Facebook and Twitter are.not the public square, they are the pub or comedy club adjacent to it.. The internet is the public square. The internet is a big place, and Jones can setup his own website to host his material. He can also go all old school and print his material and send it out.
I agree with this.
It is not his political beliefs that got him banned.
What else got him banned, then?
(Before anyone here disingenuously tries to assume I am defending Alex Jones... I think he's a raving lunatic/conspiracy theorist, but that alone shouldn't get you banned... not unless Facebook wants to do that to everyone else guilty of the same things.)
I have no problem in principle with Twatter/Facegram/Instabook banning whoever they want, because to your point, they are still private entities, but the problem is they aren't consistent. They don't even follow
their own terms of service. That most of the bans are only one one side of the ideological spectrum makes this even more suspect.
For example: why was Paul Joseph Watson banned from Facebook, and not Snoop Dogg? PJW is affiliated with Alex Jones and InfoWars, but Snoop Dogg
actually posted to his 2 million followers they should link to sites that preach Farrakhan, who was banned.
If they want to be left wing sites... fine, let them be left wing sites... just have the courage to outright SAY so.
But no, they can't. Because like mainstream media, they want to pretend they're unbiased, centrist organizations, which is complete bullshit. And when they do ban people on the left, they (or other media, see WaPo or NY Times) try and pass it off as someone from the right (Louis Farrakhan).
The redacted material is only part of what they want.
What else could they possibly want? Something Mueller hasn't even put pen to paper yet?
The AG can go to the judge at the head of the grand jury to okay the release of some, or all of the info. There is even a president for this, Waregate. The only block to this is Barr.
No, the block for this is the Department of Justice itself. If Barr ignored it, he could face even worse punishment that what the Democratic Congress are rattling their sabres at him over.
Why do you think it is a kangaroo court? Congress has an oversight roll, and Barr ignored a subpoena that is a routine part of that process.
Barr ignored a request
that he break the law.
Did you not understand the other post? There is precedent for that protesters information being released.
I know you said Watergate in a previous post, but you need to cite how this applies to the AG today.
Because this:
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/gjag.htm
which is much more recent than Watergate clearly shows your above statement to be wrong.
A, there are bigger issues, and it would not be public.
What is a bigger issue that allowing a partisan congress unfettered, illegal access to grand jury testimony?
Again, replace the actors. Would you think this would be okay if Congress were Republican driven and the President was a Democrat?
What you are advocating here is terrifying.
B, it is also part of his job as the AG.
Source?
Level's right, you're wrong.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/DOJ Response to Chairman Nadler 3 May 2019 letter.pdf
Please see second paragraph, eighth line. Sentence that starts with "your refusal to view..."