Why Banning Alex Jones from Social Media Sites Isn’t a Problem

Christine Emba writes:

No more wild-eyed claims that 9/11 was a hoax, that the government was behind the Sandy Hook shooting or that the Parkland kids are “crisis actors.” No more spittle-flecked speculation about “white genocide” or how chemtrails are used for population control. Now, if you want to learn more about how the “New World Order” is bent on corralling us all into prison camps, you’re going to have to type Infow ars.com into the address bar yourself.

That’s right: This week, Apple, Facebook and YouTube removed the majority of noted conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s content from their platforms, to the dismay of crackpots across the Web….

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” That’s it. It does not say that private companies are required to host your speech on their platforms, or that they must promote your content. You can say what you like, but no one else is obliged to help you get your message out. The fact that this simple concept remains so misunderstood reflects either a terrific ignorance or a willful misreading — most likely, it’s a mix. But for those genuinely worried about the fate of our public discourse, take heart: Alex Jones is an exceptional case, and exceptions don’t make the rule — especially in a country that agonizes over freedom of expression as much as we do.