WorldNetDaily, August 14, 2018

A CNN contributor who also writes for a Pakistani newspaper says that people who criticize Muslims and their political agenda in the West are participating in “domestic terrorism.”

It is Islamists, who sometimes commit acts of terror, who are the real victims.

So suggested Rafia Zakaria in a CNN forum on the recent attack by social-media platforms on Alex Jones and his Infowars website.

In one a series of short commentaries on the issue, Zakaria said the censorship of pure speech, which would have been unconstitutional had the social media behemoths not been unregulated commercial enterprises, was important to recognizing “nativist, nationalist and white supremacist hate speech as a form of terrorism.”

{snip}

“As a Muslim-American who has seen the detestable anti-Muslim propaganda of Infowars content replicated across the worldwide web and popularized via Apple, Spotify and others, I know nothing could be farther from the truth.”

{snip}

“Sadly, domestic terrorism, or Jones’ dangerous speech, in which he claims that he is in a holy war against Islam, is not prosecuted under that statute. This is a failing that has permitted the proliferation of platforms such as Infowars, their presence on popular platforms a legitimization of sorts for their content,” she said.

“This new decision is a step forward in recognizing that hate outlets, such as Infowars, are complicit in domestic terror, and a relief to Muslim-Americans, like myself, who have been the target of online assaults and threats,” she claimed.

The Information Liberation blog pushed back, arguing Alex Jones and Infowars have “consistently opposed all the Neocons’ wars in the Middle East for around two decades. CNN has pushed every lost one of them.”

{snip}

In the same CNN forum, which was headlined “We need to talk about Alex Jones,” others supported the idea of censoring political speech based on content.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a New York professor, said, “Jones may be partly silenced, but only a concerted and bipartisan effort will stop a crusade against truth that’s unparalleled in American history and of the utmost gravity, given the support it enoys from the apex of power. Those companies who don’t step up to the plate now should re-examine their priorities.”

John McWhorter, another teacher, likened censoring Jones to “free speech.”

“{snip} Speech is one thing; yelling ‘fire’ in an auditorium is another, and opinions that fall into the latter category challenge us with deciding where speech, sadly, must lose some of its freedom.”

Errol Louis, a political show host in New York, added, “They should have long ago shut down connetions with Jones, in the same way and for the same reasons they wouldn’t allow financial con men to operate a Ponzi scheme or check-kiting ring on their platofrms.”

LZ Granderson, a political analyst on ESPN, however, warned against the “liberals celebrating the censorship of Alex Jones.”

After all, he, “the last time I checked, has the same inalienable rights as those who oppose his brand of hate speech.”

{snip}

Marc Randazza, a First Amendment attorney, pointed out the dangers of the liberals’ position of endorsing censoring ideas they don’t like.

{snip}

“I am old enough to remember when liberals opposed corporate dominance of the marketplace of ideas. I remember us being aghast when corporate conglomerates took over the FM radio dial. I remember us being horrified when we realized media consolidation and some corporate overlords could begin to limit viewpoints or affect decisions about what got covered in the press.

“But then Silicon Valley decided to collectively put on an anti-conservative mask. Then the corporate goblins that liberals found to be so terrifying became their savior. Censorship became not only acceptable, but called for.”

{snip}