him, as they’re not government entities, doesn’t necessarily mean they should. They’re certainly not 100% safe from a potential lawsuit over whether or not they violated Alex Jones’ Constitutional First Amendment rights. The argument really could be made either way. In one respect, because they’re private companies, they aren’t required to guarantee any Constitutional rights. In another respect, these social networks are kind of like the town squares of old. You can’t stop someone from saying something in a public space, so can you silence someone when they’re using the modern equivalent of said space? That really has yet to be totally determined.
Hardly any companies, at this point, are willing to take on the responsibility required when allowing Jones to be a part of the conversation. It is undeniable that he has the tendency to make inflammatory comments.
Effectively, these companies have silenced someone they deemed to be “dangerous”.
This sets a dangerous precedent because the question has to be asked, where does it end? I believe that every American citizen has the right to speak freely, no matter how objectionable their content is.
