Most Read


Infowars Reporter Claims Facebook Isn't Privately Owned In Mind-Numbing Tweet—And Twitter Eats Her Alive For It

Infowars Reporter Claims Facebook Isn't Privately Owned In Mind-Numbing Tweet—And Twitter Eats Her Alive For It
Photo by Money Sharma -AFP-Getty Images

Alex Jones, along with his InforWars brand, has been kicked off a number of media sites, including YouTube, Spotify, Facebook, and iTunes, for violating hate speech policies. Now one of his employees is blindly lashing back, even if she doesn't have the facts entirely correct.

Millie Weaver, a reporter for Infowars, decided to really let everyone have it when she took to Twitter to school the "Libtards" about the First Amendment and how it affects public companies. Too bad she had no idea what she was yammering on about. In the post Weaver writers:

.Dear Libtards who think Facebook is a privately owned business,

There's a thing called fact-checking.

Facebook is a public business that's publicly traded.

Using that argument to justify banning Alex Jones doesn't work

She's right, there is a thing called fact-checking, and the fact is private companies are not bound by the same laws as the government. In other words, you won't get arrested for talking nonsense, but that doesn't mean others have to give you a platform.

The Economist explains it like this:

The First Amendment's ban on "abridging the freedom of speech" means the government may not censor or punish expression. No arm of the state may discriminate by viewpoint when setting the rules for a public forum. Even offensive and hateful speech is permissible under the Supreme Court's expansive conception of free expression, unless it intrudes on one of a few very narrow carve-outs including direct incitement to violence or so-called "fighting words"—epithets uttered in someone's face that could spark a brawl. But private companies are not the state. Apple, Facebook and YouTube can write their terms of service as they wish and police posts as they choose. If they do not want to host content they deem abusive or manipulative, they do not have to.

Twitter was quick to point this out to Weaver.

Some thought Weaver was off to a bad start by calling herself a journalist.

Sometimes, not sharing your thoughts is a better choice.

Still, people tried to get through to Weaver.

There was this explanation of the First Amendment:

And if that didn't do the trick, Weaver could always check out the InfoWars Terms of Use.

Somehow we don't see any of this sinking in for her.

H/T: Huffington Post, Raw Story