This is where this conversation goes astray. Empirical fact must be testable. Who killed JFK? Who shot RFK? Who took down NORAD on 9/11? Why did the voting irregularities in Ohio 2004 which kept Bush in the Oval Office not cause protests in the street when lesser exit polling discrepancies sparked the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine?
The answers to the aforementioned are for the most part opinion. We do not have enough empirical facts to arrive at fully testable and provable opinion…or even anything which is close. Letting people talk is part of the messy freedom thing. Propaganda is NOT hacking and opinions are to be heard in the Republic.
Whether we freaking agree or not, the ideas must be heard and then properly debunked. Unfortunately, this second step is what is missing. The national security state will not allow it. We are losing the war of ideas. The answer is now to censor the dissenters.
Nope, not on board for that. The current occupant of the White House seems to want to hear him. After all, in this particular case something like one and three voting Americans wants to hear Alex Jones. I base that on the indisputable fact the pu$$ygr@bb3r has a core of support of something like one in three voting Americans.
It is clearly censorship if we are blocking an opinion one in three Americans wants to hear. Hell, I want to hear what the guy has to say so I am booked up on the pu$$ygr@bb3r’s supporters latest axe to grind.