When some important event like a school shooting happens, nobody will dare publicly question the event because some idiots might call the families of the victims and harass them leading to that person having to pay 50 million dollars. This is not good for society. The ability to question events such as this necessary for social health. This verdict is a dangerous precedent. The victim's families should have sued the actual people harassing them, not the guy who questioned the event online. But they knew that the losers who actually harassed them didn't have any money, so they sued Jones who has money. Greed got the better of them. If you ask me shame on the families, their lawyers and the judge who handed this verdict.
The key is to create a half assed “media”organization like The Atlantic or Buzzfeed and have them write the story using unnamed sources and “insiders”. Or better yet, just quote “Twitter outrage” as your source.
This is how the Democrat media at ABCNNBCBS have been doing it for decades. It’s how they create fantasies like the Russia Collusion hoax based on no facts. “CNN is reporting that Wapo is reporting that ABCNNBCBS is reporting that Buzzfeed is reporting that someone heard someone say something on Twitter” - The NYTimes
You do realize that the Sandy Hook shootings actually happened, I assume. What if it was one of your kids that got murdered? How would you react if some smug jerk started taunting you and the other families and made deliberately false statements that caused others to harass you and our family?
This case was absolutely not about the right to question accuracy of stories or the right to voice skepticism. Alex Jones knew he was spreading lies, but didn't care. It gave him lots of attention and extra money. Greed and arrogance got the better of Alex Jones, not his victims.
Believe it or not, there is no such thing as complete free speech. You can't:
- lie under oath in court
- yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
- disregard a publication ban when ordered by a judge
- lie to cops when they question you about some thing (not a 5th amendment issue); ie to mislead the cops when they are chasing a suspect - you say he ran one way when you know he ran another.
- etc.
I would sue the people that harassed me not people who spread conspiracy theories online. The latter are innevitable in any high profile event.
It was never proven Jones knew what he was saying was false.
You can't:
- lie under oath in court
- yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
- disregard a publication ban when ordered by a judge
- lie to cops when they question you about some thing (not a 5th amendment issue); ie to mislead the cops when they are chasing a suspect - you say he ran one way when you know he ran another.
- etc.
This case does not fall in any examples you listed.
reply share
which have always been limited by slander and libel for good reason. He had zero evidence of any false flag crisis actors, let alone the parents of dead kids were faking it. he knowingly slandered these people and actions have consequences. grow up
LOOOLLLLLLL see I knew you were a conspiracy theorist just below the surface and couldn't even hold it back for 3 comments and just pretend its about slippery slope issues.
Alex Jones never called for anyone to receive death threat you walking, talking human excrement. All he did was question things which is doing a public good. The more people question events like this the less likely is it there will really be a conspiracy.
yes he is smart enough to not say "go harass and threaten them". he just spins a narrative of how evil, disgusting and horrible they are and how its all a plan to take your guns. knowing full well his audience will act.
" The more people question events like this the less likely is it there will really be a conspiracy."
this makes no sense. try again. you can apply that to flat earth's.
im too dumb to understand slander.. I guess so is the judge. and the myriad of experts who agree this was an easy case....
yaa the people who want the guy who spread lies and got them death threats are scum. how dare they be mad that Alex jones riled up his crowd to harass them and call them and threaten them and call saying they dont have dead kids. what scum!
up is down and down is up to our resident neo nazi
so again slander is madeup right>?? the judge is wrong? ol keep calling parents of dead kids scum. your are the epitome of a garbage person. its why even the right wingers on here dont like you
Alex Jones was the one profiting from from his comments and was the instigator of all this. The parents had copies of what he said on his program (hard evidence). Jones later admitted that the shooting did happen. It really doesn't matter if he actually knew, as it was his responsibility to get the facts before he made the statements.
From Wikipedia:
Court rulings
By February 2019, the plaintiffs won a series of court rulings requiring Jones to testify under oath.[12] Jones was later ordered to undergo a sworn deposition, along with three other defendants related to the operation of Infowars. He was also ordered to turn over internal business documents related to Infowars.[244] In this deposition in the last week of March 2019, Jones acknowledged the deaths were real, stating he had "almost like a form of psychosis", where he "basically thought everything was staged."[245]
On January 22, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court threw out an appeal for dismissal by Jones of four defamation lawsuits from families of Sandy Hook victims. The court allowed the judgments of two lower courts to stand without comment, allowing the lawsuits to continue.[246] On April 5, 2021, the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal against a Connecticut court sanction in the defamation lawsuit.[247]
As for this case not under the list, that's why I had "etc". I should have added you can't make false and damaging statements against anyone. For example, you can't go to the police and accuse a person falsely of a crime. You can't accuse someone falsely of being a pedophile.
He had to say the attack was real because he was being sued. I still think the verdict was wrong. The ability to question important events is more important for society than someone's hurt feelings.
He knew the attack was real. He knowingly exploited trivial circumstances surrounding the reporting of it to promote a theory that was attractive to anti-gun control fans of his. There is evidence of this and so he admitted to it in court instead of perjuring himself. That's justice.
So why did he say it was a hoax and accuse the parents of being part of the hoax? For publicity for his program where he sold garbage to a gullible public.
I didn't keep up with this trial and I don't like AJ's style. So, I rarely listened to his show.
But I do think this could open up other avenues for various law suits. Example, suppose I say something controversial about Brad Pitt or Kanye West, and a few people harass them using my comments as justification, should I get sued over it and forced to pay millions in restitution for alleged pain and suffering Pitt and West "felt"?
I mean, it's one thing to say things that are controversial and saying things that are downright stupid. But even so, how much does 'free speech' protect one's rights to say it? As far as I know, the first amendment doesn't care about your "feelings".
Plus, if anything, this makes Jones a martyr to some degree. He's now a champion in the eyes of free speech advocates. It was the same snowball effect with Donald Trump. He said a "naughty things" on twitter and during press conferences that the left didn't like but many saw him as a hero for it.
Is it not better to ignore fruitless comments than to give them power?
He flat out called the victims crisis actors. Unveiled personal identifying information about the victims which led to them being harassed. That is different from saying it is a conspiracy and leaving it at that. He stepped over the line.
Post a link to a video-clip of him saying this. I don't agree with doxxing people, personally, I think it should be a crime to do this but plenty of people had no problems when it happened to members of congress/supreme court that they didn't like. In fact, Trump gave out several phone numbers of various members of congress that he had issues with.
So again, where does "free speech" fall on this issue? Are we just going to do this against people we don't like and ignore those that we do? I can already tell, most of the posters in here simply don't like Jones.
He had videos removed and banned. I would have to do some digging but he mocked specific people on TV for crying about their loved ones. I don't support doxxing no matter who it is.
It goes beyond me not liking Jones. What annoys me is people want me to feel sympathy for someone who caused victims endless amounts of harassment. He was profiting off of people's suffering. Even if you can do that it's rather disgusting behavior. I find it funny how people on this board have more sympathy for Jones than the victims. Isn't that rather disturbing that he gets more sympathy than they do?
Disturbing? Not really. I find it to be typical human behavior to pick sides when it comes to legal cases like this.
Jones is a well known public figure, so it's not too surprising that some people are backing him on this issue. Personally, I don't have a horse in this race but I do feel bad for anyone that gets harassed no matter what they did or didn't do. But blaming an outside force for what others are doing is more disturbing.
No in my book it is disturbing. Why pick a side when it's been proven wrong? That's where corruption begins. I will excuse his behavior simply because he plays for my team.
I don't care if he is well known or public. R Kelly is well known famous musician. Does that mean I should excuse what he did? He doxxed them. That is a crime so no.
When you say "disturbing" that opens up all kinds of emotional issues. Let me ask you fanatic505, are you going to lose any sleep tonight over what is being said in here?
If so, why? People are idiots, they will choose whatever side they can relate to the most. I think it's bad that the parents got harassed over this but to be honest, there are plenty of people that don't sympathize with Jones either.
I wouldn't look at this as some kind of "evil taking place". I prefer to look at it from strictly a legal perspective but that's just me I suppose. I don't like what Jones did but from a legal point of view, I don't see it as "crime" either.
It is probably better to debunk what the guy says rather than get emotionally involved.
Yeah honestly. It's insane people honestly for sympathy for a guy like this.
People being biased is one thing. It's a whole other issue when you will blatantly defend corruption or bad deeds. This isn't hearsay. It's been proven he lied. No sympathy for the victims but they give him sympathy. That's insane.
Suppose you did say something contoversial about an actor. If it's true, you're covered. For example, I call Winona Ryder a thief. She was convicted of the offence, albeit 20 or so years ago.
If I accuse an actor of being a pedophile without evidence, you could get sued. That sort of thing damages careers.
its a civil case buddy. how many people lie in cases and dont get time? by definition side is lying in every court case. stop spreading nonsense on here
So, you see, you don't know that much about it either. However, do you ever wonder why we don't put people in jail for lying, unless it's under oath of course? I want you to think about it for a few moments before you answer this question.
ohh its possible I just meant in a civil case its far less likely
"So, you see, you don't know that much about it either. However, do you ever wonder why we don't put people in jail for lying, unless it's under oath of course? I want you to think about it for a few moments before you answer this question. "
completely irrelevant. maybe try and be less clever, it doesnt suit you
By your own weak arguments, do you think Pendulum should sue you and fanatic505 for harassing him and calling him a "nazi" for simply giving his opinion on this case and on top of that, you make false claims that he doesn't sympathize with the victims and he is a "disgusting" person. Goodness, it's the worst example of pot/kettle I've seen on the MC boards in a long time.
I think Pendulum would have a very strong case against you, should he decide to sue you for slander, libel and defamation.
Id have a strong case to make that Overton is a Neo nazi with his disgusting comments about race mixing and jews.
you dont seem to know what pot calling the kettle means.
"I think Pendulum would have a very strong case against you, should he decide to sue you for slander, libel and defamation."
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have hims tart some case and DM me. ill give him all my private info if he does do something legal. id be happy to own his ass in court like I do on this site
He shouldn't make comments like that, but did Overton make those comments in this thread? I'm strictly going by what's been written in here.
And you keep complaining about the things AJ said then you make accusations against Overton. So, pot/kettle seems alright.
Of course no one is going to sue for what people write in here. It's mostly anonymous posting, and most of us in here have no fear of retaliation, so they feel as though they can say anything and get away with it. Example, calling someone a "nazi" in here. lol...
How often do you use Godwin's law when discussing topics on the MC boards?
not this one but I started a thread about it I could probably find and send the link over to you.
I compiled a few interactions and direct quotes where he said
-white women should be warned about relations with minorities
-their children are far likelier to have lower its and be criminals
-minority abortions should be encouraged to lower crime rates
-and as silly as it sounds, that married with children was a jewish plot to lower white birth rates y making marriage look horrible.
although you'll have to take my word on this, I have only ever called one person a nazi, I dont throw it around lightly. that is Overton. because based on what hes said his opinions wouldn't be out of place in a nazi eugenics pamphlet
his excuse is "im not a nazi because my views would align with most people from the 1950s including the troops who fought the nazis". he isnt about to apologize any time soon
but ya he is essentially a neo nazis imo and like I said the only person on here I have ever called a nazi. you couldnt have known all that background
Yep that is true, which is why its amazing that Jussie Smollett is a free man today.
Looks like a select few can get away with it, while others can't.
"Something serious" is decided by whom though? If I call Joe Biden a "hair sniffing pervert" and at his next rally, a few people call him a "hair sniffing pervert" should I go to jail or be sued?
This is why slander and defamation suits are hard to win in court. For the most part, you're just suing someone for what they said, not for what they actually did.
The only thing with Jussie Smollet is that he is out of jail pending his appeal. I believe he is delaying the inevitable. There was a lot of evidence against him.
Textbook defamation. Entitled to damages. That said, the whole thing is probably another setup.
I saw a lot of suspicious shit around Sandy Hook, and more of the same in Uvalde. Targeting the victims was some low shit. No one gave conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt that they had good intentions after that. It muddied the entire pool of evidence. Alex Jones has long been suspected of being a CIA asset, whose job is to do just that.
"ITS ALL PART OF THE PLAN!!! sandy hook wasnt the false flag!!!!!!!!!!!! the events after are the false flag!!! probably paid fbi actors and shills calling these parents so then the false flag of the false flag cant be questioned!!!!"
your implications that if make rulings against slander then all free speech will be ended are hilariously ignorant. but I wouldn't expect anything other than that from you
There's nothing crazy about free speech implications of this verdict. Me saying there is evidence for questioning Sandy Hook is not the same thing as saying that Sandy Hook was a false flag. But someone as rational and smart as you should already know that.
first comment "I never questioned Sandy Hook. Eat Shit, Leo"
second comment "He had plenty of evidence. He is right about 9/11. Ability to questioning important events is cortical to social health.""
"here's nothing crazy about free speech implications of this verdict. Me saying there is evidence for questioning Sandy Hook is not the same thing as saying that Sandy Hook was a false flag"
soo did you or did you not question sandy hook? this is you getting caught in your lies contradicting you.
so did you "never question Sandy hook". or did you say " there is evidence for questioning Sandy Hook "
what are you questioning then? and what are you defending? because you are literally defending someone who was questioning if sandy hook was actually a false flag to "take guns"and actually perpetrated by us government forces and hired crisis actors. thats the questioning we are discussing. thats what Alex jones said. what are you questioning about sandy hook?
you are trying to speak out both sides of your mouth again like you did with obese moms. you got caught in the trap of your own lies again. you make this too easy