A well-qualified high school graduate was allegedly rejected by a prestigious college for merely following Infowars founder Alex Jones on Twitter, says attorney Bradley Shear.

Shear says his 17-year-old client was fiercely questioned by the college’s admissions director, not about his stellar grades and extracurriculars, but about his “transgression” of following the controversial host on social media. “My client had never ‘liked’ or re-tweeted any of Mr. Jones’ content,” said the attorney. “His alleged ‘transgression’ was that he followed Mr. Jones on Twitter. That was it.”

According to a College Fix report, the college agreed to a settlement with the student to bypass any negative press. Shear has declined to name the school or his client.

Highlighting the alleged bias, Shear noted that the admissions director was a fan of Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and followed other far-left groups on social media. – READ MORE

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has come to the defense of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, calling his collective ban from social media “worrisome.”

Several weeks ago, Big Tech giants colluded with each other to ban Alex Jones and his site Infowars from several platforms for vague reasons like “hate speech.” Conservative commentators pointed out that such a loosely-defined term could result in other outlets being banned for speaking on topics that some would find offensive.

Ben Wizner, director of ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said the ban on Alex Jones could set a dangerous precedent. Though he agrees that Big Tech giants are private companies and can ban whomever they wish, he believes it could be “misused and abused.”

“If Jeff Sessions, for example, were deciding what’s hate speech, he would be less likely to think KKK and more likely to think ,” Wizner told HuffPo on Monday. “It turns out to be an extremely subjective term.”

“I have some of the same concerns about platforms making those decisions,” he added. “Governments at least purport to be acting solely in the public interest, but platforms are making these decisions based on what’s in their financial interest. So their interest might be in avoiding controversy, but do we want the most important speech platforms in the world to avoid controversy?”

Wizner said that an outright ban on someone for something like hate speech is “worrisome.” He would prefer platforms remove individual posts that violate their terms of service or deprioritize them as opposed to banning the person.

“From a free expression standpoint, you would say if these platforms want to minimize the impact of the offending speech, it’s preferable to do so in a way that falls short of complete censorship,” Wizner said.- READ MORE