Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"The New York Times reports that Jones tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others"

Turns out that there is a limit, and it's making really overt death threats. I'm surprised he didn't get banned over the "Democrats are going to have a revolution" stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07...




> Turns out that there is a limit, and it's making really overt death threats

That's inciting or soliciting violence, not a death threat.


> get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others"

> it's making really overt death threats

I don't think that's overt, but I think it's grey enough (perhaps deliberately so) that it constitutes incitement to violence. This is awesome - banning account for specific reasons (message X contained an incitement to violence) means moderation can be applied consistently. Twitter has had a much better approach in this case than FB or Apple, who've simply stated there's an issue with hate speech on the entire account without saying what it was.


Being specific means the malcontents will simply adjust their language.

No longer will it be, “get out there with your battle rifles and let the blood of the infidel run free” but it will become, “let loose your holy Christmas candy and witness the tears of the spoilt children of the Left!”

There’s no death threat or incitement to violence there.


That claim would appear to be a lie. I decided to go get the other side of the story and watch the actual video in question, which can be found embedded in this article on Jones' website:

https://www.infowars.com/new-york-times-media-matters-lie-cl...

This is the first time I ever watched or listened to Alex Jones so I have no dog in this fight. However, I do not trust outlets like the New York Times to tell the truth about conservatives who are being shut down online. Apparently my lack of trust was correct.

There are two aspects of what Jones said that make me say the NYT is lying:

He starts by outlining the people he's talking (really, ranting) about, namely commies/the reds/antifa etc. Then he says people should move against them "politically, economically, judiciously, legally, criminally" which is pretty garbled, but I don't think he meant criminally as in literally "break the law" because he prefixed it with "legally" and "judiciously". I suspect he meant "via the criminal justice system".

The reference to battle rifles comes much later in the video and it's in the exact opposite sense of what the NYT is implying. He says:

And they're coming. And they're coming. They think they can really take down America. And ... this is it. So, people need to have their battle rifles and everything ready by their bedsides, and you've gotta be ready, because the media are so sophisticated in their deception [snip]

Having them "ready by your bedside" shows very clearly this is meant in the sense of defence not unprovoked attacks and moreover defence against the people who read the media not the media itself. Jones doesn't seem to be arguing that journalists will literally be coming for people in their sleep.

It's rather unfortunately ironic that the NYT's coverage of a video in which Jones claims the media is "coming for us" and "they're so sophisticated in their deception" seems to prove him right - they are using sophisticated deception to whip up a mob that is trying to "get" him.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: