I’m not an Alex Jones fan and there’s a big part of me that even hates the fact I feel somewhat of a need to defend him. But, at some point, we need to revisit the issue of free speech, conspiracy theorists, and tolerance in an effort to try to make sense out of all of this.

What Alex Jones said about the Sandy Hook massacre was outrageous and flat-out wrong. I don’t know a single person that would agree with him that that tragedy never happened.  I would imagine it is close to Holocaust deniers.

But the issue is about free speech; it’s not about Jones’s stupid comments. My question is does he have a right to say it unencumbered from governmental censorship?  Where you draw the line?

As an author, a blogger, and a former news producer what the FCC did to Alex Jones recently by terminating his radio outreach is troubling and here’s why:

About 10 years ago, in North Carolina, there was a push in the  General Assembly to make it unlawful for bloggers to talk about elected officials to the extent it dealt with their personal lives and rumor. A bill sponsored in part by former Sen. Edward Jones actually made some traction in subcommittee. Jones was accused by a blogger of having an affair and spending campaign money on her. He denied the affair, but the blogger- as best I can remember-had some legitimate facts to back up his accusations.  The bill that Jones sponsored went way beyond limiting personal attacks on politicians. If taken to its logical conclusion, the bill would have severely limited the ability of anyone other than mainstream media to discuss politics on social networks. And it would’ve limited a whistleblowers ability to make public assertions against corporate wrongdoing.

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and the bill never saw the light of day. It was a little scary because of the bill getting a lot of positive attention from lobbyists working for corporations that had a vested interest in stopping what they considered Gestapo journalism. Hog farm corporations and utilities were especially in the crosshairs during that time.

When you connect the dots it certainly seems feasible that the government would take on Alex Jones now– a conspiracy theorist that no one really likes– and to use him as a poster child in an effort to limit free speech in this country.  No, it’s not about Jones. It’s about where do you draw the line and to what extent do you let government silence a person’s right to communicate even when you don’t like what they say. Nor is this an argument over whether or not someone has carte blanche to yell fire in a public theater. I’m under the understanding that was settled law.