American Politics

‘First They Came for Alex Jones’: Ted Cruz Sides With Banned Infowars Shock Jock #Infowars #FreeSpeech

In an interview with reporters at the conservative Resurgent Gathering in Austin on Saturday, Cruz cast himself as the righteous defender of the First Amendment and free speech — including “offensive speech, bad speech, stupid speech.”

“As the poem goes, you know, first they came for Alex Jones. That does not end well,” Cruz said, referencing the famous Martin Niemöller poem about German cowardice in the face of ascendant Nazism. Apparently in this metaphor, Facebook is the Nazis and Jones is… the socialists?

“There’s a reason I picked someone who has been nasty to me: to illustrate this is not about defending someone I agree with,” Cruz said. “This is a First Amendment principle that everyone has a right to speak, and people can sort out those who are making sense from those who are full of crap.”

Trending: 95% of Ocean Plastic Pollution Comes From 10 Rivers, NONE From America #Environment #plastic #pollution

Despite the posturing, Cruz has refrained from strongly rebuking Jones, saying his ideas are simply “fringe” and “nutty.” As some have pointed out, Cruz is skilled at reading the political moment and the fact that he’s sticking his neck out for Jones — something even the president, a noted Jones sympathizer, hasn’t even done (yet) — could be a sign that he’s angling to shore up support among the right.

Indeed, Cruz’s support did not go unnoticed. On his show last week, Jones called on his supporters to stand “with us against the unprecedented lying assault as they try to use us as the guinea pig to shut down everybody else. And Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson, they all get it. But certain people at Fox News and others don’t.”

Tech companies such as Facebook, Cruz said Saturday,

have “a degree of power and an ability to censor that William Randolph Hearst at the height of yellow journalism could never have imagined.”

“They have the ability, if there is a speaker who is disfavored, simply to silence the speaker — to shadowban them so that you might speak but your words float off into oblivion and nobody hears them,” Cruz said. “On the flip side, they have the ability to curate your feed so that every piece of news you hear is news they approve of.”

When asked whether he supports using antitrust laws to break up the biggest tech firms, Cruz said that “it’s an issue policymakers are looking at seriously.”


Cruz has pressed the case that because Facebook and other social media companies have tried to police offensive and harmful content, they are not “neutral public forums” and therefore should not benefit from an exemption in the Communications Decency Act that protects online platforms from liability for users’ libelous speech. Whether they are neutral forums “is a question that has the tech companies very, very nervous,” Cruz said Saturday.

As we replied to Senator Cruz in the above tweets, all of this censorship would come to a screeching halt if social media companies were defined as a “Digital Company Town”, allowing protections forged in the Supreme Court’s Marsh v Alabama decision.

A summary of the Marsh v Alabama decision show that while the initial decision was for religious handouts, with freedom of religion also covered under the First Amendment, a simple revisiting of this Supreme Court decision would allow for company such as Facebook & Twitter being decladed a Digital Company Town, and ending their reign of censorship terror.

Brief Fact Summary. Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness, was arrested for trespassing after attempting to distribute religious literature in a privately owned Alabama town.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A private entity that acts like a governmental body and performs a public function is subject to the United States Constitution (Constitution).

Facts. A Corporation owned a town called Chickasaw in Alabama. The town was accessible and used freely by the public except for the fact that the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation owned title to the town and paid the police. Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness was told she needed a permit to distribute her flyers. However, Marsh declined to obtain a permit and refused to leave the sidewalk. Marsh was arrested and charged with violating Alabama’s anti-trespassing statute.
Marsh claimed that applying the statute to her violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

Issue. Is the Constitution applicable to privately owned towns?

Answer by Supreme Court, YES.


James E Windsor, Overpasses News Desk
August 9th, 2018


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.