Free Speech- Alex Jones and non-disclosure agreements

[MrShangles]

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?

All Administrations have done it, it’s another hypocrisy from the liberals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MrShangles]

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.

And these liberals claim Jones is a conspiracy theorist, it’s funny how back during the election he said liberals will start shutting down conservatives speech, looks like he’s correct!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MrShangles]

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.

Only thing wrong with your thoughts was, Omarosa decided to sign the NDA, Jones didn’t get to decide did he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Godboy]

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.

And these liberals claim Jones is a conspiracy theorist, it’s funny how back during the election he said liberals will start shutting down conservatives speech, looks like he’s correct!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He says a million stupid things every week. Eventually one of them is bound to be right. Even a broken watch is right twice per day.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

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 your free speech is not being violated when your account is suspended for violating terms of service that you agreed to. The fact that you are trying to parse it so nda’s are OK but TOS are censorship is a clear indicator that your fucktardation has reached critical mass

 

[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.
.

So free speech for both Jones and Omarosa?

Omarosa signed a contract through her own free will, and is subject to the terms of that contract. She willingly gave Trump power. Yes, she can say whatever she wants, but she specifically and willingly gave Trump power to respond legally. Jones has to follow the rules of those who shut him down, if he agreed to it in advance.

The whole cast of characters in this little melodrama is ugly to me.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Yes, I think they are.

Facebook has every right to play this game and mock freedom of expression.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Left. Constantly.

If you want to excuse Facebook's behaviors by equating them with Trump's, well, have at it.
.

 

[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.

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

Why is censorship due to political pressures- and censorship to protect politicians not comparable?

As I keep pointing out- both a NDA and a TOS are voluntary agreements made between two parties. Both are inherently unfair in that the employee signing a NDA and a customer signing a TOS both have far less power than the ones requiring the NDA or the TOS- but they are both agreements.

The NDA of course is designed to prevent speech. Trump's NDAs- unlike those of most employers- are designed to prevent speech specifically that is critical of him- it is designed to prevent political speech critical of him.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Speaking of watching the Apprentice- I did watch 2 or 3 seasons- and saw the season with Omarosa.

Why anyone who ever saw her on the Apprentice would want to hire her- beats me. I would not only have never hired her, I wouldn't have been willing to work with her in anyway- based upon what I saw of her on the Apprentice.

 

[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.

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.

Nope- you kind of missed my whole point.

I am saying that Trump's NDA is every bit as much a 'violation of free speech' as Facebook restricting Alex Jones.

Unlike the Right- I am not saying that FB is wrong- and Trump is right.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the Right in cheering on Trump's NDA's which restrict speech while whining about FB restricting Jones 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.

Only thing wrong with your thoughts was, Omarosa decided to sign the NDA, Jones didn’t get to decide did he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Omarosa signed a NDA
Jones agreed to the FB TOS.

Both entered into agreements.

The only difference is that the NDA was specifically designed to prevent speech- speech anywhere of any kind- critical of Trump.

 

[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?

All Administrations have done it, it’s another hypocrisy from the liberals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually this is the first administration to do it. And the administration's own lawyer advised that NDA of administration employees are probably unconstitutional.

 

[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.

And these liberals claim Jones is a conspiracy theorist, it’s funny how back during the election he said liberals will start shutting down conservatives speech, looks like he’s correct!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now we have a President shutting down the speech of anyone who wants to criticize him.

Looks like we were correct about Don the Con.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yes, I think they are.

Facebook has every right to play this game and mock freedom of expression.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Left. Constantly.

If you want to excuse Facebook's behaviors by equating them with Trump's, well, have at it.
.

I am pointing out that if Facebook is 'mocking freedom of expression' by restricting Jones- then most assuredly Trump is 'mocking freedom of expression' by restricting Omarosa's speech.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Trumpkins Right. Constantly.

 

[Thinker101]

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?

All Administrations have done it, it’s another hypocrisy from the liberals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually this is the first administration to do it. And the administration's own lawyer advised that NDA of administration employees are probably unconstitutional.

Sit down and STFU.
Obama Signs Christmas Bill Making Alternative Media Illegal

 

[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?

All Administrations have done it, it’s another hypocrisy from the liberals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually this is the first administration to do it. And the administration's own lawyer advised that NDA of administration employees are probably unconstitutional.

Sit down and STFU.
Obama Signs Christmas Bill Making Alternative Media Illegal

Poor little Trumpkin....
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-signs-christmas-bill-making-alternative-media-illegal/

So pissed off that Congress passed a law trying to rein in Russian Fake News.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

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

Yes, I think they are.

Facebook has every right to play this game and mock freedom of expression.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Left. Constantly.

If you want to excuse Facebook's behaviors by equating them with Trump's, well, have at it.
.

Equating Facebook, YouTube, etc. terms of service to a mockery of freedom of expression is the behavior of the intellectually addled. By that logic, a Christian site that refuses to show hard-core S&M porn submitted by a user of the site is making a ‘mockery of freedom of expression ‘

 

[Mac1958]

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

Yes, I think they are.

Facebook has every right to play this game and mock freedom of expression.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Left. Constantly.

If you want to excuse Facebook's behaviors by equating them with Trump's, well, have at it.
.

I am pointing out that if Facebook is 'mocking freedom of expression' by restricting Jones- then most assuredly Trump is 'mocking freedom of expression' by restricting Omarosa's speech.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Trumpkins Right. Constantly.

Whatever you'd like. I think Trump is a horror show.

I do like it when the Regressive Left tries to hang this kind of thing on someone else. They know how illiberal, authoritarian and anti-freedom of expression they are themselves.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Yes, I think they are.

Facebook has every right to play this game and mock freedom of expression.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Left. Constantly.

If you want to excuse Facebook's behaviors by equating them with Trump's, well, have at it.
.

Equating Facebook, YouTube, etc. terms of service to a mockery of freedom of expression is the behavior of the intellectually addled. By that logic, a Christian site that refuses to show hard-core S&M porn submitted by a user of the site is making a ‘mockery of freedom of expression ‘

I'll always defend, promote and advocate for freedom of expression, the fewer exceptions the better.

It's the most core value value of liberalism. The authoritarian Regressive Left is not liberal.
.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yes, I think they are.

Facebook has every right to play this game and mock freedom of expression.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Left. Constantly.

If you want to excuse Facebook's behaviors by equating them with Trump's, well, have at it.
.

I am pointing out that if Facebook is 'mocking freedom of expression' by restricting Jones- then most assuredly Trump is 'mocking freedom of expression' by restricting Omarosa's speech.

Such is the behavior of the illiberal authoritarian (Regressive) Trumpkins Right. Constantly.

Whatever you'd like. I think Trump is a horror show.

I do like it when the Regressive Left tries to hang this kind of thing on someone else. They know how illiberal, authoritarian and anti-freedom of expression they are themselves.
.

Really- show me examples of how I am 'illiberal' and 'authoritarian' and 'anti-freedom of expression'.

I am just displaying examples of the Repressive Right demonstrating how it is illiberal, authoritarian and anti-freedom of expression.

In exactly the same way Facebook is.