May 2018
« Apr    

Stephanie C. Fox


The Raving Mad Tomato of InfoWars Explodes…Again

Alex Jones of InfoWars, that raving mad Texan with a radio show who shrieks nonsense, is Donald J. Trump’s favorite news source (or one of them, anyway).

No chance that the #Pumpkingropenfuehrer will call this Exploding Tomato of Idiocy and Vitriol fake news! The Thief-in-Chief swallows everything that Jones says, hook, line, and sinker.


Saturday Night Live, a.k.a. SNL, did a skit last weekend a la Alec Baldwin – again – as Trump.

After that, the #RavingMadTomato, a.k.a. Alex Jones, exploded with rage about it.

Trump’s Alex Jones Loses His Sh*t Over an SNL Skit

In it, the Earth was under attack by aliens from outer space, and Trump could not focus on the problem let alone begin to cope with it. He inspired no confidence in fiction, just as in reality.

We are seeing him take credit for the effects of his predecessor’s presidency as if they were the effects of his own. He hasn’t been in office long enough to have any effects!

But I digress…

Trump has called Alec Baldwin’s depiction of himself “unwatchable” and stopped watching.

Alex Jones, however, watched.

Next, this gravel-voiced twit proceeded to bash the show and anyone who doesn’t think that Trump is wonderful in the most unbalanced manner possible. The term “hate speech” seems a bit mild as applied to what is shown in this video clip.

I shall reproduce Jones’ words here, in writing.

Something of the vitriol and spittle will be lost in this iteration, but that’s fine.

The point is to see that, at least in writing, these are the ravings of a lunatic who ought to be relieved of his studio, have his radio show go off the air, and be taken away by white-coated hospital orderlies, not to be seen nor heard from again.

Here is the full text of the video:

“…and live from New York, it’s Saturday night!” The skit concludes.

With that, Alex Jones starts in on it:

Look at all those beta males.

Alec Baldwin thinks he’s a tough guy.

(Really? Jones is a telepath now? He actually knows what others are thinking?! I doubt it.)

 I challenge him, a million dollars to the charity he wants, to get in the ring with me, bare-knuckle.

I will! I’ll do it right now! I’ll get in the ring with you, and I will break your jaw!

I will knock your teeth out, I will break your nose, and I will break your neck.

You coward! You think you’re a tough guy, messing with little camera-men people!

You want to sit there and defame me and the president?!

Get in a ring with me. I will break your jaw in seconds (fist-pump)!

I will smash your nose into a bloody pulp (fist-swing)!

And I will WRACK your teeth out (another fist-swing)!

My fists are going to be bleedin’ with your teeth-marks all over ‘em (bares his own teeth as his brandishes his fist).

You fffrickin’ bully, you COWARD!

I HATE YOU!!!!!!

My listeners hate you! And you remember that, scumbag, forever!

The camera pans out and above him.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…We’re gonna defeat this anti-human scum!

We’re gonna wreck their world!

Alex Jones is threatening people with physical violence for exercising freedom of speech, a 1st Amendment right…and broadcasting actionable evidence of that.

Idiot. I hope he gets SUED for the million dollars he’s offering in this video.

It seemed worthwhile to look up the definition of the term “hate speech” on Wikipedia, so I did that. Here, minus the references, is what I found for both the term itself and its legal application in the United States:

Hate speech laws

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism. On 3 May 2011, Michael O’Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published Draft General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expressed concern that many forms of “hate speech” do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20. This paragraph does not appear in the final document. Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Enforcement of hate speech laws

Hate law regulations can be divided into two types: those which are designed for public order and those which are designed to protect human dignity. Those designed to protect public order seem to be somewhat ineffective because they are rarely enforced. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty one years. Those meant to protect human dignity, however, like those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands seem to be frequently enforced.

Hate speech laws by country

United States

Constitutional framework

The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles. The protection of civil rights was not written into the original Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Although this section was considered only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, clarifies that this prohibition applies to laws of the states as well.

Supreme Court case law

Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: “There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s speech and created the “imminent danger” test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of banning hate speech arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such expressions considered racist and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”. Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence. The opinion noted “This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property”, among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn’t promote imminent violence. The Court explained, “speech deals with matters of public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”

Societal implementation

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted “speech codes” regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students. These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. Debate over restriction of “hate speech” in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.

NTIA report

In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes, but did find that “individuals have used telecommunications to disseminate messages of hate and bigotry to a wide audience.” Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was through additional speech promoting tolerance, as opposed to government regulation.

If you want to see more, visit the page and read whatever else interests you.

It’s been entertaining to see the comments on Facebook about this video.

There are lots of suggestions that #RavingMadTomato ought to be locked up in a mental hospital.

Others have pointed out that Alec Baldwin ought to have his attorney inform the police and file a formal complaint that this lunatic is threatening him with assault and battery.

Any radio show host who demonstrates such a blatant lack of comprehension and acceptance of the terms of the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t be on the air.

We are a nation of laws, not thugs.

Leave a Reply