Top attorney David A. French has penned an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he argues that Big Tech’s ban of Infowars is deeply concerning and a potential abuse of power.

After making it clear that he despises Alex Jones and Infowars, French still argued that the purge was extremely troubling.

“There are reasons to be deeply concerned that the tech companies banned Alex Jones. In short, the problem isn’t exactly what they did, it’s why they did it,” wrote French.

He noted that instead of “applying objective standards that resonate with American law and American traditions of respect for free speech and the marketplace of ideas,” Facebook, Apple and YouTube “applied subjective standards that are subject to considerable abuse.”

French went on to assert that what constitutes hate speech is “extraordinarily vague” and that, “We live in times when the slightest deviation from the latest and ever-changing social justice style guide is deemed bigoted and, yes, “dehumanizing.”

The attorney cited the example of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left group which works with Big Tech to define “hate speech”. The SPLC recently had to pay Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformist, $3.375 million for labeling him an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

French concluded that “libel” or “slander” should be the bar for content being banned, not “hate speech,” given the fact that it is wide open to interpretation.

Meanwhile, a New York Times poll which asked if Twitter should also ban Alex Jones and Infowars from their platforms was won overwhelmingly by those against a ban.

“Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest and Apple have removed Alex Jones and InfoWars from their platforms. Should Twitter follow suit?” asked the poll. 78 per cent said no, with just 14 per cent saying yes.


Follow on Twitter:



Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of and Prison

Pick up the next evolution of activated nascent iodine today with Survival Shield X-3 now at 60% off!

Related Articles