Alex Jones is a widely known conspiracy theorist, and is a staunch supporter of President Trump. Among his noted controversies spreading dangerous and unproven conspiracies involving news stories are: making unfounded claims that the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012 was a false flag, and the U.S. Government being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. He has also thought the moon landing was faked. Despite the debunking of these conspiracies that clear the line on disrespectfulness to the victims and the victim's families who died on those tragic days, he still rails on with hardly a shred of sympathy or empathy in what he is trying to sell to crowds.

Even with the known slander and disrespect, big technological and social media companies like Spotify, YouTube, Facebook, and Apple have long allowed a platform for the conspiracy theorist from Texas to share his conspiracies.

Until now.

Just last Monday, Jones was banned from such entities like Google, Apple, and Facebook after pressure has been mounting for months on social media platforms to prevent the spread of misinformation, or "fake news." The only place where Jones has not been banned from is Twitter, where contributor Paul Joseph Watson tweeted:

"The Great Censorship Purge has truly begun."

And Jones, himself, has said:

"Now, who will stand against Tyranny and who will stand for free speech?"

The 1st Amendment specifies that there are bylaws that do not allow somebody to just say whatever they want, whenever they want, and that is:

• Fighting Words:
  • includes speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts.

Does threatening his "perceived enemies", triggering potential anxieties that could lead to a second civil war in this country count?

• Libel and Slander:
  • The First Amendment does not protect individuals from facing civil penalties if they defame another person through written or verbal communication.

You mean here, here, here, and here?

By the way, REAL professionalism in that interview with David Hogg, coming after A HIGH-SCHOOLER who JUST experienced a tragedy in his own school, Alex.

Also, the lawsuit filed against Jones by Chobani could also land him in hot water on the Obscenity clause.

Beyond the fact that his outbursts have gotten him in a logjam of legal trouble, the standards for reporting ethical, reliable, and truthful news stories is something Jones fails to meet regularly. This is where I'll allow people who have much higher credibility than myself to give their take on the Jones ban from certain media entities:

The scholars were particularly scathing when it came to Mr. Jones's contention that his videos on Infowars reflected nothing more than his beliefs. It would set a dangerous precedent, they said, if Judge Moon ruled on his behalf.

"It would allow unscrupulous news organizations to couch their language as 'opinion' and to mask their meaning with implication and insinuation," the scholars wrote. That, they added, would leave "readers clear as to the message but avoiding all liability for defamatory remarks. This should not be allowed and, in fact, is not allowed."

The law professors who signed the amicus brief were Lyrissa B. Lidsky, dean of the University of Missouri School of Law, Tamara R. Piety at the University of Tulsa College of Law, David A. Strauss from the University of Chicago Law School, and Carlos A. Ball of Rutgers.

Basically, from what I can infer from these law professors is that anybody can mask speech on any platform under their beliefs. As can be clearly seen in the video where he "believes a Civil War is going to happen," his speech is threatening in nature despite the anti-government, pro-tyranny beliefs Jones has.

Considering that Jones is defending himself in this lawsuit, frankly, if I were Judge Moon, I'd be willing to side with multiple professors on the understanding of the 1st Amendment than this guy:

https://youtu.be/_ePLkAm8i2s?t=51s