Free Speech- Alex Jones and non-disclosure agreements

[Syriusly]

Remember how in the last week or so the far right have wept their crocodile tears about how a business dare restrict Alex Jone's speech? Many even announced it is a violation of his First Amendment Rights!(lol).

Now this week, we find out that the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Trump administration all require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that among other things bind them to never saying anything bad about Trump- ever- EVER- now or in the future.

What is the actual difference between Facebook not hosting Alex Jones and Trump's NDA's?

FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.
Trump's NDA's are explicitly designed to prevent speech.

I have yet to see a single person who argued that Facebook is such an evil organization- express any objections to Trump's non-disclosure agreements.

Which makes it pretty clear- that this was not about 'free speech' ever. It was about defending Alex Jones and the fringe far right.

 

[Mac1958]

I lean Left and voted for Hillary, I think that Jones is a clown, that the fringe far right is a joke, and that we should always encourage, support, promote and enable freedom of expression, even if we don't like what is being said.

It's the most liberal of ALL ideals. Of course, the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

 

[Tehon]

I lean Left and voted for Hillary, I think that Jones is a clown, that the fringe far right is a joke, and that we should always encourage, support, promote and enable freedom of expression, even if we don't like what is being said.

It's the most liberal of ALL ideals. Of course, the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Any thoughts on the non disclosure agreements?

 

[Mac1958]

I lean Left and voted for Hillary, I think that Jones is a clown, that the fringe far right is a joke, and that we should always encourage, support, promote and enable freedom of expression, even if we don't like what is being said.

It's the most liberal of ALL ideals. Of course, the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Any thoughts on the non disclosure agreements?

Those are legal, written contracts. I have no problem with them. None.

Anyone who works for Trump should know better. It's their own fault.
.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Remember how in the last week or so the far right have wept their crocodile tears about how a business dare restrict Alex Jone's speech? Many even announced it is a violation of his First Amendment Rights!(lol).

Now this week, we find out that the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Trump administration all require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that among other things bind them to never saying anything bad about Trump- ever- EVER- now or in the future.

What is the actual difference between Facebook not hosting Alex Jones and Trump's NDA's?

FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.
Trump's NDA's are explicitly designed to prevent speech.

I have yet to see a single person who argued that Facebook is such an evil organization- express any objections to Trump's non-disclosure agreements.

Which makes it pretty clear- that this was not about 'free speech' ever. It was about defending Alex Jones and the fringe far right.

An NDA is set up between a person who is employed by the other one. Unless Jones is employed by Facebook your comparison is stupid. NDA's have nothing to do with free speech.

 

[Syriusly]

Remember how in the last week or so the far right have wept their crocodile tears about how a business dare restrict Alex Jone's speech? Many even announced it is a violation of his First Amendment Rights!(lol).

Now this week, we find out that the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Trump administration all require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that among other things bind them to never saying anything bad about Trump- ever- EVER- now or in the future.

What is the actual difference between Facebook not hosting Alex Jones and Trump's NDA's?

FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.
Trump's NDA's are explicitly designed to prevent speech.

I have yet to see a single person who argued that Facebook is such an evil organization- express any objections to Trump's non-disclosure agreements.

Which makes it pretty clear- that this was not about 'free speech' ever. It was about defending Alex Jones and the fringe far right.

An NDA is set up between a person who is employed by the other one. Unless Jones is employed by Facebook your comparison is stupid. NDA's have nothing to do with free speech.

NDA's have nothing to do with free speech? Wow. That is quite the double speak. Congrats.

An NDA is a contractual agreement between one person or company and another. I have signed them before- they are usually used to protect against the release of proprietary information- but there is no way to argue that a non-disclosure agreement is not specifically designed to prevent speech.

Everyone who signs up for Facebook signs an agreement to abide by the terms of Facebooks TOS- just like we all agree to abide by USMB TOS here.

Facebook has restricted Jones saying that he has violated their TOS.
Trump is trying to restrict Omarosa from saying anything bad about him saying she is violating their NDA.

The difference is- as I pointed out is that Trump's NDA seeks to prevent any speech critical of the Trump's by Omarosa on any platform, in any medium.

While FB only is preventing Jones from speech on its platform- FB is not telling Jones he can't say any of his garbage on Infowars, or write letters to the editor complaining about Trump or anything else.

What I am pointing out of course is the huuuuuuuge hypocrisy of the Right- in this faux concern about 'free speech' when it comes to Jones- and the silence when it comes to Omarosa- oh who am I kidding- the actual encouragement of stifling Omarosa's speech.

 

[Syriusly]

I lean Left and voted for Hillary, I think that Jones is a clown, that the fringe far right is a joke, and that we should always encourage, support, promote and enable freedom of expression, even if we don't like what is being said.

It's the most liberal of ALL ideals. Of course, the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

So free speech for both Jones and Omarosa?

 

[Syriusly]

I lean Left and voted for Hillary, I think that Jones is a clown, that the fringe far right is a joke, and that we should always encourage, support, promote and enable freedom of expression, even if we don't like what is being said.

It's the most liberal of ALL ideals. Of course, the Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

Any thoughts on the non disclosure agreements?

Those are legal, written contracts. I have no problem with them. None.

Anyone who works for Trump should know better. It's their own fault.
.

And the TOS agreements with Facebook are not legal written contracts?

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with Trump NDAs is he will make accusations against you and then invoke the NDA when you respond

 

[Avatar4321]

Remember how in the last week or so the far right have wept their crocodile tears about how a business dare restrict Alex Jone's speech? Many even announced it is a violation of his First Amendment Rights!(lol).

Now this week, we find out that the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Trump administration all require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that among other things bind them to never saying anything bad about Trump- ever- EVER- now or in the future.

What is the actual difference between Facebook not hosting Alex Jones and Trump's NDA's?

FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.
Trump's NDA's are explicitly designed to prevent speech.

I have yet to see a single person who argued that Facebook is such an evil organization- express any objections to Trump's non-disclosure agreements.

Which makes it pretty clear- that this was not about 'free speech' ever. It was about defending Alex Jones and the fringe far right.

An NDA is set up between a person who is employed by the other one. Unless Jones is employed by Facebook your comparison is stupid. NDA's have nothing to do with free speech.

NDA's have nothing to do with free speech? Wow. That is quite the double speak. Congrats.

An NDA is a contractual agreement between one person or company and another. I have signed them before- they are usually used to protect against the release of proprietary information- but there is no way to argue that a non-disclosure agreement is not specifically designed to prevent speech.

Everyone who signs up for Facebook signs an agreement to abide by the terms of Facebooks TOS- just like we all agree to abide by USMB TOS here.

Facebook has restricted Jones saying that he has violated their TOS.
Trump is trying to restrict Omarosa from saying anything bad about him saying she is violating their NDA.

The difference is- as I pointed out is that Trump's NDA seeks to prevent any speech critical of the Trump's by Omarosa on any platform, in any medium.

While FB only is preventing Jones from speech on its platform- FB is not telling Jones he can't say any of his garbage on Infowars, or write letters to the editor complaining about Trump or anything else.

What I am pointing out of course is the huuuuuuuge hypocrisy of the Right- in this faux concern about 'free speech' when it comes to Jones- and the silence when it comes to Omarosa- oh who am I kidding- the actual encouragement of stifling Omarosa's speech.

NDA don't have anything to do with free speech. Your right to free speech isn't violated if you voluntarily agree not to say something

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That most on the right are inconsistent hypocrites is nothing new, of course.

 

[Avatar4321]

That most on the right are inconsistent hypocrites is nothing new, of course.

That the left doesn’t understand the difference between voluntary agreements and censorship is nothing new of course

 

[Syriusly]

Remember how in the last week or so the far right have wept their crocodile tears about how a business dare restrict Alex Jone's speech? Many even announced it is a violation of his First Amendment Rights!(lol).

Now this week, we find out that the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Trump administration all require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that among other things bind them to never saying anything bad about Trump- ever- EVER- now or in the future.

What is the actual difference between Facebook not hosting Alex Jones and Trump's NDA's?

FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.
Trump's NDA's are explicitly designed to prevent speech.

I have yet to see a single person who argued that Facebook is such an evil organization- express any objections to Trump's non-disclosure agreements.

Which makes it pretty clear- that this was not about 'free speech' ever. It was about defending Alex Jones and the fringe far right.

An NDA is set up between a person who is employed by the other one. Unless Jones is employed by Facebook your comparison is stupid. NDA's have nothing to do with free speech.

NDA's have nothing to do with free speech? Wow. That is quite the double speak. Congrats.

An NDA is a contractual agreement between one person or company and another. I have signed them before- they are usually used to protect against the release of proprietary information- but there is no way to argue that a non-disclosure agreement is not specifically designed to prevent speech.

Everyone who signs up for Facebook signs an agreement to abide by the terms of Facebooks TOS- just like we all agree to abide by USMB TOS here.

Facebook has restricted Jones saying that he has violated their TOS.
Trump is trying to restrict Omarosa from saying anything bad about him saying she is violating their NDA.

The difference is- as I pointed out is that Trump's NDA seeks to prevent any speech critical of the Trump's by Omarosa on any platform, in any medium.

While FB only is preventing Jones from speech on its platform- FB is not telling Jones he can't say any of his garbage on Infowars, or write letters to the editor complaining about Trump or anything else.

What I am pointing out of course is the huuuuuuuge hypocrisy of the Right- in this faux concern about 'free speech' when it comes to Jones- and the silence when it comes to Omarosa- oh who am I kidding- the actual encouragement of stifling Omarosa's speech.

NDA don't have anything to do with free speech. Your right to free speech isn't violated if you voluntarily agree not to say something

And when you voluntarily agree to the terms of service for Facebook- and then violate those TOS- you have voluntarily broken that agreement and FB is not violating your 'free speech' by not allowing you to post.

I am finding this fascinating- because non-disclosure agreements are specifically designed to prevent speech- and you folks keep arguing that they have nothing to do with speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.”

And that may not even be the case.

Conservatives lying and whining about ‘free speech’ may have actually increased Jones’ exposure.

 

[deanrd]

I heard it said on the news that this toad published the addresses of parents who lost children at Sandyhook after he said it was all a hoax.

And that some families had to move because of harassment.

So I thought, what kind of evil and disgusting creep does that to parents who lost a child in such a horrific way?

Then I remembered it was Republicans who stripped parents of their children at the border.

Then it became clear to me why Republicans want to protect this guy.

 

[Syriusly]

That most on the right are inconsistent hypocrites is nothing new, of course.

That the left doesn’t understand the difference between voluntary agreements and censorship is nothing new of course

LOL that the contards don't understand that voluntary agreements apply to everyone- not just to Trump employees- is nothing new of course.

 

[Avatar4321]

That most on the right are inconsistent hypocrites is nothing new, of course.

That the left doesn’t understand the difference between voluntary agreements and censorship is nothing new of course

LOL that the contards don't understand that voluntary agreements apply to everyone- not just to Trump employees- is nothing new of course.

Censorship due to political pressures and voluntarily agreeing not to say something are not even comparable

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Remember how in the last week or so the far right have wept their crocodile tears about how a business dare restrict Alex Jone's speech? Many even announced it is a violation of his First Amendment Rights!(lol).

Now this week, we find out that the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Trump administration all require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that among other things bind them to never saying anything bad about Trump- ever- EVER- now or in the future.

What is the actual difference between Facebook not hosting Alex Jones and Trump's NDA's?

FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.
Trump's NDA's are explicitly designed to prevent speech.

I have yet to see a single person who argued that Facebook is such an evil organization- express any objections to Trump's non-disclosure agreements.

Which makes it pretty clear- that this was not about 'free speech' ever. It was about defending Alex Jones and the fringe far right.

An NDA is set up between a person who is employed by the other one. Unless Jones is employed by Facebook your comparison is stupid. NDA's have nothing to do with free speech.

NDA's have nothing to do with free speech? Wow. That is quite the double speak. Congrats.

An NDA is a contractual agreement between one person or company and another. I have signed them before- they are usually used to protect against the release of proprietary information- but there is no way to argue that a non-disclosure agreement is not specifically designed to prevent speech.

Everyone who signs up for Facebook signs an agreement to abide by the terms of Facebooks TOS- just like we all agree to abide by USMB TOS here.

Facebook has restricted Jones saying that he has violated their TOS.
Trump is trying to restrict Omarosa from saying anything bad about him saying she is violating their NDA.

The difference is- as I pointed out is that Trump's NDA seeks to prevent any speech critical of the Trump's by Omarosa on any platform, in any medium.

While FB only is preventing Jones from speech on its platform- FB is not telling Jones he can't say any of his garbage on Infowars, or write letters to the editor complaining about Trump or anything else.

What I am pointing out of course is the huuuuuuuge hypocrisy of the Right- in this faux concern about 'free speech' when it comes to Jones- and the silence when it comes to Omarosa- oh who am I kidding- the actual encouragement of stifling Omarosa's speech.

I think you're thiiiiiiis close to figuring it out. You even posted the difference.

 

[my2¢]

I've declined a job offer for way less than over a NDA.

Based on what I saw from a few seasons of the Apprentice it gave me notion that Trump only wanted to be surrounded by ass-kissers. While I read about the NDA's when he was putting together his administration, it only supported my prior notion of what it would be like to work for him.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Remember how in the last week or so the far right have wept their crocodile tears about how a business dare restrict Alex Jone's speech? Many even announced it is a violation of his First Amendment Rights!(lol).

Now this week, we find out that the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign and the Trump administration all require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that among other things bind them to never saying anything bad about Trump- ever- EVER- now or in the future.

What is the actual difference between Facebook not hosting Alex Jones and Trump's NDA's?

FB not hosting Alex Jones doesn't stop Jones speech- it just reduces his audience.
Trump's NDA's are explicitly designed to prevent speech.

I have yet to see a single person who argued that Facebook is such an evil organization- express any objections to Trump's non-disclosure agreements.

Which makes it pretty clear- that this was not about 'free speech' ever. It was about defending Alex Jones and the fringe far right.

An NDA is set up between a person who is employed by the other one. Unless Jones is employed by Facebook your comparison is stupid. NDA's have nothing to do with free speech.

NDA's have nothing to do with free speech? Wow. That is quite the double speak. Congrats.

An NDA is a contractual agreement between one person or company and another. I have signed them before- they are usually used to protect against the release of proprietary information- but there is no way to argue that a non-disclosure agreement is not specifically designed to prevent speech.

Everyone who signs up for Facebook signs an agreement to abide by the terms of Facebooks TOS- just like we all agree to abide by USMB TOS here.

Facebook has restricted Jones saying that he has violated their TOS.
Trump is trying to restrict Omarosa from saying anything bad about him saying she is violating their NDA.

The difference is- as I pointed out is that Trump's NDA seeks to prevent any speech critical of the Trump's by Omarosa on any platform, in any medium.

While FB only is preventing Jones from speech on its platform- FB is not telling Jones he can't say any of his garbage on Infowars, or write letters to the editor complaining about Trump or anything else.

What I am pointing out of course is the huuuuuuuge hypocrisy of the Right- in this faux concern about 'free speech' when it comes to Jones- and the silence when it comes to Omarosa- oh who am I kidding- the actual encouragement of stifling Omarosa's speech.

NDA don't have anything to do with free speech. Your right to free speech isn't violated if you voluntarily agree not to say something

And when you voluntarily agree to the terms of service for Facebook- and then violate those TOS- you have voluntarily broken that agreement and FB is not violating your 'free speech' by not allowing you to post.

I am finding this fascinating- because non-disclosure agreements are specifically designed to prevent speech- and you folks keep arguing that they have nothing to do with speech.

You just posted exactly why an NDA is binding. You violated the TOS between you and the person or company that hired you. You say it's fine for Facebook and that's not restricting speech but somehow an NDA with Trump is a horrible attack on the first amendment.