[Lnc-business] The Purging of Alex Jones

[Craig Bowden]

My opinion doesn't change, regardless of what is being censored based on 
terms agreed to. And as I said, we can certainly state that we disagree 
with actions a company takes. That is the purview of our own speech that 
can be used. Just as I didn't like that the cake baker refused service, 
I do not want government to do anything about it. The answer is that we 
can voice displeasure. We can boycott. We can create alternatives in the 
market. We can encourage others to take money elsewhere. We can 
encourage selling off the stocks of a company.

That is how you handle a situation like this. As a political party, 
however, when we speak, we must be careful. The reason we must be 
careful, is that when we take a position, it can be seen as this is how 
we would govern, or how we would make laws. So any statement must be 
carefully made, if at all, on this sort of issue.

You do not want the appearance that we are advocating for government to 
force or regulate this sort of thing.

So if the party is going to take a stance on this, I personally would 
have to see language on it before I could get behind it. The last thing 
I want is more perception that we would like to force the baking of a 
cake.

Regards,
Craig Bowden
Region 1 Alternate



On 2018-08-09 22:58, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> ====We can certainly dislike private censorship, but at the end of the
> day,
> since it was not government, the best we can do is say that we
> disagree
> 
> with what those social media platforms did.===
> 
> Make the issue about race, gender, or war and insert that conclusion
> above and ask if we would have the same opinion.
> 
> We wouldn’t.
> 
> The issue isn’t if private organizations have the right to do
> something - of course they do.  The issue is whether it is right to do
> so.  We have never only stood on the side of rights we have also stood
> on the side of right - and the instrinsic value of open speech in an
> arena where it should be expected (unlike church and more like a stage
> for rent) is one of those things that are necessarily to prevent a
> corporate dystopia which is just as destructive to human freedom as a
> state one.
> 
> We can’t pretend as if we only take absolutely thin libertarian
> stances because we don’t.
> 
> A huge criticism of libertarianism is that we seem to act like only
> government can be bad actors and that private action is at worst
> neutral.  And that is rightly rejected as being very naive.
> 
> -Caryn Ann
> 
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:12 PM Craig Bowden <craig.bowden at lp.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> My statement on the issue was already done during a radio interview
>> the
>> other day. While I certainly don't appreciate people using certain
>> type
>> of language or twisting the truth, etc. they should be able to do
>> so.
>> However, if a platform decides that a person is violating their
>> terms of
>> service, which the user agreed to, it becomes a matter of contract.
>> We
>> can certainly dislike private censorship, but at the end of the day,
>> 
>> since it was not government, the best we can do is say that we
>> disagree
>> with what those social media platforms did.
>> 
>> I personally have zero support for Mr. Jones, but also don't mind if
>> he
>> does what he does. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. On the
>> 
>> side of caution, I would say that we would need to know actual facts
>> on
>> why he was taken down. Was it due to repeated violations of terms of
>> 
>> use? If so, I wouldn't say a dang word, because he clicked accept.
>> 
>> If I were to go in front of my church and start talking about the
>> glory
>> of Satan, I would get shut down immediately. Why? Because I don't
>> have
>> freedom of speech at that pulpit. By entering the building, I agree
>> that
>> I will abide by the rules of the church. It is the same with social
>> media platforms. That is the building, if the terms are violated,
>> after
>> being agreed to, that is on the person going against those terms.
>> 
>> Craig Bowden
>> Region 1 Representative
>> 
>> On 2018-08-09 12:21, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business wrote:
>>> Is the LP going to issue an opinion on this?  It is the perfect
>>> opportunity to affirm rights while showing that rights are not the
>> end
>>> all and be all to a healthy society.  A society of peaceful bigots
>> -
>>> for instance - is a sick society. So is a society that
>>> paternalistically protects us all from "those unfit to speak".
>>> 
>>> Whether or not they are *allowed* to do it misses the point.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> IN LIBERTY,
>>> CARYN ANN HARLOS
>>> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
>>> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
>>> 
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> _We defend your rights_
>>> _And oppose the use of force_
>>> _Taxation is theft_
>  --
> 
> IN LIBERTY,
> CARYN ANN HARLOS
> Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary -
> Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org or Secretary at LP.org.
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee - LPedia at LP.org
> 
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> _We defend your rights_
> _And oppose the use of force_
> _Taxation is theft_