Censoring Alex Jones will only make him stronger: Today's talker 'Infowars followers will be pushed deeper down the conspiracy rabbit hole, and this controversy has just given Jones millions in free advertising.'

USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption Facebook removes Alex Jones' Infowars pages Facebook says it has taken down four pages belonging to rightwing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for violating its hate speech and bullying policies. The Infowars YouTube channel was also terminated. (Aug. 6)

Social media companies (Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify) removed Alex Jones' shows or pages from their platforms, citing breaches of policies against hate speech or graphic content. A roundup of opinion:

Making a martyr of Alex Jones

Social media companies targeted right-wing provocateur and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on Monday, removing his content from their platforms in what they call a crackdown on "hate speech." YouTube shut down The Alex Jones Channel, an account with nearly 2.5 million subscribers. Facebook removed four pages affiliated with Infowars, Jones’ media company, and also banned his personal page. Apple topped off the social media shutdown, scrubbing its iTunes platform of Jones' podcasts, as well.

This might sound like good news — after all, Jones is a reprehensible commentator who peddles in conspiracy theories, ranging from the "Pizzagate" conspiracy, which alleged Hillary Clinton ran a pedophilia ring out of a pizza shop, to the blatantly false idea that the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, was faked.

But no matter how despicable Jones' commentary is, we should all be dismayed to see him censored on social media. Facebook, YouTube and others are private companies, so they aren’t violating Jones' First Amendment rights. Nonetheless, they are stifling the spirit of free speech and — perhaps most important — censorship will only make Alex Jones a martyr among his fan base.

Jones is already encouraging his followers to stream his content directly from his website. Stripping his videos from other websites will only reinforce his conspiratorial narrative. Infowars followers will be pushed deeper down the conspiracy rabbit hole, and this controversy has just given Jones millions in free advertising. The objective was to lessen Jones' influence, but this censorship will prove to be self-defeating.

More: Trump's tweet on tower meeting sheds new light on Russia relations: Talker

With LeBron James comments, is Donald Trump catering to racist base?: Talker

Tomi Lahren: Free speech doesn't give you the right to attack someone

When a similar right-wing provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos, visited the campus of the University of Massachusetts, he was set to speak to an audience of a few hundred college students. But after left-wing protests shut down his speech, more than 2.5 million watched the video online. When the white nationalist Richard Spencer visited the University of Florida, campus censorship turned his rally into national news.

Censorship doesn’t work; it boomerangs back to bite us all. Even beyond that, we should be concerned to see social media companies wading into this murky territory. When internet monoliths start deciding which thought is acceptable in the name of "hate speech," it puts us down a problematic path that’s sure to be abused. Anyone can call anything they disagree with hateful — will Facebook start banning pages for the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood?

A free and open internet is one where people get to decide for themselves what’s offensive, hateful or otherwise beyond the pale. If social media companies really want to rid the world of hateful hacks such as Alex Jones, the best thing they can do is ignore them.

Brad Polumbo is an assistant editor at Young Voices. You can follow him on Twitter: @Brad_Polumbo.

What our readers are saying

Professional news media and social media have an obligation to remove trash like Alex Jones. They should not give a platform to inaccurate, amateur and hate-based trash.

Americans aren't forced to live in a cesspool infested by the likes of Jones and other people who don't have what it takes to produce accurate stories.

— Gary Frank

Wow, liberals coming out of the woodwork! It's funny how most liberals slander Jones when a great deal of what he does is backed by facts. I'm blown away by people who are so gullible.

— Daniel Mason

No regulated speech on phones, the internet or on the street between people ... yet. But that will be the next step. That is what desperate leftists do.

— Art DeMartini

To all you people crying, "This is censorship," you need to look up the definition of the word. Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive or inconvenient as determined by a ruling authority. Last time I checked, Apple, Facebook et al are no "ruling authority."

— Theodore Farkas

What others are saying

David French, The New York Times: "The good news is that tech companies don’t have to rely on vague, malleable and hotly contested definitions of hate speech to deal with conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. The far better option would be to prohibit libel or slander on their platforms. To be sure, this would tie their hands more: Unlike 'hate speech,' libel and slander have legal meanings. There is a long history of using libel and slander laws to protect especially private figures from false claims. It’s properly more difficult to use those laws to punish allegations directed at public figures, but even then there are limits on intentionally false factual claims. It’s a high bar. But it’s a bar that respects the marketplace of ideas, avoids the politically charged battle over ever shifting norms in language and culture, and provides protection for aggrieved parties."

Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica: "Booting someone like Jones from Facebook or YouTube altogether could easily turn him into a martyr among his paranoid fans. And policing content for factual accuracy could suck platforms into endless controversies over hot-button political issues. So as unsatisfying as Facebook's approach is, it might be the best of some bad options."

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, CNN.com: "Twitter's silence so far on this matter is deafening, considering that the platform hosts one of the main sources of lies, threats and racist slurs against individuals and causes that don't support the right's alternate reality: Trump's personal Twitter account, with 53.5 million followers. ... 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 enjoys from the apex of power. Those companies who don't step up to the plate now should re-examine their priorities."

To join the conversations about topics on USA TODAY, email letters@usatoday.com, comment on Facebook, or use #tellusatoday on Twitter.